16th November 2010, 02:17 PM
Ah, maybe you miss my point or I didn't make it well enough. Take the case of building a wallacross say the corner of a IA/RB settlement. The area of impact is well defined as a 100m long 5m wide area. The client has 'bought' that area of ground. The ground outside this area is owned by a farmer.
Now the excavation goes ahead, the archaeological remains are recorded in the impact area. The archaeological remains are a complex of intercut gullies, postholes bounded by big ditches, but only native courseware pottery is found within the ditches.
The 'site' as excavated cannot be fully understood, as it is only part of a settlement, it can't even be properly phased as there is no information on what the features do outside of the excavated area, and without multiple determination radiocarbon dating of every feature it'll be impossible to phase features seperated by any areas of no archaeology.
Are you now saying the client should pay for more of the settlement, outside of the area of impact to be investigated in order that the excavated remains can be understood? I doubt it.
Now the excavation goes ahead, the archaeological remains are recorded in the impact area. The archaeological remains are a complex of intercut gullies, postholes bounded by big ditches, but only native courseware pottery is found within the ditches.
The 'site' as excavated cannot be fully understood, as it is only part of a settlement, it can't even be properly phased as there is no information on what the features do outside of the excavated area, and without multiple determination radiocarbon dating of every feature it'll be impossible to phase features seperated by any areas of no archaeology.
Are you now saying the client should pay for more of the settlement, outside of the area of impact to be investigated in order that the excavated remains can be understood? I doubt it.