Simple Samples Survey

[ginger]

Hi wax

yes i have contacted EH on this, they sent me a few links and i've got a copy of their guidelines, which i sincerely hope every unit has a copy of, because its fantastic! Currently my dissertation is focusing on attempting to get a sampling methodology which will encourage those who may not be sampling, for example i know that community groups are less likely to sample than commercial units, but equally the commercial units seem to sample less often than acadmic units, who pretty much sample Everything!

Im trying to find a balance between the triumvirate of archaeology, to produce a methodology which is functional for all, while being efficient and effect. (im starting to think an Msc dissertation just isnt big enough, but its a good start!)

[Wax]

My suspicion is that it all boils down to costs and if the curator does not stipulate an appropriate sampling stratagy as part of the brief then it won't get done. Commercial won't do it unless they have to (some exemplary units will out of professional pride). Community don't do it as there are limited funds and often no proper brief and it's not about the archaeology (again there are exceptions). Academic will do it as it is all part of the weird and wonderful world of archaeology they are selling to their students and academic reputation is crucial. It's simple, if it is about the archaeology first and foremost then it stands a chance of getting done if not then all bets are off.

[ginger]

i agree, and while the undercurrent remains this way, its the archaeology that suffers, with unknown amounts of material and information being lost to the politics and pride of heritage sector. I think that's why attempts like this are important, if its easy and cheap enough to do it, then the reasons for not doing it ie..budget, time, are out of the window, and we have half a chance of gaining some of the information and data which otherwise, would be lost.

for me its always about the archaeology, which is probably why im an non - archaeologically employed student

[Seedy Girl]

Hi

We don't process on site, we have a specific building back at the office for the environmental work (Dino knows it affectionatley as the tool store!). The processing procedures are not dictated by EH guidelines but rather what I think we can get from the samples ie small shell need smaller meshes etc. or what the PO would 'like' from the samples.

When I have people they are closely supervised until they are up to speed, I communicate the methodology that I and the PM have decided on. A lot of the processing sorting stage requires the confidence of having served time on procedures but most of the problems I have with 'temp' people is that they don't understand the relevance of environmental archaeology. Every time we have some new I try to educate them (some would say bore them to death) on the principles of environmental archaeology in order to contextualise the work they are doing for me and hopefully be able to go back on site digging and understand why they are taking the sample in the first place!

We follow the EH guidelines to 40l or 100%, however we have taken 100 litres, this is all dependant on the question!

The reports are done faster because I have the joy of instant communication with the POs.....

May post later as its finishing time :face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

As Seedygirl can attest, I'm afraid my site sampling strategy usually gets modified continuously while I'm digging a site, given the fore-knowledge that budgets only stretch so far I usually try to get maximum bang for the bucks. One usually has a fair idea what's going to be dateable (either from finds, stratigraphy or if it's going to end up on a potential scientific dating shortlist), so I generally concentrate sampling on those features, have never seen the point of epic palaeoenvironmental analyses of undated deposits. And sealed, finds-rich/faunal-rich etc assemblages get high up the list - Seedygirl's recently been doing me the goods on a staggeringly good late C17th pit assemblage where sadly the seeds were slighly disappointing but the finds and small bones were amazing, and the fact that the seed reults were in contrast poor was in itself of interest - getting a wide dataset from a small number of 'star' contexts has in my experience been far more archaeologically valuable than the usual palaeo report where there's a few charred seeds and a bit of chaff scattered across a load of poorly dated contexts. And some contexts are just rubbish sampling targets, such as ditches filled with secondary materials from who-knows-where. Always understand your site formation processes before even thinking about fetching sample tubs.

