Thanks for that contribution Andy. I think you will find that we have quite significant agreement on the importance of deposits, by the time the session has reached its conclusion. The "deposit-led" approach has much in common with the points you make. In fact anyone can check out the details of this on-line if they want, since it is explained in detail in the Palaeolithic section of SERF - the South-East Research Framework - which is available on line.
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 10:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] [MASSMAIL] Re: [FISH] Labels, Lithics and Landforms e-conference -Session 2: Landforms and sediments
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/
|
