Is single context recording the only way?

[barkingdigger]

Dino, fair enough - at only a few decades old "SCR" is probably the new term on the block...

Kevin, I agree we often lose sight of the real goal of archaeology. The problem, however, runs much deeper than just being misled by the "completeness" of the recording method - ultimately our Curators ought to be demanding more dissemination. We cannot blame the bulk of archaeologists for thinking their deposited paper SCR is the be-all if a) they never get to write reports 'cos they're only lowly diggers rather than POs, and b) the Curators don't demand full-blooded dissemination in the Brief. After all, the mantra of the entire Commercial world is "the least we can get away with, to satisfy the brief and receive the cash", regardless of sector.

As for future development of SCR principles, it all comes down to common sense (which sadly ain't that common) to apply the tools in a useful way, rather than "learn by rote" recording. There's no reason why we can't use digital mapping (traced off APs, outlined by GPS, etc) to capture drawn data for our contexts in whizzy GIS or even in 3D VR, and integrate it with text and pics in any number of ways. However, it needs to fit a purpose in order to unlock funds...

[beamo]

Dino - that is correct.

David made the point in his final comment above - Single Context Planning (SCP) is the extremist version of Single Context Recording (SCR) as developed by MOLA/MOLAS - it is 'designed for specifically complex and deeply stratified sites and is unsuitable for anything else' and I fully agree with this view.

Kevin is correct to say that we have not really taken SCR much further than its initial development, although technology is enabling the recording process to be speeded up. Maybe there is not really any place that we can take it without radical revisions.

I have excavated overseas on sites where the Wheeler system is still in use (Kenyon worked with Wheeler in the UK and used it at Jericho, anyone who dug with Kenyon was still using it for a long time afterwards). I stil remember how I was once unable to open up the square adjacent to the one I was excavating in Mesopotamia (where it was clear that the all answers lay regarding size of buildings etc) because each individual square had to be recorded in a separate notebook, of a type only available from Heffers in Cambridge, and all the notebooks for that season had been started. At least with SCR I could have just gone to the photocopy shop with some blank recording sheets and then got on with digging the site.

Beamo

[kevin wooldridge]

I stil remember how I was once unable to open up the square adjacent to the one I was excavating in Mesopotamia (where it was clear that the all answers lay regarding size of buildings etc) because each individual square had to be recorded in a separate notebook, of a type only available from Heffers in Cambridge, and all the notebooks for that season had been started. At least with SCR I could have just gone to the photocopy shop with some blank recording sheets and then got on with digging the site.

I can relate a tale at the extreme opposite end of the scale where a site (I won't even mention the country let alone the county) that totally relied on 'digital recording' i.e mapping by use of a total station was unable to proceed with any recording work, cos the TST had gone off for the day to a rescue project, and the unit in question had only access to one TST. That is not a criticism of the digital system, but demonstrates that advancement of SCR, particularly in the field of digital recording, needs to recognise that it requires a different tool kit to that required for doing these things on pen and paper. It needs a rethink of the strategy and/or if that can't be achieved, then an efficient back-up system. Many of us know lots of ways of doing things, Sometimes though I think the rigidity of SCR as practised deters the use of thought processes. That can't be a good thing for a profession that by definition deals with an infinitely variable resource and therefore requires potential infinite flexibility in its methodology.

My answer to the 'Mesopotamian' problem BTW would have been solved at the planning stage when considering the number of notebooks required for that season. If it looked likely that the opportunity would arise to open additional squares then a number of extra notebooks would be required. And why not just order a few extra anyway in case they might be needed. There would always be the following season as well...

[barkingdigger]

Gotta admit, "ran out of the right type of notebooks" is a pretty lame excuse by any standards! But all too typical of some "academic" projects I've seen in the past.

Still, I'm just waiting for the drought warnings, because we had "the wrong kind of rain"...

[Dinosaur]

Blimey! Maybe I haven't seen it all after all! (although I'm aware of the system) Will have to see if I can sneak that into a WSI at some point, just so I can tick it off on my Personal Development Thingy

[Tool]

Some companies are looking to embrace the technology, where hand planning as a rarity unless there is something of particular complexity or detail. Everything else is GPSd. The downsides of this are: cost - GPS is expensive both in capital and running costs, especially when coupled with the software needed to process the data; training/expertise; frequent down-time when the data connection is naffed (happens increasingly often as the more and more demands are put on the networks) and it's a right pain in the rump sometimes not having a paper record to look at, to place your own 'bit' in the wider context - you have to hope that someone has processed the data at the office and provided a printout that makes it back to site in time, at a scale that makes it legible and that doesn't just look like a kid's crayon drawing. But, when it works it's quick, efficient and produces a much more 'usable' end result. And that's as far as my knowledge on the matter goes at present...

[Jack]

Is single context recording the only way? ...........<snip>

Short answer. No.

Long answer. Depends on what you're recording. A castle? A pit? A test pit through soils/peat/marine silts? A topographic survey of an earthwork medieval village? A shipwreck? A scatter of flints in the topsoil? A mine? A cave? A Roman town? An Iron Age brooch in a field drain?

'How many times ave ar told ya. The right tool fer the right job, laddie.'
-lieutenant commander Montgomery Scott

(Students of the ‘School of Jack’ can gain study credits as a result of taking part in this discussion….)

Grin. Absolutely!

[sadie]

Good question Kevin!

I may be too institutionalised to answer it objectively now, but I wonder how we could excavate everything on an urban site so effectively? On a site where you can get away with digging percentages of features it's not really necessary but in a situation where you have to dig the upper levels away in their entireity to get to the lower stuff then I'm not sure there's a better strategy.

We did trial a digital planning system on Bucklersbury, but the various steel props, trench sheets and other engineering paraphenalia got in the way and it would have taken longer than SCR, moving the kit around to miss the obstructions. It did work beautifully on tessellated floors etc though, allowing the detail to be recorded quickly and accurately. GPS doesn't work in towns due to the height of surrounding buildings.

To quote an expert on the subject, Ed Harris himself said recently that the recording of 'surfaces' is crucial for the understanding of complex strat, and SCR combined with his matrix enables the site to be seen in four dimensions! Certainly once the dating information is combined with the digitised SC plans on a GIS programme the whole thing leaps out at you. Land Use diagrams remain pretty crucial when showing phasing, although they aren't included in that many publications these days.

Harris also said (in a Hodder-esque moment), that SCR and the matrix enable the excavator themselves to determine the sequence of their area of site, although with the caveat they they need to know what they are doing...

So with a highly trained workforce, up-to-date software and a sharing of data across wide geographical areas SCR should still be the best way to identify themes and development. What could possibly go wrong!?

[Dinosaur]

What could possibly go wrong!?

Intending to use all that mixed with planning from 3D photography - will tell you shortly....can see some long and painful weekends/evenings ahead...

[BAJR]

Here is a pdf ( actually works! ) of a trench I did as a test - the planning and interpretation is made so much easier! the section was unavailable to draw properly and a photo was impossible. ( width of trench and safety _

enjoy! a section I could not have drawn or recorded any other way.

http://www.bajr.org/documents/whitecastle.pdf

the record was done with both a sketch and context record sheets.


Forgot to say... download and then use mouse (with left mouse for rotate and right mouse for zoom and both for move) to look around