8th April 2013, 08:59 PM
Obviously >> Default : yes - unless, logical argument not to...
there should be an assumption towards demonstrating and providing evidence for claims that archaeology is not present...there should be a traceable/accountable argument if this is not the case.
lots of subtle archaeology can be lost very easily when open-area & eval-trenches are not carefully examination at the correct C or B horizons. (never mind in urban situations !)
'Cleaning' with a machine bucket ('ah yesss, precious clean natural') is frequently vastly inferior, especially if there is anything at all worth finding.
This does not mean all trenches must be fully hand cleaned. As others have said, it is a situational balance, understood through experience. But it should all be open to third party examination, so when a decision is taken to machine deeper, or not clean by hand, it should be a traceable and active decision.
(generally)Crude Methods = crude 'tick-box' results, missing subtle and highly informative details, but apparently passing as acceptable work by bodies such as the IFA, and also the County Archaeologists who sign-off on such work.
I and certainly others have many examples of such shoddiness, where genuinely interesting archaeology was nearly missed because of a lack of cleaning (especially when clearly defined featurs are also present).
This is even acknowledged (kind of) in the non-sense document that seems to have kickstatred the current incarnation of the 'eval-thing' (Hey et al > Archaeological Decision Making) ... i.e. systematic bias against ephemeral and less well defined archaeology, especially in regard of prehistory..........
So,
Experience is essential and necessary > > > but it is not sufficient > indeed the same mistakes can probably be made by some individuals for decades...
there should be an assumption towards demonstrating and providing evidence for claims that archaeology is not present...there should be a traceable/accountable argument if this is not the case.
lots of subtle archaeology can be lost very easily when open-area & eval-trenches are not carefully examination at the correct C or B horizons. (never mind in urban situations !)
'Cleaning' with a machine bucket ('ah yesss, precious clean natural') is frequently vastly inferior, especially if there is anything at all worth finding.
This does not mean all trenches must be fully hand cleaned. As others have said, it is a situational balance, understood through experience. But it should all be open to third party examination, so when a decision is taken to machine deeper, or not clean by hand, it should be a traceable and active decision.
(generally)Crude Methods = crude 'tick-box' results, missing subtle and highly informative details, but apparently passing as acceptable work by bodies such as the IFA, and also the County Archaeologists who sign-off on such work.
I and certainly others have many examples of such shoddiness, where genuinely interesting archaeology was nearly missed because of a lack of cleaning (especially when clearly defined featurs are also present).
This is even acknowledged (kind of) in the non-sense document that seems to have kickstatred the current incarnation of the 'eval-thing' (Hey et al > Archaeological Decision Making) ... i.e. systematic bias against ephemeral and less well defined archaeology, especially in regard of prehistory..........
So,
Experience is essential and necessary > > > but it is not sufficient > indeed the same mistakes can probably be made by some individuals for decades...