3rd November 2008, 10:24 PM
Weegie and Trowelfodder,
I'm quite interested that the paper record has remained an integral part of the system. Is this as a back-up if the system failed? Presumably the time and analysis benefits are thought to be worth the double handling on site. Do you think this could work for a commercial unit?
The system we are using involves digital recording on site with PDAs, and I think if we could get away with digital drawings we would try it. It is hoped that there will be time savings both on site and in post ex. I have yet to be convinced, and I think there are gaps in what we are recording, but am trying to remain open minded about it.
Dr Pete and Oxbeast, the technology that holds the most promise for limiting on site recording is I feel close range photogrammetry as used last year at Silbury Hill. I have tested these techniques in watching brief situations and also on commercial sites and it works very well. A conclusion for the Silbury work was that the skilled archaeologist was still needed to interpret the strat, no matter how detailed the photogrammetric recording. Not only that, but the interpretation had to be done on site, not in the comfort of the office looking at a computer screen. Not so different from the traditional methods then. Perhaps greatly improved resolution will change this, but I doubt it. After all you can't check the relationship between two deposits through a computer screen.
I'm quite interested that the paper record has remained an integral part of the system. Is this as a back-up if the system failed? Presumably the time and analysis benefits are thought to be worth the double handling on site. Do you think this could work for a commercial unit?
The system we are using involves digital recording on site with PDAs, and I think if we could get away with digital drawings we would try it. It is hoped that there will be time savings both on site and in post ex. I have yet to be convinced, and I think there are gaps in what we are recording, but am trying to remain open minded about it.
Dr Pete and Oxbeast, the technology that holds the most promise for limiting on site recording is I feel close range photogrammetry as used last year at Silbury Hill. I have tested these techniques in watching brief situations and also on commercial sites and it works very well. A conclusion for the Silbury work was that the skilled archaeologist was still needed to interpret the strat, no matter how detailed the photogrammetric recording. Not only that, but the interpretation had to be done on site, not in the comfort of the office looking at a computer screen. Not so different from the traditional methods then. Perhaps greatly improved resolution will change this, but I doubt it. After all you can't check the relationship between two deposits through a computer screen.