Au contraire, I would never do either.

Thread - <Developer funded Archaeology>

Expanded into views on balmerino abbey and development.

Your views or questions

quote:

Originally posted by Chris D:
I never said you'd written anything like that, merely that elements of your reply carried overtones of it, to me at least.

Well, I really cannot see how you find me echoing "the style of archaeology of the early 20th century" in anything I wrote and moreover that I feel in any way an affinity with the view that "on the basis of a few small trenches that the story of a site was written and that no more useful information would be forthcoming". And that is regardless of whether you wish to present it as an "overtone" or "echo" or not. Neither have you really explained why you drag the late Phil Barker into it. I just do not see any connection.

You obviously did not understand my point about handling the data we have, but never mind. "it is just my perception as as I said". Yes, its just you are not at all good at explaining once you have voiced it where that perception of other people comes from.

I also would question the implication of what you wrote about the "elderly archaeologist" that an open area "salvage" excavation is any less problem- orietated than any other. Its simply not true. Since you call upon Wroxeter, you might recall the Bushe Fox excavations next to the Forum there were also "open area" (though not salvage) but sadly B-F was not asking the questions we would have liked him to, so he missed and dug through a whole lot of information. The difference being (and I am sure that you know all this) that if he'd answered his questions by keyhole trenches, there is a chance that something would have survived of the areas he stripped for us to answer ours. But then if we did that on an otherwise unthreatened site, we'd be messing up the site for those who come after us who might (probably will) want to know something else. So careful open area excavation in our generation may tell us some or even all of what we want to know, but its going to waste the site for other purposes in the future. So is it not simply SELFISH of us to want to dig it and use it up now? That is not "echoes of the style of archaeology of the early 20th century", on the contrary. THIS is the issue lying behind current thinking that archaeology should not be wasting unthreatened sites for current "research" needs, which is where we came in. Its not "nitpicking" to discuss this. Not in my book at least. Unless you think that nine posts by BAJR (now that is what I call "filling up") should be treated as Holy Writ. Are you from BAJR Forum by any chance? Maybe this would be better discussed there.

Paul Barford

9 posts... hmmm... same number as PMB over past 2 days.. Anyway... lets not dwell.

However.. you are bringing up interesting issues. which has relevance and interest in a Time Team enviroment..

Are keyholes enough? should we be doing them at all... if not then what do we do? Area excavation - and development control (last huge one I did was in 1986 when we excavated an entire Roman Fort with 80+ diggers and staff) In York in the 90s a great deal of time and money to investigate deep stratigraphy ..

So I am understanding that you feel that where possible, all known archaeology should be left in situ for a time to come. This is where we are with Preservation in Situ. Though quite often Preservation by Record is the other alternative.. though the conditions for this work are not the same as a research dig.

I guess I have difficulty with the juxtaposition of sites that only get excavated in 'salvage' conditions... because they were preserve in situ up to that point.

The contradiction is the need to take time on a site.. and not be rushed in careful excavation... however on the other side... the site is not touched until such times as it is under threat. flip flop where both sides are valid..

Area Excavation - taking time becuase site is not under threat (goes against Preservation in Situ)

Salvage Excavation - working to a tight timescale and budget (Goes against Preservation by record)

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
9 posts... hmmm... same number as PMB over past 2 days..

ReallY? Count again.

I really do not see where the rest of your post is going. It makes no sense to me.

Do you think that ALL "rescue" excavations are by definition bad archaeology carried out in a rush? I could show you examples where the archaeological work was planned (and carried out) years ahead of the development with due attention to detail and proper resources and the standards monitored. No "hurry", no corner cutting. Its surely in the way we "manage" the heritage, do we do it pro-actively, or passively? Its part of a wider philosphy and approach isnt it? Which is what I have been getting at. Never mind, I can see the moderator's erase finger itching again. Waste of time writing stuff on a forum when its visible only for a few minutes. This is no place for a sensible discussion.

