17th February 2014, 11:22 AM
Am I missing something here...
Single context Recording as in each separate and distinct cut, fill, deposit or structural element is assigned a unique number. ( Numbers are free after all, and it is easier to merge than it is to split up later)
Even when digging in spits, you need to have a way to distinguish this from that.
No matter how you look at it. that brown stuff in the pit over there has to be uniquely identified from that brown stuff in the other pit over there ( the other there) so inherently all systems are reliant on human error and subsequent ( hopefully onsite) checking
Dinos (e.g. Pit 6 Layer F ) is no different from [1023] in terms of designation. I once worked for a person who designated each context by 100m square (Letter ) 10m square (Number) 5m Square (Letter A-D ) and then a final number for the context within the square. so G13D234 I suggested that they just have one number for everything. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc the rest of the code is made from the site, year and trench (if applicable)
Point being that no matter what "system" you are using you have to have a way to identify the layer, pit or wall a single unique way... I don't understand how else you could do it. ... method and application are different
on the other hand single context planning is totally designed for specifically complex and deeply stratified sites. and is unsuitable for anything else.
Single context Recording as in each separate and distinct cut, fill, deposit or structural element is assigned a unique number. ( Numbers are free after all, and it is easier to merge than it is to split up later)
Even when digging in spits, you need to have a way to distinguish this from that.
No matter how you look at it. that brown stuff in the pit over there has to be uniquely identified from that brown stuff in the other pit over there ( the other there) so inherently all systems are reliant on human error and subsequent ( hopefully onsite) checking
Dinos (e.g. Pit 6 Layer F ) is no different from [1023] in terms of designation. I once worked for a person who designated each context by 100m square (Letter ) 10m square (Number) 5m Square (Letter A-D ) and then a final number for the context within the square. so G13D234 I suggested that they just have one number for everything. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc the rest of the code is made from the site, year and trench (if applicable)
Point being that no matter what "system" you are using you have to have a way to identify the layer, pit or wall a single unique way... I don't understand how else you could do it. ... method and application are different
on the other hand single context planning is totally designed for specifically complex and deeply stratified sites. and is unsuitable for anything else.