>What is the real value of the 'rapid' side of things? Can people
really think any faster, for that matter do academics have any more time
to give to
>their research projects. Having worked on a number of such projects,
the bottle neck remains at the 'making sense' end not at the recording
bigger,
>faster better end.
Surely we are in this to collect as much information as possible (driven
by current knowledge and the demands of the research programme).
Rapidity of interpretation on site is one mechanism of improving the
quality of information we collect. If it allows one to rapidly evaluate
the quality and quantity of the archaeological resource under study then
one make more informed decision to increase archaeological value. This
is of particular import within contractual frameworks where the luxury
of multi-year excavations, allowing periods of reflection, is rapidly
diminishing.
>While some people are interested in 'testing' theoretical models,
plenty of people aren't. And this would be the problem that I have with
a discussion of
>which recording methods are 'best'. It entirely depends on the purpose
of the excercise, and that is not standard, neither do I think it should
be.
>I expect a chorus of our data needs to be relevant to other people and
shared easily responses. Indeed, so we need to document how we did
things rather
>than try to do them the same way.
This is the point. If other people aren't interested in testing
theoretical models then this thread is not for them. I'm not after
finding out which recording systems are best or to find blanket
approaches (the UK currently has a blanket approach which is used
dogmatically). However, I do want to know what people think about what
to record, how to record it, how to integrate it and why. Theoretical
archaeologists have as much, if not more, right to discuss this. As
people have often stated each archaeological site is unique therefore we
should use a battery of techniques to record information to adequately
articulate this complexity.
Upon what criteria is data relevant and how do you think that
information an be easily shared? You advocate inclusion of meta-data,
what should this contain and how do we get more people to do it?
> But I know a great variety of people and I can't see them ever really
coming together on some unified project to
>'bring the discipline forward'.
That’s really sad and worthy of a thread in its own right. Do you really
believe that archaeologists wont do this? Do English Heritage know this,
it could save them a lot of money :-)?
Thanks
Ant
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002
|