Watching Briefs

[archaeologist]

I have query about watching briefs that I hope someone can help me with. Is the purpose of a watching brief solely to OBSERVE and RECORD any archaeological features that are uncovered - i.e. should no DIGGING take place on a watching brief? To give an example: say a small trench is opened up by contractors and two clear features are observed (say, a linear running across the area and a posthole/pit). Should the archaeologist present take a slot out of the linear and half-section the pit, retaining any finds etc.? Or should he/she just clean, photograph, plan and locate the features?

Thanks. Any comments gratefully received.

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by archaeologist

Should the archaeologist present take a slot out of the linear and half-section the pit, retaining any finds etc.?

Yes. And there should be provision in the method statement to ensure that construction works are relocated to give the archaeologist enough time to reasonably complete this.

[I F Lostmetrowel]

Its also about building up a relationship with the developer. Making sure that they understand why you are there and what you need to do. As a veteran of many watching briefs this can often save the day. In most specs that I see in the area I work in there is usually a proviso that if arch remains are observed then time should be made available for the archaeologist to record etc. In some cases I have had its been necessary to yell for the curtiorial archaeologist to come and interevene as significant archaeology is exposed and can spin on to excavation. THe curitorial archaeologist can also be used as leverage if a developer wont let you examine what just turned up in the trench.

Here there and everywhere, but still no trowel

[hurting-back]

Also it is worth you knowing that a watching brief is still a mitigation; i.e. a recording exercise that is meant to form a record which replaces an archaeological resource. As such, whatever is found in a watching brief should still be excavated with the same standards as any excavation as once the archaeological work is done, the construction work will most likely destroy the archaeological remains.

Because of this watching briefs are usually only (or at least they should only be) required where it is known that the potential for finding archaeology is low or when the work's impact is so minimal that the damage does not warrant a more thorough programme of work (such as a very thin pipe trench) although obviously the latter does not apply to very significant sites (SAMs or anything the curator sees archaeological value in).

[archaeologist]

Thanks for this advice - all very helpful. It leads me to two further thoughts: 1) Presumably, even if no archaeology at all is revealed, it is still necessary to locate the trench, record layers, draw sections, take photos etc so that there is a record of the intervention? Or is this over the top? 2) Also, how much discretion does the archaeologist have in these circumstances? For example, a watching brief reveals several features but they are all clearly 19th or 20th century in date? What degree of recording is necessary (esp when time and money are short)?

Thanks again. I am trying to get a better picture of how this process actually works in the field.

[hurting-back]

On your first point - it depends on the project. Often there are already plans of the development impact as the work is ongoing as you watch it. Should there be no archaeological features then you need only note that the line of the development was followed, the excavation depth and that there were no archaeological features noted. This will in turn depend on what information you have; to fully discharge a planning condition, a report will need to be produced regardless of whether anything is found, which describes the circumstances of the project and serves as evidence that archaeological work was indeed carried out to the specification of the archaeological brief. Should the work be very small, the client may not have plans that you could use in the report, and a plan showing the location of the works may be useful, or even required by the brief. Your project manager should brief you should there be special requirements; equally you should not feel embarrassed to ask questions about this as there is no harm in checking if you will need to produce a plan of the route of the development in the event of there being no archaeology.

For the second point - you should have a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) which points out the field methods you will use. Usually you can disregard 20th century remains, and some briefs will state that these can be disregarded. They may also specify that the main interest is in a particular period, which will in turn allow you to ignore certain types of recent features. That said, some recent remains will be more important to some communities than others and may require attention. Again, you should be made aware of this by the WSI - as I discussed above, Watching Briefs are often used where there it is known that there is little archaeological potential, or that it has been mostly truncated by modern activities (like quarrying). This means that curators often have some information about the archaeological potential (it is their job to ensure that their archaeological resource is protected within the area that they are advising) and will more often than not pass this to the contractor to include in the WSI.

If in doubt ask your manager and if they are not available, and you are concerned, stop the work for a few hours and record the suspected feature. In our profession it is much better to err on the side of caution as you only get one chance to record features. After a few projects you will soon find your feet.

Back still Hurting

don't panic!

