16th January 2008, 09:37 PM
Yes publically funded archaeology should be open to scrutiny.
The point I was making is that much fieldwork is done to determine the presence/absence and importance of a site which triggers a planning decision.
In the main as I say artefacts metal or none metal will not make the difference about the importance of the site ie is it nationally important or not and thus if pp will be refused or preservation in situ is required.
At the excavation stage there is a debate to be had about how artefacts should be recovered from the topsoil.
OK so I pose this real question when human remains are excavated any soil that has to be removed has to be free of bone. What does free mean in this context do particiles less than 1mm, 10mm or 100mm have to be removed. To achieve 1mm all soild would have to be seived in a lab and impossible task.
So I pose the question can we recover 100% of artefacts in any situation in any event.
Peter
The point I was making is that much fieldwork is done to determine the presence/absence and importance of a site which triggers a planning decision.
In the main as I say artefacts metal or none metal will not make the difference about the importance of the site ie is it nationally important or not and thus if pp will be refused or preservation in situ is required.
At the excavation stage there is a debate to be had about how artefacts should be recovered from the topsoil.
OK so I pose this real question when human remains are excavated any soil that has to be removed has to be free of bone. What does free mean in this context do particiles less than 1mm, 10mm or 100mm have to be removed. To achieve 1mm all soild would have to be seived in a lab and impossible task.
So I pose the question can we recover 100% of artefacts in any situation in any event.
Peter