2nd September 2013, 02:21 PM
I feel I should add a little bit as well. now that we have wandered so far from the path of Free archaeology that it is but a distant memory.
As another Scottish ex Plannning Archaeologist I suffered the same fab hit rate of conditions placed to archaeology found. for me it became more and more down to Predictive Terrain Analysis. and the better my previously non existent HER got, the better it got. The trouble is regionalisation. In England from about Northumberland downwards, there seems to be more archaeology than you can shake a stick at ( and here I must clarify - I agree with Kevin that the whole land is archaeoogy - and it has won me money as I challenge anyone to find a place that has not been affected by the hand or influence of man ( I know one but ain't telling you... ) it is what you want to record that matters and then you have the chance find...
I recently carried out an eval... one that I brought the 10% down to 5% for the client, as I predicted ( rightly) that there would be no significant archaeology. There was relict Rig and Furrow. but recording was enough. if there ever had been bronze age temples or Iron Age huts, they were long gone, and the material remains are not quite like what you get in south England. as in... bggr all.
I am quite clear that I prefer only to take on work that the possibiltiy of finding a site is minimal and pass onto others, work that has potential... potential because mainly we already know it is there... or at the very least it should be there.
THe tricky bit is to know which bit we can say... listen... forget it... and which bits will we go... ah.... wish I had done that.
I sit more into the archaeoogyexile camp than you would suppose. we do need a debate to answer the question of cost benefit to the client. and justification to the planning department.
As Red Earth say... finding nothing is difficult. finding something significant enough to warrant further work however is harder still. and the finding something... was this something we would reasonably already know?
As another Scottish ex Plannning Archaeologist I suffered the same fab hit rate of conditions placed to archaeology found. for me it became more and more down to Predictive Terrain Analysis. and the better my previously non existent HER got, the better it got. The trouble is regionalisation. In England from about Northumberland downwards, there seems to be more archaeology than you can shake a stick at ( and here I must clarify - I agree with Kevin that the whole land is archaeoogy - and it has won me money as I challenge anyone to find a place that has not been affected by the hand or influence of man ( I know one but ain't telling you... ) it is what you want to record that matters and then you have the chance find...
I recently carried out an eval... one that I brought the 10% down to 5% for the client, as I predicted ( rightly) that there would be no significant archaeology. There was relict Rig and Furrow. but recording was enough. if there ever had been bronze age temples or Iron Age huts, they were long gone, and the material remains are not quite like what you get in south England. as in... bggr all.
I am quite clear that I prefer only to take on work that the possibiltiy of finding a site is minimal and pass onto others, work that has potential... potential because mainly we already know it is there... or at the very least it should be there.
THe tricky bit is to know which bit we can say... listen... forget it... and which bits will we go... ah.... wish I had done that.
I sit more into the archaeoogyexile camp than you would suppose. we do need a debate to answer the question of cost benefit to the client. and justification to the planning department.
As Red Earth say... finding nothing is difficult. finding something significant enough to warrant further work however is harder still. and the finding something... was this something we would reasonably already know?