[tom wilson]

Regarding point one, at least record the depth and profile of the natural deposits please, as well as whether they have been truncated. Its terribly important for anyone trying to determine the impact of a proposed development next door. If the trench is identical to the planned foundations (or whatever) then I don't see why a new plan of an empty trench need be done, but that is a very big if. Machine drivers aren't often that careful unless they have to be. Furthermore, are you busy, standing there by the trench? Why not do some recording, it'll help you keep warm? The same goes for photos really. They might be useless, but they might not and after all you are being paid. Best bet is to do as much as you can, even if it just serves as practice. I don't think anything can be regarded as over the top, although, following on from H-B's advice, the WSI will indicate what you can kick off at the developers about and what you'll have to let go if there isn't time. Be nice, and there should always time to do the minimum.

[BAJR Host]

Perfect Tom !

Thats a sensible reply.... and stops the WB boredom as well.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[archaeologist]

Thanks again everyone.

I guess this is the sort of stuff that you learn as you go along. My impression (perhaps erroneous) is that formal training in how to conduct watching briefs (or evaluations) is pretty thin on the ground - and that most of it is picked up through 'word of mouth' and learning on the job. Anyway, I am really grateful for the advice. Thanks.

[hurting-back]

This is true, my first experience watching machines was on a major urban excavation where I was told to go watch a machine dig up the foundations of 19th C cottages which might be overlying earlier structures, and a metre or so down there might also be activity associated with the scheduled monument which was only a few metres from the edge of the excavation! After being told this my manager left me to it alone with only one years digging experience! What got me through was that I've no shame and asked twenty questions before he left and everything went well. If you want you can read the IFA's definition for a Watching Brief and it's guidance notes at the following web address - http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/codes/watch_brief.pdf
and I will say it again: do not be afraid to ask!! How else will you know how to work?? While you can be expected to come to a job with a basic knowledge of archaeological field methods, working independently on a WB requires experience, and at first some imput and your employer should give you some support!

Back still Hurting....

don't panic!

[archaeologist]

Thanks again hurting-back. I will follow your advice.

[mercenary]

O dear o dear.

I'm a bit depressed that this topic has come up again, and not a single person has admitted to archaeologist that being able to dig features in plan is a luxury rarely possible on watching briefs. More often it gets recorded in section only. If the arch is desperate to dig it in plan (especially if the excavation will completely remove it), this can be achieved if a good relationship with the contractors has been achieved. This is likely to result in arch digging said feature while machine digs another footing, which arch is unable to watch to see what is being machined away. After about 2 features popping up arch is so tied down with digging and recording that he/she will probably miss all the rest of the machining on a typical sized house footprint. Not a sensible tactic.

Another factor rarely mentioned is that pretty much all machined surfaces then have to be hand cleaned in order for the arch to see and understand the revealed features. (This is standard in WSI's) Even a mini-digger can quickly outpace an archs ability to clean all the revealed surfaces. (assuming of course that H&S rules allow access to the trench) It is the easiest thing in the world to not clean any surfaces and have a "negative" WB, something I know many archs do.

The above comments apply to the rare WB's where little is expected and little is found. What is much more common, and I grant there may be a regional variation at work here, is the overworked curator applies a WB condition to a site that is likely to produce results, but he/she couldn't for whatever reason push for an evaluation. (I am not referring of course to the WB as mitigation after evaluation scenario) During the WB the arch very quickly sees a feature and starts digging it, contractors start digging elsewhere and hit more features, this time seen only in section, recording features takes more time, and by the days end only half of the trenches have been cleaned, and features are recorded in section with no finds produced, and the concrete arrives to cover everything.

This scenario is typical. (I won't go into what happens on deeply stratified urban sites, it makes me want to weep.)

Now before people start pontificating about this hypothetical archs abdication of responsibility and all that, I would just like to say that in my experience writing an honest description of this methodology (sometimes accompanied with comments about the appropriateness of WB's on said site) in the report, has not once resulted in a curator saying "well you should have stopped them and phoned me" (What happens if you do phone, is another depressing story)

I would estimate that on average the features revealed in a single day WB would take from 2 days to a month for a single arch to dig & record in plan if he/she was to stop the machine for every significant feature. The onlyway to do it to excavation standard is if there is nothingthere.

