9th January 2006, 04:39 PM
Hi All.
We were having a chat in the office today concerning small finds and no one could come up with a definition of a small find. For example do loom weights get a SF number and quern stones not? or is it up to the digger/supervisor to decide during excavation??
Thanks
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
9th January 2006, 05:08 PM
I can remember asking the same question on my second day of digging and also asking what a big find was.
A much better term is individual find which is treated in an individual way in terms of recording - measuring its position or needs for conservation.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
9th January 2006, 05:14 PM
We would do both quern stones and loom weights. Occasionally we will do all pieces of pottery as well but that is normally only on a site with 20 sherds or less (and probably always prehistoric). I think that its a good rule of thumb to small find anything unusual.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
9th January 2006, 05:35 PM
Terminology doesn't matter - 'small find', 'special find', 'individual find' etc. etc. etc. all get used.
The key distinction is this:
Does the find merit individual recording and assignment of a unique number, or does it only merit recording as part of an assemblage deriving from a particular context and referred to by the context number?
In principle this is a decision that should be made on a project-specific basis, because what is individually important on one project may not be on another. I suppose the key thing is, are you likely to refer to the object separately in the report?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
9th January 2006, 05:49 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
Terminology doesn't matter - 'small find', 'special find', 'individual find' etc. etc. etc. all get used.
The key distinction is this:
Does the find merit individual recording and assignment of a unique number, or does it only merit recording as part of an assemblage deriving from a particular context and referred to by the context number?
In principle this is a decision that should be made on a project-specific basis, because what is individually important on one project may not be on another. I suppose the key thing is, are you likely to refer to the object separately in the report?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
I agree with the above. But would stress the following: 'small find' is misleading - 'special find', 'individual find' are better. All relating to significant finds (small or large) which are of particular relevance to the site in question. If this has been determined then an extra level of recording is required to that of the normal finds assemblage..
Not meaning to be negative or insulting, but this is basic stuff.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
9th January 2006, 06:04 PM
1man1desk sums it up pretty well for me
Reminds me of the question over how you tell the difference between a pit and a posthole.
A pit is bigger than a posthole while a posthole is smaller than a pit. Obvious really.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
9th January 2006, 06:21 PM
1 man has it in a nutshell... however I had the same problem with a database I created that would only allow 'approved' terms
Thats a big posthole... no its not, its a small pit... lets call it a post pit, no I prefer Pitt hole.... Stop please....
Terminology.... don't you just love it!
I prefer SF (small find) but my definition is if it is not shoveled up in buckets, it becomes an SF... so that would mean if ceramics are rare on a site... and I find it... then SF number is given... or if I find a ceramic base with name stamp... SF.... (that would be because in the mass of ceramic assemblage... it was a rare or unusual piece)
It is all up to the individual site though
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
9th January 2006, 06:21 PM
From Crummy, N. 1983, 3 Colchester archaeological report 2: The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester 1971-9:
An excavated object which needs more detailed initial recording, more detailed description in publication, and possibly a more controlled environment for storage than, for example, pottery sherds or fragments of animal bones.
Also known as special finds, single finds and registered finds
Although I agree that specifics should be agreed on a project by project basis e.g. I have always found the spatial information from nails ( door lines, structural evidence) to be potentially extremely useful, but they are often counted as bulk find?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
9th January 2006, 06:47 PM
I believe that the largest 'small find' ever recorded was the Vasa ship recovered from Stockholm harbour in the late 1950's. Well at least there is a caption to that end in the Vasa museum. Well worth a visit by the way to anyone who has never been....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
9th January 2006, 08:00 PM
Naturally the policy for finds recording has been determined well before work on site began and set out in the brief/spec/WSI/project design (refer to 1man's definitions on another thread and delete as applicable).
Of course it can be changed if circumstances prove to be other than as anticipated.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
