15th April 2014, 06:03 PM
It's easy to prove neo pits aren't there. You just have to look for features properly, then if there are none, eliminate the possible reasons why you didn't find any..........and hopefully what you end with is a proof (beyond all reasonable doubt) that no pits were dug there in the neolithic period.....wasn't me by the way...........think the paper was by Jan Harding.....its one of Dinos favourites...............Dino?
But I know where you are going, archaeological features get missed, either through ground conditions, inexperience with the local geology, time pressures, methodologies etc etc. On larger scale projects like a pipeline you can look at a long stripe, assess the factors that may affect the visibility or survivability of archaeology and plot where stuff isn't, then think about why it isn't/wasn't there and look for supporting evidence.
I think there is too much focus in archaeology on where stuff is, without fully understanding where stuff isn't, or even where no one has ever looked for it............too much 'think of a theory', e.g. round barrows are on tops of a hill, then look for evidence that supports the theory, 'look there's one on a hill, oh and another, it must be a fact.'
Too little focus on a) where have we looked, b) where haven't we looked, c) where are the zones of preservation, d) where are the zones of destruction
not to mention too few large databases of the actual evidence, and too little analytical interrogation of said databases.
As for negative results from watching briefs and evaluations...........if both have been carried out well and the methodologies and limiting factors are known and stated, then these can be incorporated within the general distribution patterns as blanks (with provisos!)
But I know where you are going, archaeological features get missed, either through ground conditions, inexperience with the local geology, time pressures, methodologies etc etc. On larger scale projects like a pipeline you can look at a long stripe, assess the factors that may affect the visibility or survivability of archaeology and plot where stuff isn't, then think about why it isn't/wasn't there and look for supporting evidence.
I think there is too much focus in archaeology on where stuff is, without fully understanding where stuff isn't, or even where no one has ever looked for it............too much 'think of a theory', e.g. round barrows are on tops of a hill, then look for evidence that supports the theory, 'look there's one on a hill, oh and another, it must be a fact.'
Too little focus on a) where have we looked, b) where haven't we looked, c) where are the zones of preservation, d) where are the zones of destruction
not to mention too few large databases of the actual evidence, and too little analytical interrogation of said databases.
As for negative results from watching briefs and evaluations...........if both have been carried out well and the methodologies and limiting factors are known and stated, then these can be incorporated within the general distribution patterns as blanks (with provisos!)