20th August 2013, 01:13 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:...............
There's got to be a really good reason to waste thousands of pounds doing analysis on undated deposits (particularly at the expense of dateable ones), and if there's macro enviro material in it, why isn't it being dated anyway? Drives me up the wall, all the pollen/macros reports that go into vast detail about the sequence when they haven't bothered pinning dates on it, or, even more annoyingly, only one. Things like the Elm Decline demonstrably happen at widely different times in different places, so I'm amazed people still get away with using stuff like that as their dating tool
I think the dating issue with respect to analysis of palaeoenvironmental data is being confused in this discussion. Research is very different to commercial post-ex.
In the latter we only do what is reasonable or what needs to be done now, by us. We don't waste (the clients) money on engaging in programmes of research on material that can be stored for perusal by academia.
Commercial archaeology only mitigates any damage done.
Whereas research archaeology does whatever is in the research design.
In the latter, there may be a point to analysing undated material.
In the former there is not.
However, there is dating and dating.......in commercial archaeology you can often have features that could be of any date, because you may be looking at them in a pipe trench, or directional drilling launch/ reception pit etc. If you can't tell if your sample is mesolithic, medieval or was made last week.....it's not worth analysing.
Thats what I (and I think the others) mean by undated deposits.
However, if you think your deposit is broadly, say, Anglo-Saxon...but its not precisely dated, then of course there is still some point to analysis....though a radiocarbon date or three would be better.