7
Comparing field notes from a Mayan dig site to museum catalog entries blew my mind
I spent 6 hours cross-referencing a 2019 excavation report from Tikal with the official museum records. The field notes had way more detail on soil layers and artifact placement, making the museum versions look like rough summaries. Has anyone else found that original source notes are way more useful than the polished final reports?
2 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In2 Comments
the_james4d ago
Dude yes. The museum cleaned everything up so much it barely looks like the same dig. I found a field sketch of a burial pit once with actual root stains and rodent burrows drawn in, and the official report just said "disturbed context." Like no, that's important data you just threw away. Original notes are raw and honest.
2
jesseb209h ago
Isn't that basically admitting the official record is more about looking clean than being accurate? Did the museum folks ever give a reason for stripping out stuff like root stains?
8