11th October 2010, 09:53 PM
agreed, plus in my experience (of both small, medium, large and hyper-large assemblages), piling on more processors and osteologists is no more a practicable or desirable method than trying to squeeze ever more diggers onto a site.
A medium scale cemetery /crypt clearance may take several months to excavate all the phases, this is followed by a PX-assessment which must wait for the longest task to be completed before it can be written, and only then can the sample be selected and any analysis carried out with any appropriate scientific tests. It doesn't take long for this to push to two years. This is above and beyond any issues concerning wider regional research aims and archived assemblages being re-assessed or new techniques being applied which is a whole separate can of worms.
BUT, reading the article I can't actually see what actually triggered this article? The current licences allow for longer retention, as did the old ones, so apart from repeat paperwork what is the change? It almost reads to me like a press release from the Stonehenge Project which has led to the journalist pursuing a slight tangent?
And as for objecting to screening burials, I personally believe they should be screened, although visitors should be welcome where possible. Just where do you draw the line on screening? Do you screen a waterlogged burial ground where there is skin and muscle and body liquor floating about? Post med burial sites with surviving hair and skin and fatty deposits? Not all burial sites are nice dry bones.
A medium scale cemetery /crypt clearance may take several months to excavate all the phases, this is followed by a PX-assessment which must wait for the longest task to be completed before it can be written, and only then can the sample be selected and any analysis carried out with any appropriate scientific tests. It doesn't take long for this to push to two years. This is above and beyond any issues concerning wider regional research aims and archived assemblages being re-assessed or new techniques being applied which is a whole separate can of worms.
BUT, reading the article I can't actually see what actually triggered this article? The current licences allow for longer retention, as did the old ones, so apart from repeat paperwork what is the change? It almost reads to me like a press release from the Stonehenge Project which has led to the journalist pursuing a slight tangent?
And as for objecting to screening burials, I personally believe they should be screened, although visitors should be welcome where possible. Just where do you draw the line on screening? Do you screen a waterlogged burial ground where there is skin and muscle and body liquor floating about? Post med burial sites with surviving hair and skin and fatty deposits? Not all burial sites are nice dry bones.