+- 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: Oh thats a shame.......... (/showthread.php?tid=4317)
Oh thats a shame.......... - kevin wooldridge - 23rd February 2012
I'm not sure that a story becomes anymore interesting just by leaving out the cravats .....
Did you know Tom that 'cravat' derives from the Serbo-Croat language - the name for Croatia 'Hvrat'. Can't think of many other Serbo-Croatian words that have made it into English common usage... Maybe we should start a new thread '100 facts about neck-wear'...
Oh thats a shame.......... - P Prentice - 23rd February 2012
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I'm not sure that a story becomes anymore interesting just by leaving out the cravats .....
Did you know Tom that 'cravat' derives from the Serbo-Croat language - the name for Croatia 'Hvrat'. Can't think of many other Serbo-Croatian words that have made it into English common usage... Maybe we should start a new thread '100 facts about neck-wear'...
should spend more time on wikepedia then
Oh thats a shame.......... - P Prentice - 23rd February 2012
Jack Wrote::face-approve: Now we're getting to the crux.
Of course not..............as any archaeologist worth their salt would instantly ask...
'Just one hazelnut shell, that could be residual/intrusive? Was it abraded? Where were the artefacts/ecofacts, in the same context? How was that context formed? etc etc etc.'
Before jumping to such a conclusion.
Not to mention checking the measured chronologies for your bit of pot and arrowhead. Gather all the info together and critically assess the most likely suite of interpretations.
But far better to look for carbonised residue on the pot and/or TL date the pot directly.
Such an arrangement of objects presents a fascinating set of questions to pursue.............never assume anything, question everything.
With the given information, there is no reason why any of those objects are contemporary. Even if they are from the same 'context'.
so what if the stratigraphically later context contained a grooved ware rim with some black stuff on the outside which returned a date of say 2500?
Oh thats a shame.......... - Dinosaur - 23rd February 2012
Waste of C14 date by the sounds of it, much more exciting if it was 3500 (assuming you meant BC? - even better if bc....)
Oh thats a shame.......... - P Prentice - 23rd February 2012
and the layer above a carinated bowl and a human mandible that dated 1700?
Oh thats a shame.......... - Ken Denham - 23rd February 2012
tom wilson Wrote:I misread that as 'history of cravats', which I would definitely read.
A typology of sartorial elegance, now I could support that idea. How do you think they became evident? Was it cultural influences from the continent or were we invaded by a load of cravat wearing Johnnie Foreigners?
Oh thats a shame.......... - kevin wooldridge - 23rd February 2012
According to Wikipedia the Croatians were mercaneries to the French crown and Paris became enamoured of their colourful neckwear, which was then named after the wearer. But what I want to know is what is the Serbo-Croat word for a cravat. Surely not the same as the French....according to Google translate the word is 'кравата'...which translates phonetically as 'kravata'....I don't believe that!!
Oh thats a shame.......... - tom wilson - 23rd February 2012
The typology of gentlemen's neckwear seems well-documented and quite easy to date. Following the early development outlined above, a profusion of forms in the C18th and early C19th seem to have coalesced into a simplistic form definable principally by the ratio of its dimensions, colour, paterning and, of course, material.* Researchers have drawn some interesting socio-economic interpretations based on technological developments (e.g. cutting on the bias, New York, 1926), and 'transformations' of social change (e.g. the short, 4.5" ties of America in the '50s). Even so, researchers should be wary of the problems of residuality, which are common to most (or all?) dating techniques. As an ethnographic example, I myself have recently taken posession of an assemblage of 1970s ties from my father-in-law in Massacheusetts, which may cause some temporal confusion in records of my passing. I note, however, that some may be sufficiently abraded to reveal the truth to scrupulous researchers.
All this talk of Americans illustrates the fact that neckties also provide exellent data for studying exchange, both of material and ideas, independently and interlinked. This clearly dates back to the C17th, and the Croat chaps (the material), by way of Paris (the idea). I suspect this could be useful material for cross-cultural assessment of class relations too.
*As an aside, the bow tie, which appears to have developed from a common ancestor in the early C19th, is an intreresting form implying rather a different function. I appreciate that post-modernists will emphasise the fact that stylistic choices may be independent of any pragmatic criteria, but I do wonder whether aspects of later C20th life conspired to the demise of this sub-form. Indeed, I have always wondered why despite having some early enthusiasts (VG Childe, for one) the bow tie hasn't become as much a standard article of the fieldworker's wardrobe as the hard hat, flourescent blazer, or a decent pair of Oxfords. As anyone who has attempted to so much as visit a site on a blustery day, the standard form is not ideal; digging in one is a sartorial challenge only to be attempted by the masters of both arts.
Oh thats a shame.......... - Jack - 24th February 2012
P Prentice Wrote:and the layer above a carinated bowl and a human mandible that dated 1700?
Are you speaking of a particular example? I notice your quoting RC dates incorrectly:face-stir: they should include the error range. No radiocarbon measurement produces a single date.
Or is it an 'off the top of your head' example?
Can't comment on this particular example except to say can I look at your archive and the RC date certificates. There are a multiplicity of factors that could have caused the initial problem.
How large were the bits of pot, were they abraded, who identified them as the suggested styles and why, what was the certainty in the stratigraphy, what were the formation processes of the contexts from which the items came from, what lab did the RC measurement, etc etc etc!
Two of the biggest mistakes often made (not saying is the case here) are firstly assuming that things recorded in the same 'context' are contemporary, and secondly assuming the recorded stratigraphical relationships are law.
Question everything.
Oh thats a shame.......... - Dinosaur - 24th February 2012
tom wilson Wrote:...I have always wondered why despite having some early enthusiasts (VG Childe, for one) the bow tie hasn't become as much a standard article of the fieldworker's wardrobe as the hard hat, flourescent blazer, or a decent pair of Oxfords. As anyone who has attempted to so much as visit a site on a blustery day, the standard form is not ideal; digging in one is a sartorial challenge only to be attempted by the masters of both arts.
The spinning ones still work out just fine on a hot day though
