4th November 2008, 12:07 PM
Sort of reminds me of an earlier thread (can we be totally objective in archaeology). All the all-singin'-an-all-dancin' total-stations and GPS's in the world couldn't (and shouldn't) replace one decent archaeologist. You can have all the wonderful technology on the planet, but it ain't worth jack-sh*t if it ain't used and applied properly.
Instruments just record things (provides data). Manipulation (albeit using technology - software), analysis and interpretation is an entirely human thing. At the moment, a total station can't jump out of its box and set itself up, it needs one of those human things (archaeologist or surveyor) or plant it in the ground. A prism, by itself, cannot follow (actual or supposed) archaeology scratched into the surface. Furthermore, the actual feature to be followed has been defined by an intelligent, practised, realistic, interpretative and rational archaeologist (hmmm... sometimes not all of those definitions apply). Then once recorded and number-crunched, it will still take an archaeologist time and (yes) training to interpret the results and put it into a form where it can be understood by fellow archaeologists and non-archaeologists alike.
One thing I worry about is over-reliance on technology in the recording of archaeology on-site and in the creation of archives. Much like tapping away at computer keyboards is killing the art of writing... if we keep going down the road of laser and digital recording, will the ability to actually draw a plan or section be lost? If the laser-recording machine thows a tantrum... could we still thrust a pencil into into the muddy paw of someone and tell them to get on with planning their feature at 1:20? Moreover, the actual drawing of a feature is an interpretation in itself... from the actual drawn section, the scribbled interpretative notes that may go with it, right down to the mud-encrusted permatrace that arrives into the office (it can be indicative of site conditions, the weather, the actual soil type and the mind-set of the excavator!). Site photography... a photograph taken using the equivalent of a box-brownie (ok a realtively cheap manual SLR) will be far, far, far better in resolution and contrast range than anything a current 10 to 12 megapixel can produce. There is also the issue of preservation; there are many tales of hard drives crashing or being stolen, or of CDs that held thousands of images being damaged. Unlike film, where there is the not positive to rely on, digital images are intangible and most of the time, stored on computers. Moreover, with digital cameras there is another important point - magnification factor. This means that if you use a film lens with a digital camera (as many places do), you may not necessarily get the image you expect.
Archiving... yes, paper, photographs and permatrace are bulky and are inherently degradable. But so are digital records (cd's degrade). Furthermore, anyone can pick up a sheet of paper, read it, analyse it and then have a stab at interpreting it. You could (in theory) look through the paper archive of a site that was dug back in the 1930's and make it your own. Could you say the same (in a few years time) for purely digital sites? At present, not everyone has access or the nouce to use Access, Word, PDF's, GIS and the Internet... furthermore, it is also a pretty big assumption that [u]everyone</u> in the future will be able to use these things (if they still exist). In the future, what will happen if the technology goes down the pan?
ps... the Neo-Luddite views expressed here by the author are not representative of those of his techno-savvy employers
Instruments just record things (provides data). Manipulation (albeit using technology - software), analysis and interpretation is an entirely human thing. At the moment, a total station can't jump out of its box and set itself up, it needs one of those human things (archaeologist or surveyor) or plant it in the ground. A prism, by itself, cannot follow (actual or supposed) archaeology scratched into the surface. Furthermore, the actual feature to be followed has been defined by an intelligent, practised, realistic, interpretative and rational archaeologist (hmmm... sometimes not all of those definitions apply). Then once recorded and number-crunched, it will still take an archaeologist time and (yes) training to interpret the results and put it into a form where it can be understood by fellow archaeologists and non-archaeologists alike.
One thing I worry about is over-reliance on technology in the recording of archaeology on-site and in the creation of archives. Much like tapping away at computer keyboards is killing the art of writing... if we keep going down the road of laser and digital recording, will the ability to actually draw a plan or section be lost? If the laser-recording machine thows a tantrum... could we still thrust a pencil into into the muddy paw of someone and tell them to get on with planning their feature at 1:20? Moreover, the actual drawing of a feature is an interpretation in itself... from the actual drawn section, the scribbled interpretative notes that may go with it, right down to the mud-encrusted permatrace that arrives into the office (it can be indicative of site conditions, the weather, the actual soil type and the mind-set of the excavator!). Site photography... a photograph taken using the equivalent of a box-brownie (ok a realtively cheap manual SLR) will be far, far, far better in resolution and contrast range than anything a current 10 to 12 megapixel can produce. There is also the issue of preservation; there are many tales of hard drives crashing or being stolen, or of CDs that held thousands of images being damaged. Unlike film, where there is the not positive to rely on, digital images are intangible and most of the time, stored on computers. Moreover, with digital cameras there is another important point - magnification factor. This means that if you use a film lens with a digital camera (as many places do), you may not necessarily get the image you expect.
Archiving... yes, paper, photographs and permatrace are bulky and are inherently degradable. But so are digital records (cd's degrade). Furthermore, anyone can pick up a sheet of paper, read it, analyse it and then have a stab at interpreting it. You could (in theory) look through the paper archive of a site that was dug back in the 1930's and make it your own. Could you say the same (in a few years time) for purely digital sites? At present, not everyone has access or the nouce to use Access, Word, PDF's, GIS and the Internet... furthermore, it is also a pretty big assumption that [u]everyone</u> in the future will be able to use these things (if they still exist). In the future, what will happen if the technology goes down the pan?
ps... the Neo-Luddite views expressed here by the author are not representative of those of his techno-savvy employers