Sorry archaeologist if this is an unduly gloomy picture compared with the rosy ones painted for you so far. WB's are probably the hardest bits of fieldwork to do. You have to make constant trade-offs about what to do and what to sacrifice, and you get little to no back-up. They are a nightmare if you care about the archaeology.

[Mole]

I think that WB must be the type of project that I dislike most. As mercenary says if their is any amount of archaeology there then you are compromised right from the start. Ususlly for footing all you can do is record the section and if you are lucky rootle through the spoil for any finds. I have had concrete lorries qued up on a couple of occasions waiting to pour while I have been recording.

The general attitude to watching briefs seems to be 'as its going to be destroyed anyway just do what you can - anything is better than nothing' - which is hardly ideal is it. Very very rarely do I get a monitoring visit or management back up to stop the machines on a WB, even if I find a reasonable amount of arch - generally all I can do to photos, measured sketch sections and plans and a quick rummage for finds.

As to understanding the archaeology, unless the WB is a follow up to earlier work then forget it - all they are really use for is determining presence/ absence and maybe if you are lucky getting a ball park date. But if this is the only work being done then you are already to late as in order to see the arch then the footings have been cut and I dont know of any instance (although I hope to be corrected) of getting agreement to further expose the feature.

All this being said WBs can be useful in certain circumstances eg monitoring geotec pits prior to work starting or a WB on a haul road etc. Also a WB on a topsoil strip (similar to a SMA) where it is possible to see what the features are - with the proviso that further work can be done if nessesary ie Excavation. Its just WB's on narrowish house footings that generally have to be dug and secured or filled quickly are next to useless.

The only good WB is when holes are being dug into previously disturbed ground and you get to read a book, take some nice pickys, draw a quick section (if needed), drink some coffee, etc - oh and it has to be nice weather to!

[tom wilson]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary


I would estimate that on average the features revealed in a single day WB would take from 2 days to a month for a single arch to dig & record


I don't know which county you work in mate, but if that's true your local county mountie is in gross dereliction of duty. What you describe are excavation sites that should never have gone to watching brief. Frankly, I find your statement very hard to believe. Most watching briefs are long, monotonous jobs where nothing turns up. When features appear you do have to run about like crazy to record them, and you're right, if you find more than was expected it isn't always possible to maintain satisfactory standards. Often you have to let the machine work elsewhere unsupervised, risking loss to the archaeology. There is of course a solution to that problem: have two staff on site, which isn't unheard of when the likelihood of archaeology is deemed to deserve it. That probably doesn't happen enough though (any curators care to comment?).

I always reconned that if I hadn't found anything for three weeks the machine would be alright on its own for the couple of hours it took to dig a pit, especially if I got a say in where it went (i.e. any nicely truncated areas). I rarely found evidence to the contrary.

I didn't like watching briefs much myself. They are boring. Having said that, I did once excavate a (?)Bronze Age fish trap on a watching brief, which was well worth standing around for weeks.

'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[1man1desk]

From Mercenary:
quote:not a single person has admitted to archaeologist that being able to dig features in plan is a luxury rarely possible on watching briefs
Well, that comment suggests that you have only worked on a limited range of watching briefs. Lots of them involve topsoil-stripping from large areas, allowing plenty of scope for excavating in plan.

From Tom Wilson:
quote:When features appear you do have to run about like crazy to record them, and you're right, if you find more than was expected it isn't always possible to maintain satisfactory standards. Often you have to let the machine work elsewhere unsupervised, risking loss to the archaeology. There is of course a solution to that problem: have two staff on site, which isn't unheard of when the likelihood of archaeology is deemed to deserve it.
We always specify a minimum of one archaeologist per machine that is operating, with the availability of extra staff to be called in at short notice if recording work gets to the level where continued machine-watching becomes compromised. We also put in a contingency procedure and risk-money for occasions where discoveries go beyond the appropriate scope of a watching brief.
The only occasions where we don't do these things are where our hands have been tied by an agreement reached between the curator and the developer before we were involved.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

TomWilson wrote:
quote:Posted - 03/11/2006 : 12:58:45


I don't know which county you work in mate, but if that's true your local county mountie is in gross dereliction of duty. What you describe are excavation sites that should never have gone to watching brief


Exactly my point. I work in a pretty rich area archaeologically, some would say the richest, but far from the richest economically. I suppose this puts huge pressure on the planning archaeologists to agree to development with limited mitigation.

