18th October 2012, 07:55 PM
As hinted previously by other posters, preservation in situ is often used as a fig leaf by various interested parties (in my experience, though that might not be representative of all cases, this usually boils down to following a mitigation agenda set by archaeological consultants advising their client, as they are entitled and employed to act.) As are watching briefs (double ditto in that case.) Now here's two examples.
1. In London, I worked on a site where it was decided to test the decay of fairly low-grade (largely organic alluvial silts) anaerobic deposits in deposits exposed in the sections of piling pits. The supposed backstory was that the archaeological consultant, who favoured mitigation by sinking hand-excavated discrete piling pits and stung by criticism from various quarters that this was untested as effective mitigation did the decent thing and built into the project a programme of monitoring said deposits. When this monitoring demonstrated that decay had occurred and cd be expected to be greatly exacerbated by pumping an extremely dessicating component (concrete piles: which tend to absorb large amounts of moisture towards their proximity) into these deposits, the results were quietly forgotten.
However, I am more worried by this:
2. There are many sites on which I have been in attendance where archaeological consultants have used a watching brief condition in areas which ought to have been properly evaluated or have gone to further mitigation after evaluation. Of course, the consultant and client are happy that this is archaeology being done on the cheap. The contracting unit are happy because they are being paid on a day-rate for a minimum of mobilisation (and like negative evaluations, which is a whole can of often corrupt worms, can make a fair amount of cash for units in tight spot). But the poor sod on the ground has no proper method statement to work from (and wave in front of the various contractors' and sub-contractors' noses) and often minimal back-up from their Project Manager. Watching briefs have their place. But they do not take the place of evaluations or the consequent work required, and they shd not be used instead of proper excavation. And, like evaluations, they need to be specifically tailored to the job, and require a specific method statement thrashed out with all interested parties. There are ways of doing this on-site, if need be: but it's funny how most of the various Billy B*ll*cks (with a few exceptions) ain't really interested.
I'm not having a pop at anyone specifically here. But this was happening pre-2007 in the boom years and I think it's getting gradually worse. There is a lot of goodwill amongst construction contractors (both as companies and individuals) towards archaeologists (often more than the latter expect, and particularly when archaeologists demonstrate a decent amount of construction savvy in words, planning and deeds.) And, when public archaeology is rightly a buzzword, why don't we (from Project Managers and Consultants downwards) all start with the poor buggers who are doing the work alongside us on-site (from contract managers through machine drivers to ground workers.) You will be amazed how much this helps all of us!!!!
1. In London, I worked on a site where it was decided to test the decay of fairly low-grade (largely organic alluvial silts) anaerobic deposits in deposits exposed in the sections of piling pits. The supposed backstory was that the archaeological consultant, who favoured mitigation by sinking hand-excavated discrete piling pits and stung by criticism from various quarters that this was untested as effective mitigation did the decent thing and built into the project a programme of monitoring said deposits. When this monitoring demonstrated that decay had occurred and cd be expected to be greatly exacerbated by pumping an extremely dessicating component (concrete piles: which tend to absorb large amounts of moisture towards their proximity) into these deposits, the results were quietly forgotten.
However, I am more worried by this:
2. There are many sites on which I have been in attendance where archaeological consultants have used a watching brief condition in areas which ought to have been properly evaluated or have gone to further mitigation after evaluation. Of course, the consultant and client are happy that this is archaeology being done on the cheap. The contracting unit are happy because they are being paid on a day-rate for a minimum of mobilisation (and like negative evaluations, which is a whole can of often corrupt worms, can make a fair amount of cash for units in tight spot). But the poor sod on the ground has no proper method statement to work from (and wave in front of the various contractors' and sub-contractors' noses) and often minimal back-up from their Project Manager. Watching briefs have their place. But they do not take the place of evaluations or the consequent work required, and they shd not be used instead of proper excavation. And, like evaluations, they need to be specifically tailored to the job, and require a specific method statement thrashed out with all interested parties. There are ways of doing this on-site, if need be: but it's funny how most of the various Billy B*ll*cks (with a few exceptions) ain't really interested.
I'm not having a pop at anyone specifically here. But this was happening pre-2007 in the boom years and I think it's getting gradually worse. There is a lot of goodwill amongst construction contractors (both as companies and individuals) towards archaeologists (often more than the latter expect, and particularly when archaeologists demonstrate a decent amount of construction savvy in words, planning and deeds.) And, when public archaeology is rightly a buzzword, why don't we (from Project Managers and Consultants downwards) all start with the poor buggers who are doing the work alongside us on-site (from contract managers through machine drivers to ground workers.) You will be amazed how much this helps all of us!!!!