19th September 2005, 12:27 PM
Quote:quote:1. Nationally important archaeology could be preserved in situ but is more likely to be recorded.
2. Locally and regionally important archaeology can be recorded, but might not be. Most archaeology, even that on nationally important sites, is treated in this way.
This has been my experience also. But how does the importance (National/Regional/Local) of a site get decided. Very subjective surely, and dependent on research interests of local curator and EH.
Also, the importance of a site cannot be decided without destructive evaluative work. Is that not what is happening at Thornborough at present?