1man, I have done the full range and yes I agree some are better than others. The open area ones can be easier to deal with, but also have problems. Quite often with those the dumpers moving spoil away will obliterate features before they can be excavated, and the best you can achieve is a rough plan. The problem once again is the amount of archaeological features present, which Always exceeds what is manageable under WB conditions.

Thanks Mole for confirming that I am not going crazy or having an extremely long run of bad luck. I yearn for a boring watching brief!

[archaeologist]

This is all very interesting, if a bit depressing. It raises more questions for me, I'm afraid. So here goes:

Mercenary:


quote:being able to dig features in plan is a luxury rarely possible on watching briefs. More often it gets recorded in section only.

Do you mean by this that features are only recorded if they happen to appear in a trench section - i.e. any discrete features that happen not to cross the trench edge are machined away without record?

If this is what you mean, how can we possibly justify this as archaeologists (forgive the naivety)?

Also, you say that the time needed by an arch to dig features in plan would mean, more often than not, letting the contractor excavate elsewhere unobserved, missing any further archaeology - to use your words "Not a sensible tactic". What is a sensible tactic to deal with this situation - is the only solution not to dig in plan, to machine away the feature, record the section and move on?

This gloomy scenario seems to lie behind your words too Mole:


quote:Usually ... all you can do is record the section and if you are lucky rootle through the spoil for any finds.

Why are we so lacking in authority and backup in these situations? Is it to do with the non-statutory nature of PPG16 or is it more complex that that?

1man1desk:

quote:We always specify a minimum of one archaeologist per machine that is operating with the availability of extra staff to be called in at short notice if recording work gets to the level where continued machine-watching becomes compromised. We also put in a contingency procedure and risk money ...

This sounds admirably sensible. Three questions: 1) how widespread is this practice around the country? 2) Do your archaeologists regularly make use of these backup procedures or do they soldier on regardless? And, following on from that, 3) Does this generally allow your archaeologists to dig in plan on WBs?

Look forward to hearing some more views on these matters.

[Mole]

archaeologist - to take your initial senario of a small contractor opened trench with a posthole and a linear exposed - if you can see the features in plan then yes you should excavate them. However, with some exceptions, it is likely that the trench will be deeper than the archaeological interface, in which case you will probably only see the linear in section and the posthole will be gone, unless it is up against the baulk. As for widening out the trench to look for more arch then if the planning condition is only for the groundworks and the surrounding area is not going to be disturbed then I guess that you have had it - as preservation in situ comes into play. For my tuppence worth this is one of the main problems with WBs on tenches (and I guess that means a footing trench) is that they way they are dug and the average size of a footing and the speed with which the contractors generally need to get then secured/ filled does not allow anything meaningfull to be determined about the features - as I mentioned before presence/ absence is really about the best you can hope for!

Sorry to be so gloomy but as I said earlier if a WB on a footing is the only work to be done on the development (for whatever reason) and archaeology is encountered its already to late other than to note it presence.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Archaeologist:
quote:This sounds admirably sensible. Three questions: 1) how widespread is this practice around the country? 2) Do your archaeologists regularly make use of these backup procedures or do they soldier on regardless? And, following on from that, 3) Does this generally allow your archaeologists to dig in plan on WBs?
In response to my post saying:

quote:We always specify a minimum of one archaeologist per machine that is operating with the availability of extra staff to be called in at short notice if recording work gets to the level where continued machine-watching becomes compromised. We also put in a contingency procedure and risk money ...
1) Don't really know, but it is a common requirement of curators' briefs

2) Yes, the back-up procedures do get used, on one recent occasion leading to a large-scale excavation

