16th November 2010, 10:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 17th November 2010, 01:56 PM by Jack.)
Gnome King
I think I disagree with much of what you said apart from your main point. Yes the point at where archaeological recording stops on a commercial job is the key issue.
However, it is possible to record without interpretation as
1)most excavations follow a pretty much standard project design.
2) The important analysis and interpretation happens in post-ex
3) Not all commercial sites can be understood - think a hole in a road for a water pipe directional drilling launch pit where bits of archaeology are recorded
Questions of objectivity are a moot point if a site is written up properly.
Also why should a client pay for a 'site' to be understood? Surely they should only pay to mitigate the damage they will cause. Also in this day and age of landscape archaeology, where does one site end and another start?
I think I disagree with much of what you said apart from your main point. Yes the point at where archaeological recording stops on a commercial job is the key issue.
However, it is possible to record without interpretation as
1)most excavations follow a pretty much standard project design.
2) The important analysis and interpretation happens in post-ex
3) Not all commercial sites can be understood - think a hole in a road for a water pipe directional drilling launch pit where bits of archaeology are recorded
Questions of objectivity are a moot point if a site is written up properly.
Also why should a client pay for a 'site' to be understood? Surely they should only pay to mitigate the damage they will cause. Also in this day and age of landscape archaeology, where does one site end and another start?