 |
 |
Why use 15 words where 1 will do? Thank You David Evans Historic Environment Record Officer 01454 863649 >>> [log in to unmask] 06/12/2004 12:18:30 >>> I know this may sound like nit-picking but I'm sure archaeology is never found as the result of a watching brief. I thought archaeology was the act of "scientific study of the cultural remains and monuments of the remote past" or something like that and I fear it does the "archaeological comunity" no favours to mis-apply the term with wild abandon. Making every hole in the ground or fragment of broken pottery into "archaeology" is not just gross misuse of the language it's unsustainable and downright confusing. So come on you professionals, understand your craft, let's have less of the sloppy talk, and the arguments may become a little more meaningful. Cheers - Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Issues related to Sites & Monuments Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Newman, Richard Sent: 06 December 2004 11:29 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Watching Briefs - A Useful Form of Archaeological Mitigation? Louise Watching briefs as a technique are a perfectly valid type of archaeological response but they are misused which is why there value is reduced. Amongst the problems are: Curators often apply a watching brief as an easy get out response to an archaeological condition applied to a planning consent. They are seen as the lowest level of archaeological response and applied in circumstances where no archaeology is known but the possibility exists or where for various reasons it may be difficult to get a developer to finance an excavation. This is lazy, sloppy and spineless thinking. Where a site's potential is unknown it should be assessed and evaluated, preferably as a pre-determination exercise and then the most appropriate form of mitigation applied. Using a watching brief as a soft option often leads to a developer wasting their money and an archaeologist their time as a pointless condition is discharged. Conversely, misapplication of a watching brief condition can lead to an archaeologist trying to deal with 'shed loads' of archaeology on a site which should have been excavated. Contractors will frequently send out inexperienced staff to reduce costs and because so many watching briefs are a waste of time they do not wish to commit their best qualified staff. Yet watching briefs often require the recognition of ephemeral archaeological indicators within less than ideal circumstances as well as the ability to deal with developers via liaison, negotiation and explanation. Thus watching briefs require a contractor's best and most experienced staff not their least experienced. Watching briefs are applied to sites and in circumstances where they cannot possibly succeed. Little will be gained watching a drot tear through a greensand landscape. There may be archaeology to record but it is doubtful if anyone would notice! Watching briefs should be applied as a mitigation response in circumstances where the presence of archaeology is known but where it is considered that a watching brief will provide adequate opportunity to answer the questions being posed of the archaeology. Often this will be a part of a suite of archaeological mitigatory responses. Sometimes they will be the only appropriate response for technical reasons related to demolition or other programming issues. They should not be applied speculatively. Even the permanent presence watching brief on a pipeline is a misuse. Here, as with some quarries, in areas where no indication of previous archaeology came from assessment or evaluation strip and record excavation should be used if remains are subsequently discovered. Again watching brief recording should be confined to areas of known archaeology where full excavation is considered unnecessary or is impractical for sound engineering reasons. There is a problem of terminology here. Observers in areas of unknown potential in quarries or on pipelines or other major earth moving projects should not be considered to be undertaking a watching brief but should be seen as inspectors who call in an excavation team where required. They may undertake watching brief recording if such a team is not required to carry out an emergency excavation. Watching brief recording should only be undertaken when it can be defined clearly as the most appropriate response. Watching briefs should not be undertaken as a safety measure where a smaller discrete development has been evaluated adequately and no archaeological remains encountered. In Cumbria Watching Brief conditions are most often applied to small projects, ie a single house plot or smaller, and are usually applied following a site assessment but not necessarily an evaluation, because of the small size of the site. Of these in the past year 40% have produced findings of archaeological significance but only 10% have produced datable features or structures. To improve these percentages we consider that better targeting is required. Hope this helps Richard Newman County Archaeologist, Cumbria County Council Disclaimer This e-mail (including any attachments) is only for the person or organisation it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient you must let me know immediately and then delete this e-mail. If you use this e-mail without permission, or if you allow anyone else to see, copy or distribute the e-mail, or if you do, or don't do something because you have read this e-mail, you may be breaking the law. Liability cannot be accepted for any loss or damage arising from this e-mail (or any attachments) or from incompatible scripts or any virus transmitted. E-mails and attachments sent and received from and by staff and elected Members may be monitored and read and the right is reserved to reject or return or delete any which are considered to be inappropriate or unsuitable. ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it from South Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the South Gloucestershire Council Postmaster at the address below. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. [log in to unmask] **********************************************************************