Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Unitof1 Wrote:Have you ever tried drawing what ever it is that you imagine that you can see there and then adding dots afterwards to make it look like you measured it. Its extremely accurate, fast and produces a very neat drawing.
Until someone checks your photo
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
17th July 2013, 12:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th July 2013, 12:23 PM by Jack.)
barkingdigger Wrote:Bear in mind the current crop of "techies" pushing the development of digital drawing, TST/GPS capture, GIS databases etc are all skilled veterans of the Pencil Era. They already know what to record, how many dots to use, how to check accuracy etc because they've had to do the mental gymnastics in the old days. I've run across folk who assume the "magic box" can do all the thinking, so three points round the edge can obviously create a great drawing of a complex pit! The new tech could replace pencils (and paper CXT forms) with lots of added benefits, but only with extensive training so noobs can learn the whys and wherefores of recording that us "old lags" take as second-nature.
Nail on head!
There is increasingly several moves towards digitising of rectified photography of some sort, in 2 and/or 3D. However, there are pitfalls. For example, to digitise, say a stone, the person doing the clicking has to decide where the edges are....just like if they were drawing it. If that person wasn't on the site/ never saw the thing with their eyes and/or has a dodgy image to work from mistakes happen.
I agree Barking, to measure on site and/or draw by clicking (digitising) the operator still has to go through the same interpretation that a digger does with pencil, hand tape and eye. The tools may change but the skills of interpretation are the same and need to be passed on from old lags to newbies.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
what photo? instead of dots I tend towards the squiggle denoting diffuse boundary and I insist that I have a lot of -----?-----?---------?-------
Quote:I agree Barking, to measure on site and/or draw by clicking (digitising) the operator still has to go through the same interpretation that a digger does with pencil, hand tape and eye. The tools may change but the skills of interpretation are the same and need to be passed on from old lags to newbies.
Its a bloody stone- next you will be saying that each stone should have its own context number.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
You not been doing too many, e.g. medieval abbeys, recently then? Don't worry, I'm sure someone'll put one your way soon :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
medieval abbeys tend to be insider public servant grant jobs or watching some drain run for a bog, which one you being doing. Stone drawing is a load of tosh, apart from it being part of the total ripoff that is building recording a subset of the history of art, you have the problem that each stone was probably laid one after another and should you work that out and then you have the problem of stones being inserted. Yes you can stand around drawing each one and thinking that your intimate association will lead to an enlightened phasing of it all in the end, if not by you but by somebody else or you could just say this phase that phase this phase, out line them as contexts give an excuse why you think that they are then give some description to each context and hopefully not have to draw a single stone. In Jacks world if you don't draw every stone presumably using a plumb line and grid and then taken a photo you are not an archaeologist, this unit culture has then been further cannibalised into Kevs world of total stations and photorectifcation where the methodology supersedes interpretation. It seems to me that archaeologists record their interpretation and should do so using what ever method they think appropriate. The curators/ like to chuck the phrase and justification " preservation by record " but they don't like remind everybody that that record is about an interpretation. Preservation by interpretation. Not do a half section because that is whats in the wsi and then it must have a picture even if that picture doesn't show anything. As an archive its not sustainable and can only lead to global warming and we don't want that do we.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Unitof1 Wrote:.... this unit culture has then been further cannibalised into Kevs world of total stations and photorectifcation where the methodology supersedes interpretation. It seems to me that archaeologists record their interpretation and should do so using what ever method they think appropriate. The curators/ like to chuck the phrase and justification " preservation by record " but they don't like remind everybody that that record is about an interpretation. Preservation by interpretation. Not do a half section because that is whats in the wsi and then it must have a picture even if that picture doesn't show anything. As an archive its not sustainable and can only lead to global warming and we don't want that do we.
quite right unit, i agree. and now i must fall on my sword
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Unitof1 Wrote:medieval abbeys tend to be insider public servant grant jobs or watching some drain run for a bog, which one you being doing. Stone drawing is a load of tosh, apart from it being part of the total ripoff that is building recording a subset of the history of art, you have the problem that each stone was probably laid one after another and should you work that out and then you have the problem of stones being inserted. Yes you can stand around drawing each one and thinking that your intimate association will lead to an enlightened phasing of it all in the end, if not by you but by somebody else or you could just say this phase that phase this phase, out line them as contexts give an excuse why you think that they are then give some description to each context and hopefully not have to draw a single stone. In Jacks world if you don't draw every stone presumably using a plumb line and grid and then taken a photo you are not an archaeologist, this unit culture has then been further cannibalised into Kevs world of total stations and photorectifcation where the methodology supersedes interpretation. It seems to me that archaeologists record their interpretation and should do so using what ever method they think appropriate. The curators/ like to chuck the phrase and justification " preservation by record " but they don't like remind everybody that that record is about an interpretation. Preservation by interpretation. Not do a half section because that is whats in the wsi and then it must have a picture even if that picture doesn't show anything. As an archive its not sustainable and can only lead to global warming and we don't want that do we.
Think you've missed something important about commercial archaeology - if someone has a big stack of Wonga and wants to swap it for a big stack of drawings and photos of rocks, and maybe some recording sheets, it's considered impolite to decline :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Unitof1 Wrote:...this unit culture has then been further cannibalised into Kevs world of total stations and photorectifcation where the methodology supersedes interpretation. It seems to me that archaeologists record their interpretation and should do so using what ever method they think appropriate.
Don't recall I mentioned interpretation.....but for the sake of clarity. My total station interprets every point I measure (I have a list of polygon, point and line codings as long as your angst), which then after processing through a GIS (at present Intrasis) transfers that information to an integrated database. Totally flexible and editable allowing verification and amendment of interpretation where necessary. The survey data is immediately linked to finds and environmental databases, background mapping etc etc. Of course it is expensive for the initial hardware but once employed generates savings in both the time required for data capture and in post-ex (no secondary digitisation required, no restructuring/rewriting of databases etc). I wouldn't claim it is the answer for every site, but it works well on some.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Unitof1 Wrote:................<snip> In Jacks world if you don't draw every stone presumably using a plumb line and grid and then taken a photo you are not an archaeologist,......
Well not a good one.........
Unitof1 Wrote:The curators/ like to chuck the phrase and justification " preservation by record " but they don't like remind everybody that that record is about an interpretation. Preservation by interpretation.
Now your getting it. Thats why you should photo/ video stuff.
Unitof1 Wrote:Not do a half section because that is whats in the wsi and then it must have a picture even if that picture doesn't show anything. As an archive its not sustainable and can only lead to global warming and we don't want that do we.
A photo always shows something.....even if its just the fact that you dug a half-section and the edges look real (or overcut)
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Jack Wrote:A photo always shows something.....even if its just the fact that you dug a half-section and the edges look real (or overcut)
...and that you did, in fact, turn up on site, at least for a few minutes, before sending in the invoice... :face-approve:
