Simple Samples Survey

[Dinosaur]

@Ginger - good thread, nice to have some archaeological science on here, if only to see who hasn't been contributing }

[ginger]

@Ginger - good thread, nice to have some archaeological science on here, if only to see who hasn't been contributing }

you have all been an amazing help! ive managed to dodge several holes in the idea thanks to this thread! :face-approve:

[Seedy Girl]

hi Ginger,


'The subject which my research is focused is on the collection (volume) and initial processing (on site), which is suggested in the EH guidelines to be something which should be done on site, with the exception of samples collected by and for a specialist. (- seedygirl i think that means you)'

For larger sites I am often out in the field digging for the first couple of weeks (not as a specialist though). This allows me to gain a 'feel' for issues such as preservation or the geology. The guidelines suggest that the data from the samples should be collected at the same time as the fieldwork is undertaken, which doesn't indicate it should be done in the field. However, as said previous the processing usually occurs at the same time as the fieldwork


'My research question is actually based in the identification of qualitative and quantitative differences in what can determined to be viable archaeological material (Charcoal, Microfauna, Bone, Plant) and Non Viable archaeological material (geological mainly ie..quartz, pebbles). It is addressing the issue regarding volume of samples recovered, eg, if 30 Litre sample has a higher quantity or quality of what is described as viable material, than of that recovered from a 5 litre sample.'

I had this discussion with another palaeoecologist a couple of weeks ago with regards to sub-sampling. He's quite keen on it (processing 5 litres then using the data from that to decide to further process or not). I have issues with that in that it is assuming that all fills are homogeneous eg if your 5 litre yielded 2 charred grain, then the assumption could be made that to process all of the sample would have produced 16 grains. If I process, say 30 litres- 3/4 of the sample) and I still have two, then they probably were intrusive, however, I may get two hundred and two then I get excited (not to be biased to other specialisms, I am easily pleased and get excited when I see loads of fish bone and shell!).

Still think there are too many variables for a standardised methodology (but I am open to being persuaded :face-approve: and proved wrong )

[Jack]

Shouldn't that be 40 litres? .....wasn't there a paper written ages ago that prompted the upping of enviro samples from 30l to 40l? From what I remember, wasn't that paper all about getting a statistically viable number of grain i.e. over 200.

Can't remember much about it though..........

[Dinosaur]

Think EH says 40L, but then that'd be an 'industry standard' and therefore ignored by everyone... :face-stir:

[Jack]

...............
There's got to be a really good reason to waste thousands of pounds doing analysis on undated deposits (particularly at the expense of dateable ones), and if there's macro enviro material in it, why isn't it being dated anyway? Drives me up the wall, all the pollen/macros reports that go into vast detail about the sequence when they haven't bothered pinning dates on it, or, even more annoyingly, only one. Things like the Elm Decline demonstrably happen at widely different times in different places, so I'm amazed people still get away with using stuff like that as their dating tool

I think the dating issue with respect to analysis of palaeoenvironmental data is being confused in this discussion. Research is very different to commercial post-ex.
In the latter we only do what is reasonable or what needs to be done now, by us. We don't waste (the clients) money on engaging in programmes of research on material that can be stored for perusal by academia.
Commercial archaeology only mitigates any damage done.

Whereas research archaeology does whatever is in the research design.

In the latter, there may be a point to analysing undated material.

In the former there is not.

However, there is dating and dating.......in commercial archaeology you can often have features that could be of any date, because you may be looking at them in a pipe trench, or directional drilling launch/ reception pit etc. If you can't tell if your sample is mesolithic, medieval or was made last week.....it's not worth analysing.

Thats what I (and I think the others) mean by undated deposits.

However, if you think your deposit is broadly, say, Anglo-Saxon...but its not precisely dated, then of course there is still some point to analysis....though a radiocarbon date or three would be better.

[Jack]

Shouldn't that be 40 litres? .....wasn't there a paper written ages ago that prompted the upping of enviro samples from 30l to 40l? From what I remember, wasn't that paper all about getting a statistically viable number of grain i.e. over 200.

Can't remember much about it though..........

Might be....

1985 (Van der Veen, M.) Carbonised seeds, sample size and on-site sampling. In N. R. J. Fieller, D. D. Gilbertson and N. G. A. Ralph (eds.) Palaeoenvironmental Investigations. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 258, pp. 166-178

Though all the info is in

English Heritage 2011. Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation (second edition)

especially pages 8 - 14, fig 5 is especially important.

(hey, what has EH ever done for us?:face-stir

[Dinosaur]

I think the dating issue with respect to analysis of palaeoenvironmental data is being confused in this discussion. Research is very different to commercial post-ex.
In the latter we only do what is reasonable or what needs to be done now, by us. We don't waste (the clients) money on engaging in programmes of research on material that can be stored for perusal by academia.
Commercial archaeology only mitigates any damage done.

You misunderstand, was suggesting making best use of the limited commercial budget - BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN NOT PURSUING RESEARCH GOALS, WSIs these days are supposed to make reference to relevent research agendas in the way they propose investigating the site, and to that end any sampling and dating programmes should presumably be tailored to the same ends, rather than being random (and often a pointless waste of what money was available)

[Jack]

and I was talking about the difference between commercial digs and research (university ran/ grant-funded/ society etc) digs

Though maybe need a better name

[Dinosaur]

[in] commercial post-ex...we only do what is reasonable or what needs to be done now, by us. We don't waste (the clients) money on engaging in programmes of research on material that can be stored for perusal by academia.
Commercial archaeology only mitigates any damage done...

...is what you actually said? Afraid that isn't true, modern Specs and WSIs usually include reasearch objectives as part of the mitigation