| Entry: | I’ve continued to progress down through Sp.235 and am currently in the process of removing another make-up layer (U.30314), the second so far. This comes after having removed a fairly thin layer of plaster, covering most of the northern-central region of the space (U.30311), though it was patchy at best, and after removing what we believe to have been the base of a bin and its respective infill (both rested on a patchy plaster floor but one centimeter below their exposed upper surfaces)(F.7250: U.30310, U.30309).
The whole southern half of Sp.235 is very poorly preserved, making any kind of stratigraphic judgments very difficult and to a large extent arbitrary. Whereas the northern area has at least a few patches of plaster floor below the present make-up layer, soil in the south comes off in caked chunks, often times several centimeters thick and with no signs of plaster inclusions or floor layers. Though James and Agata seem content with my excavation performance, I feel as though I’ve passed several (perhaps eroded) floor layers and that Sp.235 now has two exposed phases, the northern area being stratigraphically above the southern area. In any case, we may solve this issue by the end of the current week, that is, if we manage to get through the northern floor and begin to remove the floor in the southern area, hopefully coming down on the room fill of the building below.
Separate from B.43, several of the units in the south shelter are testing out tablets, I suppose as replacements to the traditional paper recording system. I wonder how this technology influences people’s interpretations of and interactions with their building. For example, it’s been shown that the ways in which reading changes your brain vary depending on the text’s medium, that is, hardcopy vs. online. From I have read, the (general) non-linearity of reading things online is largely responsible for the altered nature of the change of the reader’s brain. It’s not too large a leap to suggest that this non-linearity, aside from changing readers’ brains post-completion, also affects the depth of analysis that they can sustain while in the process of reading. Is it easier to step-back and see the larger picture when you read through material linearly; does jumping around help the reader connect adjacent themes, perhaps at the expense of a more complete larger picture? With regard to replacing the traditional recording system with tablets, are there similar changes to the excavator’s reasoning and analysis abilities that arise from an altered recording experience? I guess we can’t say whether this change, if it exists at all, would be good or bad--however one chooses to define those terms--but it might be interesting to take note of it as connected technology becomes more prevalent on site.
Finally, I’d like to document the wonderful discussion I had with one of the members of the ceramics team, Sheena. First, let me provide some background: Over the course of this week’s lab rotation I found myself becoming more and more discontent with the mundane nature of lab assignments (washing, cleaning, entering data, and the like).Now, to be clear, I realize the importance of doing this kind of work and that everyone, at one point or another, has had to do something similar; still, I can’t quite place why it wore (wares?) on me so much. Perhaps I took this lab work to be the only thing that archaeology consisted of, forgetting the deeper and much more personally interesting interpretive sides of the discipline, or perhaps I was expecting to be working on developing or refining scientific analysis methods, or something of the sort, which would be much closer to physics research, my actual area of academic concentration. (I apologize if this comes off as being negative towards the lab profession or lab workers--it's not so intentioned.) In any case, I was running low on fun cards. When today’s lab rotation came and I had the chance to work with the ceramics lab, I was excited for the change of pace. Sure, maybe this would be labeling pots instead of washing bones, but the difference would make at least the first ten minutes pass faster than usual. We began by moving crates (already a great start!) and I engaged Sheena in conversation about the ceramics we were transporting back and forth: moving studied crates back to the depot and retrieving stored units of unclear, not quite clay-ball-like objects, possibly parts of pot stands. After a bit of silence during the searchfor units, we returned to the lab and she told me that I was free either to go or to play with ceramics. I didn’t want to leave early--no doubt that would mean washing or data entry--so I inquired as to her thesis research and to what the change from clay balls to pots, and (possibly) from permanent fire installations to temporary ones, meant in larger social contexts. The discussion that followed much resembled parts of ANTHRO 98F, the class we had to take for the Stanford field school, and was refreshingly intellectually stimulating. After my experience in the labs, this interpretive, archaeological thought, the kind that first captivated me in 98F, revived my interest in the field and reminded me of what we’re actually doing here. A productive day. |
