25th May 2007, 02:15 PM
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?!!
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?!!