+- 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: Box sections on rescue sites (/showthread.php?tid=4116)
Pages:
1
2
Box sections on rescue sites - Jack - 11th October 2011
monty Wrote:..........if in doubt.......box it out .......................:face-approve:I would argue its better to record what you got first then box it out to check you've got all the edges.
Don't delude yourselves. Boxing out destroys information...................just like the Victorians thought they were very clever with their 'dig a big hole in the middle and yank out the bodies whilst someone does a painting' techniques.
Box sections on rescue sites - Bier Keller - 11th October 2011
Thing is Jack, all archaeology destroys information. Once you have taken that feature out, it is gone. Of course, as archaeologists we try and do the best we can, converting the physical into the written/recorded record.
The point of my original question - bearing in mind that during rescue ops, factors such as time (which is of course money) and p*ssy developers often get in the way of the job we would ideally like to do - was whether boxing, under certain circumstances can be an appropriate measure on a British site?
Box sections on rescue sites - archie - 11th October 2011
Difficult one really, i would agree that it might be useful to use box sections on commcerial sites where time / money is a factor but only as a last resort, with the traditional or 'english' method as was described above, the preffered method. The difficulty i would find is that if county archaeologists agreed that we could use this method, wouldnt some unscrupulous companies only use it in order to make their sites cheaper and undercut other companies, and therefore be of detriment to the archaeological resources as a whole?
Box sections on rescue sites - Jack - 11th October 2011
There is boxing out and boxing out. Depends on the archaeology, the impact and the mitigation if you ask me.
If your 'site' is a 1m wide pipe trench that crosses a ditch that obviously is a long feature in the landscape then yes record it in section in the pipe trench.
But there are cases where such a 'boring' ditch can be regionally significant.......for instance if its part of a Bronze-Age or early Anglo-Saxon field system in east yorks. But the impact is low (1m wide damage of a 100s of meters long ditch).
The problem is when your not sure what the brown blob, layer etc you've got in plan is before you dig it. I've seen boxed out sections cut through a 'layer' destroy portions of a pottery Kiln that had survived beneath it; oval blobs half sectioned, destroying the relationships between the multiple important intercut discrete features; even a cluster of boring IA/RB pits turn into regionally important neolithic evidence. You have to take into account the possible before you destroy it.
My advice.
Cover your arse. }
Box sections on rescue sites - Dinosaur - 11th October 2011
Jack Wrote:...just like the Victorians thought they were very clever with their 'dig a big hole in the middle and yank out the bodies whilst someone does a painting' techniques.
But the illustrations were soooo much better than most modern site drawings (advantage of employing an actual artist), and in colour too! }
...if in doubt...box it out - good grief, not heard that since the 80s, good to know some of the old skills and traditions are still alive and kicking :face-approve:
Box sections on rescue sites - Jack - 12th October 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:But the illustrations were soooo much better than most modern site drawings (advantage of employing an actual artist), and in colour too! }
Shame they're not that accurate. Shame they didn't keep all the bones, shame they destroyed any stratigraphy.......
But I suspect future archaeologists will have similar gripes about us.
Box sections on rescue sites - Dinosaur - 12th October 2011
Jack Wrote:Shame they're not that accurate. Shame they didn't keep all the bones, shame they destroyed any stratigraphy.......
But I suspect future archaeologists will have similar gripes about us.
In my experience some old site recording can be surprisingly accurate, but then I suppose I would say that since its getting to the point where I created some of it - am still trying to pursuade a certain illustrator of our acquaintace to do me some watercolours though....