+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: DBA, method statement, project design (/showthread.php?tid=370)
DBA, method statement, project design - 1man1desk - 27th February 2007
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:See it rather as 1 in 40 developments get a condition- therefore without further research a developer has a 1 in 40 likelihood of a condition.Leaving aside the weaknesses of that particular statistic, it sounds like a good argument for a DBA - which provides the 'further research' advocated by Mr Unit.
Quote:quote:I think consultants really like trenches as a baseline, I think that they like making out that they are really expensive.I'm a consultant, and I love trenches. I'd love them to be cheap, because I could get more of them done. Unfortunately, I don't need to 'make out' that they are expensive - they are expensive.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
DBA, method statement, project design - 1man1desk - 27th February 2007
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:In Mr mans world the dba is not done by the archaeologist at the pointy end âperiod. In 1mans world (engineering-solution to everything = build) he has 11 âarchaeologistsâ and their job is to go to public inquires- no trowel required. And little by little the concept of an archaeologist is being sliced into ever smaller disparate pieces, pieces- apparently all in conflicts of interest- so example we are now quite happily advertise for post ex-teams and allow post ex go to tender.An 'engineering solution' quite often means 'build somewhere else', 'build less' or 'don't build at all', the point being to reduce the damage done to archaeology. The implication of your post is that we should never challenge the engineering proposal; instead, you imply, we should say 'goody - they are going to build on an archaeological site, what a good chance to dig it up'.
The whole point of my attitude to DBAs is to avoid conflicts of interest, either real or percieved. Automatically including the DBA with the fieldwork contract creates a conflict of interest.
On the post-ex, we are probably in agreement - I would always be very unhappy about separating a post-ex contract from a fieldwork one, because the final report should preferably always be written by the person who led the fieldwork.
Quote:quote:Hosty I suspect that for trenches to do the finding on their own somewhere around 20% coverage, might be more, is required. I think that archaeologists have a lot more work to do on this, particularly feed back in the field. You see a lot of grid patterns which were presumably agreed by the system and then the poor unfortunate goes out and does them. What I would like to see are the people in the field plying some theories and reacting to the outcomes of their observations-topographic, geomorphological, experience, one last one for luck . In as much as gephiz has been mentioned thereâs space for augur surveys, micromorph and lidar is getting interesting. it all should be seen a s aid for trenchingThere is a measure of agreement here as well - I strongly advocate getting as much information as possible from DBA and non-intrusive work before (a) deciding to do trenching or (b) designing the trench layout. A well-designed trenching programme, targeted using the best available information, can usually achieve much better results than twice the quantity of trenching laid out randomly or on a grid.
Where trenching is necessary, we are very rarely, if ever, going to be able to do 20% samples, as you advocate; so it is particularly important to make the most efficient use possible of the trenching that we can do.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
DBA, method statement, project design - BAJR Host - 27th February 2007
I also have had enough of this and Unit of One.
I will make a statement later tonight on return home.
It is interesting that someone who can be coherent in reports can make such incoherent posts which in the end force people who wish to discuss leave either the forum or cease posting.
Until such times as I am able to post... I will be locking this thread... frankly I have had it up to here.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
DBA, method statement, project design - Steve Walsh - 27th February 2007
I think enough is enough
Ive been avidly reading these posts and admire the many who have tried to respond but its not really going anywhere. One thing it has done is unite everyone - field archs, curators and consultants (and anyone else) - we all have differences of opinion and strong opinions about different sectors of the profession but this sort of attitude and approach is not something ive ever come across before in 15 years of professional practice as both field arch and consultant
1 man is quite right - advocating 'jobs for the boys' really doesnt work and is damaging to the profession in so many ways. Assuming we all want the same thing for archaeology - better conditions/recognition/salaries/removal of dodgy practice etc etc then Unit of 1 im afraid your off the mark (in my opinion which is as valid as yours) - you are (if I am reading your posts correctly - apologies if not) avocating digging up everything to see if there is any archaeology there??????[?]
And as a consultant im with 1 man - i love trenches, love juicy archaeology - and will always push for the 'right' approach to protect archaeology from impact (whatever that may be) I have many clients who have absolutely no problem with the archaeological process whether it be DBA, geophysics, evalaution or whatever - I manage risk for them and to define risk there is as Troll quite rightly says a paper trail which should be adhered to and followed
So Mr Hosty over to you
A trowel is a thing to lust for!
DBA, method statement, project design - BAJR Host - 27th February 2007
I have taken the decision to act. Please see the post on Unit 1 Ban
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu