7th January 2013, 09:39 PM
P Prentice Wrote:1% is cetainly derisory but is it the case that it is to be weighted towards the county boundary or similar? certainly highlights the amazing vaguaries of curatorial rationale. pity the regional research framework programme never really addressed this issue sufficiently well to aid the beleagured and bereft planning archaeologists
I get the distinct impression that most of the DCA sampling strategies are simply pulled out of thin air - I've certainly never seen convincing, stats-based support for any of them (unless some of the sages on here know otherwise....), although a statistics professor did once tell me that we should be digging 100% of everything as that would still only be a tiny sample of what was originally there in artefact terms. I have it from a very reliable source that the 2% sample that was "the standard" for a long time was literally made up on the spot in the late 80s when one of the pioneers of contract tender was asked what level of sampling he intended to use.
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler