sorry Kev I did read to the end and it did read like data gathering is interpretation.
This bit reads like you then change your interpretation
suddenly I am criminal and negligent and presumably should be banned from ever working again because I should be recording something which I don't see and so my three hours of digging out a pit and then reducing it to a four line section (outline of cut, top, middle bottom) on the back of an envelope is negligent and criminal because I could not be bothered to take a photograph of it or measure it to within five metres xy and not even care to find and z and to cap it all call it a pit without any concern that the thing what was left would the next day be bulldozed away as if it had never existed.
Thing is if you cant get to sleep that night because of this it might as well never existed problem you are never going to be able to do any archaeology because you will be forever fighting for the most stupid curators justification of preservation in situ and you be wasting all that nice lolly that you have jimmied out of the little old ladies purse when they were looking on satisfying barkingdiggers need to fill up archives with rubbish.
This bit reads like you then change your interpretation
Quote:Totally flexible and editable allowing verification and amendment of interpretation where necessary.And hay Kev there is nothing wrong with any of that so long as you are an archaeologist and that's how you want to do it. And yes its all about expense and your world sounds capitally expensive, digitaly always resolution restricted and future compatibility liable.....but problem is: barkingdiggers and Jacks- you must clean up your loose to look like you are an archaeologist, lets go through some motions:
Quote:We need to exert ourselves with good drawings, decent photos, and lucid context sheets precisely because we destroy the very evidence we seek. To wilfully do less would be somewhere between negligent and criminal. It doesn't exactly mean we need to draw every single stone, nor photograph every single feature, but anything we DON'T record may as well never have existed. So, more recording is always better for researchers than less.
suddenly I am criminal and negligent and presumably should be banned from ever working again because I should be recording something which I don't see and so my three hours of digging out a pit and then reducing it to a four line section (outline of cut, top, middle bottom) on the back of an envelope is negligent and criminal because I could not be bothered to take a photograph of it or measure it to within five metres xy and not even care to find and z and to cap it all call it a pit without any concern that the thing what was left would the next day be bulldozed away as if it had never existed.
Thing is if you cant get to sleep that night because of this it might as well never existed problem you are never going to be able to do any archaeology because you will be forever fighting for the most stupid curators justification of preservation in situ and you be wasting all that nice lolly that you have jimmied out of the little old ladies purse when they were looking on satisfying barkingdiggers need to fill up archives with rubbish.
Reason: your past is my past