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?

1 comments

1 Comment

the_james17h 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.