Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I have a fun organisation who seem to be unable to distinguish between cuts and fills. On site the only recording referenced fills and once back in the office (from the date written on the context cards) the site drawings were altered to include fill numbers in a different hand and running on from all the numbers already allocated to the three trenches on site.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
'I also think that Single Context Planning is a step along the road to reducing diggers to 'technicians' as the excavation and recording is broken down to its most basic components. Perhaps the success of the Framework Archaeology approach was partially a backlash against this.'
Very very interesting comments here. Interestingly, Roskams et al originally pushed single context planning as a method that was 'empowering' as it reduced hierarchy (i.e. a uniform method removed the 'Mortimer wheeler' field director figure from being the only person enabled to interpret. Interesting that people should now argue the opposite..
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
Interesting where this thread is going. I did work on the Framework T5 dig and though I found it a bit of a mind**** at first, it all clicked into place and made sense, and to my mind did empower the site staff to a certain extent. Interesting comment that SCP would reduce diggers to technicians without scope for interpretation, harking back to times when the site director would do all the interpreting.
Most supervisory/PO/PM positions require both initiative and leadership skills, but although all field staff require focus and direction, I think there's a lot to be said for enabling all those working on a site to interpret as they go along, so long as the site director has mechanisms in place to check inaccuracies of fact - encouraging lateral thought without resorting to 'archaeology by committee'.
Answer to the question for me BTW was a bit of both - according to circumstance
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
I think all the stuff about interpretation and empowerment is a bit of a red herring. As far as I am aware, all recording systems in the UK use single-context recording, irrespective of how they plan - so they all allow for any individual who fills in context sheets to interpret the context.
The pro or anti hierarchical points don't really relate to what system you use, they are more about who is allowed to do the recording.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
1man I completely agree with you. I think the Roskams ideas are best characterised as a red herring in many ways. As you say the real questions are who is allowed to do the recording - and on from this write the report and publications.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Dear 1 man as far as I recall there is a lot of literature that disagrees with you. In the late 70's/80's there was a big drive about method of recording being a potential fulcrum for empowerment, not simply 'who' was allowed to do the recording. Is this all outdated now?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Can anyone give a short overview of exactly what Framework Archaeology's system is and how it differs (or not) from the standard Single Context system?
The only comments I've heard about it was from a former T5 digger, who didn't have a great deal of experience in other methods, so couldn't really compare it adequately, but she actually preferred our way to theirs
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Sorry been away for a bit...only put this up after discussing it over a few jars of ale with a mate, shocked and pleasantly surprised at the reaction and replies, glad its started a good discusion. I was just intrested in what people thought here about the systems, was not expecting it to get so serious.
I'd also like to hear more about Framework Archaeology system.
May god go with you in all the dark places you must walk.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Gumbo:
Quote:quoteear 1 man as far as I recall there is a lot of literature that disagrees with you. In the late 70's/80's there was a big drive about method of recording being a potential fulcrum for empowerment, not simply 'who' was allowed to do the recording. Is this all outdated now?
Not sure that I've got my point across. Most recording systems specify the method of recording, but say nothing about who is allowed to record. Once you get on site though, some Project Officers/Supervisors/Unit management encourage all experienced site staff to fill in context sheets etc, while others are very restrictive, keeping it to one or two specific people on the site.
Nothing to do with the system - everything to do with the attitude of the people in charge.
My own approach when running excavations was to involve as many people as possible in as many different parts of the recording process, but make sure that I trained them and supervised them to do it in a consistent way.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
I believe that this was the first article published on the Framework system. How far it deviated from reality is something you'd have to ask someone who dug there. But as a frequent visitor, I thought it worked really quite well.
http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/074/0525/Ant0740525.pdf
The methodology used is also described in the first section of the first of 2 volumes on the Terminal 5 site, Perry Oaks, if anyone has it in their offices. A fabulous book.
http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/48629
happy friday
ML
What recording system do you prefer?
