18th July 2012, 01:15 PM
Yep, rectified photography is what your looking for.
Also if you are trying to interpret a 'site' without excavation your missing often vital evidence. Like subtle context differences, such as different layers, or cut features and important relationships between them. These can only be gathered through careful dismantling of the site. Like layers with differing compaction often only discernible by feel would indicated prolonged use/reuse or several episodes of deposition.
You will also potentially miss those little details that point to the evidence/solution you are looking for that are often discovered during excavation.
Think of the case of a fire in a house. The house owner claims criminals broke in and set a fire in the kitchen. On the face of it, recorded by photos, the glass in the kitchen door is broken, the door open. The burn patterns indicate where the fire was started and that an accelerant was used. Case closed?
No. On closer (destructive) examination. Soot was found under all of the pieces of glass from the door, showing that the fire was started before the door glass was broken. The house owner was examined......traces of accelerant was found on their clothes and hands......
The same is the case for archaeology. A photo no matter the detail and lighting/ digital effects will not record as much information as a skilled excavation.
BUT
As another tool in the inventory the technique looks ok (if of limited use at the mo) The actual shape, location and measurements of a context, be it a pit, or a layer of charcoal is of paramount importance.
Maybe for digitally recording cleaned and conserved objects to help look for tool-marks, micro wear etc? But again measurements are important.
I would have thought that measurements would be important in forensics too?!??
Also if you are trying to interpret a 'site' without excavation your missing often vital evidence. Like subtle context differences, such as different layers, or cut features and important relationships between them. These can only be gathered through careful dismantling of the site. Like layers with differing compaction often only discernible by feel would indicated prolonged use/reuse or several episodes of deposition.
You will also potentially miss those little details that point to the evidence/solution you are looking for that are often discovered during excavation.
Think of the case of a fire in a house. The house owner claims criminals broke in and set a fire in the kitchen. On the face of it, recorded by photos, the glass in the kitchen door is broken, the door open. The burn patterns indicate where the fire was started and that an accelerant was used. Case closed?
No. On closer (destructive) examination. Soot was found under all of the pieces of glass from the door, showing that the fire was started before the door glass was broken. The house owner was examined......traces of accelerant was found on their clothes and hands......
The same is the case for archaeology. A photo no matter the detail and lighting/ digital effects will not record as much information as a skilled excavation.
BUT
As another tool in the inventory the technique looks ok (if of limited use at the mo) The actual shape, location and measurements of a context, be it a pit, or a layer of charcoal is of paramount importance.
Maybe for digitally recording cleaned and conserved objects to help look for tool-marks, micro wear etc? But again measurements are important.
I would have thought that measurements would be important in forensics too?!??