Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
5th October 2011, 09:09 AM
Yup, I would cast my lot in with the general Ditch is a bigger cut, which although it can carry water in a drainage type way is more associated with boundary.
while a gully (in an anthropogenic form) is a shallow drainage channel. often rounded of base ? which will always carry water and although it can be used as a boundary, this is not a primary function.
Oh hell.... good question!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
5th October 2011, 09:23 AM
If I can lie in it its a ditch, if I cant then its a gully
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
5th October 2011, 11:31 AM
and any number of experienced diggers working on the same feature and who have worked together for yonks will still not know the difference when it s raining, or nearly time to clean up, or ........
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
5th October 2011, 12:55 PM
Wax Wrote:If I can lie in it its a ditch, if I cant then its a gully
R u particularly wide or just concerned about bits sticking out and snipers, or just enjoy getting muddier than everyone else?
Can't see many academics applying that particular test! }
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
5th October 2011, 01:20 PM
I think Wax is referring to whether 'skiving depth' is achievable!
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
5th October 2011, 01:53 PM
It doesn't really matter as long as your consistent and put the measurements of the feature in question in the narrative
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
5th October 2011, 02:30 PM
A problem with recording and interpreting features is not knowing a) at what level they were originally cut from, and b) how much has been lost through truncation/ploughing. This often gives a distorted view of the size of features, and leads to different people using various terms as 'interpretation'.
A good example being post-holes, that after machining down to natural, only survive in depths of 50mm (for example) and not being recognized as 'real' due to lack of depth-untill you point out that they could have been cut from half a metre higher!!:face-huh::face-thinks:
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
5th October 2011, 05:29 PM
Hence my preferred approach relating to function - I've currently got 'ditches' ranging in size from 0.5 - 20+m wide in my collection of active projects, size isn't everything...
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
5th October 2011, 07:00 PM
Concise Oxford : 4 ; the remains of a truncated ditch:face-thinks:...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
5th October 2011, 07:50 PM
Dinosaur's ditches ranging from 0.5m to 20m wide all fit my ditch category as I bet I could lie down in all of them (when excavated) I am not particularly wide. Some ditches are quite comfortable and were some times used for shelter by travellers caught out at night. The can provide somewhere out of the wind to light a fire.
Function might be a better definition than size but how do you know what the original function was, at best you are making an assumption based on the evidence?
