T5 Heathrow recording

[Kel]

Ah that's where I was confused then. It wasn't just a straight interpretation of the context or feature - it was a more holistic approach. Very interesting.

[Martin Locock]

The term used was 'reflexive archaeology'. The ADS has the T5 context descriptions available to download so you can see what resulted - certainly a lot of stuff abut the excavation process (try searching for "dog") that would not normally appear in the context record (but might appear in site notebooks), but (iit seems) very much about recording rather than reflection as in thinking about things.

[kevin wooldridge]

The term used was 'reflexive archaeology'

Thankyou Martin....that was the description I was struggling for earlier. But do you know whether the exercise was repeated elsewhere?

[Martin Locock]

I'm preparing a TAG paper on it - apart from some incpriporation of excavator's subjective states/ comments on the process by UDAS, it appears not. (Although i would be glad to hear of any examples!) I think (short version) that arcaheologists are wary of examining exactly what the purpose of, say, Munsell colour codes, in the great scheme of things - the default position is we record as much as we can as objectively as possible.

[barkingdigger]

I think (short version) that arcaheologists are wary of examining exactly what the purpose of, say, Munsell colour codes, in the great scheme of things - the default position is we record as much as we can as objectively as possible.

Funny - my experience of pretty much every site I've worked is that the crew were ALWAYS very willing to express rather vocally their thoughts on the purpose of Munsells and indeed most other bits of the site recording strategy! (When the company requests Munsells as a matter of course, it can be a right PITA to constantly have the "what use are they?" discussion from new arrivals...)

Munsells seem to bear the brunt of this, as a) the books are pricey, b) the pages quickly turn into a smear of 10YR3/4, and c) no two folk see the same colours...

[gumbo]

hi martin, there was a really good Interpreting Stratigraphy conference in 2001 on exactly the topic of interpretation during excavation and reflexsive methodologies (which I think Hodder coined at Catal Huyuk). The conference wasnt published unfortuntaely but Steve Roskams collected papers and edits were done (I believe) in the hope of an internet publication. There were presentations from a lot of projects that were doing similar things at the time. I would contact Steve if you are interested: I'm sure he would forward the papers.

On the topic, I kind of think it was a bit of a phase that we went through, kind of recognising that all recording is interpretation laden. After this I got the impression that people were happy to move on so long as we realised that we had just interpreted a ditch as opposed to objectively just digging and recording it! One thing I have always thought about Framework is, was the amount of innovation directly proportional to the amount of money the project had?! Perhaps less invention these days (certainly in a commercial context) is a product of tighter budgets?

[gumbo]

Also there is an awesome bit in Alcock's Arthurs Britain, which is obviously a lot earlier, where he basically describes the 'interpretation at the trowels edge' process almost the same as Hodder! I dont think this particualr reposte was picked up at the time but lots of people were certainly saying that Hodder was talking about interpretation as if he had 'suddenly come down the mountain' having invented it!

[P Prentice]

for my money i think interpretation starts before setting foot on site, is foremost when one is digging and is often turned on its head when one is writing it up. there is no such thing as objective archaeology no matter how many boxes you have filled out. report writers need to be on site being a royal pain in the ass looking over shoulders and asking questions - the rest is for the gods

[Dinosaur]

for my money i think interpretation starts before setting foot on site, is foremost when one is digging and is often turned on its head when one is writing it up. there is no such thing as objective archaeology no matter how many boxes you have filled out. report writers need to be on site being a royal pain in the ass looking over shoulders and asking questions - the rest is for the gods

A rare moment of agreement :face-approve:[so you may feel you need to retract that?]

[CARTOON REALITY]

there is no such thing as objective archaeology

Yes . . .

The archaeologist is a beast of raw emotion

And our little digs are rounded with a spoilheap

report writers need to be on site being a royal pain in the ass looking over shoulders and asking questions

No question about it.