Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
5th February 2007, 02:07 PM
Hello to the forum. As a long time lurker of BAJR this is my first post so hopefully won't be too contentious.
I would like to canvass your opinions on how much of a barrier fieldies feel between themselves and post-ex team members (especially specialists). Who amongst you has recieved adequate or useful feed back on what you found, or who has ideas about how specialists could feature in ongoing training of field staff?
This question arose recently after I (as a specialist) noticed some alarming discrepencies amongst supposedly equally experienced diggers in what their on site recognition/ dating of pottery was.
[?]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
5th February 2007, 03:49 PM
Hello gonetopot
I think that as usual there is a great deal of variance between different specialists. Some give good feed back and others dont. Speaking as one of these unfortunates who have to amalgamate specalist reports into an overall site report I think that it is not only some field staff who could do with training in finds/ enviro but also some specialists who could do with training/re-training in strat and site interp.
With regard to any barriers (percieved or otherwise) I do think that their is a tendency for both sides (and I am simplifing here) to only see their little bit (ie the finds assemblage or the holes in the ground) and forget that they are both are an intergral part in seeking to understand a site.
I must admit that I have noticed some alarming discrepencies amongst supposedly equally experienced specialists in their identification/ recognition of pottery!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
5th February 2007, 05:59 PM
I think this relates to the valid point made, quite a long time ago, by another BAJR regular (was it Troll?), that fieldies could be seen as another type of specialist, on the same basis as the pot, bone, flint, palaeobot, etc. specialists.
It is true to say that some specialists (including fieldies) suffer from a form of tunnel-vision, and sometimes lack a sense of proportion when it comes to the importance of their own area of interest in relation to the overall project. It is not at all universal, though, and there are plenty of people in any specialism who are able to see the big picture.
In my view, the real skill in running an excavation (including the project design, post-ex and reporting, as well as the digging) is in being able to pull all of the disparate threads together to make a coherent whole.
I think there is a lot of value in integrating the team as much as possible. This means involving specialists in project design and in visiting the site while under excavation, and giving fieldies the opportunity to participate in post-ex work, and maximising the opportunities for them to speak to each other.
Unfortunately, many specialists (traditionally defined) are not unit-based, which inhibits that kind of integration/interaction. More importantly, there are barriers of cost and logistics.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
5th February 2007, 07:21 PM
1man I love you!!! Thats exactly what I would like to see / bang on about !!
"I think there is a lot of value in integrating the team as much as possible. This means involving specialists in project design and in visiting the site while under excavation, and giving fieldies the opportunity to participate in post-ex work, and maximising the opportunities for them to speak to each other. "
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
5th February 2007, 07:26 PM
1man I love you!!! Thats exactly what I would like to see / bang on about !!
"I think there is a lot of value in integrating the team as much as possible. This means involving specialists in project design and in visiting the site while under excavation, and giving fieldies the opportunity to participate in post-ex work, and maximising the opportunities for them to speak to each other. "
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
6th February 2007, 11:05 AM
Excellent point. As a (unit based) specialist it would be great to visit sites more often and possibly have more of a say in sampling strategies without compromising the excavation methodology. Obviously time and money are considerations but surely this could also be an opportunity to provide a bit of finds training to the fieldies, as well as provide some on site dating and comments to aid interpretation.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
6th February 2007, 01:40 PM
Once worked on a site where there was on site finds processing and a finds specialist was on site for most of the time - learned far more from him in the space of a few months than in years of digging as he could answer all my questions in far greater detail than any of the POs etc id ever worked with. It would be fantastic to see this on far more site
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
7th February 2007, 10:06 AM
I am fortunate that I do both- Finds is my main job, If I have down time then I head to site. Also I undertake watching briefs (the short notice ones, obviously I am unit based). I have also been the onsite finds officer for several sites and try to teach as much as I can to 'diggers' about finds on site. This has untold benefits for all aand I recommend it if others are also in this position.
Two things I have thought of recently- Posters of period pottery sherd types to go on walls of site huts (e.g typical Roman material for the region). Bit 'o' learning while your scoffing your sandwiches! Second, it's not so difficult to chat to bods processing finds about what they've got. As part of this, throw a couple of photo stats of typologies to compare, say rims, while processing. It aint much but it's a positive something.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
7th February 2007, 02:25 PM
Digger, the wall charts would be great. As a field type who has been trying for years to find decently illustrated(that means colour photos)pot info, I love the idea. But where is it? My cynical brain suggests to me that pot specialists don't produce anything usable to the lowly field types, so as to protect the arcane knowledge of their specialism.
So we get black and white drawings and munsell chart descriptions in most publications. Hmmm, not very useful, but I'm sure printing costs may have something to do with it too. The closest I have come is some guides for metal detectorists, which are OK for general recognition which most field types are not bad at, but poor at regional wares. I have even resorted to covertly photographing pottery in my local museums and building my own small database of types. Please help!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
7th February 2007, 05:31 PM
I guess with the wonders of modern technology there must be scope for low cost colour publication of downloadable regional pottery type wall charts on some web site.....BAJR maybe.
