Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
9th February 2007, 07:07 PM
We've already ditched colour transparencies in favour of digital shots (min 5MP field, archived as uncompressed TIF; pinched from EH building recording guidelines, I think). Transparencies are not particularly long-lived - and are becoming of limited use for publication and lecturing with the rise of digital based repro and powerpoint. Still no substitute for B+W negs however - and they last 'forever'. Useful discussion paper on IFA website:
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...p?page=158
Not really a 'pot person'.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
9th February 2007, 08:34 PM
Im loving this thread! How sad I must be...
The point I was trying to draw out earlier has now been touched on by Vulpes and Merc: it is about how best to appropriately balance what to record and what not to record. One the one hand we have pointless data collection (e.g. too much photography) but on the other, as touched on by Sniper and others, how do we know when not to record, because we dont want to loose important (and perhaps unexpected) information. In the case of burials that are not photographed this debate is especially pertinent.
I suspect that to achieve best practice (or in the commercial sector more like a 'line of best fit')that there cannot be an overarching methodology, and people have to be clever and experienced enough to judge sites case by case. Am I arguing against standardisation of recording here?! Heresy! Also, in the commercial sector, who we (as fieldworkers) take our methodological cues from (i.e. the law) is particularly relevant, as I suspect that in ten years time, many law enforcers (e.g.County Archs)will not have enough field experience to make the best possible calls. Will they then listen to the good contractors? Only time will tell.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
9th February 2007, 10:22 PM
To muddy the waters yet further, it is difficult to know what level of recording is appropriate, since methodologies and paradigms adjust through time. What seems important now may not encompass sufficiently emphases of the future. Input from all sectors (including specialists from post-ex) on recording standards is clearly necessary to create a useful consensus.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
10th February 2007, 05:13 AM
....and to build on Els' previous post, perhaps we should distinguish between the almost parallel commercial and academic (in this case osteo) paradigms.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
10th February 2007, 02:11 PM
Good point Dave!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
12th February 2007, 06:45 PM
I attended a seminar recently where finds and eviro specialists were grappling with these issues when a crisis of storage space came. A policy of "save it all because we don't know what will be important in the future" has become a pragmatic exercise in trying to predict what [u]might</u> be important in the future and binning the rest. As field archaeologists I suspect we have not perhaps been forced to change our "save it all" instincts. I'm not sure about the curatorial side of the profession, but it seems many briefs are standard and very conservative in an arse covering way that is entirely understandable.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
15th February 2007, 10:04 PM
Where I work we have quite a robust but fair approach to discarding material, though we do try and make sure discarded material goes for teaching collections etc etc rather than just binning it if at all possible. The problem with discard policies towards human remains is precisely what has been mentioned in this thread before, that human remains are not just another class of artefact. It is certainly not appropriate to just bin human bone. It can be reburied on occasion, and that is sometimes requested by churches when the bone has been excavated from a present churchyard (though this throws up a whole load of other questions, such as whether the analysis of the bone is definitive, whether the digging of a hole to rebury is going to disturb more burials, whether burials should be stored in a crypt rather than reburied in the ground etc etc), but this only covers a very small amount of the human bone that is excavated. That still leaves you with an awfully large amount of human bone that has to be stored and has to be stored in appropriate conditions, and the amount will just keep going up. A big problem for many receiving museums. However, this problem should not be solved by allowing flawed requests for reburial from certain groups to go ahead (see the Druid's request on another thread), or just deciding on a blanket reburial policy, as was vaunted for the Museum of London collections (20 000+ skeletons) a couple of years ago and thankfully didn't (as far as I am aware) go ahead. As far as I am concerned, it is not for any one person or group of persons to decide what is and is not "important" enough to keep and what can be discarded. It reminds me of the old method of collection of human remains which kept the "interesting" specimens and the skulls and got rid of everything else. How can you tell what is "interesting" if you don't have everything else to compare it to??
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
16th February 2007, 01:39 PM
Seems to me that whilst there are good standards and guidence available on the excavation and curation of Human remains, two issues are obvious: time and time again, projects are undertaken without the prior consultation of a specialist-and, methodologies can and will be context/site specific.On my first point...prior consultation with a specialist where sites are expected to produce Human remains has to be fundamental.There is nothing better than previously agreed mitigation that is both explicit and informed.Any deviations in a "standardised" methodology in the field can then be adapted under a specialists guidence.It seems a bit of a nonsense to me when excavations are carried out without even the slightest notion that a specialist would be either useful or relevant.I hate to imagine the sheer volume of data lost as a result......:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th February 2007, 02:07 PM
I am largely in agreement with Troll here - all project designs should be written from a well-informed perspective. If the project is expected to produce a significant quantity of any particular category of 'specialist'material, then the project design process should either be done in consultation with the specialist or should be led by someone with the relevant specialist knowledge.
One good way of dealing with this is to seek advice from the regional scientific advisors in English Heritage. They won't write a spec for you, but they will advise you on what to put in, or comment on something that you send to them. I have done this successfully in the past, on projects where I (as a non-specialist) had to write a spec for the procurement of a specialist.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th February 2007, 02:09 PM
Posted by Sniper:
Quote:quote:However, this problem should not be solved by allowing flawed requests for reburial from certain groups to go ahead (see the Druid's request on another thread), or just deciding on a blanket reburial policy
See my recent comments on the Druids thread about 'reburial' in museums.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
