Is a decent specialist report a luxury?

[Dinosaur]

Potgeek, are you suggesting a high quality pot report ought to include some interpretation as well as dating information? This would also tie in with Redexile's points about pot specialists being more involved with the fieldwork (don't remember if it's in the thread or his linked article), right?

Don't everyone provide specialists with a background info report (ie a site description/narrative/matrices/comments from the excavator geared to what they'll be needing to know)? Actually by coincidence from Monday have a merry week producing one largely so CC can understand a few boxes of pot he's got from a rather complicated job I did 2011/12. What's the point of a pot report not tied to the strat? Residuality is a big issue on many/most sites and a good pot report can usually shoot holes in interpretations based purely on spot-dating which can be highly untrustworthy

[kevin wooldridge]

What's the point of a pot report not tied to the strat? Residuality is a big issue on many/most sites and a good pot report can usually shoot holes in interpretations based purely on spot-dating which can be highly untrustworthy

Absolutely totally agree Dino!! An understanding of intrusiveness and residuality are to my mind what distinguishes a 'wholly formed' archaeologist from the lesser skilled.

[redexile]

Don't everyone provide specialists with a background info report (ie a site description/narrative/matrices/comments from the excavator geared to what they'll be needing to know)?

Er... no - I often have to ask for one. It's also not unusual to send in a spot date/assessment report and see that published as a final report - "saves money". Always faintly amused when some PM's are clearly utterly baffled by the fact that a pot analyst wants a matrix. Kids nowadays, eh? *tuts*

[RedEarth]

Indeed. Hence our suggestion for a way of doing it in the paper linked way back at the start of this thread!

Ahem, it's been a few weeks since I skim-read that now. If I have time, I'll read it again!

[Unitof1]

The only one that is, Worcestershire, is curated by the DCA's in the county, at least one of which was originally a pot specialist. This seems to be the most sensible/accessible way to do it.

So why dont all the other counties do it like they do in sensible Worcestershire?

dino so the yearly evaluation found a late Neo/EBA pit site stratified into a waterlogged palaeoenvironmental sequence and the cow turned outnot to have been modern. Not exactly as first told.

I'm kind of old-fashioned in believing that the maximum amount of information should be extracted from the results of excavation, no matter what the level of site, eval, WB, whatever - again, this boils down to the ultimate question of who exactly are we doing these excavations for?

I think that it would help if you did not confuse "excavation" with "eval, wb, whatever" in some level of site (they have levels do they?) and then lump them all as excavations. You have also nicely left out the various situations for each methodology in the planning process. I am not sure that I am that concerned to extrat the maximum amount of information seems to me that we create an archive so that future resaerch can extrat a bit more. Are you saying that we should carry out pottery rehydroxylation dateing on every sherd? or rather get the clients to pay for it? In an evaluation you have the great unknown which is can you justify the site going to excavation. Seems to me that I can use the fact that an area does not have a typology to suggest that the unknown fabrics are significant as much if not more than the identification of a bit of london fabric in reading. As for your poor unfortunate site supervisor announcing to a local newspaper reporter that they had found the bailey I cant help feeling (chuckling as well) that if that got everybody to agree to an excavation dont bite the hand that feeds.


Came accross this for the wonders that are worchetershire

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]26.3 Worcester Library and History Centre (The Hive) PFI

[/SIZE][/SIZE]26.3 Worcester Library and History Centre (The Hive) PFI

In January 2010 the Council entered into a PFI contract with Galliford Try Investments Ltd for the construction and
provision of a new Worcester Library and History Centre (The Hive). The Hive became operational in January
2012 and is due to open to the public in the summer of 2012, after a period of fitting out and moving in services.
The project is a partnership initiative between the Council and the University of Worcester for the provision of a
fully integrated public and University library, the Worcestershire Record Office, Worcestershire Historic
Environment and Archaeology Service and Worcestershire Hub Customer Service Centre.

The service term for the contract is 25 years from the handover of the facility and the annual unitary payment
during the life of the contract is £4.6 million, at April 2007 prices. The contract allows for indexation by the retail
prices index of the service element of the contract (30% of the unitary payment) annually. At the end of the
contract term the assets transfer to the Council and the University on a 70/30 basis. The contract also allows for
an extension to the provision of services by Galliford Try Investments Ltd.

The value on the balance sheet of £26.5m relates to a 70% share of the total building value. The land utilised in
the delivery of the contract is owned and leased by the Council separately to the PFI contract. The Council's
valuer has carried out an independent valuation of the asset and the resulting reduction in value of £5.6 million
has been charged against Cultural and Related Services in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure
Statement.

I am thinking about setting up one of these in my shed.. I presume 2007 prices are a good thing for somebody.

[Dinosaur]

dino so the yearly evaluation found a late Neo/EBA pit site stratified into a waterlogged palaeoenvironmental sequence and the cow turned outnot to have been modern. Not exactly as first told.

err, found pit with 'modern' cow bones, told by specialist bones not modern at all (or indeed cow), get lots of C14 dates (including for other undated stuff nearby), ergo publication and impending excavation - what's changed?

[Unitof1]

so this pit was stratified within a palaeoenvironmental sequence but somehow it was thought that the bones were modern. Just out of interest how big an area did the evaluation cover and how big is this years excavation going to be around this aurocks burial site. Presumably when the aurocks was buried the site was not waterlogged?

[redexile]

Are you saying that we should carry out pottery rehydroxylation dateing on every sherd?

Look pal, a few words of advice: if you're going to try and crash threads where grown-ups are talking and expect people to engage with you, it's probably wise to actually learn something about the subject they are discussing. If you just fling random words that you've heard other people using into a load of semi-coherent and largely irrelevant verbiage, you're going to look like a dick, and be ignored. You can have this one for free: Rehydroxylation isn't yet accurate enough for to use for pottery dating, only tile and brick. No-one's using it yet. Here's a bonus: the Museum of London employs at least three pottery specialists. The rest you're just going to have to find out for yourself. I'd suggest reading a few books, it's remarkable what you can learn that way.

Have a nice day.

[Unitof1]

i will thanks pal.I always get a bit confused about the museum of london and whos what where and whos metromola. Are you saying that these specialists work for the museum or do they work for this other unregistered charity, or rather I think that they are unregistered, it seems to change daily.

rehydroxylation isnt accurate enough for pot, only tile and brick--oh you wish. Well all I can say is if I was offered a rehydrxylation off a single sherd off a site or three pot specialists It would be reyhydroxylation every time. Bit worrying that it only seems to work for poorly fired brick and tile but not for well fired pot. Who started that roumur? Could you point me to the book?

[redexile]

Who started that roumur?

The 'rumour' was started by the woman who's spent the last 10 years perfecting the technique, in a paper she gave at a conference a few months ago. Conferences are good places to learn stuff as well.