Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Copyright, Diggers and archaeology
niether PP - just a more fundemental understanding of reality. That's All....

oh...., and the desire not to have my data misused by others for their own gain.


If you are correct that contexts sheets have become a 'waste of paper', it is precisley because the producers have been systemically and massively undervalued, discouraged, and (I suspect) increasingly poorly trained and sapped of their creative energy.

Probably it is also the case that more and more 'Report Writers' are insufficiently knowledgeable about the data they purport to disseminate ; thus, either a)they do not know how to get good data from their teams, b)they do not care about real field data, and would rather expound upon their own cleverness at 'creatively' assembling a report from thin air....
Reply
GnomeKing Wrote:niether PP - just a more fundemental understanding of reality. That's All....

oh...., and the desire not to have my data misused by others for their own gain.


If you are correct that contexts sheets have become a 'waste of paper', it is precisley because the producers have been systemically and massively undervalued, discouraged, and (I suspect) increasingly poorly trained and sapped of their creative energy.

Probably it is also the case that more and more 'Report Writers' are insufficiently knowledgeable about the data they purport to disseminate ; thus, either a)they do not know how to get good data from their teams, b)they do not care about real field data, and would rather expound upon their own cleverness at 'creatively' assembling a report from thin air....

gk your polemic may well surmount hyperbole and mine may well have been facetious but given that report writers were almost certainly producers of data themselves your axe would appear to be badly chipped.

there are inadequates at all levels of this dire profession - just as any other - i am of the opinion that the site is 'written' before the tools are removed.

i hope your future includes the choice to write your stories
Reply
i am sure that it wont, because "there are inadequates at all levels of this dire profession"
Reply
Quote:[SIZE=3]so are you arguing for the abolition of context sheets, in which case you have my support because they are a waste of paper, or, are you suggesting that everybody publishes their context sheets, in which case you have my support because it would be really amusing

[/SIZE]
both.

Annotated ?text and/or audio -graphics sheets/digiphotographs/back of envelopes, and modernise your concept of publication just toss it on the web somewhere
Reason: your past is my past
Reply
GnomeKing Wrote:The piont that was missed in this long disscusion is that is entirley possible for 'report witters' to completley re-invent the primary record when parts of dont fit thier narrative, budget, or level of knowledge.

I know for a fact that records ARE selectively discarded or re-written on this basis - sometimes with clear personal motivations, and never with open acknowledgement.

Yet AGAIN the value and technical expertise of Excavation Specialists/Fieldworkers is abused....

I feel just as agrevied as any unpaid musician or plagerised author, if my technical work is simply a plaything for so called 'managers', especially when they supuriously claim to conform to Standards.

Unitof1 is right...there is a systemic problem with the authenticity of Client reports, when there is no acceptance that technical documentation and field investigation are inviolable products of individual/collaborative Creative enterprise.

A call for a change in paradigm is a lonely howl in the wind - at least it is here in the Kingdom of the Deaf....

i have seen colluvium being used for a deposit on top of a hill; also the same feature recorded absolutely differently - responsibility for some of which devolves absolutely on the employer (that is agent in the field) but some of which devolves on the individuals. and in the latter instance, when one is told that it is X comparable with X in an adjacent trench a description bearing little relationship with that which the rest of site is using is of little use. that happens - believe me. too often. i believe in training, but also in learning.
Your Courage Your Cheerfulness Your Resolution
Will Bring US Victory
Reply
Unitof1 Wrote:both.

Annotated –text and/or audio -graphics sheets/digiphotographs/back of envelopes, and modernise your concept of publication just toss it on the web somewhere

i agree with unit - now shoot me

and i made a thread specially for you honey - wont you join me?
Reply
I recommend a lie-down in a darkened room, with a cold compress?
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.
Reply
good points Gwyl - i guess by creativity i do not mean untrammelled fantasies or solipsistic absurdity...but clearly room for disagreements, multiple opinions, equifinality, and the like...

And also : space for ignorance of correct geomorphic terminology ( = chance for learning).
An outlook, and a group structure, which when addressing why, for example, two sections do not match, assumes that there my be many 'clear' answers and no definite answers at all.
Reply
My moderate supervising experience is that on a lot of rural sites in particular the archaeological deposits tend to be all the same apart from varying quantities of rocks (or in the case of my current job, gravel with varying amounts of mid brown slightly silty sand soil), but that the context sheets end up with soil descriptions involving anything from pure clay to pure sand, and in a wide range of colours (one guy invariably describes brown as grey or green, we're not sure how to break it to him he's colour-blind....), so sometimes a certain amount of modification of the site record has to be carried out in order to produce a remotely realistic report - and I long since learnt to largely ignore on-site 'interpretations' which frequently belong purely in the realms of the Fortean Times, or possibly a secure institution....
Reply
Well that's one approach Dino....we must just have to trust in your own infallibility....

I have dealt with similar situations with Primary Records by making annotations or keeping my own parallel notes. Even better group disscusions On Site, about its soils, and what factors mght be most usefully highlighted to describe Similarity and Difference

It is not acceptable that primary records are altered Willy Nilly, or simply ignored in write-up , in the way that appears common practice.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Diggers Forum. Anonymous Complaints. Crocodile 40 29,193 8th October 2015, 02:05 PM
Last Post: Sith
  Computers taking archaeology jobs away pdurdin 14 10,599 30th August 2015, 11:10 AM
Last Post: barkingdigger
  Are Standards in field Archaeology Slipping Wax 90 38,891 23rd June 2015, 12:41 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Wessex Archaeology Recruits a Teddy Bear BAJR 10 9,759 24th December 2014, 06:41 PM
Last Post: monty
  Tay and Fife Archaeology Conference Doug 16 10,943 15th November 2014, 01:04 AM
Last Post: Doug
  Archaeology in Schools Dirty Boy 8 5,264 28th September 2014, 09:04 PM
Last Post: vulpes
  Jobs in British Archaeology 2013-14 Doug 24 12,752 24th July 2014, 03:25 PM
Last Post: P Prentice
  Who would BAJarites award a "Queen's Birthday" honour to for services to archaeology? Wax 13 7,327 19th June 2014, 01:51 PM
Last Post: P Prentice
  Complete University Guide 2014 - Archaeology kevin wooldridge 2 2,658 14th May 2014, 03:00 PM
Last Post: pdurdin
  Blogging Archaeology eBook- FREE Doug 1 2,337 26th April 2014, 05:19 PM
Last Post: Doug

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)