Thought for the Day

[trowelhead]

Dear archaeological types,
We as archaeologists present the evidence we find as impartially as we can and ignore all political and religious inclinations we hold thus allowing a balanced and non biased view of our past.

Having had a ball bouncingly hearty discussion in the site hut the other day non of us could say that we didn?t in some way project our own belief system within archaeological data we record, be that Marxist, Processional or new age (man).

For instance how can someone from a public school back ground who has never smoked the Ol Jamaican Old Holborn but knows a good Port when he or she tastes one interpret data in the same way as a dreadlocked cider supping fellow of equal intellect but not from the same background and also people of differing cultures. I am aware of creating arcytipypical stereotypes but I am trying discribe the veritable po pori of individuals working with and interpreting raw data.

You meet so many differing types within this profession from the profound to the just plain barmy and with that in mind can we say that history as it was laid down without bias can be interpreted in just the same way by a group of individuals with such differing outlooks on the modern world around us.

We could say that the Project Officer has the most clowt on site anyhow and changes description and interpritations on context sheets to fit his veiw of the site and fit any phasing he has concluded as happening on the site..[?]

I thank you?

Death to the Aristo`s

[Alfie]

I have often wondered about this. I think that perhaps the best archaeology is done when a kind of empathy is reached between the excavator and the individual who created the feature, after all you are both digging the same feature in the same place( hopefully), probably both cold and wet, underpaid, hungover etc. If we accept that our own personalities will introduce bias into our interpretation of a site, the best way to counter this would be to have a broad demographic of society excavating and discussing the interpretation.I remember being shot down in flames when I suggested to an academic that individual personalities in the past were identifiable/ recoverable. The academic in question looked at societies as predictable mechanisms which could be understood in the same way a beehive can be ( drone A has this role which is supported by worker C) I always thought that this left little room for eccentrics or innovation and therefore evidence of this nature would be overlooked because it wouldnt fit into the mechanism. Hence the importance of discussing the site with collegues and the importance of the free text box on a context sheet.

[troll]

I think that of equal standing to the importance of the free text box is to have prompts on the context sheet. When an archaeologist is given frames of reference, an almost standardised system of data retrieval is achieved. Record the feature within frames of reference then, interpret till one`s little heart is satisfied in the free text box. Of course, all archaeological endeavour is theory driven, we just need to see the difference between recording the scene of the crime and then wafflin about it.

[BAJR Host]

I agree.... first...

Record exactly what you see... not what you want, not what you know to be how it should be... but what is actually there


then and only then can you interpret.

Another day another WSI?