Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
27th April 2011, 07:08 PM
in your memory shadowjack and to show that I care in the face of hostyies post banning perogative because its his web site this looke likee my last post before last
Quote:
[SIZE=3]Just an extra thought shadowjack. When you draw an artefact do you ever think that the ?excavator? should be credited within the drawing, possibly in order to enhance the providence of and the attribute of the artefact and association to the context and with any other artefacts and observations made about the context so to which the archaeology of the creator might be further preserved by record and more so in your wonderful dissemination
I would like to add that Bibio marci was out on the 24th around my way
[/SIZE]
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
28th April 2011, 10:56 AM
unit you are genuinely funny, a bright spark in a grey desert, our very own Schwarzger?t - and i've only just noticed what your tag line actually means lol
but this tree is barked out
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
29th April 2011, 10:11 AM
P Prentice Wrote:assuming your barrow site report is at least 40 years old and the site not so far flung as to be removed from any subsequent research framework or regional or local synthesis, I cant believe that the intervening decades of research will not need to be taken into consideration when considering the said site, even if it is ?spot on?. Verbatim reproduction of the site narrative without regard to current theoretical debate, i would contend, does little service to the original excavator or your current report, even if it is ?spot on?. Surely what is needed is a properly referenced synopsis of the excavation with appropriately modified and referenced illustrations where necessary, along with directions to the original site archive? How would this be rude?
Since the report would be included as part of publication of a much wider chunk of landscape, it would get an up-to-date discussion/reinterpretation elsewhere in the monograph as part of that wider landscape - the excavator didn't know that the barrow was sitting right next to a possible cursus (now sadly pretty much entirely quarried with only old APs and a 1970s watching brief to go on) and over the road from a henge (now very definitely entirely quarried, but also excavated, archive sitting on shelf behind me, phew!) - the point is to present the surviving evidence for the barrow excavation, such as it is, in its extant form (to avoid any possible future confusions/misinterpretations of what I've done with it, plus of course using the original report illustrations saves money....), and then take it further as part of the wider landscape interpretation
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:Since the report would be included as part of publication of a much wider chunk of landscape, it would get an up-to-date discussion/reinterpretation elsewhere in the monograph as part of that wider landscape - the excavator didn't know that the barrow was sitting right next to a possible cursus (now sadly pretty much entirely quarried with only old APs and a 1970s watching brief to go on) and over the road from a henge (now very definitely entirely quarried, but also excavated, archive sitting on shelf behind me, phew!) - the point is to present the surviving evidence for the barrow excavation, such as it is, in its extant form (to avoid any possible future confusions/misinterpretations of what I've done with it, plus of course using the original report illustrations saves money....), and then take it further as part of the wider landscape interpretation
interesting and i see your point - but has your client agreed to fund this extraneous work that they were presumably not liable for, or is px funding coming from elsewhere? I am interested because the level of work you seem to be alluding to presumably requires px assessment and therefore an updated resarch design?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
P Prentice Wrote:interesting and i see your point - but has your client agreed to fund this extraneous work that they were presumably not liable for, or is px funding coming from elsewhere? I am interested because the level of work you seem to be alluding to presumably requires px assessment and therefore an updated resarch design?
Pessimist! - who says I'm charging? They're ultimately going to be forking out a lump sum for a fairly large book anyway which is not significantly affected by half a dozen extra pages (forgot to mention the 3 or 4 other old jobs by other people that need including), and if I can't track down the finds archive, what project design? Since they're effectively part of my site anyway they'll still need discussing whether I publish them or not.....or are you one of those frighteningly blinkered people that seems to think that your site stops just cos someone in the 19th century put a field boundary round it? :face-stir:
- and anyway, the client hasn't run away screaming when the idea has been mooted in the past... 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:Pessimist! - who says I'm charging? They're ultimately going to be forking out a lump sum for a fairly large book anyway which is not significantly affected by half a dozen extra pages (forgot to mention the 3 or 4 other old jobs by other people that need including), and if I can't track down the finds archive, what project design? Since they're effectively part of my site anyway they'll still need discussing whether I publish them or not.....or are you one of those frighteningly blinkered people that seems to think that your site stops just cos someone in the 19th century put a field boundary round it? :face-stir:
- and anyway, the client hasn't run away screaming when the idea has been mooted in the past...
what project design indeed!
i'm one of those people that thinks the site includes the landscape it sits in and that all reports should include every intervention ever taken place in it. i'm also one of those people that includes a local and regional perspective which includes the grey literature and the forthcomings whenever i can get hold of them. but i work on the understanding that everything is interpretted at the digging stage so i dont necessarily feel the need to trot out verbatim whatever has gone before.
i have managed to publication a backlog project for a 1960/70s excavation which required considerable editing and rewriting as well as changes to plans and section drawings with no fault to the original excavator but absolutely necessary to the integrity of the publication.
what is interesting about your project is the clients apparent willingness to accommodate / subsidise some earlier interventions or your apparent ability to undertake additional work at no extra cost - clearly some of the benefits of not having a project design!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
There is, however, one rather large previous excavation that isn't going to come into play....really the other unit ought to be doing something from their end....
I'm lucky in that only one of the previous interventions that I'm intending to cover produced any finds (and all but one of those are currently missing - the one pot we've got has been referred to so much in the literature despite never being published that even I could write a report on it), and all but one were just watching briefs/salvage recording - the record for probably the most interesting consists of about 10 lines of description and a sketch plan and section all on one bit of paper lurking in a folder amongst loads of other stuff in the local HER, full marks to the guy in the 70s for calling it a 'Neolithic ditch', while completely missing its significance.....that'll be not looking at the wider landscape then.....
Also since I'll have to refer to these sites anyway (mostly they were digging/recording exactly the same features my lot are currently playing with) they'll need some form of explanation and illustration as part of the main report, so apart from my free time there really isn't any noticeable extra cost to the client for getting a superior end product, which is the kind of thing they like :face-approve:
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
The piont that was missed in this long disscusion is that is entirley possible for 'report witters' to completley re-invent the primary record when parts of dont fit thier narrative, budget, or level of knowledge.
I know for a fact that records ARE selectively discarded or re-written on this basis - sometimes with clear personal motivations, and never with open acknowledgement.
Yet AGAIN the value and technical expertise of Excavation Specialists/Fieldworkers is abused....
I feel just as agrevied as any unpaid musician or plagerised author, if my technical work is simply a plaything for so called 'managers', especially when they supuriously claim to conform to Standards.
Unitof1 is right...there is a systemic problem with the authenticity of Client reports, when there is no acceptance that technical documentation and field investigation are inviolable products of individual/collaborative Creative enterprise.
A call for a change in paradigm is a lonely howl in the wind - at least it is here in the Kingdom of the Deaf....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Quote:field investigation are inviolable products of individual/collaborative Creative enterprise.
the way to gnomeking
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
so are you arguing for the abolition of context sheets, in which case you have my support because they are a waste of paper, or, are you suggesting that everybody publishes their context sheets, in which case you have my support because it would be really amusing
|
