25th March 2014, 01:21 PM
BAJR Wrote:With you there PP/ going over known sites is not really that helpful, given that it is more shooting fish in barrel, rather than benefiting archaeology for all.
Interstingly, was chatting to a digger today about Topsoil archaeology - and how it is often forgotten prior to the eval. that lithic scatter, the broken pottery or the concentration of stones. all give vital clues to what is beneath, and if done properly, can be a damn sight cheaper than the eval trench. to give an indication. Like anything it comes back to recording and reporting - and the will to do it and the ability to access the information.
oh and Bainsey... what question have I removed? don't remember doing that. though the forum is having a few weird issues just now, including images not uploading and even my own posts going to moderation... !
I do hope Mr Barford has taken a quote and twisted it... into. something like " Mr, D. evil In carnate Connolly says that detecting should be allowed to strip all artefacts from the world. " It normally is something like that - I would expect no less. Anyways... he is never going to be much use in a debate. and this is a fascinating discussion. Good luck with the new book
I may be missing something really obvious, but then this thread is missing something really obvious. Where is the original question? The thread is called 'A question if you please' but starts with what is surely an answer. I'm not suggesting anything has been redacted but you can surely see why it might be confusing.
As for topsoil - where you've got some the impact of metal detecting is perhaps debatable, where you haven't it is potentially devastating.
PS I'm only commenting on this thread on the off chance that Mr Barford might mention it on his blog. Will have to try something more controversial.