5th February 2007, 03:49 PM
Hello gonetopot
I think that as usual there is a great deal of variance between different specialists. Some give good feed back and others dont. Speaking as one of these unfortunates who have to amalgamate specalist reports into an overall site report I think that it is not only some field staff who could do with training in finds/ enviro but also some specialists who could do with training/re-training in strat and site interp.
With regard to any barriers (percieved or otherwise) I do think that their is a tendency for both sides (and I am simplifing here) to only see their little bit (ie the finds assemblage or the holes in the ground) and forget that they are both are an intergral part in seeking to understand a site.
I must admit that I have noticed some alarming discrepencies amongst supposedly equally experienced specialists in their identification/ recognition of pottery!
I think that as usual there is a great deal of variance between different specialists. Some give good feed back and others dont. Speaking as one of these unfortunates who have to amalgamate specalist reports into an overall site report I think that it is not only some field staff who could do with training in finds/ enviro but also some specialists who could do with training/re-training in strat and site interp.
With regard to any barriers (percieved or otherwise) I do think that their is a tendency for both sides (and I am simplifing here) to only see their little bit (ie the finds assemblage or the holes in the ground) and forget that they are both are an intergral part in seeking to understand a site.
I must admit that I have noticed some alarming discrepencies amongst supposedly equally experienced specialists in their identification/ recognition of pottery!