Definitely helps if the site's being dug by a PO who'll be writing the final report and has a good concept as the excavation develops as to where it'll be going and what data can feed into it - that's the best sampling strategy, and as Seedygirl pointed out the same samples can have multiple purposes (palaeoenv/finds/small bone/industrial etc), just needs someone to sit down and think things through and maximise the potential return on effort. And results from one context can affect what else to sample - if you've got a site with similar features over a significant time-depth, and e.g. a late Iron Age pit has lots of grain, try and sample a run of similar pits throughout the history of the site to the early Norman, on a small budget a coherent group of comparable data (in this case grain in pit fills through time) is going to be far more valuable than a random series of pit, ditch and posthole fills which tells no one anything useful

[Seedy Girl]

i .......if its easy and cheap enough to do it, then the reasons for not doing it ie..budget, time, are out of the window,

Thats the thing, it's not cheap! I'm often a big chunk of the px budget.......the processing and sorting can be done at reasonable costs, but what if you get the whole suite of artefacts and ecofacts from that one sample? Pot, cbm, fired clay, ind. waste, glass, charcoal, plants, fish bone, animal bone etc. that's just nine specialists in that one wee list. Then what if the site formation processes were not clearly understood on site, what if the feature is not/ can't be dated? That is then a waste of time and money and the data wasted. The data is only relevant if the feature can be dated, if not, it's just a pile of stuff!
i'm often trying to promote the relevance of charcoal analysis, but if a pit has got charcoal in it but not dated it's still just a pit with charcoal in it. If its in an isolated pit, then it's still just a pit with charcoal.....
if you've went to the effort of processing these samples then not get them analysed or even assessed then the sample is pointless.
One should never underestimate the cost of environmental archaeology, but one should also never underestimate the usefulness of it either!
The EH guidelines are good for on site procedures and report writing but the bit in the middle is only as good as your specialist. The soils and sediments, archaeology, type of sample taken and sample potential dictate processing procedures. What might work down south probably won't work up north (our lovely northern clays for eg).
Feel as though I could go on and on and on, it's like my favourite child!:face-approve: So I'll stop there in case it upsets the other one

[Dinosaur]

....what if the site formation processes were not clearly understood on site, what if the feature is not/ can't be dated? That is then a waste of time and money and the data wasted. The data is only relevant if the feature can be dated, if not, it's just a pile of stuff!...

...and of course being able to model residuality across your site through time is fairly important too, a pit that's been cut through 300 years of Roman statigraphy and then backfilled with the randomised same isn't going to be a good sample target. For a big RB site we did several years ago a significant proportion of the enviro assemblages ended up in the 'junk' column after the pot people had finished modelling the really quite epic residuality issue across the site - if 90% of the pot's residual it's a fair bet the same can be applied to the bone, seeds etc, the challenge is teasing out the secure stuff

[Dinosaur]

My suspicion is that it all boils down to costs and if the curator does not stipulate an appropriate sampling stratagy as part of the brief then it won't get done. Commercial won't do it unless they have to (some exemplary units will out of professional pride)

Just needs a simple change of attitude from "only doing it cos we have to in order to fulfill the contract", to "doing it cos its interesting" - I really do wonder sometimes why a lot of people become commercial archaeologists in the first place since they clearly aren't actually interested in the archaeology and the fun of finding stuff (which can sometimes be a helluva lot in a well-selected tub of soil)

[Tool]

Just to stray a wee bit, is there a good book on the basics of sampling? Something that gives an overview on the subject, doesn't cost too much, and doesn't get bogged down in too much technical speak?

[Seedy Girl]

Just to stray a wee bit, is there a good book on the basics of sampling? Something that gives an overview on the subject, doesn't cost too much, and doesn't get bogged down in too much technical speak?

Hi

the short answer is no. However the best a free(ist- I made up a word!) is the EH guidelines on environmental archaeology,download via their website, along with other free guidelines. It's a very good starting point. All the other books tend to be far more in depth and you can get bogged down in wanting to sample everything. Remember,that I said in a previous post it's all about the question asked of the sample, preservation and site location.....and remember the guidelines are just that, guidelines!

Enjoy, but beware environmental archaeology is very addictive}