3) Our WBs are always set up to allow the archaeologists to dig in plan. However, most of our WBs are on large open area strips (e.g. road schemes), which means everything is exposed in plan. Where the work being monitored is mechanical excavation of a narrow trench, experience suggests that archaeological features are often very hard or impossible to see in plan, so if anything is found it usually turns up in section. Slightly different if you are dealing with deposits rather than features. You also have to consider the H&S issues - if your feature/deposit is near the bottom of a 3m-deep trench less than 1m wide, you are never going to send someone down there to dig in plan anyway.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

Archaeologist Wrote:

quote:What is a sensible tactic to deal with this situation - is the only solution not to dig in plan, to machine away the feature, record the section and move on?


I dig in plan what I am able, (usually when the contractors are taking their breaks), but if I know that it will still be visible in section, and I have other things to do I will do them. I try to plan the feature (usually a measured sketch) and photo it as a minimum, I also hope to get finds while I am cleaning for the photo.

Mole makes a good point about preservation in-situ in WB's. The best result for me is if the base of the machine trench coincides with the top of the archaeological horizon. You then have a bit more time to dig a sample of the features, as well as planning them. (you still have to do this before the concrete shows up though!) I have always wondered though, if I am going beyond my brief by excavating features that are not going to be further damaged, in order to get a modicum of information from them. A strict interpretation of briefs where preservation in-situ is preferred over preservation by record (ie. all of them) would suggest that I am going too far. I would argue that without this info the WB is almost pointless. As Mole says presence/absence of archaeology, nothing more.

The non-statutory nature of PPG16 is certainly the root cause of this.

I think that there is a perception among developers, contractors, and probably curators also, that a WB is a lesser form of mitigation, which all of the above also assume means a lesser level of recording. If the same level of excavation/recording was expected on a WB as an eval or excavation, they would quickly become Much more expensive for the developer except on sites with no features. What would happen then I don't know, and is probably a moot point anyway because enforcement is minimal. I've not yet determined what the curator is actually thinking when setting a WB condition for a site likely to produce features. I suspect it has more to do with old fashioned ideas related to "salvage" archaeology that to anything stated in PPG16.

[1man1desk]

If the staff carrying out a watching brief are unsure about the standard of investigation/recording required, or about their powers in relation to stopping development work to allow recording, then it implies one of two things:

1. the brief/specification is at fault, in that it has not clarified these central issues;

2. if 1. does not apply, then the unit management is at fault, in that they have not made sure that the site staff know the requirements.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

1man,

The only spec I have worked to, that went some way to clarifying the archs role, specified that the developer only had to provide access to the machined trench afterit had been excavated not during. Of course the developer took this further and put a skim of concrete over all revealed surfaces, thus removing any chance of finding archaeological features.

A clearer statement of the powerlessness of the curator and luckless arch undertaking a WB could not be made.[?]

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

The only spec I have worked to, that went some way to clarifying the archs role, specified that the developer only had to provide access to the machined trench afterit had been excavated not during. Of course the developer took this further and put a skim of concrete over all revealed surfaces, thus removing any chance of finding archaeological features.

A clearer statement of the powerlessness of the curator and luckless arch undertaking a WB could not be made.[?]


There is no way that I would agree to a specification that said anything like that. Did it come from a County brief, or from the Unit undertaking the work?

[1man1desk]

Mercenary's experience sounds like by far the worst post-PPG16 spec that I have heard of, and to the best of my knowledge it is not typical (at least on large developments; I don't have much experience of small ones).

I do know of a couple of worse ones, but both pre-date PPG16. In one case, the archaeologist was allowed to watch from the street outside the site, through a gap in the hoardings, while the basement for a large shopping centre was excavated through a medieval suburb and Roman vicus. In the other, spoil from the footings for a multi-storey car park was being trucked off site to be dumped elsewhere; the archaeologist was allowed to inspect the spoil at the dump, not to watch on site. The spoil was wet, and contained medieval wood, leather and pottery.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

quote:There is no way that I would agree to a specification that said anything like that. Did it come from a County brief, or from the Unit undertaking the work?

