found that to get at the reports that you have to register and login- sheffield now have somebody called M. Mouse on their list.
two reports of the evaluation one looks like a draft -why it there.
my initial reaction is why isnt there a nice Big Conclusion saying there is nothing there that will be affected by the development. I blame curators who dont want the archaeologists to say this out loud in the reports.
In this particular report they have lumped the discussion and the conclusion together a DisCon or how about Disco.
but then there are things that niggle.
They seem to be after looking for a large possible linear preshistoric feature -why it not shedualled and if not where presicly is it and by which authority. Theres a thin blue line representing the "ridge" on the map where did that come from? All the trench sections show that they are on a slope.
Cant help feeling that there should be a deskdased for this site. They seem to suggest that one is on its way but by a different outfit -bit odd, and then theres this
concentrated activity? surely a few refs needed there.
but then what I really dont like is the widths of the trenches or rather the fact that what seems to be the methodology which I presume is taken from the brief, is all lardydar about toothless buckets but nothing about widths. So must presume that 1.4 was agreed.
if I can pick a few holes the trench plan fig2 notes a FE pipe in trench 6 but no mention in section or context description and Then theres no finds list.
if you want to find in their Disco
it would appear that they made this ground after scraping the site down to natural which is the type of thing that should leave very sharp contacts and maybe they would like to have made note of in their context description and then theres a coal seam. Having dug on chalk most of me life I have always wanted one of those. This particular one seems to have formed on top of medium angular sandstone rubble and sand which I hope is a good thing.
but then what I dont like about this evaluation is that the site is very long and narrow which gives it a lot of boundary edge and all these trenches have managed to keep away from the edge particularly the northern edge which is possibly where you might expect to find a boundary type feature....
two reports of the evaluation one looks like a draft -why it there.
my initial reaction is why isnt there a nice Big Conclusion saying there is nothing there that will be affected by the development. I blame curators who dont want the archaeologists to say this out loud in the reports.
In this particular report they have lumped the discussion and the conclusion together a DisCon or how about Disco.
but then there are things that niggle.
They seem to be after looking for a large possible linear preshistoric feature -why it not shedualled and if not where presicly is it and by which authority. Theres a thin blue line representing the "ridge" on the map where did that come from? All the trench sections show that they are on a slope.
Cant help feeling that there should be a deskdased for this site. They seem to suggest that one is on its way but by a different outfit -bit odd, and then theres this
Quote:2.9 A number of isolated Roman findspots in the study area, such as coins, provide further indications of concentrated ctivity in the study area at this date.
concentrated activity? surely a few refs needed there.
but then what I really dont like is the widths of the trenches or rather the fact that what seems to be the methodology which I presume is taken from the brief, is all lardydar about toothless buckets but nothing about widths. So must presume that 1.4 was agreed.
if I can pick a few holes the trench plan fig2 notes a FE pipe in trench 6 but no mention in section or context description and Then theres no finds list.
if you want to find in their Disco
Quote:A substantial made-ground layer was present within the central section and along the north-western side of the site. The made-ground was homogenous and devoid of any finds (except for modern plastic bags), and appears to have been deliberately selected to re-landscape the area.
it would appear that they made this ground after scraping the site down to natural which is the type of thing that should leave very sharp contacts and maybe they would like to have made note of in their context description and then theres a coal seam. Having dug on chalk most of me life I have always wanted one of those. This particular one seems to have formed on top of medium angular sandstone rubble and sand which I hope is a good thing.
but then what I dont like about this evaluation is that the site is very long and narrow which gives it a lot of boundary edge and all these trenches have managed to keep away from the edge particularly the northern edge which is possibly where you might expect to find a boundary type feature....
Reason: your past is my past