|
I would agree with Francis's point that all find spots are useful and yes
they are a starting point. Isolated finds may indeed point to the potential
of a unit and the condition may well say something about the degree of
recycling (see the new Trent monograph). The point I guess I am trying to
make it that the starting point should be the sediment body since a map of
dots of find spots is simply that, a map of dots. Context of the sediment
body is critical to understanding the find (something that until relatively
recently has been long neglected outside of Quaternary circles).
BW
A
Dr Andy Howard MIfA
Landscape Research & Management
Tel. +44 (0)1746 769739
Mob. 07791 840205
Skype: andy.howard14
http://landscape-research-management.co.uk/
Co-editor, Journal of Archaeological Science Reports
http://ees.elsevier.com/jasrep/
Honorary Research Fellow, Dept. of Archaeology,
University of Durham
-----Original Message-----
From: Wenban-Smith F.F.
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] [MASSMAIL] Re: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms
e-conference -Session 2: Landforms and sediments
While I totally agree that we need to think about the landscape as
"lithostratigraphic units" - a point to be addressed in greater detail later
in the morning session as the "deposit-led" approach, it is wrong to make a
dichotomy between "intact landsurfaces" [Good] and "disturbed finds" [Bad].
This widely-practised convention really fails to address the great potential
of the Palaeolithic archive which includes remains from deposits formed in a
wide variety of ways, with evidence disturbed in varying degrees from very
much to hardly. all these types of remains can contribute to different
aspects of understanding the Palaeolithic better and addressing current
research priorities. And there is a very useful distinction for HER purposes
between a find from a known context, and a truly stray find. Often, very
important Palaeolithic sites, will have their first evidence be a lone
find - for instance Harnham, in Wiltshire - and it is very useful HER
information to know that a find is linked with a specific deposit. This
highlights the deposit at that location as worthy of more detailed
consideration/investigation to establish the nature/potential of any
Palaeolithic remains.
Homepage: www.soton.ac.uk/~ffws/New_ffws/index.html
Francis Wenban-Smith (Dr)
Department of Archaeology (CAHOR - Centre for Applied Human Origins
Research)
University of Southampton (Avenue Campus)
Southampton, Hants
SO17 1BF
02380-596 864 (direct)
07771-623 096 (mobile)
-----Original Message-----
From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Howard
Sent: 24 October 2014 09:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] [MASSMAIL] Re: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms
e-conference -Session 2: Landforms and sediments
Dear all
In terms of find spots and monuments for the Palaeolithic, to my mind this
is a minor concern. Most Palaeolithic finds (for sake of argument hand
axes) are isolated and hence largely recycled - how many intact Palaeolithic
surfaces do we have in the UK. The key point is to get archaeologists
thinking in terms of lithostratgigraphic units (i.e. deposits of a
particular age and type which are mappable in the landscape (and hopefully
to some extent, predicatable). When thinking about these units,
archaeologists really need to move away from thinking contexts (and lots of
them) as they do for later deposits.
BW
A
Dr Andy Howard MIfA
Landscape Research & Management
Tel. +44 (0)1746 769739
Mob. 07791 840205
Skype: andy.howard14
http://landscape-research-management.co.uk/
Co-editor, Journal of Archaeological Science Reports
http://ees.elsevier.com/jasrep/
Honorary Research Fellow, Dept. of Archaeology, University of
Durham -----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle, Philip
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 9:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] [MASSMAIL] Re: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms
e-conference -Session 1: summary and thank you
I would echo Nick's sentiments.
We can and probably should make changes to any/all of the terminologies
involved but there are practical considerations which need to be taken into
account. If we were all starting from scratch using one system which was
optimized to record everything to everyone's satisfaction then that would be
great but we aren't. We are using systems some of which were developed over
20 years ago and all of which are based to a greater or lesser extent on a
recording methodology which owes much to the Ordnance Survey Archaeology
Division index cards.
Any changes to the way we record any information (not just dating) will have
cost implications for redeveloping software. I don't want to bang on about
this but it is a major and real concern. The changes we are talking about in
this conference are necessary but the current recording practice and some
software modules may not be able to handle the full complexity to everyone's
satisfaction.
