22nd November 2005, 08:24 PM
Quote:quote:Any more desperate attempts anyone?
Troll- Not sure I get what you mean here. Arguing that ploughing has damaged/is damaging a site is not an argument against digging it, just an argument against preservation in-situ.
I learnt something of interest on this subject recently. I've often wondered why agricultural topsoil is usually 0.30m deep. The reason apparently is that's the standard depth the plough is set at (except for potatoes I understand). So, if you have 0.30m of topsoil over natural then the ground level is stable, or erosion is reducing it and archaeological features are slowly being removed. If there is more than 0.30m over natural, and/or a sub-soil/ b-horizon is present, then the ground is being built up and the archaeology is probably not being destroyed.
Any problems with this hypothesis? I'd be curious to know especially from soil scientists or farmers.[?]