27th April 2012, 02:00 PM
Quote:?Finally...if you know you will hand-plan, and the team are good at it, overall it can work out faster than laying-out and post-exrectifying photographs : the post-ex work can after all be done by anyone whocan use illustrator rather than having to wait for the skilled surveyor/illustrator using a more complex and slower process.?
I think that you and Canterbury et al are drawn into the same ?.fault -for want of a lesser accusation. As far as I am concerned taking a single context model for excavation, the method generates pre and post excavation plans as part of the method. In as much as 2d plans can attempt to contain 3d contexts we end up after excavation with a set of drawings that can be combined to recreated the special distribution of these contexts. This is what field archaeologists created. Possibly there might be a use to digitally capture the pre and post ex of a context but the record that should be produced is about excavated space
[SIZE=3]What we are presented in the Canterbury image is either a pre-ex or a post ex. It holds no context information what so ever that could more easily be contained and recorded for posterity in the [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]statement ?a pile of bricks? attached to some location. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Unfortunately pre and post ex pictures are what are most often presented to the public as the product of what field archaeology produces and so we end up with attitudes such as[/SIZE]
Quote:
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]such imaging may prove to be a much more 'powerful' record-it goes beyond simply recording what brick went where. Whilst we need to ensure an acurate record we also need to think why we're [/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]doing
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]archaeology - if technology helps to explain archaeology to the public we should [/SIZE][SIZE=3]seek ways to use it more effectively.[/SIZE][/SIZE] [/SIZE]
Sod off public and volitters
Reason: your past is my past