As much as discussing the terminologies themselves we need to consider how
they will be used and implemented in software. We don't want to end up
having to shoe-horn a practically-perfect terminology into a recording form
with a 'that'll do' attitude.
Phil
________________________________________
From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Boldrini
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 October 2014 09:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] [MASSMAIL] Re: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms
e-conference -Session 1: summary and thank you
I was following this (or at least trying to) Yesterday, but didn't have time
to post, so here goes.
A general point to consider is this - which may be implicit in the
discussion but doesn't appear to be.
If this system is for HER use then it needs to be useable with the
information HERs are given.
HERs can (generally) records specific dates ie type in the years "-5000" and
the appropriate period term will be selected. In that sense we are reliant
on the Source of information giving the date - and the term they use is in
some sense irrelevant - if the terminology changes for what "-5000" is
called, then the system can update the term easily enough
More problematic is when we have a source which just gives the date as "Late
Palaeolithic" or another generic term. If the term date range changes, and
the terms options change - how do I know what to change it too? In this
sense there needs to be a mapping from old to new terms, but also guidance
on what to use if there is potentially more than one term that it could be
(ie Late Palaeolithic now has two terms spanning the same dates - but from
the information I have I cannot determine which is more appropriate).
I know there are ways round this - but they need to be built into the new
terminology scope notes in a way that non Paleo-Specialist HER officers
(hey - that's me!) can understand and decode given information that may be
vague to start with
This isn't a huge issue for us ( we have 8 HER records allegedly
Palaeolithic) but it is something to bear in mind
Best wishes
Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Ext 267008
From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Campbell, Gill
Sent: 23 October 2014 19:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MASSMAIL] Re: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms
e-conference -Session 1: summary and thank you
Oh dear unfortunate typo. Corrected below
Gill
From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Campbell, Gill
Sent: 23 October 2014 19:11
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms e-conference -Session 1:
summary and thank you
Dear colleagues ,
Thank you very much for attending this session.. A brief summary is given
below and we will produce a longer summary for discussion and comment
following on from the conference.
Labels, Lithics and Landforms e-conference on controlled vocabularies for
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic data: summary of session 1: Chronology
There was some debate at the start of the session concerning the use of BP,
BC and BCE. In terms of the FISH period list BC/AD is used. Whether using
BP or BC this needs to be made clear in publications and clear in terms of
metadata used.
1. An earlier start for the Palaeolithic.
There is overwhelming agreement that the start date needs to be put
ck. -1000, 000 years is suggested for a start date, though some
participants favoured -950,000 or possibly -850,000.
2. Resolving the Early, Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, and sub-divisions.
Participants felt that the debate should focus on defining the Palaeolithic
in the UK< Deciding where to put the divisions is problematic.
There was general agreement that the period up to the Anglian glaciation can
be defined as Earlier Lower Palaeolithic but disagreement about where the
boundary should fall and division beyond this.
3. Upper Palaeolithic - divide or not.
Division makes sense: Early Upper Palaeolithic between -40,000 and- 22,000,
and a Late Upper Palaeolithic between -18,000 and -10,000 BP.
4. The Mesolithic - how to deal with overlap with final Upper
Palaeolithic.
Could consider overlapping the dates but have a date for the end of the
Palaeolithic at -10,000 or -9,500. Need to gather views on the division
between Early/Late subdivision of the Mesolithic.
5. Having a separate list of terms and date-ranges for geological MI
(Marine Isotope) Stages and glacial/interglacial episodes in the UK.
Support for this but idea.
6. Reconsidering the distinction, and where to place the boundary,
between Early Prehistoric and Later Prehistoric.
Unfortunately we did not have sufficient time to debate this issue. But
would welcome your thoughts following the conference
I look forward to tomorrow and more interesting discussion in session 2
Kind regards
Gill
Gill Campbell
Head of Environmental Studies
English Heritage
T: 02392 856780
English Heritage Science Network Convenor
www.english-heritage.org.uk<http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/>
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system
and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to
English Heritage may become publicly available.
Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage
Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system
and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to
English Heritage may become publicly available.
Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage
Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
________________________________
Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely
necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are
confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it
is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the
information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email
by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and
then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes
reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we
do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses
we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking
procedures.
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system
and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to
English Heritage may become publicly available.
Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage
Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
|
