on 3/13/06 9:43 AM, Jane Lee at [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
>>> Ogden, Utah 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 3/10/2006
>>> 
>>> 
Jane -  Two suggestions that may or may not help with your project:

First, in regard to deep shaft appliances....  When I worked with Louis
Berger on a large urban project in Philadelphia (7th and Arch Sts.) we used
a commercial shoring product known as "Man Guards."  These were five or six
foot long corrugated tubes that had docking collars on each end.  We'd go
down by machine excavation on the outside of the shaft and essentially
surround the feature with these "man guards."  Once these were in place we
excavated the feature from the inside out, the last step taking the brick of
the feature itself apart.  It allowed us to work in very tight spaces, a
couple of feet greater then the outside diameter of the shaft, and to do it
safely.  Since the "man guards" can be rented (and yes the safety they
afford extends to women even if the name doesn't....) it wasn't all that
expensive.  We were excavating features around high pressure city water and
gas lines, not to mention the nearby Federal Courthouse and the Federal
Reserve, and thus had to be very careful.  The use of the system in this
archaeological context was an artifact of the field archaeology genius of
Henry Holt and Kimber Budrow of that company.  And the system worked quite
well.   

Second, when using a track or back hoe I have found that the creation of
what is know as a "graveyard bucket"  makes for very clean cuts and good
archaeology.  Most operators will know what this is.  You merely weld a
piece of steel plate across the top of the teeth of the bucket thus yielding
a much smoother cutting edge.  It's amazing the profile and stratigraphy the
apparatus will expose....  Once the job is over they just break the welds
and remove the plate.


As for machinery on urban sites, in my experience at least most simply
couldn't be excavated in the East without such equipment.  There was over
nine feet of fill on top of the Philadelphia site I mention.  I'll also note
that we were very worried about gases collecting or seeping into in the deep
features.  We had the excavator on a tether at all times for remote
retrieval, and had them carry a three gas meter that acted as a canary.
Best of luck with your project.

Joe Dent
American University