+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Copyright, Diggers and archaeology (/showthread.php?tid=3879)
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - GnomeKing - 26th May 2011
niether PP - just a more fundemental understanding of reality. That's All....
oh...., and the desire not to have my data misused by others for their own gain.
If you are correct that contexts sheets have become a 'waste of paper', it is precisley because the producers have been systemically and massively undervalued, discouraged, and (I suspect) increasingly poorly trained and sapped of their creative energy.
Probably it is also the case that more and more 'Report Writers' are insufficiently knowledgeable about the data they purport to disseminate ; thus, either a)they do not know how to get good data from their teams, b)they do not care about real field data, and would rather expound upon their own cleverness at 'creatively' assembling a report from thin air....
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - P Prentice - 26th May 2011
GnomeKing Wrote:niether PP - just a more fundemental understanding of reality. That's All....
oh...., and the desire not to have my data misused by others for their own gain.
If you are correct that contexts sheets have become a 'waste of paper', it is precisley because the producers have been systemically and massively undervalued, discouraged, and (I suspect) increasingly poorly trained and sapped of their creative energy.
Probably it is also the case that more and more 'Report Writers' are insufficiently knowledgeable about the data they purport to disseminate ; thus, either a)they do not know how to get good data from their teams, b)they do not care about real field data, and would rather expound upon their own cleverness at 'creatively' assembling a report from thin air....
gk your polemic may well surmount hyperbole and mine may well have been facetious but given that report writers were almost certainly producers of data themselves your axe would appear to be badly chipped.
there are inadequates at all levels of this dire profession - just as any other - i am of the opinion that the site is 'written' before the tools are removed.
i hope your future includes the choice to write your stories
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - GnomeKing - 26th May 2011
i am sure that it wont, because "there are inadequates at all levels of this dire profession"
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - Unitof1 - 26th May 2011
Quote:[SIZE=3]so are you arguing for the abolition of context sheets, in which case you have my support because they are a waste of paper, or, are you suggesting that everybody publishes their context sheets, in which case you have my support because it would be really amusingboth.
[/SIZE]
Annotated ?text and/or audio -graphics sheets/digiphotographs/back of envelopes, and modernise your concept of publication just toss it on the web somewhere
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - gwyl - 26th May 2011
GnomeKing Wrote:The piont that was missed in this long disscusion is that is entirley possible for 'report witters' to completley re-invent the primary record when parts of dont fit thier narrative, budget, or level of knowledge.
I know for a fact that records ARE selectively discarded or re-written on this basis - sometimes with clear personal motivations, and never with open acknowledgement.
Yet AGAIN the value and technical expertise of Excavation Specialists/Fieldworkers is abused....
I feel just as agrevied as any unpaid musician or plagerised author, if my technical work is simply a plaything for so called 'managers', especially when they supuriously claim to conform to Standards.
Unitof1 is right...there is a systemic problem with the authenticity of Client reports, when there is no acceptance that technical documentation and field investigation are inviolable products of individual/collaborative Creative enterprise.
A call for a change in paradigm is a lonely howl in the wind - at least it is here in the Kingdom of the Deaf....
i have seen colluvium being used for a deposit on top of a hill; also the same feature recorded absolutely differently - responsibility for some of which devolves absolutely on the employer (that is agent in the field) but some of which devolves on the individuals. and in the latter instance, when one is told that it is X comparable with X in an adjacent trench a description bearing little relationship with that which the rest of site is using is of little use. that happens - believe me. too often. i believe in training, but also in learning.
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - P Prentice - 27th May 2011
Unitof1 Wrote:both.
Annotated –text and/or audio -graphics sheets/digiphotographs/back of envelopes, and modernise your concept of publication just toss it on the web somewhere
i agree with unit - now shoot me
and i made a thread specially for you honey - wont you join me?
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - mpoole - 27th May 2011
I recommend a lie-down in a darkened room, with a cold compress?
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - GnomeKing - 28th May 2011
good points Gwyl - i guess by creativity i do not mean untrammelled fantasies or solipsistic absurdity...but clearly room for disagreements, multiple opinions, equifinality, and the like...
And also : space for ignorance of correct geomorphic terminology ( = chance for learning).
An outlook, and a group structure, which when addressing why, for example, two sections do not match, assumes that there my be many 'clear' answers and no definite answers at all.
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - Dinosaur - 28th May 2011
My moderate supervising experience is that on a lot of rural sites in particular the archaeological deposits tend to be all the same apart from varying quantities of rocks (or in the case of my current job, gravel with varying amounts of mid brown slightly silty sand soil), but that the context sheets end up with soil descriptions involving anything from pure clay to pure sand, and in a wide range of colours (one guy invariably describes brown as grey or green, we're not sure how to break it to him he's colour-blind....), so sometimes a certain amount of modification of the site record has to be carried out in order to produce a remotely realistic report - and I long since learnt to largely ignore on-site 'interpretations' which frequently belong purely in the realms of the Fortean Times, or possibly a secure institution....
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology - GnomeKing - 29th May 2011
Well that's one approach Dino....we must just have to trust in your own infallibility....
I have dealt with similar situations with Primary Records by making annotations or keeping my own parallel notes. Even better group disscusions On Site, about its soils, and what factors mght be most usefully highlighted to describe Similarity and Difference
It is not acceptable that primary records are altered Willy Nilly, or simply ignored in write-up , in the way that appears common practice.