17th February 2014, 12:03 PM
I am totally in agreement with David and Barking regarding the necessity for logical recording on site... My dis-ease with the SCR system isn't with the principle that we assign numbers/letters/coding to the lowest unit of stratification, as long as we agree that on some sites that might be a single pebble and on another site (or even the same site if dictated by the research strategy) it might be a wall or a ditch or even a lake. My problem is that the system has become rigidly stuck in its paper-based analogue history and hasn't kept up with the rate of technology. Some examples....
Planning. The simplest way of comparing structures was to drawn them onto transparent film and then overrlay the plans. There was a sensibility to minimising the data on any single plan sheet to a defined area (5m square or whatever) and to a single structure or singularity of structures (post holes all sealed by the same layer for example). This form of planning also required a fixed grid system to be imposed on the site (pegs, nails, strings and tapes). I think however with the ease of modern survey equipment and the ability to scan and digitize plan drawings, the use of rectified plan photography, that this system does not need to be as rigid as it once was....but few archaeological organizations or exponents of SCR seem to have taken up this challenge. Most people are still using the same system that was devised circa 1974 with all of the inefficiences, costs and time spent just setting up, rather than devoting that time to the recording itself let alone the time lost in post-ex unscrambling this data back into a version of the site.
Matrixes. The purpose of the site matrix as originally devised was to provide a summary of site relations, a template upon which to suggest stratigraphic, temporal and spatial relationships. It was closely tied to the consequential land-use diagram which in itself (particularly in urban archaeology) was a tool towards the synthesis of microdata into settlement and/or spatial analysis. Nowadays however the creation of the matrix is seen by many as the goal of the excavation. Lots of time is spent creating matrixes on site and in post-ex. But what is the purpose of a martrix? It’s a shorthand to considering relationships. Tramlines can be traced and there is a vague relationship to stratification in the order that the data is presented on the page. Likewise a temporal aspect can be reflected in the stratification (latest at the top, earliest at the bottom). But technology now allows us to interrogate/compare data through asking specific questions of related data bases (Boolean interrogation in its simplest form). It is very easy to ask questions of data i.e is that fill/structure/phase earlier or later, stratigraphically over or under, where are the nodes of connection between this and that plan, show me all structures of a single ‘phase’ or date-range etc etc. There is no need anymore to create new versions of the London Tube map for each and every archaeological intervention. More importantly asking questions of the data suggests we have taken it to a form of analysis or synthesis that is above and beyond just leaving a record of the site in a dusty archive
Disssemination Somewhere along the line we have lost the imperative of archaeological research, which has to be to disseminate a 'result'. We have fallen into a trap, again prompted perhaps by the 'accuracy' and perceived detail of SCR into believing that data alone is a sufficient archaeological record and that at some future date 'someone' (anyone!) will come along to analyse and/or synthesise that data. That of course is just putting off admitting that we are really not up to the job. My argument is that if we are unable to produce a 'finished' report for resource reasons and the resource that we spend the most on is the recording system itself, rather than analyzing the data towards dissemination, then we need to redress the balance, making SCR more efficient and less resource needy.
I love the methodology of SCR. I worked for the Museum of London for many years during the time that system was being created and honed. I love the idea that it is basically an ‘analogue’ GIS…so very advanced for its time. I just wonder why we have stopped developing it to the next level.
Planning. The simplest way of comparing structures was to drawn them onto transparent film and then overrlay the plans. There was a sensibility to minimising the data on any single plan sheet to a defined area (5m square or whatever) and to a single structure or singularity of structures (post holes all sealed by the same layer for example). This form of planning also required a fixed grid system to be imposed on the site (pegs, nails, strings and tapes). I think however with the ease of modern survey equipment and the ability to scan and digitize plan drawings, the use of rectified plan photography, that this system does not need to be as rigid as it once was....but few archaeological organizations or exponents of SCR seem to have taken up this challenge. Most people are still using the same system that was devised circa 1974 with all of the inefficiences, costs and time spent just setting up, rather than devoting that time to the recording itself let alone the time lost in post-ex unscrambling this data back into a version of the site.
Matrixes. The purpose of the site matrix as originally devised was to provide a summary of site relations, a template upon which to suggest stratigraphic, temporal and spatial relationships. It was closely tied to the consequential land-use diagram which in itself (particularly in urban archaeology) was a tool towards the synthesis of microdata into settlement and/or spatial analysis. Nowadays however the creation of the matrix is seen by many as the goal of the excavation. Lots of time is spent creating matrixes on site and in post-ex. But what is the purpose of a martrix? It’s a shorthand to considering relationships. Tramlines can be traced and there is a vague relationship to stratification in the order that the data is presented on the page. Likewise a temporal aspect can be reflected in the stratification (latest at the top, earliest at the bottom). But technology now allows us to interrogate/compare data through asking specific questions of related data bases (Boolean interrogation in its simplest form). It is very easy to ask questions of data i.e is that fill/structure/phase earlier or later, stratigraphically over or under, where are the nodes of connection between this and that plan, show me all structures of a single ‘phase’ or date-range etc etc. There is no need anymore to create new versions of the London Tube map for each and every archaeological intervention. More importantly asking questions of the data suggests we have taken it to a form of analysis or synthesis that is above and beyond just leaving a record of the site in a dusty archive
Disssemination Somewhere along the line we have lost the imperative of archaeological research, which has to be to disseminate a 'result'. We have fallen into a trap, again prompted perhaps by the 'accuracy' and perceived detail of SCR into believing that data alone is a sufficient archaeological record and that at some future date 'someone' (anyone!) will come along to analyse and/or synthesise that data. That of course is just putting off admitting that we are really not up to the job. My argument is that if we are unable to produce a 'finished' report for resource reasons and the resource that we spend the most on is the recording system itself, rather than analyzing the data towards dissemination, then we need to redress the balance, making SCR more efficient and less resource needy.
I love the methodology of SCR. I worked for the Museum of London for many years during the time that system was being created and honed. I love the idea that it is basically an ‘analogue’ GIS…so very advanced for its time. I just wonder why we have stopped developing it to the next level.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...