What is less well understood by the general public is that there have been a number of trends which have further contributed to the diminishment of excavation as an activity. As Bahn puts it 'there have been two major trends over time: first, excavation has become far slower and more painstaking....The work is incredibly meticulous... Secondly, we can learn far more from what we have.' The conclusions to be drawn from this would appear to be contradictory. As technology improves we are able to undertake a wide variety of analysis from microscopic, radio carbon dating or even DNA samples. The ability to determine more, from fewer samples again suggests that less excavation is required. Moreover, more often than not the balance of effort now rests with the specialist analysers such as pollen experts and dating analysis rather than the excavators. So, again some of the requirements for extensive excavation have diminished through the advancement of other analytical techniques and not just surface survey techniques. Furthermore, Archaeology itself has changed in a number of ways. No longer is the emphasis simply upon the acquisition of material culture or artifacts. In many cases, we have a reasonable understanding of the surviving material culture. In deed, in Egypt and Italy, items are rebuffed in the ground simply because the museums are too full, theft may be ripe, preservation difficult and documentation slow. The emergence of processual archaeology under Binford and others again moved archaeology to wards broader concepts of explanation, process, deduction, hypothesis testing, question setting and response. Answering questions about the organisation of societies, the environment and their life have a much greater importance today. And answering these how and why questions implies a much broader scope, of work. Excavation alone cannot answer all these questions. Archaeology needs a structured research process. This procedure is described by Renfrew and Bahn as research design. Research design has four components, namely: formulation, the collection and recording, processing and analysis and publication. For example, more detailed work in the formulation part can focus lines of enquiry into a specific area and thereby again reduce the amount of excavation required. As the questions currently posed by Archaeologists tend to be more 'strategic' the focus of the field work is also of a strategic nature. Overall landscapes, context, trading patterns and systems are more important than individual sites. As such this requires different techniques. AS Greene states 'field work today is rarely directed at a single site. It usually forms part of a comprehensive study of an area.' He continues 'studies are designed to elucidate the broad agricultural, economic, and social developments'. Which of the following can NOT reduce the reliance upon excavation?