HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Ann B. Markell" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:07:37 -0500
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
Once again, Larry, you've cut through to the central issue - and I thank you.
 Now that I am required by contract to use Munsell colors, I have been
constantly frustrated by crew members' belief that they have described the
soil by assigning a Munsell code.  They seem to have lost the ability to
observe and think about the soil and what the subtle changes mean.  Only
constant vigilance can convince them to accurately describe a darker soil
caused by the increasing presence of tiny flecks of charcoal, or the reddish
hue resulting from tiny bits of brick.  Munsell colors may be okay for
general, regional, geomorphological description - but they appear pretty
useless for understanding or describing the complex stratigraphy of a site -
unless they are accompanied by a detailed and thoughtful description of each
stratum.  And, like I said, the tendency for many to believe that they have
followed some sacrosanct scientific prodedure by matching a Munsell chip to
the soil seems to have reduced the ability or the desire to provide a good
and useful description.
 
Whoa!!  Where did that come from??  Happy holidays to you and yours..
 
Ann

ATOM RSS1 RSS2