![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[These posts are excepts from The Archaeology Coursebook by Jim Grant, Sam Gorin and Neil Fleming. This is an introductory text book which should prove useful in writing about archeologocal methods for stargate fic.]
(Note: Excerpts from the complete text)
Excavation Strategies:
The decision to dig will originate either in a research project or because remains are due to be destroyed. In either case the excavation director will make plans based on what is known from desktop surveys and reconnaissance. These plans will aim to answer a series of questions at different levels.
An example of a question linked to wider debates might be ‘Did towns decay early in the 4th century AD?’ A more specific question might be ‘Why was this site abandoned?’ Below that might be a whole series of questions such as establishing the date of deposits and understanding site formation processes [...].
These questions along with constraints of time and money will lead to decisions about where and how to dig. Defining the site in question is the first issue [...]. In excavation terms some ‘sites’ are in fact a series of smaller ‘sites’ in themselves.
For example, cropmarks may indicate a series of features (enclosures, pits, tracks) which can be separated out for investigation while a Roman town has a street plan and a variety of public and private buildings each capable of individual excavation. Sites are set within a landscape context and a successful excavation needs to take note of that factor too.
So the director needs to decide whether it is the entirety of the site that is the focus of their attention or whether concentration on certain parts offers the best chance to answer their questions. If there are many similar features it is likely that a number will be sampled rather than excavating every one.
This can mean that some deposits are not recorded to the same extent as others. For example Georgian housing might be more speedily excavated and recorded because the main interest is in an underlying Roman forum.
• http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/raunds/
There is no set manual for archaeological field practices either in relation to where to put the holes in the ground or in how to proceed once the excavation trench is underway. This is not because archaeologists have a laissez-faire attitude to standards and procedures but because of variety in the nature of sites, evidence and questions asked.
Most texts on excavation express their ideas about appropriate ‘good practice’ and as new methods evolve so they too appear in print. The archaeological world constantly shares its experiences and a general consensus of current good practice is evident when one looks at images of modern excavations. Practi¬tioners learn from one another and try to keep their methods in line with current thinking and therefore ensure that their results, when published, stand up to scrutiny and are accepted by their peers. For example, many archaeological units use the Museum of London excavation manual.
The nature of the archaeological record in the ground is often complex. Human nature and life circumstances ensure that most sites have a developmental history, which the archaeologist needs to unravel. The people who left the evidence went about their daily business without a thought for how their activities might leave traces for future investigators. They were not simply creating ‘features’ much of the time, nor did they often build a structure and leave it unaltered.
However, their constructional or daily activities will have created a sequence of deposits, layers or contexts (the words are often used interchangeably) which build up to create the archaeological record. Contained within these deposits, which are linked to features and structures, are the artefacts of pottery, metalwork, etc. and ecofacts, which provide sources for understanding the chronological, cultural and environmental nature of the site.
One further issue which excavators have to be aware of is the health and safety of their diggers. Precautions range from hardhats and reflective clothing on developer sites to ensuring that deep trenches are properly shored up or have stepped sides. Safety issues are most evident on underwater sites where air supply, currents, cold and sharks are amongst the potential hazards not faced on land.
(Note: Excerpts from the complete text)
Excavation Strategies:
The decision to dig will originate either in a research project or because remains are due to be destroyed. In either case the excavation director will make plans based on what is known from desktop surveys and reconnaissance. These plans will aim to answer a series of questions at different levels.
An example of a question linked to wider debates might be ‘Did towns decay early in the 4th century AD?’ A more specific question might be ‘Why was this site abandoned?’ Below that might be a whole series of questions such as establishing the date of deposits and understanding site formation processes [...].
These questions along with constraints of time and money will lead to decisions about where and how to dig. Defining the site in question is the first issue [...]. In excavation terms some ‘sites’ are in fact a series of smaller ‘sites’ in themselves.
For example, cropmarks may indicate a series of features (enclosures, pits, tracks) which can be separated out for investigation while a Roman town has a street plan and a variety of public and private buildings each capable of individual excavation. Sites are set within a landscape context and a successful excavation needs to take note of that factor too.
So the director needs to decide whether it is the entirety of the site that is the focus of their attention or whether concentration on certain parts offers the best chance to answer their questions. If there are many similar features it is likely that a number will be sampled rather than excavating every one.
This can mean that some deposits are not recorded to the same extent as others. For example Georgian housing might be more speedily excavated and recorded because the main interest is in an underlying Roman forum.
• http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/raunds/
There is no set manual for archaeological field practices either in relation to where to put the holes in the ground or in how to proceed once the excavation trench is underway. This is not because archaeologists have a laissez-faire attitude to standards and procedures but because of variety in the nature of sites, evidence and questions asked.
Most texts on excavation express their ideas about appropriate ‘good practice’ and as new methods evolve so they too appear in print. The archaeological world constantly shares its experiences and a general consensus of current good practice is evident when one looks at images of modern excavations. Practi¬tioners learn from one another and try to keep their methods in line with current thinking and therefore ensure that their results, when published, stand up to scrutiny and are accepted by their peers. For example, many archaeological units use the Museum of London excavation manual.
The nature of the archaeological record in the ground is often complex. Human nature and life circumstances ensure that most sites have a developmental history, which the archaeologist needs to unravel. The people who left the evidence went about their daily business without a thought for how their activities might leave traces for future investigators. They were not simply creating ‘features’ much of the time, nor did they often build a structure and leave it unaltered.
However, their constructional or daily activities will have created a sequence of deposits, layers or contexts (the words are often used interchangeably) which build up to create the archaeological record. Contained within these deposits, which are linked to features and structures, are the artefacts of pottery, metalwork, etc. and ecofacts, which provide sources for understanding the chronological, cultural and environmental nature of the site.
One further issue which excavators have to be aware of is the health and safety of their diggers. Precautions range from hardhats and reflective clothing on developer sites to ensuring that deep trenches are properly shored up or have stepped sides. Safety issues are most evident on underwater sites where air supply, currents, cold and sharks are amongst the potential hazards not faced on land.