The next question: recording

[Unitof1]

do as much of the post-ex work in the field as can be done whilst the excavation is on-going

almost totally agree although would suggest that the aim should be to do it all in the "field" and that anything done outside of the field should be funded under "research"

[GnomeKing]

good job (as always) keeping up with meetings BAJR



It is not just a case of field staff 'seeing what happens' in post ex, ...or indeed about them understanding what information is 'best' to record for interpreting a site in post-ex...



indeed this is somewhat arse/over\head > in that: post-ex needs to pay much closer attention to field data+workers (especially, but not exclusively, the most experienced ones), and be guided by them as to best approach to the particular evidence......many oppertunities to increase the quality of data are wasted,

...a 'closer involvement' should be as much about quality control on Methodology and Final Reports (> hence planning and protection measures) as it is about 'up-skilling' aspiring young archaeologists...


[the problem can be construed, at least partially, as one of Copyright...]


> >> aspiring commercial archaeologists perceive a pre-existing social/wage structure that appears to reward a rapid movement away from excavations and into offices.

(Unfortunately for the young aspiring archaeologist,) The rather dumbed-down approaches (and minimal standards) that are all too often scrapped up in commercial projects, do nothing to encourage deep understanding of materials, landscapes, time etc. > all of which are necessary to develop sensitive, subtle, and scientifically valid data, from which archaeological narratives can be woven.

It was, and likley will always be, the personal perogative of the individual archaeologist to best equip them selves with knowledge appropriate to thier evidence >>> that sadly can be extreemly hard for some, for practical rseaonsfor many, and perhapes, for a few, even because they lack an intrest in authenticty in thier narrations.

poor threads(data) result in a poor garment (narrative) > hence the urgent need to think about quality in some commercial reports/post-ex/data-methodologies.....NOTbeingNAKEDisNot Enough!

(the emperor is wearing what !?)

[Dinosaur]

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.

Think I've complained on here before, that, when I've asked around the site-hut, most diggers have never even read a site report, and even worse don't have any interest in doing so, unless they're going to get specifically paid to do it, many are frankly not interested in anything beyond the limits of their own little DITCH-section [have yet another plan in front of me of a 2m wide trench where the ditches only seem to be 1m long (the dug bits)....luckily had the surveyor record the rest]. Leaving DBAs, WSIs etc in the cabin for people to read is a total waste of paper


Could do with more people like Tool, would make supervising a lot less depressing :face-approve:

[BAJR]

Thanks to all for the thread.
and Dino says it

Could do with more people like Tool, would make supervising a lot less depressing

We could. and these people should be rewarded... more get up and go = a better archaeologist = a higher rate of pay.

I remember the old days like many here... where reports, papers and books littered the site hut. where learning and discussion was part of teh process

Perhaps the end came when it was seen as a) unimportant to getting ahead and b) you were told there was no time for that sort of nonsense... get that linear feature 10% sampled

The rise of the field archaeologist will come in revitalising and reskilling and reward. perhaps another to add to the Skills Passport talk I am giving (yes.. believe it or not... bearing completion )

[kevin wooldridge]

I am hoping that tomorrow's DF conference (where amongst others David and Chiz are speaking) will consider the questions of a) how to incentivise the type of diggers described by Dinosaur and b) how to effectively channel the enthusiasm of diggers who want to look beyond the limits of their 'ditch'. Whatever constraints there might be on archaeology as a profession it seems to me that training, professional development and career enhancement are issues we can do something about.....See you there?

[P Prentice]

.......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

i'm guessing you are working on a large open area excavation where you are allocated 'features' to dig and you divide the fills into 'contexts' and put your finds in bags labelled with individual numbers and you fill out your context sheet after determining which boxes are relevant and which ones sont seem to be. you may even be given an 'intersection' where multiple features appear to meet and it is quite exciting trying to work out which ones came first and which ones came later. you may even have had a conversation with the supervisor who has jumped in your hole, made some loose and scratched a few lines in slightly different places to where you had them based on the angle the pebbles lay or a slight discolouration etc. you will probably draw the sections based on those lines and if you are lucky it will all make complete sense. maybe, just maybe the work you have done will be used to explain how the site developed with this feature cutting that and the other cutting this. but did you understand where those 'fills' came from and how they got there? did you understand what the effect of each of those processes was on the surrounding 'contexts'? does it matter? do you think that the story would be the same 100mm or 1000mm away or will this do?
one day you might find yourself 3m down a 10m wide shaft where the top 2.9m was excavated by 10 other people. you are surrounded by labels and scratches and blocks of concrete and steel. you know you are in 2000 years of persisitent process but none of it looks like a ditch.

[Dinosaur]

...one day you might find yourself 3m down a 10m wide shaft where the top 2.9m was excavated by 10 other people. you are surrounded by labels and scratches and blocks of concrete and steel. you know you are in 2000 years of persisitent process but none of it looks like a ditch.

Got any jobs going? Been pining after fun like that, hardly any round here

[P Prentice]

I am hoping that tomorrow's DF conference (where amongst others David and Chiz are speaking) will consider the questions of a) how to incentivise the type of diggers described by Dinosaur and b) how to effectively channel the enthusiasm of diggers who want to look beyond the limits of their 'ditch'. Whatever constraints there might be on archaeology as a profession it seems to me that training, professional development and career enhancement are issues we can do something about.....See you there?

so let us make a distinction between diggers (who merely dig) and archaeologists (who do archaeology). archaeologists have qualifications, do cpd, log their skills and have them validated, produce written evidence that they know what they are talking about, are licenced and are paid more for their skills - than diggers. incentivise and the industry gains. demoralise and the industry will be left to those who only care about profit

[Tool]

so let us make a distinction between diggers (who merely dig) and archaeologists (who do archaeology). archaeologists have qualifications, do cpd, log their skills and have them validated, produce written evidence that they know what they are talking about, are licenced and are paid more for their skills - than diggers. incentivise and the industry gains. demoralise and the industry will be left to those who only care about profit

From what I've seen on here and on site, there are a number of what you like to call archaeologists who know naff-all compared to some of the diggers I've met. Having qualifications, 'logging their skills' (whatever that is supposed to mean in the real world), and getting paid more is absolutely no guarantee that someone knows what they're talking about.

[Tool]

Thanks to all for the thread.
and Dino says it

We could. and these people should be rewarded... more get up and go = a better archaeologist = a higher rate of pay.

I remember the old days like many here... where reports, papers and books littered the site hut. where learning and discussion was part of teh process

Perhaps the end came when it was seen as a) unimportant to getting ahead and b) you were told there was no time for that sort of nonsense... get that linear feature 10% sampled

The rise of the field archaeologist will come in revitalising and reskilling and reward. perhaps another to add to the Skills Passport talk I am giving (yes.. believe it or not... bearing completion )

Again I guess I'm very lucky - this crowd mostly actively encourage us to see the wider picture. Suits me, as that's why I do it, to learn stuff. If I just wanted to dig holes I'd be out earning shed-loads more money on a groundwork gang.

Edited to add: And thanks BAJR and Dino for the compliments. Undeserved but makes this pint of cider taste even better.