5th November 2008, 09:55 PM
I'm sure the curators who know enough would love to be able to trust archaeologists to get on with it...
but seriously, shouldn't the method statement/WSI set out appropriate methodologies in the first place. Or did I miss something?
I think that the long and short of it is that by and large archaeologists are willing to use new technologies to record stuff as soon as the kit becomes cheap/robust/easy to use enough. the main opposition come not (as Dr Pete suggested rather patronisingly) from the diggers whose jobs would be at risk, but from the PMs who have to fund the kit from already stretched budgets that don't cover any capital purchases, let alone the training and lead in befor it starts to become productive. Sometimes, new kit creates a new methodology (remote sensing/computer use of Bayesian stats), but you still need a person behind the machine to make sense (?) of it all.
but seriously, shouldn't the method statement/WSI set out appropriate methodologies in the first place. Or did I miss something?
I think that the long and short of it is that by and large archaeologists are willing to use new technologies to record stuff as soon as the kit becomes cheap/robust/easy to use enough. the main opposition come not (as Dr Pete suggested rather patronisingly) from the diggers whose jobs would be at risk, but from the PMs who have to fund the kit from already stretched budgets that don't cover any capital purchases, let alone the training and lead in befor it starts to become productive. Sometimes, new kit creates a new methodology (remote sensing/computer use of Bayesian stats), but you still need a person behind the machine to make sense (?) of it all.