Alley!! (sp?) He's the best.

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
David Legare
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Urban archaeology methods question


In New Mexico we have the relatively good fortune to
have an archaeological backhoe operator who works with
flat blades that he has altered to 1/2, 1, and 2 meter dimensions.  I
worked with him on a project near Albuquerque where a village had been
flooded about 100 years ago.  The work was quick, highly efficient, and
I felt that we got excellent data from our features. 
The idea of identifying features and then excavating
1/2 as data recovery is not a perfect world.  But I
have never (even in research archaeology) seen the
perfect world.  It seems a good plan.  Know your
equipment operator and work closely together to
identify and get the maximum data from all of the
features.  It turns into a sampling strategy that
gives good to excellent results.  We were able to
identify types of features, functions, and got good in
situ carbon and artifact data for dating.

Good luck. 

--- Jane Lee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Although I've already done a pretty good job of
> putting my foot in my mouth this far, I believe that
> I should do a bit of clarification here...I take
> issue with the notion that what I was proposing to
> do is not archaeology, and that it is essentially
> "ripping" features out of their context with heavy
> machinery. I think that there may be a bit of miscommunication, which 
> is my fault, but I would hold off on the ethical judgements. This 
> situation is far more complex than I have expessed so far, but
> I don't believe that its appropriate to go into
> specifics on the list at this time. 
> 
> What I will say is that we have done a great deal of preparation, 
> historical research, and field investigation prior to our 
> contemplation of appropriate excavation methods. We have done our
> best to establish the context for the features we've
> encountered, both historically and archaeologically.
> Again, all features we have encountered so far have
> been recorded to the best of our abilities. Our
> problem here lies in our approach towards especially
> deep features with a high density of artifacts. As
> I've already established, there are significant
> constraints upon our time, finances, and site
> security here, but that doesn't mean that I'm going
> to compromise my ethics in order to beat the clock
> and save some cash. 
> 
> My primary concern is for the resource, bottom line.
> As I've said before, the use of heavy equipment
> isn't ideal, but it is neccessary here. We will hand
> excavate as much as we can within OSHA guidelines
> (up to 4 feet without benching or other
> reinforcement), but there comes a time when it is
> more efficient and safe to use heavy equipment to
> aid in digging these deep features. With that being
> said, I am not in the habit of destroying sites or disregarding 
> context.
> 
> As long as we can do it safely and within OSHA
> guidelines, we plan to trench outside of the feature
> with machinery and bisect it by hand-excavating from
> the outside towards the center. I would gladly
> consider any other methods that haven't been
> discussed so far, and I'd appreciate any guidance
> anyone else has to offer.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jane
> -------------- Original message from "William B.
> Liebeknecht" <[log in to unmask]>:
> -------------- 
> 
> 
> > Jane,
> > 
> > Having worked in the northeast for over 20 years
> and on many urban projects
> > I understand your situation and Ron's concerns.
> The reality of the
> > situation is that you have to get the most out of
> the site within the time
> > and budget you have to work within. There has been
> some great pieces of
> > work conducted by archaeologists over the years
> using backhoes (Ed Rutsch in
> > New York, John Milner Associates in Philadelphia
> to name a few). Although
> > backhoes are large pieces of machinery they can be
> very effective tools in
> > the hands of a good operator guided by an
> experienced archaeologist. We
> > typically excavate a portion of the properties
> with smaller block style
> > open-area excavations down to sterile soils
> followed by stripping to expose
> > trash pits (which are typically single episode
> events) and shafts (privies,
> > well and cistern). You also tend to pick up
> drainage features in this
> > manner. At this point the safest way to excavate
> shaft features is by
> > excavating a sloped (using OSHA standards) trench
> along the outside of the
> > shaft. As the trench get deeper you simply
> dismantle one side and reveal
> > the straticgraphic profile removing contexts by
> last in first out principles
> > (take soil samples for flotation). This method
> allows sunlight to give you
> > a much better picture of the deposits. Many of
> these shafts were
> > periodically cleaned and filled quickly in
> response to local ordinances when
> > city sewer and water were connected. The major
> fill episodes can be very
> > informative and sometimes you get substantial
> deposits in the lower portions
> > of the shafts where the honey dippers could not or
> did not reach. These
> > lower deposits will date to earlier occupations
> and reveal a different
> > picture of the former residence such as different
> ethnicity especially with
> > tenants.
> > 
> > Bill Liebeknecht MA
> > Principal Investigator 
> > Hunter Research, Inc. 
> > Trenton, NJ 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jane
> > Lee
> > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:57 AM 
> > To: [log in to unmask] 
> > Subject: Re: Urban archaeology methods question 
> > 
> > 
> > I totally appreciate your concern for context,
> Ron. That is a serious
> > concern for me as well, and that concern is really
> what prompted my post. I
> > wouldn't rely on heavy equipment if I didn't feel
> that it was absolutely
> > necessary in this situation. However, Mike has hit
> the nail right on the
> > head. Although I don't feel that it's a good idea
> to go into too many site
> > specific details, I'll suffice it to say we are
> working within some real
> > time, money, and crew constraints. Not to mentions
> that this area is
> > notorious for being home to some pretty brazen
> collectors with Bobcats. So,
> > we are looking to be able to record and collect as
> much detailed information
> > 
> > as possible (again, I agree, context IS key) as
> effectively, efficiently,
> > and safely as possible. Therefore, I'm hoping that
> there are a few of you
> > HISTARCHer's that might be able to offer some
> advice, insight, or
> > methodology that could aid in data collection.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Jane 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:38 PM 
> > Subject: Re: Urban archaeology methods question 
> > 
> > 
> > > While I can appreciate Ron's appeal to detailed
> excavation methods, much
> > > of
> > > what one can and cannot do in urban excavations
> is entirely situational.
> > > If
> > > you have lots of time and lots of money,
> detailed work is, hands down,
> > > most
> > > important. That is not usually the case, though,
> and you have to opt to
> > > get the
> > > highest return for the effort. 
> > > 
> > > We had a situation in Ogden some years ago where
> we were allowed only a
> > > week
> > > or so to excavate up to 25 privies, ash pits and
> cultural midden areas in
> > > a
> > > late 19th-early 20th Century residential area.
> We put a lot of effort
> > > into it,
> > > but used heavy equipment where we could to
> expose and dig around the
> > > perimeter
> > > of identified features. We were kicked off of
> the site before we could
> > > finish
> > > and ended up leaving many privies unexcavated.
> They were subsequently
> > > bulldozed for construction.
> > > 
> > > While you want to control the context of the
> data you reteive as much as
> > > possible, time and money will end up dictating,
> to some degree, what you
> > > can and
> > > cannot do. 
> > > 
> > > Mike Polk
> > > Sagebrush Consultants 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com