Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
"An excess of imagined strata"
Good phrase, I have met a few people in my time who are guilty of this. But, as you say, better 200 context sheets for 20 layers than 1 context sheet for 20 layers - although it can get VERY frustrating to manage the post-excavation budget!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Taverna Cat
... no stratigraphy was expected or found...
...the spit method worked for us in this instance...
Yes, but TC I'm sure you and your colleagues wouldn't have carried on blithely hacking through different sediments if you had found them. There's plenty of possible circumstances where (a) there isn't any strat, or (b) the strat has been destroyed, or © the strat is really, honestly impossible to observe (most posters could recall examples), but those circumstances are all very rare.
In any case, Troll was railing against the blithe hackers of world archaeology, making again the argument that we shouldn't tolerate people going abroad and employing standards that aren't permitted here. In a previous post he questioned what we should do about it ('not much' was the response, as I recall). This post is merely a note of caution. Personally, I think as many contract archaeologists as possible should go on foreign research excavations. It's an education on both sides.
Nice to hear from you again Troll, I look forward to disagreeing with you in the near future.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2007
I totally agree... but neither should we attempt to impose methods which don't work just because we think (know
) we're the only ones who know how to excavate 'properly'. The Greek archaeological service occasionally use the Mortimer Wheeler box method, so would that mean that a British funded excavation in Greece which did the same would be wrong? The Greeks wouldn't think so. If the host country in question employs standards which we wouldn't tolerate, our British insistence in doing things the 'correct' British way is all a bit patronising don't you think? That really would be going back to the pith-helmet days old chap, wot.
Anyway, I'm all for a bit of flexibility; makes life more interesting...
And let me add fuel to the fire of this debate by saying that the American Agora excavations in Athens have
weekly contexts. Get yer heads around that one..!!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
What the **** is a weekly context?
Please tell me that DOESN'T mean that everything excavated in a given week is given the same number??!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
'but the spit method worked for us in this instance'
Absolutely - this can be a perfectly valid methodology for certain types of site and certain conditions.
However, I'm not sure that I can agree with a philosophy that says that we should use the host country's perceived crappy methodologies just because we do not want to appear to be patronising. Some host country's methodologies are so far removed from good practice that this is just too scary to contemplate.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
I have been wrestling with the problem of telling other people how to do their archaeology in other countries. I do think that the British stratigraphic system is the best I have ever seen for recording archaeology. I have seen projects in a number of other places where recording, by my standards, was woefully inadequate. I have also been to other countries and introduced them to the British methods, with excellent results.
Like TC I have qualms about donning my pith helmet and telling other people how to dig â I too value diversity. However my concern for getting the archaeology done properly over-rides most other considerations.
Interestingly we do not hesitate to make criticisms and comments about standards in other countries on other matters. Many areas are subject to routine questioning and improvement through the adoption of international standards. For example:
Most EU regulations concerning airline safety are based on US practice. I think most people would agree that we are better off adopting an American-based system for airline safety rather than a Russian or Indonesian one. No doubt this could offend many who would say that their aircraft are better-maintained and safer than American ones â but that doesnât mean we should listen to them.
It is also reasonable for the EU to move generally towards a âno-smoking at workâ policy, even though this is largely driven from a north-west European (ie. Anglo-Irish) cultural perspective. It is largely at odds with Greek and Mediterranean pro-smoking culture and is no doubt controversial there. Nevertheless it should be done, because it has important public health benefits and a positive impact on healthcare spending.
Most EU environmental legislation is being driven by countries with a strong record of Green party parliamentary representation and an historic interest in such matters â eg. Germany and the Scandinavian countries. People in Romania might be annoyed at adopting German environmental standards for (say) tractor production, but it doesnât mean we shouldnât do it.
Archaeology is not as tightly-regulated as these examples, but the same principle applies. I agree with beamo â we shouldnât use âcrappyâ methodology just to avoid being seen as patronising!
What we really need is an objective test â a single site divided into four equally difficult bits of archaeology and excavated by
1. British full stratigraphic excavation, single context recording, Harris-style
2. American âshovel testâ in metre square pits, dug in spits and sieved
3. German style boxes and get it all from the section
4. Greek style âgive it all one context number and hope for the bestâ (or so we are led to believe by TC).
Hmmm, I wonder which one will actually tell us most about what went on in the past?!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:Have just finished "digging" on a Chalcolithic site where the director (a classisist) showed about as much professionalism as an undergraduate custard maker
I didn't know you could do a first degree in custard making...but isn't this comment disparaging to all professional custard makers?
On the other hand, I read Troll's comment about the 'classisist' as referring to the fact that he was working outside his area of expertise. That needn't imply that classisists in general are not competent archaeologists, just that their approach may not necessarily be properly applicable to a Chalcolithic site.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Good day and greetings to everyone.Just to re-emphasise, my apologies to those offended.I have to say that its good to see that Bajrites are still more than willing to compare/contrast and discuss with vigour! Twas my intention to simply open dialogue and again-no intention whatsoever to vilify individuals regardless of either their area of expertise or their nationality.The very best of wishes to all of you and I have sorely missed disagreeing!!!!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Let's be honest and face the fact that a lot of archaeology done over here is %$!&, for a variety of reasons. British contract archaeology is riddled with muppetry and cowboys and it is depressing. Antiquarianism is alive and well in Britain, its spiritual and ancestral home. I am reminded of this everytime someone machines something out and says "It's OK. We'll get it in section." Or when a supervisor dictates what goes on the context sheets and rubs the bits out that don't fit with their interpretation.
Careful, it might be hallucinogEeEe**33nnnn..
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Mind you, there are circumstances where machining stuff out is the correct thing for a poor embattled supervisor to do: for example features deemed too unimportant to deserve the resources to excavate fully (particularly in comparison with whatever else you have to dig). Maybe they really aren't as interesting as they look, or maybe it's all down to those evil consultants again. As for rubbing bits off people's context sheets, well I'm in favour of annotating and retaining the primary archive even if it's patently wrong (as it sometimes is), but there's also a valid (albeit old fashioned) argument for making it 'right', particularly the quantifiable data. In any case it shouldn't be an issue, as people should be writing their context sheets in black biro. That's how the archivists like it.
Maybe UK archaeology is comparable with the worst in the world, as MV appears to suggest. I don't think so though, having visited ongoing excavations in a number of countries. Not even close.
