Errors for Unit J2

Caitlin Chaves Yates – September 2011

Introduction
Form
Record
Judgment

Introduction

The general approach to errors is described in the MZ sitewide book. The specific problems of J2 are highlighted and explained below. The errors are usually small in scope but are reported here for the sake of transparency.

Form

In general, there are very few errors of form in J2 due to the authors’ competency in English. The most common errors are in the object descriptions where technical terms and descriptive words are often misused or misspelled. Overall, these do not affect the ability to use the record. In subsequent editions these errors may be corrected.

Record

The errors in the record are primarily in the form of underrecording. There are numerous entries where partial information is missing. Incomplete records are most noticable in the q-lots. A number of q-lots do not record their volumetric localization besides recording the feature. For some q-lots volumetric location could not be recorded due to incorrect relay measurements (see below).

Another common problem is incorporating the 2004/2005 excavations into the more updated UGR system. In 2004/2005 some procedures were not done that are now considered standard. For example, a large number of the q-items were not photographed in the 2004/2005 seasons. At that time it was procedure to only photograph interesting or representative objects. After 2005 it became standard practice to photograph every q-item. In 2010 many unphotographed q-items were sent to photography but there are still many q-items without photographs.
Another area where it is common to find errors is in the relays. A number of relays were unable to be resolved by the computer program. These errors result from mistakes in recording, mistakes in measuring or incorrect use of the measuring instruments. When the relay was unresolvable a note was added to the record.

Judgment

During the excavation there were some difficulties in distinguishing some of the different features in the upper layers and as a result some of the features (such as f150) are quite large. In the end, this has little effect on the results of the excavation but in some cases it makes it more difficult to properly assign the strata.

In k100, the cut of f382 was not noticed in 2005, an instead the fill of the pit was simply excavated as a separate feature. When it was recognized in 2009, the fill of the pit was completely excavated as one feature, f383. It is possible to reconstruct the depth of the pit from the sections. See f304 for further arguments for identification of earlier excavated materials as part of the pit a12.

In the lower levels of J2, there were some mistakes in documentation, with f349 not being photographed. Additionally, features f335 and f336 were confused in the field and accidentally mixed.