Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
[001] = cut
(001) = Fill
that is another one that I have seen.
though never on a bag of finds
as a find never comes from a cut, but from a fill.
I have had this discussion before about teh circle/square fill/cut but I guess structural remain and deposits would also be square - oh no starts to get non standard
I always put a little word next to certain contexts... such as wall or cut... ah, the joys of archaeology
:face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
I imagine Julie means for plans, matrices, context sheets etc, not just finds...
The most common in my experience are (1) for deposits, whether fills, layers or even skeletons,
[2] for cuts, masonry and timber (sometimes with the [^] 'roof' for masonry, which I always found a bit twee),
Accessioned finds/registered artefacts/small finds in <3>, or sometimes in triangles, which means you need another symbol for use in reports so that always struck me as a bit daft.
Samples in {4}, or often <5> at some units.
Never seen # or * used as a class identifier
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2009
[Cut], (Fill), Small finds in triangles, samples in diamonds. We weren't supposed to have any finds from cuts but sometimes the finds were put in a bag before a context number was allocated (sigh!). Some people confused their triangles with their diamonds so Finds got what they thought were exciting finds in buckets with triangles which were full of mud and Environmental got entire pots. So where I worked a pentangle would be a joke or a mistake - but it might mean something to the unit/society/group that did the excavation.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Misty Wrote:... but it might mean something to the unit/society/group that did the excavation.
Does it matter which method is used, as long as those excavating the finds and those processing them are on the same page? Just curious as to whether there is any really important reason why it should be standardised.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
pdurdin Wrote:Does it matter which method is used, as long as those excavating the finds and those processing them are on the same page? Just curious as to whether there is any really important reason why it should be standardised.
Of course it does, because everyone who does it different to me is WRONG!
The main benefit of standardisation is that most Diggers work for a lot of different units and its easier to avoid cock-ups if most units use the same systems. Yes it should be fairly easy to say 'we use this system' but in practise its a lot harder than you'd think.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
pdurdin Wrote:Does it matter which method is used, as long as those excavating the finds and those processing them are on the same page? Just curious as to whether there is any really important reason why it should be standardised.
Well, it's not a matter of life and death, obviously, but it does make it easier to move between different companies (and minimises scope for the type of cut / fill or find / sample confusion mentioned above).
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
In my experience the commonest are: context (1000), cut [2000], finds in a triangle, samples in a diamond/lozenge shape or whatever you want to call it !!
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
..oh structures in square brackets too [3000].....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
Although on site it doesn't matter too much what convention is adopted, it will matter when the archive is deposited in a museum. Someone in twenty years time shouldn't have to guess whether a number is a context, sample or finds number. Ideally the conventions used in recording should be documented.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
WEll this has been fascinating... and perhaps a simple and universal convention is needed. it is not hard. as it does seem that there is a near universal agreement on the basics.
I have to say the original requester has said a big thanks. And he enjoyed the Uo1 contribution !
Wonder if we could create a UK wide convention? How useful would that be? :face-approve:
