26th August 2013, 07:30 PM
Tool Wrote:Are there many parts of Britain where you could guarantee there is no archaeology without some form of investigation? That would seem rather a dangerous assumption to me. But then I am new to this game.
Hi tool yes in answer to your question there's are loads of areas without archaeology!
To elaborate on my earlier point which I know David will back up we certainly do too many evaluations in Scotland, the density of sites is less than in england and there are lots of interventions without results. The 70% figure for interventions has been true for 10 years. My personal response is that if there is no known archaeology within 500 m of the site then no archaeology should be done, although this rule should be tempered with precisely how big the development are is. Do we have any figures for postive results for prospective evaluations in areas without previous remains?
I also suspect that lots of stuff is missed because the default evaluation product is negative results because that's what most people find.
I would rather have less and it all done better!