26th May 2005, 11:02 AM
An archaeological site is just a big 3-D jigsaw puzzle, and dug properly, should be taken apart piece-by-piece, in the correct reverse order that it was formed. The best way to record this process is by using a fully-implemented (but still flexible) single-context recording system, used properly, by good diggers who know what and why they're digging, how to fill in context sheets fully, can draw a plan of a feature so it looks like it does on the ground, and can take a photo that is in focus with the right scale in it. Once you start getting into situations where (for example) sampling of features is employed, supposedly homogenous (archaeological) deposits are allowed to be machined out, areas are abandoned or done by watching brief and compromises are made on the original specifications for the work because the time or the budget is running out, etc., then the system begins to become cumbersome and the cracks appear. I've seen a fair few compromises to the recording methods in the time I've been involved in archaeology. Most are for the worse, are designed to save time, and ultimately the majority take the thought process out of the practice. This is, frankly, appalling.
Some common current practices I really hate are:
Planning by EDM (NOTHING can beat a good set of site drawings, drawn & annotated by people who are skilled at the job! Anyone remember site planners? Have a look at some Victorian "Antiquarian" drawings of buildings or archaeological structures, and tell me then whether the spidery digital plots and blobby colours that we get in reports these days are better...)
Trench Sheets in Evaluations (Sorry - but good practice dictates that context sheets should be fully filled in for all contexts - even in boring negative trenches. This goes double for "Watching Brief Sheets" as well.)
Bizarre "Sectioning" Practices (Seen this a lot recently, particularly when intercutting pit complexes are investigated. Funny-shaped slots, tiny little holes poked at the edge, etc. "Sampling" of stratified deposits? It's just wrong.)
Stupid Site Strategies (such as only investigating the foundation trenches of proposed buildings - leaving most of the site "preserved" on towers of stratigraphy underneath. I once worked on a site once where the foundation trenches were only 50-60cm wide, and we were expected to dig in them, and understand the site under those conditions. It was pathetic and it as a curator, I've never recommended anything remotely like it despite pressure to do so from developers. And I never will.).
Not all technological or methodological "advances" give better results, and maybe we should be asking ourselves, as a profession, who we are making these changes for. If the answer, ultimately, is for the speed and/or convenience of the developer, then collectively we should be ashamed of ourselves and actively strive to do something about it.
Some common current practices I really hate are:
Planning by EDM (NOTHING can beat a good set of site drawings, drawn & annotated by people who are skilled at the job! Anyone remember site planners? Have a look at some Victorian "Antiquarian" drawings of buildings or archaeological structures, and tell me then whether the spidery digital plots and blobby colours that we get in reports these days are better...)
Trench Sheets in Evaluations (Sorry - but good practice dictates that context sheets should be fully filled in for all contexts - even in boring negative trenches. This goes double for "Watching Brief Sheets" as well.)
Bizarre "Sectioning" Practices (Seen this a lot recently, particularly when intercutting pit complexes are investigated. Funny-shaped slots, tiny little holes poked at the edge, etc. "Sampling" of stratified deposits? It's just wrong.)
Stupid Site Strategies (such as only investigating the foundation trenches of proposed buildings - leaving most of the site "preserved" on towers of stratigraphy underneath. I once worked on a site once where the foundation trenches were only 50-60cm wide, and we were expected to dig in them, and understand the site under those conditions. It was pathetic and it as a curator, I've never recommended anything remotely like it despite pressure to do so from developers. And I never will.).
Not all technological or methodological "advances" give better results, and maybe we should be asking ourselves, as a profession, who we are making these changes for. If the answer, ultimately, is for the speed and/or convenience of the developer, then collectively we should be ashamed of ourselves and actively strive to do something about it.