The next question: recording

[GnomeKing]

one way round this old problem is to explictly focus on recording the actions of the archaeologist - ie 'excavtion units' :defined volumes of material that has been excavted in more or less discrete units.

eg "describe what you see...." ... and what you have done....

(this helps avoid the interlectual condrum of relating an imposed structure of order on an ultimatley seemless natural reality)

one permutation of the problem is the frequent demands for 'exact' boundaries and relationships made upon field staff, when in fact none may exist... there is pressure to interpret the evidence in ways that easily fit methods of 'neat & tidy' data collection.

[P Prentice]

"describe what you see...." ... and what you have done....

one permutation of the problem is the frequent demands for 'exact' boundaries and relationships made upon field staff, when in fact none may exist... there is pressure to interpret the evidence in ways that easily fit methods of 'neat & tidy' data collection.

precisely...........more or less.

[Tool]

Now this puts me in the awkward position of having to disagree (but just a bit) with someone who has vastly more knowledge and experience than me, and who's opinion I value. But firstly I agree totally with the 'record what you see' part. That is an imperative. But, when presented with a feature that displays all the physical characteristics of what the average person understands to be a ditch, I don't see a problem with calling it a ditch. Because the word doesn't, or at least shouldn't, do anything other than describe the feature's characteristics. It isn't a value-word, in that it doesn't imply any kind of function or intent. Now you may be lucky enough that there is sufficient evidence relating to this ditch to say that it's 'possibly' this, or 'probably' that, but calling it a ditch in itself doesn't imply that it was dug to please the gods, because the digger had just split up from his girlfriend/manager/goat and needed to expend some energy, or that they needed to stop the privy flooding when it rained. Further, I worry that using such couched words as 'linear feature' or whatever may even cloud the issue to a future reader, where conventions may have changed. I'm very much in favour of keeping the language as simple and basic as possible to avoid any future ambiguity, unless someone can convince me otherwise of course...

Edited to add: This is in reply to BAJR, as I didn't spot the later comments until after posting. It's been a long day... (battling with a DITCH!) }

[Tool]

one permutation of the problem is the frequent demands for 'exact' boundaries and relationships made upon field staff, when in fact none may exist... there is pressure to interpret the evidence in ways that easily fit methods of 'neat & tidy' data collection.

That's an interesting point. I've thought for a while that it would be very good for us diggers to see what happens to all the data post-ex., because I'm sure that would offer the best guidance to exactly the kind of info and interpretation on a context sheet that is actually useful to the job of interpreting the site as a whole.

[kevin wooldridge]

..... I've thought for a while that it would be very good for us diggers to see what happens to all the data post-ex., because I'm sure that would offer the best guidance to exactly the kind of info and interpretation on a context sheet that is actually useful to the job of interpreting the site as a whole.

Totally agree.....but whats the best way to go about it?

[Tool]

Totally agree.....but whats the best way to go about it?

Good question. Maybe companies should be encouraged to incorporate x number of hours in the office in the training regime of trainees. But, would the benefits outweigh the costs of having a digger not digging and the person doing the post-ex. getting held up? Probably not in this commercial world. Especially as so many are only employed on short-term contracts. It's probably more an ideal in my head than a practical proposal.

[kevin wooldridge]

There is a way to do it.We do it in my museum in Norway and that is to do as much of the post-ex work in the field as can be done whilst the excavation is ongoing. Once upon a time it used to be the imperative of UK field supervisors to check records and create the site matrix whilst still in the field. That again is a large chunk of the post-ex work....I think that the separation of budgets into excavation and post-excavation components doesn't help the situation. There is a large overlap which could be exploited here for greater efficiency, but probably doesn't appeal so much to the accountants. But as you say some folks work on a project and never actually see the offices of the company they work for....so suggesting x hours in an office that isn't the same as the site office is not going to work....

[BAJR]

having to disagree (but just a bit) with someone who has vastly more knowledge and experience than me, and who's opinion I value.

I will have to kill you now.

Seriously though... when reality hits.. you often use words like ditch wall floor etc... the point is to be able to leave that door open to other options... and divide up description and discussion. in your discussion.. you can say ditch... in your conversations with others. you can say ditch. in your day book ( I am sad enough to have one ) you can say ditch. but in the description you say what you see

You are quite right and pick up a point I may just kick up at teh PROSPECT / Diggers Forum meeting on Saturday. that the field archaeologist needs more input into the post ex to "see" what happens next.

so damn right :face-kiss:

[Tool]

And that was me with my diplomatic head on! :p

Maybe our context sheets/fieldwork manual are well designed then, because the only opportunities to call something a ditch, or pit, or posthole or whatever are within the clearly defined Discussion/Interpretation section of the context sheet or in the title of a drawing or photo. With the latter I can't imagine anyone takes any notice of anything other than the context number so you could write 'pigeon' and no-one would care... and the manual is very clear as to the words you should use for each part of the descriptive process. This is a good thing in general, but occasionally feels overly restrictive, and makes you think very hard about how you then write your interpretation. Again, not a bad thing in itself I guess.

As to your last point I think it's a two way thing. Yes, us diggers could do a better job if we could see more of the picture, but I also think that maybe there needs to be more input to the final picture from the digger - even the most inexperienced digger will have a better feel for a feature (even if they can't interpret it/understand it) than someone who hasn't stuck their trowel anywhere near it. Maybe.

[Tool]

There is a way to do it.We do it in my museum in Norway and that is to do as much of the post-ex work in the field as can be done whilst the excavation is ongoing. Once upon a time it used to be the imperative of UK field supervisors to check records and create the site matrix whilst still in the field. That again is a large chunk of the post-ex work....I think that the separation of budgets into excavation and post-excavation components doesn't help the situation. There is a large overlap which could be exploited here for greater efficiency, but probably doesn't appeal so much to the accountants. But as you say some folks work on a project and never actually see the offices of the company they work for....so suggesting x hours in an office that isn't the same as the site office is not going to work....

From my all-too-brief experience it does happen. But to an infinitely variable degree, because of the huge amount of variables present on each job. Such as: size of the job; number working on the job; complexity of the job; time/financial constraints; the makeup of the workforce; who's running the job... But yes, the separation of excavation and post-ex. is rather silly, isn't it! One is pointless without the other. In fact, they are all part of the whole - neither means anything without the other.