12th February 2007, 06:55 PM
beamo,
I understand the argument and may possibly even agree with it. I don't understand why such arguments are routinely applied to large sites but not as often to smaller ones. Are we not wasting our best opportunities to understand the whole story of a site, just because the archaeological bill might look too big? If so, then archaeology is being as spineless as ever.
I understand the argument and may possibly even agree with it. I don't understand why such arguments are routinely applied to large sites but not as often to smaller ones. Are we not wasting our best opportunities to understand the whole story of a site, just because the archaeological bill might look too big? If so, then archaeology is being as spineless as ever.