| Entry: | After working for a week in building 52 in the north shelter, I guess it's time to put some thought down.. The building has been left for display since 2005, since it was one of the more spectacular ones, with several platforms, bins, hearths and last but not least a bucranium set in one of the walls. I started working with the bench (F2021), located on the platform 2177 in the southwestern corner of Space 94. The bench was also - or had been - quite spectacular, since three large horns were fitted to it's northern side. Unfortunately, since the building was destroyed by fire, the horns had already in the neolithic collapsed from the bench and needed to be removed by the conservation team. The same went for the bucranium: after eight years in exposure, it needed to be taken down. So what I have done so far is I have removed the collapsed part of the bench, the remains of fill from the fire that remained underneath it, a layer later than the bench on the platform (U.10300), and I have now started to remove the bench in itself. The conservation team have removed the horns and the bucranium in due order.
The difficulties I have met so far have to a large extent been related to the fact that I have had to take over after the archaeologists who excavated in 2005; a task that is not always easy. For one, the units and features that were already described in 2005 and then left as they were have in the eight years that have passed gone through changes due to erosion and exposure. So I find myself in a position where I have to continue filling out already existing unit sheets, but the information that is already on them is no longer correct. What to do? Should I leave the information from 2005 which is probably more correct in a sense, when it comes to description of the units in their original state? Or should I describe them as I see them today? I do both as it is, leaving the original notes and adding my own - it seems to be the most sensible thing to do. In some cases though, I have had to reinterpret earlier information, when I have believed things to be different (as for instance in one case where a layer on the platform was described as earlier than the bench, where I could see that it actually comprised both earlier and later parts).
Another problem with taking over already partially described features, is that the earlier documentation is not always that easy to find. I have had to search for plans and sections in the folders, because it is often the case that they are not mentioned in the database/on the unit sheets. I believe this could, at least in some cases, be caused by people making drawings after already having entered the information in the database, and it's easy to forget to enter complementary data afterwords. So it would maybe be a good thing if, at the end of the season, entries of drawings were double-checked in the database?
I really enjoy working in B.52 though, and in a way it's a positive challenge to readdress someone else's earlier work. There are also important lessons to be learned regarding such as the importance of transparent records, and what happens to archaeological remains left in the open with time. |
