3rd September 2013, 06:57 PM
Jack Wrote:what are you predicting with your model? Are you predicting the location of all archaeology (known and unknown) based on a mathematical model of where known archaeology is?
Answer- 1: whatever you want? Mesolithic camp sites, roman settlements, unicorn dens, everything.
2: hmmm ok short answer is yes. Long answer is there are multiple ways to do it, all of which work. You could go it with stats- linear regression or other types of regression models. You can do it with Bayesian maths. You could create a theatrical model based on blah blah blah.
So cramming years of work into a few sentences- how was it? You understand? Next set of questions?
Unit1- yeah- so I appreciate the rewrite but I still don't follow what you are saying.
Kev- So with landscapes I completely agree with what you say. While I appreciate that HS and EH has said landscapes are important they have yet to really put their foot down. If they did than every archaeological evaluation would not just be limited to the area of development impact. Instead we would have to fit our work into the wider landscapes. I would like to see that happen but as it is laws in most countries do in fact state that 'only a certain percentage of 'archaeology' is significant enough to warrant intervention' and none of them involve landscapes (at least in practice). So when I say landscapes are a whole other discussion I means in terms of commercial work and in current settings. Maybe that will change one day but for now local authority archaeologists, in the UK, are not putting planning permissions based on landscapes.
I should ask what you definition of archaeology is? Would a plowed field be considered archaeology? Even if you consider everything archaeology you will still have areas where you will not find any man made objects or alterations (excluding things like felling trees and causing erosion, global warming etc.) So even if you are only predicting everything that is person made PM still works.