Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:00:00 +0200 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
homo ludens |
Content-transfer-encoding: |
8BIT |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Geoff Carver wrote:
> some of the german archaeologists i was working with had never
> heard of silt ("Schluff")
Let them consult the "Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung" ed. by AG
Boden, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe in den
Geologischen Landesämtern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
> - then to think about the
> german tendency to use pencil crayons for naturalistic shading of field
> drawings, versus the british tendency to use colours to code finds
> (green for bronze, black for charcoal, etc.) & different forms of
> hatching for composition/texture which got me thinking that, if one
> group is documenting colour & the other soil composition, aren't they
> documenting different things...? which would sort of imply different
> assemblages if colour & composition did not necessarily correspond...?
No, because on the drawings there should always be a description
for each layer/structure, where also the composition of the soil
etc. is mentioned.
What I know from here is a kind of combination of the mentioned
methods, with colour codes that are quite close to the natural
color - as you mentioned: black for charcoal, green for bronze...
so the differences in documentation don't seem very important to
me.
JS.
|
|
|