Yes the TT do have resaerch designs, as their digging is entirely problem
orientated. The US style of sampling strategy with 1m squares is not
regarded as a standard excavtion method in the Uk but is used as an
evaluation/exploarion technique. TT  tend to use small open area or trench
excavtion. This reflects the British tradition of plan and stratigrapgy
driven excavation. Also the fact that archaeology is often physically
different here with a thousand years of occupation being not uncommon,
straigraphy can be very deep and residuality common and artefacts are often
super abundant. On the other hand there has been some criticism by
professionals in the UK of the TV and time driven nature of the work and I
was not entirely happy with some of the work done on the project I was
involved with - too many decisions made by the TV producer and not enough
recording staff. On the other hand it does get araheology in the public eye.

paul courtney
leicester
UK



----- Original Message -----
From: "geoff carver" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Time Team program


> Some of it might be editing (how do you make screening photogenic [I will
> refrain from making any comments here which might in any way be deemed
> sexist, but I think the BBC can be credited for not aiming to tittilate on
> this one...]?), but then I have a lot of trouble with the "units" used
here
> -
> I haven't actually seen TT, but I'll assume they use open area & single
> context planning/recording style methods (the brit standard)? Whereas the
> american norm seems to be to do lots of little 1x1 m pits all over the
> place, which break up any sense of horizontal continuity...? Check out the
> Museum of London's "Archaeological Site Manual" or Edward Harris'
> "Principles/Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy" for some
introduction
> to SCR/P - which was developed for rescue work, but has pretty much become
> the norm for Brits & various europeans...
> Speed, from what I've heard, is a reflection of low budgets for the show,
> and tight shooting schedules: they go in to a suitable site over some
> weekend & do their bit - so I would assume that whoever is running the
site
> has done the archival work ahead of time; the TV folk just borrow the
locale
> for the time it takes to shoot an episode (peter? Any truth to that?)
> Research design surprises me, cuz I thought the whole point was to try to
> answer a specific question (i.e. actual research design), as opposed to
the
> "standard" of "preservation by record"
>
>
> geoff carver - SUNY buffalo
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anita
> Cohen-Williams
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 09:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Time Team program
>
> This is the post I sent to Cornelius:
>
>
> Time Team is shown here as separate documentaries on the Discover Channel.
>
> One thing that we (my husband and I) have noticed about it is the
incorrect
> techniques used in the show. Perhaps what we are seeing is just salvage
> archaeology, UK style.
>
> There seems to be little or no research design figured out ahead of time,
> the archival research is somewhat sketchy, and the fact that no screening
is
> done, and no tight control is done with the units, or even if any units
are
> set up, all point to little more than archaeology done for the television
> cameras.
>
> We have both commented to each other about the terrible digging techniques
> being used, and the fact that speed seems to be more important than
> information saved.