9th September 2011, 02:43 PM
Just to clarify, my previous statement was that if a site will subsequently be totally destroyed by a development, I'd expect 100% excavation to be the starting position - after all, if the whole hillside is going to be removed by surface mining, preservation in situ of the unexcavated portion of the site is not going to be a realistic option. I've worked on sites where other sampling strategies have been used, but unless the methodology for preservation is realistic and credible across the whole period of construction and use, I'm never entirely convinced by leaving a partially-excavated site to the less-than-tender mercies of a construction firm.
So far as I can see, the main arguments for sample excavation in that sort of situation seem to come from the building firms - 'it'll take too long / cost too much to fully excavate, we're prepared to allow sample excavation to understand / characterise the site'. A lot of archaeological contractors seem to collude in this, recommending sample excavation because they don't think their client will wear the cost of 100%, and it's in this sort of situation that I'd hope the Council archaeologist would have the bottle to insist that if a site will be destroyed by the development, it should be fully excavated first (of course, I realise that even if such a recommendation is made, it may not be enforced by the planner or planning committee, who'll also have the developer whinging on at them about how the cost of dealing with archaeology is endangering local jobs, homes, growth and the future of all humanity).
I also accept that there are other situations where a percentage sampling strategy will be appropriate, particularly where it relates to areas that won't be directly affected by development, or where preservation in situ can be secured. In those sorts of cases, I'd agree that excavation should be limited to as little as may be needed to understand the site, on the basis that the surviving percentage can be left intact for the future.
So far as I can see, the main arguments for sample excavation in that sort of situation seem to come from the building firms - 'it'll take too long / cost too much to fully excavate, we're prepared to allow sample excavation to understand / characterise the site'. A lot of archaeological contractors seem to collude in this, recommending sample excavation because they don't think their client will wear the cost of 100%, and it's in this sort of situation that I'd hope the Council archaeologist would have the bottle to insist that if a site will be destroyed by the development, it should be fully excavated first (of course, I realise that even if such a recommendation is made, it may not be enforced by the planner or planning committee, who'll also have the developer whinging on at them about how the cost of dealing with archaeology is endangering local jobs, homes, growth and the future of all humanity).
I also accept that there are other situations where a percentage sampling strategy will be appropriate, particularly where it relates to areas that won't be directly affected by development, or where preservation in situ can be secured. In those sorts of cases, I'd agree that excavation should be limited to as little as may be needed to understand the site, on the basis that the surviving percentage can be left intact for the future.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum