16th November 2010, 06:09 PM
Surely this has to be reflected in the research design for the project?
If the archaeological resource under threat can only be understood by excavating a larger area, then either the proposal is turned down at the planning stage (as it construes in effect unquantifiable destruction of a finite resource) or the area of the archaeological excavation is made larger to enable adequate recording and interpretation. The very fact that in Jack's example the site cuts the corner of a known IA/RB settlement to my mind establishes the requirement for further research in advance of, or to accompany the recorded results of the excavation. That might easily be some form of non-intrusive geophysical survey; it mght be integration of the results of the new works with the previous archaeological work that established the presence of the settlement. The advantage to the developer of agreeing to fund such work is the resultant planning permission.
If the archaeological resource under threat can only be understood by excavating a larger area, then either the proposal is turned down at the planning stage (as it construes in effect unquantifiable destruction of a finite resource) or the area of the archaeological excavation is made larger to enable adequate recording and interpretation. The very fact that in Jack's example the site cuts the corner of a known IA/RB settlement to my mind establishes the requirement for further research in advance of, or to accompany the recorded results of the excavation. That might easily be some form of non-intrusive geophysical survey; it mght be integration of the results of the new works with the previous archaeological work that established the presence of the settlement. The advantage to the developer of agreeing to fund such work is the resultant planning permission.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...