30th April 2012, 01:08 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:maybe so rare in fact that taking a "sample" is not an aid to excavation and has little to do with identifying the context which is what the digger (field archaeologist) do-mostly by seeing, with a bit of touch and occational sniff and taste. Basically the sample is an artifact like any other find found in the context, and its the context that the digger does see.
and which is why mosts samples retrived from ditches only reinforce the bleeding obvious - that they had been a ditch fill. I had a brief the other day which said that I was to sample all peat deposits I encountered. I hope that a peat sample will come back as its not peat but something else and I will get to say chuck it because I was told to sample peat deposits. but then these brief writers like to let you know whoe is in charge
A post like this just reinforces the view that you have no understanding of what archaeology is, or what kinds of evidence are important. Or what is required in the regional research frameworks or why.
So the question is, why are you allowed to undertake archaeological projects?