22nd December 2012, 09:52 PM
redexile Wrote:Red Earth: 1) The 1960's dig was done when medieval archaeology as a discipline was effectively less than 10 years old. The dig was a rescue job by some academics and students in a city. For nothing. The modern one was done in response to a brief in a well-known Roman and medieval town by one of the largest commercial archaeology units in the country, and produced a group of pottery that a specialist would have reported on (well, me anyway) for less than fifty quid. The report also did not fulfil the brief, as the local type-series wasn't used.
It's useful to have some context, thanks, although still difficult to compare the two. Far more useful to compare like with like. Just cos an excavation was carried out in the 60s, when the discipline was young doesn't mean it wasn't well or even over-resourced by comparison with something developer-funded - presumably included access to free labour, university-based specialists on hand, free or subsidised equipment and space, as much time as you need for post-ex. Sounds great!
Anyway, not to have a go. I totally agree with many or even most of the points made, especially when, as you say, you can get a good specialist report for not much cash. I am pretty sick of seeing reports that can't even be bothered with that, although mostly the one-man-band type outfits in my experience.