Following Neil's comment on Friday, I got access through a university
library. From a quick read, the bit to focus on is the second page of
I understand they were trying to explain a decay process which had
previously caused 5% shrinkage of the 4 m thick deposits here during the
(unspecified?) lifetime of one of the previous buildings, which was maybe a
Curry's store facing Parliament Street in York. They seem to say that three
years monitoring of the Marks and Spencer development was not sufficiently
long to demonstrate any consistent change of ground conditions which might
explain this process.
A more accessible version of the planning background to this project is on
page 53 of the recently published first PARIS conference monograph (J Oxley
`Planning and the conservation of archaeological deposits' in M Corfield et
al Preserving archaeological remains in situ MoLAS & Bradford ?2001).
The best bit of the new paper is in the conclusions (conc.html, page 2) with
some sound recommendations like:
* install your monitoring equipment in time to get some `settled' data
before any construction, for control purposes;
* put it in places where you can monitor remotely throughout
construction and indefinitely afterwards;
* (more fundamentally) they want a nationally-funded research
programme including in vitro and digital modelling of the decay process.
For PPG 16 the final para of conc.html is relevant, basically below 2 m
depth the deposit is stable, above that ground conditions vary seasonally,
but on present evidence they seem not to be claiming a direct causal link
between these `dynamic characteristics' and the previously observed
Please come back with further questions. - Brian
> From: JD Richards[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: SMRforum is for the circulation of information and general
> Sent: 16 March 2002 17:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: IA 11: Preservation of urban archaeological deposits]
> <<File: InterScan_SafeStamp.txt>>
> If it's any help, you can have a username/password controlled subscription
> to Internet Archaeology for less than 40 GBP. Insitutional subscriptions
> are really intended for large organisations e.g. university libraries, or
> all NYCC's public libraries, for example, where there is a demand for
> seamless access controlled by IP address. In a small organisation such as
> an SMR office or contracting unit with only a few readers it may be more
> appropriate to share a username - and at a bargain price!
> Commercial break over!
> Julian Richards
> Dr Julian D. Richards Tel: +44 1904 433930
> Director, Archaeology Data Service Fax: +44 1904 433902
> Department of Archaeology Email: [log in to unmask]
> University of York
> The King's Manor
> York, YO1 7EP, UK
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Neil Campling wrote:
> > Sorry, but at £105 for an institutional subscription, my authority can't
> afford it, so I won't be able to access the article anyway.
> > Cheers,
> > Neil
> > >>> [log in to unmask] 15/03/2002 09:51:32 >>>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > From: Judith Winters [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 14 March 2002 17:32
> > ++Please forward to all appropriate forums++
> > Internet Archaeology is pleased to announce the publication of
> > "Preservation of Urban Archaeological Deposits: monitoring and
> > characterisation of archaeological deposits at Marks & Spencer, 44-45
> > Parliament Street, York" by Mat Davis, Allan Hall, Harry Kenward and
> > John
> > Oxley
> > http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue11/oxley_index.html
> > This article discusses results of a deposit monitoring project carried
> > out
> > over 4 years in the centre of the City of York. The article discusses
> > the
> > character of the archaeological deposits and the burial environment
> > surrounding them, revealing evidence that suggests changes are taking
> > place in some of the highly organic archaeological deposits. Prompted by
> > the findings, the authors ask what do we mean when we say 'preservation
> > in
> > situ'.
> > In conclusion, the authors challenge the concept of 'preservation in
> > situ'. Given that it is based on the assumption that buried
> > archaeological deposits stay in the same state of preservation if they
> > are
> > not disturbed, are the sealed urban deposits such as those in Parliament
> > Street being 'preserved' or are they in fact being condemned to unseen,
> > unrecorded destruction, sealed below new buildings?
> > Judith
> > "Support quality, not-for-profit electronic publishing. Subscribe to
> > Internet Archaeology today"
> > http://intarch.ac.uk/subscriptions.html
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > Judith Winters, Editor - Internet Archaeology http://intarch.ac.uk
> > Department of Archaeology, University of York,
> > King's Manor, YO1 7EP, UK
> > WARNING
> > This E-mail and any attachments may contain information
> > that is confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for
> > the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> > distribution or any action taken is prohibited and may be
> > unlawful.
> > Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not
> > necessarily the view of the Council.
> > North Yorkshire County Council.
****** Message from InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT ******
** No virus found in attached file noname.htm
This file has been checked O.K. with Interscan
***************** End of message ***************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed.
If you received this email in error please notify the sender by return email or Oxford City Information Systems 01865-252111.