+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The School of Jack (/showthread.php?tid=4991)
The School of Jack - Jack - 24th June 2013
Wax Wrote:So what course of action does the school of Jack endorse for dealing with the supervisor/ manager who waltzes in trowel in hand to demonstrate where the edges of a feature should be. Creates a ruddy great pile of &@£^! on top of that feature you have just spent an hour cleaning then strolls off to deal with other important matters leaving their &@£^ behind them.!
This question is a very difficult conundrum and has many answers. See course 201 Supervising a site.
It is a supervisors prerogative to create spoil whilst finding the edges for a digger and not clean it up.
However, the paradox is, said practice is deemed very rude.
It depends on the situation, the site, the supervisor/ digger relationship, time constraints, experience of the digger etc etc.
The School of Jack would state that a supervisor should not do so in excess, nor use it as a punishment and if time allows (which is rarely) should tidy up after themselves.
The School of Jack would also state that if a digger can't find the edges of a feature, then they should be prepared to clean away the spoil of those who can.
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 24th June 2013
I've always worked on the principle that it was done to me plenty of times, and I've spent the last 30 years getting my REVENGE! any cheap victory...
...but Jack's last point also has validity :face-approve:
The School of Jack - Antipesto - 25th June 2013
Jack Wrote:This question is a very difficult conundrum and has many answers. See course 201 Supervising a site.This - many many times this.
The School of Jack would also state that if a digger can't find the edges of a feature, then they should be prepared to clean away the spoil of those who can.
The School of Jack - Unitof1 - 25th June 2013
Seems to me that in the world of jack there is no such thing as copyright but a misery of sheep, sheep dogs and unit directors. The finding somebodies elseâs edges is probably the main manifestations of what is basically a system of abuse which at various time combines age, gender, and disability and probably race. What your guide should say is that if somebody wants to find somebody elseâs edges the first party should first record the feature to the limit of their excavations, and remove the spoil, and that the next finder of edges then starts with a new set of context numbers and context sheets signed to their name, pre-records and then starts on their personal quest recording . Yes they may have the first party watch their deftness but the second party has no idea why it was that the first party lost their vision of the âedgeâ. There are a whole heap of halo effects let alone events which may have radically or subtlety the affected the deposits. It basically comes down to being a splitter or a lumper and the confidence to go into a new context without finalising the recording of the previous one.
The looking for the edge is the very basic of context archaeology and probably of being an archaeologist. Its bloody sad that anybody new should not understand that and see that thatâs the whole process.
To my mind if you have observed the spectacle of a supervisor reaching in and scrapping away without the digger having recorded the feature to their limits then you are part of the abuse too. This includes me. In fact
Quote:I've always worked on the principle that it was done to me plenty of times, and I've spent the last 30 years getting my REVENGE! any cheap victory...
Is the very basic of how ifa based archaeology finds its sheep and trains them into sheep dogs.
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 25th June 2013
Might encourage them to learn, certainly worked with me :face-approve:
The School of Jack - Jack - 25th June 2013
Lesson 8 Photography is an art[SIZE=2]
Photography is archaeology is multivariate and difficult to learn even the basics.
It is not good enough to just keep setting the camera at 60 and 8 focusing, pointing and pressing.
The first question is why are you taking a photo; what is the purpose of the shot. Is it an section record shot? Is it a shot to be rectified? Is it a working shot? Shot for publication? A shot to record an earthwork? etc etc.
Each type of photograph has its own tricks of the trade to get the best shot possible. After all the photographic record is the ONLY proof (putting photoshop aside) that the archaeology was as you are saying it was.
It is important to gain experience of different types of photography, but the only real way to improve your own photographic skills is to see the photos you have produced......and better still have someone more experienced cast a critical eye over them.
