17th August 2013, 11:14 PM
Firstly, thank you all for your input, you are all helping me alot by raising these issues.
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)
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.
The samples where recovered using a systematic random sample approach, features where chosen systematically, and the actual sample was recovered by using random sampling, which shouldn't be confused with haphazard or grab samples, it is in fact a method based in fairly complex mathematical statistics, in this case the random samples where taken based on the statistical information gained by previous samples from the same site.
Unfortunately, i wasn't given permission to take standard samples or background samples from the area surrounding the site due to ground nesting birds, and the area being of special scientific interest (see EH Guidelines), and therefore my standards are the previous samples taken, using a systematic approach in the 3 previous years of excavation.
The questionnaire, was designed not only for experienced people, therefore the questions where somewhat broad, and unfortunately did cause confusion. However the stats are very interesting!
I hope that helps to see the angle im coming from for this work. Although the inclusion of a qualitative and quantitative section within the sample methodology is something i am going to work into the recommendations and hopeful into the final methodology that im producing, i also think adding in a section on the collection of standards (environmental standard samples taken from the area around the site to highlight any local abnormalities in elemental/chemical or micromorphological compositions) in to the methodology in an attempt to make the methods a little more scientifically based.
The methods put forward will be flexible enough to adjust per site, surely taking background samples for environmental and the use of sieves on site isn't going to brake the bank or take 3 weeks.
Other than that, all i can say is Thank you so much for your feedback!
I totally agree with kevin, Ortons book is brilliant, i would also suggest branch, canti, clack and turney "environmental archaeoogy: Theoretical and Practicle approaches, French, C "geoarchaeology in action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution", and the classic Limbrey "soil science and archaeology" As for if this is taught as part of a degree, from my experience you're probably better learning this alongside your studies!
I'll stop now that turned in to an essay
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)
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.
The samples where recovered using a systematic random sample approach, features where chosen systematically, and the actual sample was recovered by using random sampling, which shouldn't be confused with haphazard or grab samples, it is in fact a method based in fairly complex mathematical statistics, in this case the random samples where taken based on the statistical information gained by previous samples from the same site.
Unfortunately, i wasn't given permission to take standard samples or background samples from the area surrounding the site due to ground nesting birds, and the area being of special scientific interest (see EH Guidelines), and therefore my standards are the previous samples taken, using a systematic approach in the 3 previous years of excavation.
The questionnaire, was designed not only for experienced people, therefore the questions where somewhat broad, and unfortunately did cause confusion. However the stats are very interesting!
I hope that helps to see the angle im coming from for this work. Although the inclusion of a qualitative and quantitative section within the sample methodology is something i am going to work into the recommendations and hopeful into the final methodology that im producing, i also think adding in a section on the collection of standards (environmental standard samples taken from the area around the site to highlight any local abnormalities in elemental/chemical or micromorphological compositions) in to the methodology in an attempt to make the methods a little more scientifically based.
The methods put forward will be flexible enough to adjust per site, surely taking background samples for environmental and the use of sieves on site isn't going to brake the bank or take 3 weeks.
Other than that, all i can say is Thank you so much for your feedback!
I totally agree with kevin, Ortons book is brilliant, i would also suggest branch, canti, clack and turney "environmental archaeoogy: Theoretical and Practicle approaches, French, C "geoarchaeology in action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution", and the classic Limbrey "soil science and archaeology" As for if this is taught as part of a degree, from my experience you're probably better learning this alongside your studies!
I'll stop now that turned in to an essay