23rd July 2013, 03:05 PM
Unit, I'm well aware of the fact that archaeological deposits get destroyed left, right, and centre. As a "profession" we only ever see a fraction of the deposits that get churned up, so there's no point rushing round to deal with more at the expense of quality. Even if you dropped recording altogether and just rushed out to dig and "see", how much do you really think you could catch? Instead of a good record of a smaller amount of sites, your philosophy would give us a uselessly poor record of a slightly bigger slice of the tiny fraction of deposits we eget to know about before they get destroyed - seems to me that's a poor trade.
I know it gets in the way of earning a bigger paycheck on more sites, but then anyone in this game "for the money" is playing a mug's game. After all, it (like most intellectual pursuits) started as a rich man's hobby...
I know it gets in the way of earning a bigger paycheck on more sites, but then anyone in this game "for the money" is playing a mug's game. After all, it (like most intellectual pursuits) started as a rich man's hobby...