So when asked if you're comfortable taking your own photographs on site the correct responses are:
no, can I have some training
yes but can I have some pointers, or
yes but do you have any special requirements
To summarise some of the basic mistakes made in archaeological recording shots include:
remembering to remove tools, string and lumps of spoil from section shots;
putting the wrong context number on the id board;
not cleaning far enough around the feature so the cleaning line shows;
not getting the scales square with the photo frame or perpendicular with each other;
inappropriate number or use of scales;
shot not in focus;
section not clean enough to see the layers;
shadow of person taking the photograph in shot.
Taking photographs in strong sunlight is often very problematic on a commercial site. Time pressures mean you can't stand, hogging the cameras all day waiting for a cloud that may or may not arrive.
A section half in shadow looks awful and is often useless for discerning layers and cuts. However, sometimes it can't be helped.
And, no matter what anyone claims, getting a bunch of diggers standing with coats/ drawing boards etc to cast a shadow for your photo hardly ever works. The reason for this is usually the area in shade is not big enough, someone lets a crack of light through and/or the light meter reading wasn't taken in the right place.
What does work is a large sheet that lets diffuse light through held high enough up and far enough away to act like a cloud.
But this is just scratching the surface of a much bigger subject.
[/SIZE]
The School of Jack - BAJR - 26th June 2013
most excellent. I have been asked to talk about this very subject. ... and there are also two... handy guides to this subject on teh BAJR Guides section ( beeing revamped! )
google bajr guide photography. :face-approve:
on a persomnal note... I liked the bit about number of scales. just because you have 4 ranging rods and 4 scales, does not mean you havee to use them
more is less. and keep them out of the context being photographed... if possible
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 26th June 2013
A good tip for those ever-accumulating pairs of 1m ranging rods that people seem to like jamming together with grit-lubricant - cut 50cm off one with a hacksaw and you've got a 1.5m skelly-scale, looks sooo much better (and of course you get a free 0.5m 'leftover')...or is that being un-archaeological?
Actually discovered that on a job where we were doing 100s of metres of exactly 1.5m deep trenches, so rods were customised for endless section pics.
Never be shy of customising the equipment to fit the task (as long as it's not something that might get deducted from your wages, or that you might need for its original purpose later...has Jack done the 'emergency sampling' lesson yet?)
KITE/PLANE PHOTOS TIP - have a set of what are actually the end-flaps off cardboard boxes (banana-box size or up) sprayed white and with grid-peg sized central square holes - slip a couple over a few grid pegs, particularly around the periphery of any kite-views, and bobs-yer-uncle, nice clear fixed points (white X-es at known locations that are clear even from several hundred feet) for rectifying your pics later. Quick, simple and can be put out in 2mins if your pilot/kite operator shows up early/unexpectedly - and costs nothing apart from the 'borrowed' can of white spray-mark. Have a set of white circles too for marking pits/postholes
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 26th June 2013
If you put as much scales, number board, north-arrow etc as possible on the centre-line of your shot it makes it a lot easier to make them look straight in the final pic - this especially applies to number boards, they always seem to look s**t whatever you do when placed off to one side. Same applies to vertical scales. And have a variety of sizes of north-arrow, I hate shots where the north-arrow is bigger than the posthole...
The School of Jack - Sith - 27th June 2013
Jack Wrote:Lesson 8 Photography is an art[SIZE=2]
remembering to remove tools, string and lumps of spoil from section shots;
not cleaning far enough around the feature so the cleaning line shows;
not getting the scales square with the photo frame or perpendicular with each other;
inappropriate number or use of scales;
shot not in focus;
section not clean enough to see the layers;
shadow of person taking the photograph in shot.
[/SIZE]
I've just had received a report which contained exapmples of all of the above plus:
Pictures of people engaged in excavation activities while not wearing the mandatory PPE. (Very Consultant-ish I know, but why would you?)
I appreciate the time pressures in commercial archaeology and particularly evaluations mean, as Jack rightly says, that you can't hang around all day for that perfectly lit shot. But it ought not to be impossible to get something resembling a tidy picture with a bit of thought, care and practice. This is one of the few things that makes me say "I managed it and so can you".