Another note on Phase I surveys (and I'm probably not alone in this
experience):  There are few things more annoying than being ready to conduct
Phase II or Phase III work just to realize that Phase I didn't identify
everything.   Whether not identifying sites is a result of ignorance,
insufficient methods, or blatant disregard, the next phases are dependent on
a thorough survey and recordation.  I'd rather record too much than too
little.

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 2:13 AM
Subject: what we do


>Lyle Browning wrote:
>
>>Here we disagree totally. I cannot see how any reasonably sentient
>>archaeologist would bid a project about which they knew nothing and
blithely
>>assume they could handle it all. Phase I surveys to locate sites are one
>>thing. Phase II and III work which focuses on specific sites is quite
another.
>
>No.
>
>Phase I is the critical level, requiring the broadest knowledge and the
>deepest experience. Phase I survey identifies sites and assigns them a
>potential significance. To cite David Babson's example, a curious linear
>feature with cinders found in a Phase I will never be examined if Phase I
>investigator writes it off.
>
>Therefore, I firmly believe that Phase I should never be assigned to anyone
>but the most experienced investigator, who has a unique opportunity to set
>the direction of future work.
>
>Phase I is (or should be) the exciting stuff, where we explore local
>history, look at the anomalies, and survey the whole historical/cultural
>landscape. I much prefer to do a Phase I.
>
>As I have said before, an archaeologist is a generalist or he is nothing.
>
>  Ned Heite           _(____)_   http:
>  Heite Consulting   /Baby '69|  //home.
>  Camden      _===__/88" Land || dmv.com
>  Delaware   | ___  Rover___  || /~eheite
>           o||| . \_____/ . \_|
> _____________ \_/_______\_/___________
>