Do you think that ALL "rescue" excavations are by definition bad archaeology carried out in a rush?

No… however… in todays cost/time environment it would be difficult to suggest that the same degree of time could be made. It is in many cases the best case scenario… or minimum required to get the job through a planning application. Not the fault of anyone other than limp PPG16 and the NPPG s that cover archaeology. It would be madness in most cases for a developer to actually do more archaeology than the bare minimum and madness for a contractor to say… hey… I know we don’t need it for the planning permission… but could we tap you for another 20 grand to investigate some interesting sediments in the linear pit feature. It is neither bad… nor rushed… it is however a very very different environment to unpressured archaeology.



I could show you examples where the archaeological work was planned (and carried out) years ahead of the development with due attention to detail and proper resources and the standards monitored.

I am sure you could, as could I… you may find that these are exceptional cases rather than the 99% of ‘normal’ developer led archaeology. It does however prove the point that it can be done – that if archaeology is factored in at the beginning (rather than shoe-horned in at the end) it can be done very well and be a benefit to the development… quite agree with you there.

Its part of a wider philosphy and approach isnt it? Which is what I have been getting at.

As I have as well… how do ‘we’ manage it… what is ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ in methodologies – how can awareness of the day to day archaeology…. The watching briefs, the evaluations, the development control and linear strips etc…. be made more understandable. I often find it difficult to explain the concept of a development control archaeologist…. “ so …. You mean… you don’t dig?” … is one line.


Never mind, I can see the moderator's erase finger itching again. Waste of time writing stuff on a forum when its visible only for a few minutes. This is no place for a sensible discussion.

You were just having a sensible discussion… and an interesting one – lets hope the moderator (s) hold off…

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
lets hope the moderator (s) hold off…

No, I have wasted too much time today writing messages that only I myself saw. Totally random deletions. Hope is not enough. This forum is not a place for sensible discussions.

So where does the extra 20 grand come from in those research projects which are your ideal? They too operate to a budget, and one defined beforehand and often the grant-giving mechanism requires each segment of the project to be done in a fixed timescale.

A research project decides in advance where it wants to work... what the objectives are... and where the resources will be deployed. Has access to students etc… will take place over a number of years (in many cases)

A Developer led job however (usually) is bid for, won on cost – the WSI is approved and the job started – sometimes within day, often within weeks. You are going into a site that was not chosen by you… rather for you… you are unsure about the amount quality and extent of archaeology… the evaluation will hopefully show that up… and any followup work (including the post excavation has to be costed in prior to continuing……… which can make it difficult to work out… a real strain on contractors in many cases. Add to that the possibility that the developer will not really care whether the post excavation is adequate… or even paid for….

The point I am trying to get over is the fundamental difference between Research Archaeology and Developer Funded Archaeology - you rightly point out…. And I agree that in some cases these come together.. and in some places.. there are regional research agendas. (to have these though means sacrificing other aspects…) If you have x amount of money do you a) machine off the industrial to get to the medieval or b) carefully record the industrial but then don’t have enough to get to the medieval .. which then gets sealed beneath concrete.. and as we are now seeing in York…. This has not preserved it… but rather damaged it permanently… Tricky questions

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
A research project decides in advance where it wants to work... what the objectives are... and where the resources will be deployed. Has access to students etc… will take place over a number of years (in many cases)

A Developer led job however (usually) is bid for, won on cost – the WSI is approved and the job started – sometimes within day, often within weeks. You are going into a site that was not chosen by you… rather for you… you are unsure about the amount quality and extent of archaeology… the evaluation will hopefully show that up… and any followup work (including the post excavation has to be costed in prior to continuing……… which can make it difficult to work out… a real strain on contractors in many cases. Add to that the possibility that the developer will not really care whether the post excavation is adequate… or even paid for….

