Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
28th February 2006, 11:05 AM
We have it as a reporting requirement, so that we won't approve a report unless there's one in the back or the form is emailed to us separately, just like we used to do with the old paper SMR forms.
However, some units do prefer to do them on mass at the archiving phase - I think the big ones may make an exception for us and fill them in earlier, but we haven't had any real problems. Touch wood.
ML
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
28th February 2006, 11:19 AM
The briefs for my part of the world also have OASIS written into them. We have had to add extra time (& therefore cost) to the archiving part of our quotes so that they get entered. I do however get quite peed off that some units seem to get away with not entering their sites when it is a requirement in the brief. I do think that it is a good idea in principal (esp when doing background for sites) to have quick access to relatively recent reports from other units, but curators do need to be stricter about it. Yes I know that their are a million and one other things that also need done but if you ask specifically for something in a brief should that not be chased up? Then again I don't know what sanctions could really be made for units who don't - after all most likely planning permission and therfore payment will probably have been granted by the archiving stage.
Opps ML has partially answered my post - dam the time lag!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
Sorry if this veers slightly! off topic but, I think the main problem with grey lit is that it is so variable!
some units make a really good job of reports while others........!!!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2006
Whilst OASIS is a good idea in theroy the online form is so convaluted it takes at least 1/4 hour to fill in each record.
Surely an index should be a brief entry, certainly no more than 1 page. Items required could include site name, site location, type of work, brief summary (taken from the report), where the archive is deposited and an option for uploading a PDF copy of the report.
What are other members views on the current OASIS form, and what changes would they like to see.
hooowl
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
The Oasis form is hard work, but with practise I imagine it will get easier. What I don't like are the EH glossaries of accepted terms. By the time you have gone back and forth between the form and the glossary to find the accepted term for a post-hole, and every other feature on the site, you have lost the will to live.
I now ignore them and use standard field arch terms.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
The full text of Richard Bradley's lecture to the Society of Antiquaries in January on this subject can be found here
http://www.sal.org.uk/downloads/Bridging...ltures.doc
Quite an interesting read, and I look forward to his new book.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Yep, very interesting.
Commercial archaeology would benefit immensely from syntheses like this, which don't seem to exist even at a regional level yet(in my area at least). It is as difficult for a commercial archaeologist to do comprehensive background research as it is for the academics. Actually, I would argue it is more difficult, because we don't get three years funding and an assistant
. But we [u]DO </u> attempt it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Yes, I noticed that assumption in his speech too; that field archaeologists only write description not 'research'. But as I understand it, most of us (as you say) attempt to do research relevant to our projects. After all, I believe it is a specific requirement of MAP 2 to place a project within regional research agendas at every stage of the project.
Maybe he is attempting to justify academic's role!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I was particularly interested in two linked issues that he raised about the nature of archaeological fieldwork and I wonder if people agree with him:
1) That there has been little innovation in the techniques of excavation. In fact he only recognises three major developments 'stratigraphy', 'open area excavation' and 'sampling theory'. Everything else is a refinement, e.g matrices or geophysics, rather than a fundamental shift in practice.
2) That there should have been change in the nature of excavation techniques under the influence of changing archaeological theory. he sees this as a fundamental anomaly. In fact he says "Field techniques may have assumed a conventional character, but we should remember that they were invented to answer specific questions whose details have now been forgotten"
In other words, archaeological theory should influence field techniques. I am familiar with this argument from university (its the idea that neutral recording is impossible) but I have always been at a loss as to what practical implications this has. Many academics pay lip service to the idea, but they neglect to state explicitly what needs to change in field techniques.
Surely the techniques that we use are not primarily an extension of theoretical developments and the questions they throw up, but a response to the objective conditions of an archaeological site and the limited amount of information that survives? Because the nature of sites doesn't change (while intellectual fashions do), the techniques we use don't change much either. Is that a really old fashioned point of view?!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Agree with you entirely-all archaeology is theory driven.The mechanics of excavation don`t change although refinements here and there are welded to the norm.Perhaps a sea-change in technological advances will see a radical change in the mechanics of what we do? Grey literature may well be a valuable resource but-it`s hidden away and frankly, I would`nt trust some commercial reports as far as I could throw them.I certainly would`nt use them in academic research without a huge pinch of salt!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
