21st October 2013, 01:13 PM
As with all science, the reasons and evidence for any interpretation of the measured data is vitally important, as is a quantification/assessment of sources of error.
So yeah, PP. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. :face-stir:
Too many archaeologists are obsessed with stating what something is.....a 'pit', a 'hearth', a 'tree-throw hole', a 'boundary ditch'..........without a thought as to why they think it is that or what the evidence for that conclusion is.
This applies equally to the all important formation processes.
And absolutely, every 'definition' archaeologists create is artificial, be it the transition from the mesolithic to the neolithic, or the interface between deposit 2022 and 2021. These boundaries help us to order the data and in the end get closer to an understanding of the thing we are measuring.
But it is very important to remember these definitions are just constructs and are not the thing we are measuring itself.
In my humble opinion, a context sheet is a tool for recording not interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, the digger's thoughts, feelings and interpretations should be recorded on the sheet along with all the cross-referencing of numbers and evidences for the why's and all other such data.........
But a site should be interpreted from the collective data, which will not be apparent until your dates come back from the lab or your specialist reports return.
So yeah, PP. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. :face-stir:
Too many archaeologists are obsessed with stating what something is.....a 'pit', a 'hearth', a 'tree-throw hole', a 'boundary ditch'..........without a thought as to why they think it is that or what the evidence for that conclusion is.
This applies equally to the all important formation processes.
And absolutely, every 'definition' archaeologists create is artificial, be it the transition from the mesolithic to the neolithic, or the interface between deposit 2022 and 2021. These boundaries help us to order the data and in the end get closer to an understanding of the thing we are measuring.
But it is very important to remember these definitions are just constructs and are not the thing we are measuring itself.
In my humble opinion, a context sheet is a tool for recording not interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, the digger's thoughts, feelings and interpretations should be recorded on the sheet along with all the cross-referencing of numbers and evidences for the why's and all other such data.........
But a site should be interpreted from the collective data, which will not be apparent until your dates come back from the lab or your specialist reports return.