BAJR Federation Archaeology
The School of Jack - Printable Version

+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The School of Jack (/showthread.php?tid=4991)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


The School of Jack - BAJR - 3rd August 2013

Quote:Besides just because archaeologists have misunderstood scientific techniques/results doesn't make science wrong.

WEll said that Jack.

to be honest, the loss of Munsell because we were to cheap to cough up for the book... yeah... admit it... it has nothing to do with anything other than we are cheapscates... brown, shitty brown, dark shitty brown... er... that'l do...

I am a proud processual data based archaeologist. I see I record and let the formation process talk for itself. my description and discussion are separated by an impenetrable barrier.

Carry on Jack... my kids are staying in...


The School of Jack - pdurdin - 3rd August 2013

kevin wooldridge Wrote:Worked with a guy once who thought that 'primrose' was a shade of pink...made for some interesting context descriotions.....
Primrose is one of those colours which people often get wrong, like puce and chartreuse and taupe. My theory is that it has something to do with the sound of the word: primrose sounds pinkish to me, puce sounds yellowy, chartreuse something like red wine, and taupe blueish. Now I just have to remind myself that they aren't what they sound like when I use them...not that I can see much reason to use any of those on a context sheet when there are far simpler and more obvious colours to use.


The School of Jack - Kel - 4th August 2013

Dinosaur Wrote:that 1 in 8 people are colour blind. but most don't realise it, there's an on-line test you can do.
Done all the tests and I'm definitely not colour blind. Colour perception is a lot more subtle than just Can See It/Can't See It. It can never be objective because it depends how your brain's wired.


The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 4th August 2013

Not checked the site out so happy to take your word for it. However, not perceiving what your eyes're telling you is effectively the same as the eyes not sending the info in the first place. I'd agree 'colour' is a consensus thing - red is what most people agree to call red - just seems weird that some people don't realise that what they call red is different from what mostly people around them call red, there are some pretty definitely red things e.g. the top bulb in traffic lights, if I was seeing that as what I perceived as 'blue' I'd go see an optician

Wonder if anyone has ever tried Munsell charts on the (however) colour-blind - if you're not seeing either red or yellow 'normally' how are the subtle gradations of the YRs going to work? [and are the colour descriptions going to be baffling?]


The School of Jack - Wax - 4th August 2013

I once worked with someone who did not see colour at all. Not an archaeologists but a scientist. He had no problems as he perceived the world in subtle tones (shades of grey) It was interesting talking to him as he fully understood the physics of colour but as a personal experience it meant nothing to him. Had no problem with traffic lights cause of the position of the lights. Know several people who are red green colour blind, you can usually tell cause of the none too subtle clothes combinations. Had to tell one that what he saw as a complimentary combination of browns was a total clash of red trousers and green jacket.


The School of Jack - Tool - 4th August 2013

OK, don't any of you lot know some clever bod who can make a simple electronic device that can measure the ambient light temp in one direction, and then give a colour for the material in the other? Most cameras now can sense colour cast from say tungsten lights or whatever. Oh, and if anyone now knocks out such a device, it was my idea so give me some royalties! Big Grin


The School of Jack - kevin wooldridge - 4th August 2013

One of the problems with Munsell as a comparable colour system isn't the colour/chroma/hue of the soil, but the moistness (is that a word?). In all the years I have been aware of the chart I have never yet been able to replicate a coherent moistness of soil (at least not in the field)...Therefore to my mind the system is flawed and on some occasions next to useless....Any suggestions as to how to overcome the problem?


The School of Jack - Dinosaur - 5th August 2013

Traditionally you get a bit in the palm of your hand, gob on it (not directly after a raspberry ripple or the like!), smear it around with a fingertip until its a paste, then insert muddy fingertip behind hole in Munsell page - seems fairly consistent to me?


The School of Jack - BAJR - 5th August 2013

I would let you gob on my hand... but then I have needs... damn it I have needs.


The School of Jack - P Prentice - 5th August 2013

still a waste of time in the majority of cases - what is relevant is how the material you are describing was formed and if you dont know that, the colour itself is irrelevant.