19th October 2013, 04:14 PM
Wow - where do we begin? As you specifically asked about paper records, I think we need to understand why redundancy of info is important. If your records are to be examined by others long after the site is gone, they need to be intelligible and thoroughly cross-referenced so they can tell the story. And if your bosses generally work on paper rather than hi-tech methods you'll need to get in the habit of adding stuff like co-ords so you can work out where the feature was! (And even with digital mapping, the human factor means you still need redundant data to provide an independent check for those occasions when "fat fingers" hitting the wrong CXT number during data entry wind up FUBAR-ing your efficient database relationships! Or when the CXT record is typed up, but no digital or even paper outline is captured. Don't laugh - it happens!)
Now, on a paper record I like to be old-school and have a mix of atomised "measurables" and free text. So, there are five main chunks that a good sheet needs.
First, there's the basic ID stuff - boxes for Site Name, Date, Context Number, and useful dimensional stuff (L/W/H/D, shape in plan, shape in profile for Cuts, etc) as well as colour/texture/inclusions. Some of this could be found on the plans & sections, but I refer you to my first paragraph...
Next we need the all-important relationships. Not only direct strat "over/under", but also physical ones where applicable. (It can be useful to know that ditch X is cut by pit Y, even if pit Y is several phases later - the cutting could mangle the crucial relationship between ditch X and layer Z...) Then there are the relationships to other records - drawings, pics, finds, samples. Again, see above regarding the usefulness of redundancy when all doesn't go to plan in post-ex.
Third & fourth are both free-text fields, and whether they are separate boxes or one box divided by use of paragraphs is unimportant as long as site discipline is rigorous. The first bit of text is an observational description of the feature, the digging conditions, and anything else that might affect how the record is interpreted in post-ex. I like this bit to remain untrammelled by any subjective interpretation - the aim is to present in words a view of the feature and its surroundings on the dsay it was dug. Was it chucking down? (Finds recovery can be biased if the claggy spoil sticks to your tools in lumps big enough to hide a hand grenade!) Was there a dry spell? ("Concrete" soil might hinder the finding of edges...)
After a big gap (or in a separate box), it is time to wax lyrical with some good old interpretation! What did YOU think was going on? What's your guess about the function of the feature? Or its date?
Finally, on paper records it really, REALLY, helps to add sketches on the back that show not only the CXT in question, but also the ones around it that might be useful. Here's a good place to indicate where the edge was overdug, or how you think several CXTs form up to make a building. This used to be the discipline of "multi-context planning" which fell out of favour. Even though such sketches are truly redundant even in a paper system with plans and sections, I still find them very helpful when wrapping my head around a site narrative or revised matrix back at the office.
Well, these are my preferences for paper context sheets, but your mileage may vary!
As for drawings, a plan ain't a plan with anything less than three grid co-ordinate points! And a section without 3D co-ordinated endpoints marked on is just a doodle.
Let the brickbats fly...
Now, on a paper record I like to be old-school and have a mix of atomised "measurables" and free text. So, there are five main chunks that a good sheet needs.
First, there's the basic ID stuff - boxes for Site Name, Date, Context Number, and useful dimensional stuff (L/W/H/D, shape in plan, shape in profile for Cuts, etc) as well as colour/texture/inclusions. Some of this could be found on the plans & sections, but I refer you to my first paragraph...
Next we need the all-important relationships. Not only direct strat "over/under", but also physical ones where applicable. (It can be useful to know that ditch X is cut by pit Y, even if pit Y is several phases later - the cutting could mangle the crucial relationship between ditch X and layer Z...) Then there are the relationships to other records - drawings, pics, finds, samples. Again, see above regarding the usefulness of redundancy when all doesn't go to plan in post-ex.
Third & fourth are both free-text fields, and whether they are separate boxes or one box divided by use of paragraphs is unimportant as long as site discipline is rigorous. The first bit of text is an observational description of the feature, the digging conditions, and anything else that might affect how the record is interpreted in post-ex. I like this bit to remain untrammelled by any subjective interpretation - the aim is to present in words a view of the feature and its surroundings on the dsay it was dug. Was it chucking down? (Finds recovery can be biased if the claggy spoil sticks to your tools in lumps big enough to hide a hand grenade!) Was there a dry spell? ("Concrete" soil might hinder the finding of edges...)
After a big gap (or in a separate box), it is time to wax lyrical with some good old interpretation! What did YOU think was going on? What's your guess about the function of the feature? Or its date?
Finally, on paper records it really, REALLY, helps to add sketches on the back that show not only the CXT in question, but also the ones around it that might be useful. Here's a good place to indicate where the edge was overdug, or how you think several CXTs form up to make a building. This used to be the discipline of "multi-context planning" which fell out of favour. Even though such sketches are truly redundant even in a paper system with plans and sections, I still find them very helpful when wrapping my head around a site narrative or revised matrix back at the office.
Well, these are my preferences for paper context sheets, but your mileage may vary!
As for drawings, a plan ain't a plan with anything less than three grid co-ordinate points! And a section without 3D co-ordinated endpoints marked on is just a doodle.
Let the brickbats fly...