19th June 2008, 11:25 AM
I agree with all the sentiments expressed here that we don?t know the details of any particular case that this may be and we should treat it as a nameless example, and ignore the possibly quite innocent enquiry made by Achingtrenchhead.
As Oldgirl points out, evaluation techniques work on the law of diminishing returns but this only assumes that each technique is successful and those of us with some years experience know that this isn?t always the case. Geophysics will not detect all archaeological anomalies, trial trenches will be excavated too shallow or will miss archaeological features by mislocation or targeting natural phenomena, commonly SMR records can be sparse for prehistory and indulged by the Roman period onwards (depending where in the UK), for example. Therefore, just because the evaluatory techniques are apparently diminishing the likelihood of archaeology coupled with the variables of not being an exact science does not necessary mean that archaeology does not exist. I find it hard to fathom that a curator or consultant can believe so much in what is already known of the archaeology in a given area that they believe nothing else exists. And of course, nothing will exist if it is not found, and it will not be found if a trained and capable archaeologist isn?t looking for it. I do believe that is the law of self-fulfilling prophecy, and conveniently so.
By the way, I have known curators to insist on watching briefs (including trenching) in areas blank of archaeology purely for the reason that nothing is known about these locations and there is a desire to understand why and if that is the actual case.
As Oldgirl points out, evaluation techniques work on the law of diminishing returns but this only assumes that each technique is successful and those of us with some years experience know that this isn?t always the case. Geophysics will not detect all archaeological anomalies, trial trenches will be excavated too shallow or will miss archaeological features by mislocation or targeting natural phenomena, commonly SMR records can be sparse for prehistory and indulged by the Roman period onwards (depending where in the UK), for example. Therefore, just because the evaluatory techniques are apparently diminishing the likelihood of archaeology coupled with the variables of not being an exact science does not necessary mean that archaeology does not exist. I find it hard to fathom that a curator or consultant can believe so much in what is already known of the archaeology in a given area that they believe nothing else exists. And of course, nothing will exist if it is not found, and it will not be found if a trained and capable archaeologist isn?t looking for it. I do believe that is the law of self-fulfilling prophecy, and conveniently so.
By the way, I have known curators to insist on watching briefs (including trenching) in areas blank of archaeology purely for the reason that nothing is known about these locations and there is a desire to understand why and if that is the actual case.