+- 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 - Unitof1 - 7th August 2013
Nothing wrong with physical relationships. Anybody undertaking sections is really producing physical relationships and not stratagraphical ones. Maybe a context sheet should be called a physical relation sheet.
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 7th August 2013
pdurdin Wrote:Quick Hosty, there's a marketing opportunity here! Rowntrees colour charts! Ingest after use.
For complicated reasons we were getting loads of the big promo-boxes they'd sent round all the shops so they could order for the following Xmas, then collected back in - they came with boxes of crackers and everything - I miss those paper-party-hat days on site, beat hard-hats hands down
Only real draw-back was that the chocolate colour charts got a bit messy on hot days...and I never once managed to get to the M&Ms first
The School of Jack - Jack - 7th August 2013
Unitof1 Wrote:Nothing wrong with physical relationships. Anybody undertaking sections is really producing physical relationships and not stratagraphical ones. Maybe a context sheet should be called a physical relation sheet.
Good point, though the physical relationship is just a step on the path to the stratigraphical relationships.
There is no reason why the context sheet shouldn't record stratigraphical relationships. Finding these out is after all one of the main reasons for digging most slots after all.
The School of Jack - P Prentice - 7th August 2013
Jack Wrote:Good point, though the physical relationship is just a step on the path to the stratigraphical relationships.
There is no reason why the context sheet shouldn't record stratigraphical relationships. Finding these out is after all one of the main reasons for digging most slots after all.
it is more than a step on the path. if you consider that it can be extremly difficult to work out which bit of brown soil the bit of pot in your brown loose came from it makes no difference what the stratigraphic relationship is when you decide which tray it goes in or not. too little account of intrusive (during excavation)material is made with modern excavation methods. all very well if you a brushing out a cave in a training excavation that will last 30 years but in the hack it out with a mattock world of commercial mitigation - not a fat chance unless you are a dinosaur
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 8th August 2013
Cheers for the compliment (I think)
Am currently finishing a report on a dreadful urban site (most of the recording was done peering down drainage-runs and picking finds out of machine-spoil) where half the finds were intrusive anyway (endless 'invisible' pits/postholes etc, not to mention the amazing ability of boreholes to introduce modern stuff down the stratigraphy). Apart from stratigraphic relationships (where discernable), have been having to use physical relationships and basic common sense quite a lot ("if it's up there its unlikely to be Saxo-Norman whatever the pot report says" - luckily lots of level-data). The key is to stand back occasionally and think "what's going on at this date, across the whole site", then plunge back into the minutiae of "why's this 14th century posthole got Victorian pot in it?"
Finds, stratigraphy, physical relationships, scientific dating etc are all merely alternative strands of data, and all potentially flawed (even if the recording on site's been 100%), it's up to the author of the final report to pick and mix what data provides a final intelligable, coherent narrative, while explaining in a clear and logical manner why they've chosen to disregard other evidence along the way. Peer-review is a wonderful thing, sharpens the mind, it's just a shame it's rarely used in grey lit reports
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 8th August 2013
...actually the site and archaeology were really nice (1000yrs in 3m of stratigraphy with loads of nice finds, all in some rather nice gardens and working with some very pleasant and generally helpful builders), it was just the way I was expected to deal with it that was dreadful...
The School of Jack - kevin wooldridge - 8th August 2013
Unitof1 Wrote:Anybody undertaking sections is really producing physical relationships and not stratagraphical ones.....
Both Harris' book (Prinicples of Archaeological Stratigraphy) and the Museum of London handbooks use sections to demonstrate stratigraphic relationships....countless 'practical' interviews over the years have also used sections to examine an individuals understanding of stratigraphy.....and even more countless archaeological field projects have recorded stratigraphic relationships through the medium of the section...I think Uo1 is wrong on this one
The School of Jack - Wax - 8th August 2013
I always think of the stratigraphy as being the order in which things happened. Understanding the physical relationships between contexts helps with working this out but is not the be all and end all. I like context sheets that ask for the stratigraphic relationships and the physical relationships. There are prefound differences between the two.
The School of Jack - Unitof1 - 11th August 2013
Quote:handbooks use sections to demonstrate stratigraphic relationships....countlessand sad it is too. I would have thought that you were a single context recording is best guru. Just out of interest what would you understand by physical relationship. Hopefully not someone bending over.
The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 12th August 2013
What a fascinating insight! }
On most of the rural jobs around here the most common words stuck in front of 'relationship' are 'spatial' and 'presumptive'
- 'parallel', 'co-linear' and 'nearby' figure quite a lot too, the MoLAS manual seemed to miss all those out for some reason. Phasing tends to rely rather a lot on C14 and guesswork, or, given how sh**e most budgets are, guesswork