T5 Heathrow recording

[Jack]

for my money i think interpretation starts before setting foot on site, is foremost when one is digging and is often turned on its head when one is writing it up. there is no such thing as objective archaeology no matter how many boxes you have filled out. report writers need to be on site being a royal pain in the ass looking over shoulders and asking questions - the rest is for the gods

I agree totally too!
We need to be objective about our objectivity.

I'd like to see a day when archaeological interpretations have an error range based on the differing interpretative tolerances at each stage from site prep to publication!

I'd equate wild-unsubstantiated interpretations as inaccurate measurements

The statement of errors is the main (?only) section missing from the site report design when compared to a lab report.

[beamo]

Martin

The FA approach at T% aimed to ensure that the diggers understood how their own individual work (i.e. the features that they excavated) fitted into the overall archaeology of this large site. This was achived through a variey of means including regular site tours for the whole dig team. The reflexive approach used by Hodder at Catal Huyuk went much further than anything FA used at T5 - amongst other aspects the CH work included supervisors making daily video diaries in which they recorded their thoughts about their part of the site.

Beamo

[Martin Locock]

thanks Beamo- that's a great summary

[monty]

Errr....isn't this the normal on site practice............................. and if not WHY NOT !!!!

[Dinosaur]

Errr....isn't this the normal on site practice............................. and if not WHY NOT !!!!

Try reading some context sheets..... :0

[monty]

Try reading some context sheets..... :0

....they get them back the next day to do properly !

[Unitof1]

And this is all why what an archaeologist produces is copyright.......objective subjective what ever

[GnomeKing]

yes. indeed Uo1.

[Bodger51]

I'd agree there is a range of products to contend with from the FA, MOLAS and research undertakings.

The question I would ask is whether we see the role of field archaeology as sterilisers, facilitators, or formulators?


I would suggest this process is more complicated than anyone would be able to put a finger on.

I would be nice to discuss, but I don't think we would be in a position to extrapolate a debate outside of classical 'standards' debates.

There are discussions regarding horses for courses, but I feel that data utility would be a simple step to take, but an eternity in understanding thoroughly throughout is another matter.

I don't want to go about redefining a debate, but I think clarity would be of considerable assistance.

However, promotions are a matter of personal career development, whilst non-interactive recording leaves career development of recording in the rut of how work is undertaken feasibly.

At this point we return to tender pricing and cutting (data integrity?) corners.

In my understanding there is alot of justification targeted at costs, whilst data integrity justification archiving may be a residual concept.

But I don't know and have no basis for stipulating this as a real concern.


Anyway

[Dinosaur]

Wanna read some of Bodger's context sheets