Whilst I agree the immediate post Romano-British era is important and
perhaps not that well recorded and/ or interpretated surely the same applies
to the transitional phase before the RB era which therefore means the
'mosaics' have to be removed. This can however be a positive and scientific
process when the 'best of all worlds' can be achieved. The mosaic conserved
and displayed in a possibly more accesible location than where it
originated from and also perhaps facilitating important archaeology beneath.
As regards what is the most important layer, I would say they all are, get
the relationships wrong with one then the whole project can very quickly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edgar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: [BRITARCH] Importance of different layers
> How do archeologists decide which layer
> is the most important?
> Example: when a Roman Villa has the remains
> of a mosaic, and underneath there seems to be
> onother one, just how do you decide to destroy
> the upper layer?
> The same thing goes for layers from eras where
> materials which don't survive well underground.
> Perhaps someone might propose that now we know
> enough about Roman Villas for the time being,
> and more care should be taken to uncover remains
> from the mostly unrecorded Post Roman era?
> The remains of encampments in and on the rubble
> of collapsed buildings from the Roman era might
> better fill in the blanks from this era.
> Unfortunately, there might not be a commercial
> reward ffrom showing off the remains of camp fires
> versus the possibly beautiful mosaic floors of
> a better known era.