BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Free archaeology
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
P Prentice Wrote:two contradictory statements methinks!

I hate to say this but Unit I like you as Unit of 1 not your alter ego P Prentice or vice verse, is Unit the alter ego? I am not actually sure who is supposed to be who, anyone has a theory please do share. I may not understand everything you say as Unit of 1 but that ego of yours is a lot less nit picky than PP.

To be fair I can't understand 1/3 of what david says to me in person Wink
You understand a 2/3rd - thats better than i thought...

PP does come up with the next BIG question - and I am opening a new thread for it... To Dig or Preserve
How about prentice that once all you have left is plough soil that what ever it has in it should be ignored by archaeologists. What I mean is that you have to show, from a trench or two that no archaeological contexts remain isolated below the plough soil and that the plough soil has no stratification. I would suggest then all artefacts left in it amount to the lowest form of archaeological evidence that can be imagined, apart from an area that has been mined into natural, and that this evidence should be considered irredeemable as it is not relatable to context. We still get to put a trench in it but what ever you find in it including treasure is worthless and you can keep them as swopsies.
Doug Wrote:I hate to say this but Unit I like you as Unit of 1 not your alter ego P Prentice or vice verse, is Unit the alter ego? I am not actually sure who is supposed to be who, anyone has a theory please do share. I may not understand everything you say as Unit of 1 but that ego of yours is a lot less nit picky than PP.

To be fair I can't understand 1/3 of what david says to me in person Wink

if you make careless sweeping statements you should expect nitpickyBig Grin
Unitof1 Wrote:How about prentice that once all you have left is plough soil that what ever it has in it should be ignored by archaeologists. What I mean is that you have to show, from a trench or two that no archaeological contexts remain isolated below the plough soil and that the plough soil has no stratification. I would suggest then all artefacts left in it amount to the lowest form of archaeological evidence that can be imagined, apart from an area that has been mined into natural, and that this evidence should be considered irredeemable as it is not relatable to context. We still get to put a trench in it but what ever you find in it including treasure is worthless and you can keep them as swopsies.
yep good way of making money, but, no - because poor way of doing archaeology
P Prentice Wrote:if you make careless sweeping statements you should expect nitpickyBig Grin

Aye, ever group has that one ..... person who likes to ..... um focus on the, what's the word... irrelevant, no, maybe. Insignificant, no, maybe ... ah small details. That one person who focuses on that part of the conversation. Its a rough job, I couldn't do it, but glad someone is there to pick up the slack. Glad you fill the shoes PP :face-approve:.

I mean that without sarcasm. Sure, I find your comments a little too personal and mean spirited but I am still glad your there to force the issue of clarification.
not entirely sure about why it would be a good way of making money but what I am trying to suggest is that it could be a way of assigning a lowest level of significance to a context that has to be found by field evaluation to signify that there is no archaeology in an area. I don't think that geophysics can establish what is homogenised plough soil. It seems to me that using geophysics to deselect areas for evaluation because all that is left is plough soil or some other homogenised deposit (or select areas for less evaluation) is what dino thinks is going on with geophysics. I am trying to view the site as x for geophysics + y for evaluation (=z) which is presented as cost of archaeology. Its just x is not archaeology and cannot be added to y...
Unitof1 Wrote:...It seems to me that using geophysics to deselect areas for evaluation because all that is left is plough soil or some other homogenised deposit (or select areas for less evaluation) is what dino thinks is going on with geophysics....

Geophysics is only really any good for spotting cut features, walls, burnt things and, occasionally, stuff like surfaces, when it works at all. That's where other types of evaluation like fieldwalking come in - flint scatters are usually entirely in the topsoil and don't show on any type of geophysics, for instance, but of course usually go away when you topsoil strip, will shortly be having that one out with a client...
Doug Wrote:Aye, ever group has that one ..... person who likes to ..... um focus on the, what's the word... irrelevant, no, maybe. Insignificant, no, maybe ... ah small details. That one person who focuses on that part of the conversation. Its a rough job, I couldn't do it, but glad someone is there to pick up the slack. Glad you fill the shoes PP :face-approve:.

I mean that without sarcasm. Sure, I find your comments a little too personal and mean spirited but I am still glad your there to force the issue of clarification.

go on then - clarify just how useful pm is to archaeological theory, development control or even this thread!
unit unless you evaluate the ploughzone (within your trench) by examining everything in your machine bucket you can not claim to evaluate a site, a geophysical survey can often depict anomalies that lie within the ploughzone and nowhere else. your argument, which i understand the point of, is flawed.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19