Symbols on Finds BAg

[P Prentice]

unit = !"?$%^&*

[Dinosaur]

Youngsters of today keep telling me cuts always (and have always) go in rectangles, fills in ovals, and always seem quite upset when it's pointed out that actually that isn't the case - eg. our recording manual actually merely suggests that context numbers go in rectangles, but luckily since clearly no one has ever read the thing we still get a variety of ovals, brackets and ***-knows what else written on the recording, even by project officers. They never seem to have an answer as to what shape you put other types of context in (a good one is a surface, as in a geometric plane rather than a physical expanse of cobbling). Have been seeing SFs in trianges and samples in diamonds for the last 3 decades at lots of different units all over, so that seems to be pretty common, suspect lots of people just copied the old DoE/EH system (where they were already printed on the bags/labels) - whatever happened to single feature numbers (or letters?), cut out an awful lot of the confusion about where finds came from. For some reason samples here still get letter codes (AA, AB, AC etc), but luckily we switched to SF numbering a while back just to let the diggers mix them up with the context (and any other) numbers.....

[Jack]

Fashions do change Dino.

Keep up old chap.

But you are correct, context numbers USED to go in rectangles (especially on a matrix).

But the handy convention of using a rectangle to show where the cuts are and an oval for everything else certainly makes matrices instantly more accessable to the eye.

Although when I worked down south for Oxford back in the late 90's it was the fashion there too (from what I remember - much beer may have clouded my mind).

[differentcolourmud]

... and here I was, thinking a unique number on its own was an adequate way to identfiy something, without the need for turning a label into a page from a toddlers 'lets learn shapes' book.

[P Prentice]

better if they are colour coded

[Dinosaur]

Fashions do change Dino.

Keep up old chap.

But you are correct, context numbers USED to go in rectangles (especially on a matrix).

But the handy convention of using a rectangle to show where the cuts are and an oval for everything else certainly makes matrices instantly more accessable to the eye.

Although when I worked down south for Oxford back in the late 90's it was the fashion there too (from what I remember - much beer may have clouded my mind).

As I was saying, even the POs here (including Jack) haven't read the recording manual (wot I edited) :face-approve:

....you can add as many silly shapes as you like but that ain't the recording system you're contracted to use (which merely has contexts, type unspecified). And you've not explained in your Oxford universe what shape all the other types of context go in (eg. the planar exampel above, structures, groups, unstratified etc etc)

[Unitof1]

I am with you differentcolourmud. My single index reference went right over their numerous pretty little cross referenced registers.

Perhaps the small find shapes denoted different types of material.

[Jack]

As I was saying, even the POs here (including Jack) haven't read the recording manual (wot I edited) :face-approve:

....you can add as many silly shapes as you like but that ain't the recording system you're contracted to use (which merely has contexts, type unspecified). And you've not explained in your Oxford universe what shape all the other types of context go in (eg. the planar exampel above, structures, groups, unstratified etc etc)

Ooooo Handbagio! :face-stir:

Hmmm, maybe we should keep in-house discussions in-house....................but I think you will find, on page 53 of our recording manual a clear illustration of a plan of a ditch with a cut number in a rectangular box and the fill number in an oval box.}

[Dirty Boy]

As I was saying, even the POs here (including Jack) haven't read the recording manual (wot I edited) :face-approve:

....you can add as many silly shapes as you like but that ain't the recording system you're contracted to use (which merely has contexts, type unspecified). And you've not explained in your Oxford universe what shape all the other types of context go in (eg. the planar exampel above, structures, groups, unstratified etc etc)

Next thing you'll be telling us we shouldn't edit it ourselves and pass out to the site staff....:o)
Y
And does it really matter what someone puts on a bag in terms of shapes? If i'm not sure whats in a bag i can always go and check the magical.thing known as a sample or small finds register and find out.

[Jack]

I agree dirty.

Down with this oppression of shapes