26th February 2007, 06:32 PM
Donât apologise Sith
I did a project -45km linear- once (it was enough I was the muppet who wondered in after the thing started) it had that gephiz thing in although I would suggest that it was a holy inadequate exersise-15metre along centre spread-not continuous coverage, where the easements, asymmetric, went between 45 and 65 metres wide, along with the fieldwalking done with a team of three âdiscontinuous, targeted evaluations anyway 1third of the big sites eventually excavated were found from watching the five metre scrape back on the left hand side of the easement where we had a 360 undertake the initial strip back for the bulldozers. There were numerous little thin sites which were only ever seen in this small strip. Now these sites went through the gephiz spreds/fieldwalking and it saw nothing.- you could argue why but .. So if you were going to find those two-three other sites in your project which your gephiz has missed I suggest that you had shed loads of evaluation trenches to do and may as well have got on with it from day one-now where to put them- wouldnât it be bliss just to talk about that. I am anti the random sample or the grid although its not a bad place to start.....
Hello Mr Man
âthe purpose of archaeological work in the planning process is not to provide work for archaeologistsâ
are you suggesting that archaeological work in the planning process should not be done by archaeologists
âThere is a strong suspicion amongst many clients that archaeologists are prone to lining their own pocketsâ thats because clients barely meet the diggers with the trowel but instead meet the...this is barely sport
âThere are many DBAs that demonstrate no need for fieldworkâ
hosty seems to be under the impression that ârarely seen one without the otherâ with which I concur. I suspect that that you are referring to schemes under which a dba is used to show that only a few areas have to be targeted because the dba found nothing. Probably using your half the amount of trenches to find twice as much archaeology experience
I had a geotechnical ground investigation holstered on me not so long ago. I was on this plot that backed on to a church nicked from the Catholics but luckily the development was as far from the church as possible- then a hardhat turned up, commandeered the machine and went off to put a three-four metre hole as close to the church boundary as possible Kittens!!! Nothing about it in my spec, obviously I did what all of you would have done......
No opinion Mr Man on the archaeologist doing the fieldwork also doing the dba as well then? How do you find someone to stand in a great big landscape with your dba. Is it a system of mutual admiration or do you rely on an endless stream of desperate fatalists?
I did a project -45km linear- once (it was enough I was the muppet who wondered in after the thing started) it had that gephiz thing in although I would suggest that it was a holy inadequate exersise-15metre along centre spread-not continuous coverage, where the easements, asymmetric, went between 45 and 65 metres wide, along with the fieldwalking done with a team of three âdiscontinuous, targeted evaluations anyway 1third of the big sites eventually excavated were found from watching the five metre scrape back on the left hand side of the easement where we had a 360 undertake the initial strip back for the bulldozers. There were numerous little thin sites which were only ever seen in this small strip. Now these sites went through the gephiz spreds/fieldwalking and it saw nothing.- you could argue why but .. So if you were going to find those two-three other sites in your project which your gephiz has missed I suggest that you had shed loads of evaluation trenches to do and may as well have got on with it from day one-now where to put them- wouldnât it be bliss just to talk about that. I am anti the random sample or the grid although its not a bad place to start.....
Hello Mr Man
âthe purpose of archaeological work in the planning process is not to provide work for archaeologistsâ
are you suggesting that archaeological work in the planning process should not be done by archaeologists
âThere is a strong suspicion amongst many clients that archaeologists are prone to lining their own pocketsâ thats because clients barely meet the diggers with the trowel but instead meet the...this is barely sport
âThere are many DBAs that demonstrate no need for fieldworkâ
hosty seems to be under the impression that ârarely seen one without the otherâ with which I concur. I suspect that that you are referring to schemes under which a dba is used to show that only a few areas have to be targeted because the dba found nothing. Probably using your half the amount of trenches to find twice as much archaeology experience
I had a geotechnical ground investigation holstered on me not so long ago. I was on this plot that backed on to a church nicked from the Catholics but luckily the development was as far from the church as possible- then a hardhat turned up, commandeered the machine and went off to put a three-four metre hole as close to the church boundary as possible Kittens!!! Nothing about it in my spec, obviously I did what all of you would have done......
No opinion Mr Man on the archaeologist doing the fieldwork also doing the dba as well then? How do you find someone to stand in a great big landscape with your dba. Is it a system of mutual admiration or do you rely on an endless stream of desperate fatalists?