19th October 2013, 06:46 PM
The only brickbat I would aim at Barking's criteria is on the question as to whether it is wise to mix stratigraphic and physical relationships on the same sheet. As Barking quite rightly says these sheets may be read in years to come. My point would be, without any indication to the contrary how is that alien from planet Zog supposed to know whether you meant that layer 1 overlay layer 2 physically or straigraphically if such information is mixed on a sheet. My memory when it was first designed was that the MoL sheet was supposed to be purely stratigraphic but have noticed that its many cloned imitators over the years tend to add boxes such as 'butts' and 'butted by', clearly missing the whole point of the original DUA masterpiece!! I also have no problems with sketches, but would remind folk that in this age of mass-scanning of records it is a pain in the arse to have records on more than one side of the paper so would prefer the use of additional single sided sketching sheets.... as for the correlation between the context sheet and the digital record, I think this is a case where technology and 'handiwork' are catching each other up and in places overlapping. I wouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater just yet, but I think we have to accept that there comes a point when one or the other rightly or wrongly is going to win (probably technology) and our recording procedures need to be adapted to reflect that.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...