8th August 2013, 08:46 AM
Cheers for the compliment (I think)
Am currently finishing a report on a dreadful urban site (most of the recording was done peering down drainage-runs and picking finds out of machine-spoil) where half the finds were intrusive anyway (endless 'invisible' pits/postholes etc, not to mention the amazing ability of boreholes to introduce modern stuff down the stratigraphy). Apart from stratigraphic relationships (where discernable), have been having to use physical relationships and basic common sense quite a lot ("if it's up there its unlikely to be Saxo-Norman whatever the pot report says" - luckily lots of level-data). The key is to stand back occasionally and think "what's going on at this date, across the whole site", then plunge back into the minutiae of "why's this 14th century posthole got Victorian pot in it?"
Finds, stratigraphy, physical relationships, scientific dating etc are all merely alternative strands of data, and all potentially flawed (even if the recording on site's been 100%), it's up to the author of the final report to pick and mix what data provides a final intelligable, coherent narrative, while explaining in a clear and logical manner why they've chosen to disregard other evidence along the way. Peer-review is a wonderful thing, sharpens the mind, it's just a shame it's rarely used in grey lit reports
Am currently finishing a report on a dreadful urban site (most of the recording was done peering down drainage-runs and picking finds out of machine-spoil) where half the finds were intrusive anyway (endless 'invisible' pits/postholes etc, not to mention the amazing ability of boreholes to introduce modern stuff down the stratigraphy). Apart from stratigraphic relationships (where discernable), have been having to use physical relationships and basic common sense quite a lot ("if it's up there its unlikely to be Saxo-Norman whatever the pot report says" - luckily lots of level-data). The key is to stand back occasionally and think "what's going on at this date, across the whole site", then plunge back into the minutiae of "why's this 14th century posthole got Victorian pot in it?"
Finds, stratigraphy, physical relationships, scientific dating etc are all merely alternative strands of data, and all potentially flawed (even if the recording on site's been 100%), it's up to the author of the final report to pick and mix what data provides a final intelligable, coherent narrative, while explaining in a clear and logical manner why they've chosen to disregard other evidence along the way. Peer-review is a wonderful thing, sharpens the mind, it's just a shame it's rarely used in grey lit reports