The point I am trying to get over is the fundamental difference between Research Archaeology and Developer Funded Archaeology - you rightly point out…. And I agree that in some cases these come together.. and in some places.. there are regional research agendas. (to have these though means sacrificing other aspects…) If you have x amount of money do you a) machine off the industrial to get to the medieval or b) carefully record the industrial but then don’t have enough to get to the medieval .. which then gets sealed beneath concrete.. and as we are now seeing in York…. This has not preserved it… but rather damaged it permanently… Tricky questions

Rather a doom laden scenario there BAJR. IF, and I do mean IF, you had a monitor/development control archaeologist with enough nous, the brief for the site should specify the work required on the site involved the excavation and recording of all of the threatened deposits. If the contracting arfchaeologists have not alowed for this in their costings, then the countie mounty is entirely within his or her rights to argue that the bried he or she set has not been met, and refuse to discharge the planning condition. This could then leave the contractor open to legal action from the developer. Bet the archaeological unit wouldn't underbid again after that.

Have still to meet that county mountie though!.....

The truth is in the small print aardvark. (I am a DC Archaeologist myself) I thought I could do just what you suggest and you can to some extent, but the problem comes in having to justify every action that will cost the developer money and not frighten your council. You can however - as you rightly say - have a specification that is so tight that non-complience is easy to show... and therefore the developer does not get the condition removed until it is.

I am fortunate with most of my planners.. (the ones who hold the real powers) - even then, when we are all agreed about an action, a developer can just plough ahead.. - "oooops sorry mate...does that mean its ruined... ah well.. pity that - I love the Time Team me and the missus" or a contractor could (how should I put this) follow a specification 'exactly to the letter' and no more.

I never imagined just how tricky being a DC archaeologist would be..It helps that I still work as a contractor though (outside the county) - and that contractors in my area are quite approachable and supportive

- The Doom bit was perhaps to gloomy... as most of the time the job is done fine... Its getting the developer to see archaeology as a benefit (the hardest bit) and to pitch a specification at a level where the developer is 'happy' and the contractor is doing as much archaeology as possible.. with a solid backup if they find serious archaeology...

pass me another bottle ...

quote:

Originally posted by PMB:

quote:

Originally posted by Chris D:
Your reply has echoes of the style of archaeology of the early 20th century which would often claim on the basis of a few small trenches that the story of a site was written and that no more useful information would be forthcoming

Pardon? Where have I EVER written anything like that? That is a COMPLETE fabrication and totally unrepresentative of my views. [Moreover, what has where I dug got to do with anything (or with you or anyone else here)?]

There is a difference, I am sure you agree between of a position of feeling "frustrated" by the unattainability of an answer which might (we suspect) lie just behind the baulk or in the next field, and actually saying that we MUST go out there and dig it up or else its all futile. Can we not achieve the aims of our discipline while attempting to hold true to the principle of Primum non nocere and bearing in mind that there is a finite accessible archaeologicalrecord which it is not ours alone to use up in our lifetimes? Or am I going to be accused of being old-fashioned again for even allowing such a heresy (?) to escape my lips?

Is ours NOT then a discipline which "probably understands more than any other how much we dont know"? If you think otherwise then you are more of an optimist than me.

Paul Barford

Slight over-reaction there Paul

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Wroxeter a research excavation along the lines of those you seem to decry on this thread. Last time i visited it, it seemed a veritable rural idyll compared to most of the sites I tend to get to work on!

Surely earlier on in life you weren't naive enough to enter into wanton destruction of a finite archaeological resource that was not threatened in any way by development?

quote:

Originally posted by aardvark:
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Wroxeter a research excavation along the lines of those you seem to decry on this thread

since you visited the site you will know who directed it and it was not me. You will also presumably know how the excvation started and what its purpose was, so you can answer your own question. You will also know when it started, which was well before the emergence of current thinking (in the UK) on such matters.... I dont get your other point I am afraid.

Paul Barford

PS what IS the point of copying an ENTIRE post from the bit of thread directly above your own message? It still does not help work out which BIT of the previous post you are addressing and just clutters up the thread with whole chunks of ever-repeating stuff.

