 |
 |
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]> From: DURHAM Brian <[log in to unmask]> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: Watching Briefs - A Useful Form of Archaeological Mitigation? Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:21:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Louise - First thing is to decide on your definition of `watching brief'. If watching brief means the archaeologist standing there keeping out of trouble and recording anythin he sees, definitely dubious. But if you substitute the term archaeological `recording action', which has been around since the early 1990s and I presume was developed from the term `investigation and recording' in PPG16 para 29, then that is potentially very valuable. The curator can require a WSI that commits the developer to maintaining sufficient flexibility in his programme so he can agree from time to time an area which shall be under the control of the archaeologist for an agreed period to complete the necessary recording action. The curator may need to attend site to confirm that the arrangement is commensurate with the significance of the deposit needing recording, acting as umpire in agreement. I've seen it work from both sides, as contractor getting an area of motorway construction cordonned off with dumpers moving past at full speed, and as a curator warning a developer and all concerned that something important has been found and is going to affect their lives. I can copy you the Council's condition CARC02 that secures the above, and a proforma for the brief that sets out the Council's general requirements to be confirmed in the WSI, if these will help. - Brian > ---------- > From: louise hayward[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Reply To: Issues related to Sites & Monuments Records > Sent: 02 December 2004 16:05 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Watching Briefs - A Useful Form of Archaeological > Mitigation? > > Dear All > I am a final year student at Bradford University and for my dissertation > topic I have chosen to study the effectiveness of archaeological watching > briefs. I was on placement at a county council for six months, so I have a > rough idea of what goes on with regard to planning and the watching brief. > I have consulted many curators and contractors via questionnaire (thanks > to > all of you who have filled one in) in order to get some rough statistics > on > the number of watching briefs recommended & carried out etc as well as an > opinion on watching briefs. I have also posted a message on the Britarch > website. I hope to contact developers too, although I don't know who to > contact... > So far the opinion appears to be that thery are overused, often badly done > and in that respect not worth their salt. However if done correctly the > opinion is that they can be the best thing since sliced bread, whether > they > discover archaeologiy or not as they fill in the gaps on the SMR and > general > archaeological records. > I have so far have only really been able to get my hands on the Assessment > of Assessments & Planning for the Past Vols I to III, the IFA's guide to > affective watching briefs. I know that the ACAO (now ALGAO), P. > Carrington, > J. Lane & S. Vaughan, Roger Tym and Partners have all published documents > on > PPG16 but I have not yet been able to gain access to them. > I would be extremely grateful for any comments, hints or suggestions that > anyone can come up with regarding the effectiveness of watching briefs. > Thanks > Louise > (Apologies for the length of my email) >