4th April 2010, 10:49 PM
I think as Dinosaur points out that there is certainly a lack of joined up thinking within archaeological field work. I think however, as Kevin suggests that the onus for achieving this is with those charged with the task of supervision. Again as Kevin suggests these are the people who should be leading the way by engaging with the general field staff, mentoring the inexperienced and entering into dialogue with the more experienced staff about strategies for excavation and passing on relevant information for their use. On most excavations at present this very rarely happens. Both experienced and inexperienced field staff are directed to make an intervention here and make an intervention there and are given little opportunity or time in the process to join the dots and gain any wider understanding of a site. I have also always believed that the best way to carry out excavation is by strict methodology rather than being led by unproven theory. Perhaps I am wrong in this assessment but quite often the latter rather the former seems to be to the fore on many jobs I've worked on. The net result is that the general field staff feel somewhat disenfranchised from the whole process with the obvious consequence of poor recording. I think we can all readily agree that this is something that needs to be addressed and if as Troll puts forward the Curatorial element was more proactive with regard to the primary record then there would be more incentive for the situation to be rectified.