20th October 2013, 03:42 PM
Tool Wrote:What makes the perfect context sheet/section drawing? If you're doing all the post-ex stuff, what sort of information do you actually want? Because I'm a sad git I've been trying to design my own record sheets, but being inexperienced have no idea what information is actually needed from the digger to enable a good record of the site. So, given a blank slate, what would you like to see from the bod with the trowel in their hand?people have argued about the perfect context sheet/recording system for donkey's but almost all fail because they are all designed on the basis that a context can be defined, and that the given definition would be recognisable to anybody else who came across it - which is of course nonsense. There is then no such thing as a perfect context sheet, except for a copyrighted one. a better question might be - what is a context or even, what is a feature? one could for instance contend that so-called contexts are irrelevant because they are not archaeology any more than stratigraphy is. at best they are clumsy tools we use to fill out gaps in observable process. it is our bread and butter but it is almost always flawed. how many of us really have a clue where the bit of pot in the loose came from? how many of us assume that we know and that is how the record is repeated forever after? how many of us know the difference between a slumped edge and a cut? how many of us make the record say what we want it to say despite the evidence?
all recording is interpretation and it is the interpretation that is archaeology not the context and not the context sheet.
on this basis i would say the best context sheet is the one that reflects the 'conversation' between the digger, the supervisor and the report author as well as every specialist, and passer-by with an opinion. i would put the interpretation box at the top.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers