11th February 2008, 07:29 PM
Thanks for that Paul.... it is indeed true... in many respects, especially when dealing with complex sub surface or unusual archaeology.. I would hope though that
a) a digger will be able to dig a ditch stratigraphically whether it is in Scotland or Jersey.. and that the idea that a digger should have proven competance in a specific area prior to going on a site, where you don't know what you are going to find anyway is strange... iron age diggers come across a mesolithic site... Aieeee! sack em all and get in mesolithic specialist diggers...
What I would content is that field survey which is non intrunive does not need even that level of competance... you jsut need to be able to recognise a pot or flint when you see it.. and I seriously hope that competant archaeologists can do that... I always found that going abroad and digging say mud brick architecture allowed me to view turf built architecture remains better in the UK... conversely, digging deep strat sites in the UK (York for example) helped me to deal with complicated stratigraphy on Sassanian sites in the UAE.
Archaeology - by my definition - is a universal truth... (or at least an attempt at it) where data collection at the most basic level requires nothing more than the ability to collect the data in such a way that it can be interpreted... otherwise, as you state, the people who should winh the job in middleshire county should be the middleshire archaeology trust... which is quite clearly not happening... it goes to a company, who has the ability to carry out the job (and is often cheaper!)
Hypothetically, if a person was told they should stay within their geographical and temporal area (though for myself, I would say Everywhere and Everytime
at least in the case of survey ) they would laugh heartily and say... aye... that'll be right!.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
a) a digger will be able to dig a ditch stratigraphically whether it is in Scotland or Jersey.. and that the idea that a digger should have proven competance in a specific area prior to going on a site, where you don't know what you are going to find anyway is strange... iron age diggers come across a mesolithic site... Aieeee! sack em all and get in mesolithic specialist diggers...
What I would content is that field survey which is non intrunive does not need even that level of competance... you jsut need to be able to recognise a pot or flint when you see it.. and I seriously hope that competant archaeologists can do that... I always found that going abroad and digging say mud brick architecture allowed me to view turf built architecture remains better in the UK... conversely, digging deep strat sites in the UK (York for example) helped me to deal with complicated stratigraphy on Sassanian sites in the UAE.
Archaeology - by my definition - is a universal truth... (or at least an attempt at it) where data collection at the most basic level requires nothing more than the ability to collect the data in such a way that it can be interpreted... otherwise, as you state, the people who should winh the job in middleshire county should be the middleshire archaeology trust... which is quite clearly not happening... it goes to a company, who has the ability to carry out the job (and is often cheaper!)
Hypothetically, if a person was told they should stay within their geographical and temporal area (though for myself, I would say Everywhere and Everytime
at least in the case of survey ) they would laugh heartily and say... aye... that'll be right!. "No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu