Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Major Review Feedback - 2nd June 2020 - Coggle Diagram
Major Review Feedback - 2nd June 2020
Why not ICP-MS or ICP-AES
Have all my stones in one basket
Use petrography on stones too?
Writing style
Some bits very good
Other bits I was too uncritical of references and sources, and I need to be clear if something is my own point or if I am citing someone else's work
Cannot simply reference something as if it is fact, but must evaluate the source or say that it
suggests
a finding
Need to write everything into coherent narrative that makes PhD thesis a pleasure to read
Need to think of alternate ways we can move project forward if access to assemblages are restricted
Sample out of situ stones to speed up process?
What can be done with limited access to the Roman Baths
This implies communicate with RB team more
Start sampling quarries asap
Need to put end of abstract first! I.e. summarise most important bits first and include that upfront
Similarly, more explicitly state why and how continuity between Iron Age potters and Roman CBM producers can be assessed
E.g. recipes and processing, not just raw resources
They liked my presentation and feedback on how to improve was mostly minor
Passed with no recommendations, although Emma did say it is important to think of alternate strategies and how long that will take to implement
No fieldwork allowed by BU whatsoever at the moment, with sever penalties if breeched
Clarify hinterland not region - i.e. 20km diameter circle around Bath fitting in with Peter Davenport's economic/settlement-based scheme