24th July 2010, 07:58 PM
This is a really interesting debate. I originally asked about methodologies for evaluating urban sites and the thread has expanded, quite rightly, to take in wider issues. In some ways it paints a disheartening picture though - I get a sense that we don't really know what we are doing as a profession. Is this fair? To return to my orginal question, shouldn't there be a standardised approach to the evaluation of complex, deeply stratified sites by now? I accept the arguments that 1) every site is different, 2) research aims vary from site to site and that 3) the planning system may only require the basics (presence/absence of significant archaeology, depth of that archaeology etc), all of which may affect the methodology used. But is there really no general professional opinion on the most valid, informative and accurate way of evaluating an urban site, given the depth and complexity of the deposits?
Also, (returning to the reality of commercial transactions in archaeology), can anyone clarify the following for me?
Say a curator issues a brief for an urban evaluation but does not specify an excavation methodology (leaving it up to the contractors to decide). Company X looks into the site and determines that the stratigraphy is likely to be complex and the archaeology signifcant - and so puts in a tender based on lengthy single context recording with several staff. Company Y notes the the complexity and significance but decides to go for the much cheaper option of slot excavation. Company Y wins the contract and then struggles to make sense of the site from discrete, isolated slots within trenches. They produce a report full of equivocation (it maybe this, its possible that this has happened, these features may be prehistoric or they may be medieval....).
First, does this happen and how frequently do curators get inadequate urban eval reports as a result?
Second, if this happens with frequency, doesn't it mean there is an in-built, commercially driven bias against thorough, sequential excavation for urban evals, even if the site is crying out for such an approach? That is, are our methodologies are dictated by commerce, not by archaeological priorities?
Sorry if I am repeating myself by asking this. It seems an important issue though. Does anyone take a clear stance on the approach to evaluating urban sites, based on a rational assessment of the evidence (IfA? EH/HS/CADW?? Curators' Association?? Big commerical units?). If not, why not? Is there literature on this? If so, where? Are we all just working in the dark, hoping we'll hit the right balance (and perhaps rarely doing so?)? Is this how a profession should be working?
Thanks.
Also, (returning to the reality of commercial transactions in archaeology), can anyone clarify the following for me?
Say a curator issues a brief for an urban evaluation but does not specify an excavation methodology (leaving it up to the contractors to decide). Company X looks into the site and determines that the stratigraphy is likely to be complex and the archaeology signifcant - and so puts in a tender based on lengthy single context recording with several staff. Company Y notes the the complexity and significance but decides to go for the much cheaper option of slot excavation. Company Y wins the contract and then struggles to make sense of the site from discrete, isolated slots within trenches. They produce a report full of equivocation (it maybe this, its possible that this has happened, these features may be prehistoric or they may be medieval....).
First, does this happen and how frequently do curators get inadequate urban eval reports as a result?
Second, if this happens with frequency, doesn't it mean there is an in-built, commercially driven bias against thorough, sequential excavation for urban evals, even if the site is crying out for such an approach? That is, are our methodologies are dictated by commerce, not by archaeological priorities?
Sorry if I am repeating myself by asking this. It seems an important issue though. Does anyone take a clear stance on the approach to evaluating urban sites, based on a rational assessment of the evidence (IfA? EH/HS/CADW?? Curators' Association?? Big commerical units?). If not, why not? Is there literature on this? If so, where? Are we all just working in the dark, hoping we'll hit the right balance (and perhaps rarely doing so?)? Is this how a profession should be working?
Thanks.