10th September 2008, 03:40 PM
And how would you then propose reducing evaluation costs to whatever you consider to be reasonable?
It seems to me that there are only two ways to do this. Either under-cut tendering to such low levels that work is undertaken at a negative, or reduce the amount of evaluation area, if you are talking trenching. This quite obviously reduces the level of understanding across any site, and would increase the risk of remains of unidentified significance/volume/value being taken as a direct hit. Not good for developer or the archaeology.
See the Hey and Lacey PLANARCH volume for a very helpful discussion of evaluation percentages and strategies, which concludes that around 5% of a rural site gives maximium understanding for greatest efficicency.
ML
It seems to me that there are only two ways to do this. Either under-cut tendering to such low levels that work is undertaken at a negative, or reduce the amount of evaluation area, if you are talking trenching. This quite obviously reduces the level of understanding across any site, and would increase the risk of remains of unidentified significance/volume/value being taken as a direct hit. Not good for developer or the archaeology.
See the Hey and Lacey PLANARCH volume for a very helpful discussion of evaluation percentages and strategies, which concludes that around 5% of a rural site gives maximium understanding for greatest efficicency.
ML