19th August 2013, 08:50 AM
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 )
'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 )