Sad to say it came from a curator. (Who's local authority field team is not noted for the quality of their WB's[:0])

[archaeologist]

Many thanks for everyone's comments and advice - very interesting and helpful.

Anyone else wish to contribute? Any good / bad watching brief experiences to share?

[Steven]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk

Mercenary's experience sounds like by far the worst post-PPG16 spec that I have heard of, and to the best of my knowledge it is not typical (at least on large developments; I don't have much experience of small ones).


Hi All
In all fairness to the curator what they appear to have done was specify an intermittent watching brief as defined by the IFA and it is quite normal to see the same put forward as a mitigation in PDs from units.

Steven

[mercenary]

(i) A comprehensive watching brief - where archaeologists are present at all times during the groundwork operations.

(ii) An intensive watching brief – where archaeologists are on site during the undertaking of sensitive groundwork operations.

(iii) An intermittent watching brief – where archaeologists are on site to observe the groundworks after digging operations have been completed, but before construction work commences.

(iv) A partial watching brief – where observation takes place only when considered appropriate.


Steven,

Very interesting. This is shockingly the first time I have encountered these definitions for different levels of WB. Despite this form of work being one of my pet hates over the years, and many rants to colleagues, nobody has ever enlightened me. I know my employers are equally ignorant, as they were as shocked as I about the case in question. Nobody was aware that this is a standard "intermittent" WB.

I try to work very closely to curatorial briefs, and to the best of my recollection I've not seen a WB specified as intermittent, intensive, comprehensive, partial or anything. Why?

I will leave alone for the moment the question of why an intermittent WB was applied to deep medieval urban strat.

[beamo]

I use the term 'intermittent watching brief' for one that requires a number of visits over a longer period of time to look at areas or activities of greater sensitivity, rather than a constant attendance to observe all (ground)works.

IFA Standard and Guidance is quite clear in stating that all WBs must have a written spec. or project design, and this is the key document. In particular the spec. will identify the level of control that the archaeologist has over the contractor - there are no definite rules about this, it varies from site to site and needs to be clarified in the spec.


Beamo - who has just been instructed by a client to produce a spec. for a WB

[trowelfodder]

I wish this wasnt the case but I feel I should lend support to mercenarys view of watching briefs. Many of the replys seem to have come from curatorial staff who arent neccesarily faced with the same issues as site staff. Whilst when on WB I try to carry out the work to the highest standard I am able to on occassions such as the intermitant or partial briefs previously mentioned (I didnt know they were called this either)it is difficult or sometime impossible to do thejob at the level it should be done.

For example in one situation I was "watching" three machines on different sides of roundabout. It was only because the unit was working with some fantastic driver that this could be done as foras much as they took the piss te minate any thing can up they would come over and tell me and the other machine would carry on until hit something with occasional strategic coffee breaks. Without this goodwill the job would have been impossible - and tose lovely men collected everysherd of pot and bit of bone from the digging they found! The scope of work we had - set by county mounty only allowed one person some times. Without help I would have recorded nothing!

Other situations were not so good - quarry site machine watching dozers - archaeolgy preserved in thin strip between tracks and roman wall foundations removed by digger with no WB asked for. Record in section only.... I didnt carry out these two but the people who did had no choice.

Commercial archaeology is a trade off - your concience or your job! Turst me on this one if you complain you wil be labeled, not re-mployed and not given a reference! Thats why I cant work in my local area because archaeology is corrupt

[1man1desk]

Going back to something Mercenary said earlier in the thread:
quote:The only spec I have worked to, that went some way to clarifying the archs role, specified that the developer only had to provide access to the machined trench afterit had been excavated not during. Of course the developer took this further and put a skim of concrete over all revealed surfaces, thus removing any chance of finding archaeological features.
Access after rather than during excavation is, sadly, not uncommon. However, I would say that the placement of concrete over the surface before the archaeologist's visit is likely to be in breach of the WSI and therefore of the planning condition.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

Posted by 1man1desk:

quote:However, I would say that the placement of concrete over the surface before the archaeologist's visit is likely to be in breach of the WSI and therefore of the planning condition.


My feelings exactly. No sign of enforcement officers on this or any WB I am afraid though.