Moving on though...

The Balmerino Abbey site is so complicated now..

what with National Trust Scotland owning the site.. Historic Scotland and Fife Council involved.. developers who make statements in the papers and Mark Horton who make others.. add to that areas designated as 'zoned for housing' housing expanding from 5 to 11 houses.. and brown field sites opening into grenfield (though did you know a garden is brown field !) Everything is always more complicated than it looks... so is teh way of development archaeology!

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
Moving on though...

Isn't that a bit rude? Aardvark was in the middle of making a point. I get the feeling that you are the only one on TT Forum at the moment interested in a blow-by-blow discussion of the Balmerino Abbey saga... Why not let Aadvark have his say ?

very intresting david thanks

Thanks... It is interesting to see the 'other side' of archaeology... where what is council policy and what is best for the archaeology may not be one in the same... with archaeologists often caught between.

quote:

Originally posted by PMB:

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
Moving on though...

Isn't that a bit rude? Aardvark was in the middle of making a point. I get the feeling that you are the only one on TT Forum at the moment interested in a blow-by-blow discussion of the Balmerino Abbey saga... Why not let Aadvark have his say ?

Err...No, I'm quite interested in it, actually
Fairly relevant to the thread topic, I think

Well Chris it is interesting ...

This is a cracking example of planning archaeology... developer has area zoned for 5 houses in a Local Plan... now it seems that 8 houses are planned for teh site (admittedly better than the shed already there) however the 8 houses are now joined by a further 3 houses in a green field site to the north... right on the untouched section of the outer precinct. So in one fell swoop... archaeology required on the zoned area..(that was 5 houses) has now become the archaeological requirements for the whole area (thats eleven houses) nicely done by teh developer.. adn finished off by a quote in teh paper that says.. aw.. the archaeologicats said there was nothing there to worry about... which is as likley as Scotland winning a world footie cup...

Often it lokos like one thing from one direction... but can be completely different when viewed from another.

Quite often I get Diggers complaining to me about a particular site... they feel is not geting the attention is deserves... and teh sad fact is - that it is actually getting more... as the Development Control archaeolgoist can often have to accept what they can... rather than what they want...

Its a bad world out there..(no wonder I grind my teeth!) I do hope this reality archaeology is interesting ... and not just a county mountie moan (maybe I am doing it wrong )

Thanks for that, David, sadly, it sounds like a depressingly familiar scenario. I suspect the both of us could probably exchange similar stories all day, you from the County Mounty position and me from the point of view from the furious site assistant who is currently undecided as to which should be put to a painful demise first-consultants or Developement Control officers? (developers come a poor third at the moment)

I think this is one of those areas which we prehaps, still don't put over terribly well to the general public, ie the complexities of the planning system and archaeologys role within it.
(I suspect there's a lot of archaeologists who aren't that well informed about it, as well ) It was still surprising me, up to fairly recently, the diverse way that diffrent countys and districts manage their archaeology. Some counties are resonably well resourced, others are literally, one person and a desk trying to monitor planning inquiries and upkeep their SMR.

quote:

...resourced, others are literally, one person and a desk trying to monitor planning inquiries and upkeep their SMR.

thats me then

But it was a strange experience at a recent conference in Edinburgh where I thought... a hang it ... instead of talking about the nice sites that were found in county... I will try and explain what I actually do (or can't do) - Talked for half an hour and gave a potted version... but afterwards... even seasoned archaeologists in Units came up and went..... ah!!! now it makes sense... we thought you could do X Y Z... members of the public were just as intrigued.. realising that most county mounties are understaffed.. unable to keep up... and can easily miss sites that need work through sheer pressure and fire fighting to keep up… A woodland scheme a pipeline 4 developments and a couple of public requests.. add in a talk in the evening and a YAC club… soon.. you are swamped.. All that is seen from outside is … “oh… he/she missed that… they don’t care/are useless/incompetent etc etc” - Thanks for listening….feels therapeutic…