17th August 2013, 12:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th August 2013, 12:58 PM by kevin wooldridge.)
I am finding this thread a little confusing in that it appears to confuse two subjects......Subject 1 is sampling strategy. On the basis that few sites ever excavate 100%, a sampling strategy decides the target and the percentage. This can equally apply to type and number of features dug, ceramic or metal finds, to 'environmental' materiale, to building material or even geological samples. Sampling in UK commercial archaeology can often actually be the selection of areas of excavation within a larger development area (surely the reason we do evaluation and DBA exercises) The subject is a whole science unto itself and is what I thought Ginger's survey was addressing. ....
However Subject 2 seems to suggest that folk consider 'sampling' per se, only to relate to 'environmental' stuff and the possibility that processing such samples might also deliver up other types of find as well.
If Ginger's attention is to design a methodology based on subject 1, he/she should at least be asking some questions as to the level of understanding of statistics and the justification that the sample represents/is proportionate to the totality being sampled. That's what sampling is after all.....Every report for a site that uses a sampling strategy should actually contain a section quantifying and qualifying the results on that basis (but not many do...). I would suggest (for Tool) that Shennan 'Quantifying Archaeology', or Brennan 'Statistics for Archaeologists' are good basic readers on this subject.....and my favourite, (although perhaps slightly more difficult) is Clive Orton's 'Sampling in Archaeology'....
I think subject 2 is maybe a discussion on the value of ecofact as opposed to artefact where site type, location and selection are obviously large factors. Not sure that mesh size or dating potential has much to do with either really....so that's probably a 3rd or 4th (and again probably discrete) subjects....Again (for Tool) I would suggest O'Connor and Evans 'Environmental Archaeology Principles and Methods' as an introduction to this subject....
However Subject 2 seems to suggest that folk consider 'sampling' per se, only to relate to 'environmental' stuff and the possibility that processing such samples might also deliver up other types of find as well.
If Ginger's attention is to design a methodology based on subject 1, he/she should at least be asking some questions as to the level of understanding of statistics and the justification that the sample represents/is proportionate to the totality being sampled. That's what sampling is after all.....Every report for a site that uses a sampling strategy should actually contain a section quantifying and qualifying the results on that basis (but not many do...). I would suggest (for Tool) that Shennan 'Quantifying Archaeology', or Brennan 'Statistics for Archaeologists' are good basic readers on this subject.....and my favourite, (although perhaps slightly more difficult) is Clive Orton's 'Sampling in Archaeology'....
I think subject 2 is maybe a discussion on the value of ecofact as opposed to artefact where site type, location and selection are obviously large factors. Not sure that mesh size or dating potential has much to do with either really....so that's probably a 3rd or 4th (and again probably discrete) subjects....Again (for Tool) I would suggest O'Connor and Evans 'Environmental Archaeology Principles and Methods' as an introduction to this subject....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...