21st March 2010, 02:38 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:thank you midi - i think i may have learned something (and i have worked in the City) - thanks for taking the time....
i am not particuarly knowledgeable in this subject - but i am hotter on formation process and rationale/scientific methodology - i think some of these problems are wider/re-occuring and lead to poor consideration of factors and evidence that should/could be bread&butter to proggresive/advanced 21st c. archaeology...
in my experience, any 'early periods/phases' are rountinley subjected to increased risk of Commercial methodological stupidity....but the piont is that the same kind of daft thinking can affect material of any period...unfortunatley, such interlectualy shoddy work also routinley meets 'minimum standards', and as such is beyond imediate reproach...
From a practical POV if units continually avoid confronting these units and minimizing the research footprint to lower costs then you have entered aworld of declining standards by default.. which is Ironic since a lot of mitigation is built on the premise of living stuff in situ for future generations when techniques will be better :face-confused:
If you stick to research agendas that do not question the status quo then we empower those voices that argue that minimum work needs to be done because we understand everything.. which is exactly the technique used by the consultants of dubious integrity. And its a downwards spiral from there on..
however if you argue that we don't understand it at all a sea change can take place because everybody is now in a new place...
mystery=more money!
it has to be this way... if you can demonstrate that less money =perpetually the wrong answer!
We are all guilty of unspoken colusion where we all pretend we know what we are doing thus not bringing archaeology into disrepute... fook that