Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
9th January 2006, 11:48 PM
In the preface to his book Usk: Medieval and later Usk, the excellent Paul Courtenay refers to Major finds as including a medieval farmstead on the edge of town etc. From this you could say that if that is a major find then anything smaller is a small find!
I prefer the "individual find" term myself!!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
10th January 2006, 10:42 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by muddy
Not meaning to be negative or insulting, but this is basic stuff.
I agree it is basic stuff. But also is it a sign of the times, that we don't think about what something is, we just shove a general label onto it without really thinking about what that label means? If people can't even agree on what a small find (or an individual or special find!) is, what does that say about the state of archaeology?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
10th January 2006, 01:31 PM
Quote:quote:Not meaning to be negative or insulting, but this is basic stuff.
posted by muddy
True, but then not all our participants are necessarily experienced people.
The key thing though, is that (no matter how expert you are) you should never stop thinking and asking questions even about basic things.
On Small/Special/Individual/etc Finds, you often find people taking a standard approach applied to all sites. In good practice, it should be decided in principle for each site - but considered by site supervisors as they go along. What might be 'bulk' in one context could be 'special' in another, if for instance the specific location within the context appears to have some significance.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
1st February 2006, 03:13 AM
Yes, still true, context is everything!!
deep
What is the definition of a small find
