10th November 2005, 11:44 AM
Venutius,
29 ? As far as I can recall I?ve only worked on one site where remains of national importance were unexpectedly discovered. In that instance the unit I was working for informed English Heritage. Because of the nature of the remains and the circumstances surrounding planning consents etc., English Heritage funded much of the work in excavating and reporting the discovery.
31 ? Most specifications state that all features must be excavated, though not totally. The usual spec. will state 50% sampling of discrete features such as pits/postholes, and 10% sampling of linears such as ditches. In most cases this is sufficient to date and characterise the archaeology, though on quite a few of the sites I?ve worked on 100% excavation has occurred.
32 ? Who knows how they?ll be viewed, but probably much better than records from 50 years ago are now. The artefacts are much more likely to exist than if they were left in the ground to either decay naturally or be damaged by ploughing, and huge amounts of time, money and effort go into conserving what we dig up. Regarding accessibility of records, these all get deposited along with the artefacts in the relevant museum, and with advances such as the Archaeological Data Service things have improved dramatically.
29 ? As far as I can recall I?ve only worked on one site where remains of national importance were unexpectedly discovered. In that instance the unit I was working for informed English Heritage. Because of the nature of the remains and the circumstances surrounding planning consents etc., English Heritage funded much of the work in excavating and reporting the discovery.
31 ? Most specifications state that all features must be excavated, though not totally. The usual spec. will state 50% sampling of discrete features such as pits/postholes, and 10% sampling of linears such as ditches. In most cases this is sufficient to date and characterise the archaeology, though on quite a few of the sites I?ve worked on 100% excavation has occurred.
32 ? Who knows how they?ll be viewed, but probably much better than records from 50 years ago are now. The artefacts are much more likely to exist than if they were left in the ground to either decay naturally or be damaged by ploughing, and huge amounts of time, money and effort go into conserving what we dig up. Regarding accessibility of records, these all get deposited along with the artefacts in the relevant museum, and with advances such as the Archaeological Data Service things have improved dramatically.