Common Standards for Archaeology

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Why is it that most units have their own recording sheets for sites,when surely it would be better if their was one standard for the whole country,and why do so many counties have different size boxes for archiving finds and documents with different criteria for archiving!
It can be a nightmare when your unit works in different counties with different standards.
Any thoughts on the subject?
Dirty Dave.

[BAJR Host]

ah... good question... but one mired in county / contractor indepandance.. we came close with the MoLAS system... and there are some data and archive standards that should be upheld... see the IFA

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...202001.pdf

or the ADS

http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/d3e0L4l...dards.html

It would be 'nice' if all context sheets were the same, all photographic requiremetns were the same, and all etc....

This will take however some fun and long discussions with Curators across the UK.. getting them all to follow similar standards (though it could be argued they already do.. and that it can be tricky to provide a one size fits all...) however for certain standards.. like what you are suggeting, should be possible...





"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Velociraptor]

Yeah,

The MOLAS / DUA context sheet, for example, seems to be the one that all the other units have copied from; then modified it to fit their own interpretation of what a "perfect" context sheet should be?

It is a lot easier for experienced circuit diggers to adapt to a different set of recording sheets when they arrive on a different site (different unit / employee) than say, someone not long out of university.

The more experienced digger automtatically knows what information will be asked for; he thus just has to work out, whereabouts on the sheet it is asked for. Also, different units use different "jargon words" on the context sheet (even though they are all asking for the same information, ultimately).

Regards,

Velociraptor

[gonetopot]

On the subject of boxes - it would save archives officers and specialists a huge amount of bother and expense to their respective units if a standard size could be agreed upon (preferably a 'larger/deeper' box such as those used in Norfolk rather than the rather small boxes insisted on by the Museum of London).

[?]

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

It would be easy to fall into the trap of knocking Museums for the variety of archiving systems (box sizes,labelling of bags/boxes etc),but i imagine a lot of this has to with the onset of developer funding and the introduction of PPG16,which saw an increase in the number of sites being dug and an increase in the number of finds and site documents needing to be deposited and stored at museums.This no doubt led to most museums evolving their own systems of archiving to cope.
Having said that,it will soon be twenty years since PPG16 was introduced and we should be moving towards one system being used by all museums.
Also;all commercial units should be working to the same standards-but this can only happen when we have one recording system for all units to use,at the end of the day the principals of recording finds/features are the same for all sites regardless of whoever does the site!
As Velociraptor says its okay for veteran diggers,we know what information is needed on site,but folks just starting?
Oh well to quote President Roosevelt (if he had been a digger that is) "i'm an old campaigner-and i love a good site"
Dirty Dave

[historic building]

Obviously this would also require standardised shelf sizes. If you are a museum with old shelves, these are likely to be laid out in an imperial unit, if you are a newly fitted out museum store then you are likely to have imperial shelves.

I cannot help but think a greater problem is that there are a massive number of districts, counties or boroughs who have no storage for archaeological archives at all and rely on good faith from units.

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

The more i deal with depositing of finds the more i have to agree with you,and i think the problem is only going to get worse. Naturely museums will claim that they have old buildings,limited storage capacity,limited staff etc; but surely when PPG16 came into effect the increase of material to be archived should have been taking into account!I get the feeling that as a modern profession archaeology is one that has been thrown together at the last moment,i also can't help but think that PPG16 is woefully inadequate! What we need instead of guidelines is an act of parliament to define in law from planning of developments through to archiving of sites. let us not forget once finds and documents are at the museums the amount of research done by many people-whether students doing phd's or pot specialists drawing up type series of pot/tile etc.

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln

Having said that,it will soon be twenty years since PPG16 was introduced and we should be moving towards one system being used by all museums.

This is an issue for the museums (and UKIC), who aren't affected by PPG16 except that they get a load of junk that they don't want from the archaeologists.

quote:one recording system for all units to use

This would be great but I can already hear the rumblings about who's system or sheets are best.

Multiple or single-context planning anyone? [:p]


D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Don't make me destroy you, Curator

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Multiple or single-context planning? good question, i suppose we are like any other science in that you put ten different archaeologists in a room,ask them a question and you'll get ten different answers!
Dirty Dave.

[m300572]

Dave, put ten archaeologists in a room and you'll get at least 11 opinions!!