18th January 2007, 11:33 PM
Posted by Unit of 1:
This is what PPG16 actually says about desk-based assessments:
And this is what it says about evaluations:
In other words, PPG16 explicitly advises both DBA and geophysical survey as preliminary steps before deciding on evaluation, and does not limit evaluation to trial trenching - it includes surveys. It also says that evaluation should be 'rapid and inexpensive', and limits its application to circumstances where other information already suggests that important archaeological remains are present.
In practice, trial trenching is often applied on a 'scatter-gun' approach, where there is no real information suggesting that anything is there. Also, it can be very far from 'rapid and inexpensive' - I know of evaluation programmes that have taken months and cost well over £100,000, causing great disruption to local farmers who stood to gain nothing from the development. Thats what I meant by 'onerous' in my previous post.
A few years ago I arranged the evaluations for a road scheme that crossed a county boundary. On one side, the curator wanted a fixed-size sample arranged randomly, ignoring geophysics results. On the other side, by agreement with the curator, we used previous information (including geophysics) to target our trial trenches. With a sample about half the size in % terms, we found more than twice as much archaeology.
Looks to me like using more than one source of information improves your archaeological results as well as helping your client, and is specifically mandated by PPG16.
In terms of standards - the IFA publishes a Standard and Guidance for Desk-Based Assessments, and one for Evaluations that covers things like geophysics as well as trial trenching.
All of this information is really very easily available - you really ought to go and read the documents before you quote them.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I would suggest that if they went straight for evaluation without all the flaffing with desk-tops and âwalkover surveyâ (not sure that there are any standards for that or for geephiz) it would be cheaper for the client and we would end up with an archive (and get rid of the consultants ish).
âit can be hard to âjustifyâ carrying outâ - peepgee has evaluation written all over it.
This is what PPG16 actually says about desk-based assessments:
Quote:quote:[the developer] may wish to commission their own archaeological assessment by a professionally qualified archaeological organisation or consultant. This need not involve fieldwork. Assessment normally involves desk-based evaluation of existing information: it can make effective use of records of previous discoveries, including any historic maps held by the County archive and local museums and record offices, or of geophysical survey techniques.
And this is what it says about evaluations:
Quote:quote:Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer's own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken. This sort of evaluation is quite distinct from full archaeological excavation. It is normally a rapid and inexpensive operation, involving ground survey and small-scale trial trenching
In other words, PPG16 explicitly advises both DBA and geophysical survey as preliminary steps before deciding on evaluation, and does not limit evaluation to trial trenching - it includes surveys. It also says that evaluation should be 'rapid and inexpensive', and limits its application to circumstances where other information already suggests that important archaeological remains are present.
In practice, trial trenching is often applied on a 'scatter-gun' approach, where there is no real information suggesting that anything is there. Also, it can be very far from 'rapid and inexpensive' - I know of evaluation programmes that have taken months and cost well over £100,000, causing great disruption to local farmers who stood to gain nothing from the development. Thats what I meant by 'onerous' in my previous post.
A few years ago I arranged the evaluations for a road scheme that crossed a county boundary. On one side, the curator wanted a fixed-size sample arranged randomly, ignoring geophysics results. On the other side, by agreement with the curator, we used previous information (including geophysics) to target our trial trenches. With a sample about half the size in % terms, we found more than twice as much archaeology.
Looks to me like using more than one source of information improves your archaeological results as well as helping your client, and is specifically mandated by PPG16.
In terms of standards - the IFA publishes a Standard and Guidance for Desk-Based Assessments, and one for Evaluations that covers things like geophysics as well as trial trenching.
All of this information is really very easily available - you really ought to go and read the documents before you quote them.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished