February 2015 Challenge: The Excavation of Louk Nem Zar

[Wingshaw]

Oh there'll be a quiz. And I'll expect a 2,000 word paper by the end of the month! We don't want it to be too easy on you, do we?

Anyway, happy to be of help. Ask and I shall answer (or try to, anyway).

THW

[Ilanthar]

I would say the darker one.

[CaptainJohnHawk]

I think the darker version works best as well. Very nice idea for an evolution map!

[lostatsea]

Damn Photoshop crashed on me! Well I redid all my work and re-saved it all. Making some progress. Any thoughts on how this can be be improved.

### LATEST WIP ###

[lostatsea]

A little farther along. To "The Hoarse Whisperer" I may or may not still need your expertise but I am trying to make the journal entries VAGUE enough to keep myself out of trouble !!
### LATEST WIP ###

[Wingshaw]

Nothing 'wrong' that I can see so far. I thought I'd give you a few ideas, though, that might reinforce the archaeological theme:

--in archaeology, you wouldn't just dig anywhere. You'd start by defining a trench, which would generally be polygonal. The area within the trench is what you excavate. If necessary, new trenches could be opened, or existing trenches could be expanded in various directions. One of the implications of this method for your map is that it is unlikely the first excavations would uncover a building in entirety: they would more likely just get a few walls, or a corner, or something. If they wanted to find out more, they might expand the trench in the direction they expect to find more, and so your first square might show only a part of a building, and your second could show the extra bits they discovered. The old archaeologists (like in the 1930s) tended to have a lot of manpower and little care for damaging the sites they were investigating, so they would often make big expansions on their excavations once they found something, often cutting through walls if they got in their way (destroying a part of a structure is completely unacceptable by today's standards, of course)
------I am told that Americans do things a bit differently to the rest of the world, but I don't know how true this is. Non-American archaeologists will open a trench and decide to expand it incrementally; i.e. based on what they discover. The result is trenches of uneven size and shape. American archaeologists, on the other hand, create trenches in grid formations: say, each trench is 4x4m, and they put four trenches of equal dimensions in columns and rows. They will then break through the solid earth between (called the 'bulk') depending on what they uncover. This method is usually more labour intensive, but also more thorough.
------There are also a few cultural differences in excavation, that you might want to know about (although this might be getting way too detailed, now). The British, for example, try to minimise the amount of area they excavate, while the Japanese will dig up whole hillsides.

--when trying to depict an archaeological site one has to remember that different areas are excavated to different depths. For example, one part of a trench might be dug to, say, a foot deep, at which point they uncover the tops of a wall; another part of the trench will go down three feet, and find artefacts (pottery, metal etc); yet another area might go even deeper to try to find the footings of a building. This is most significant in areas with long occupation: I was on a dig in Italy last year, and my trench excavated one area to the depth of a Roman road, and, preserving that area, went deeper in a nearby portion of the trench to find Etruscan remains below the Roman. When multiple cultures occupy a site, they will usually build on top of each other, or reuse parts of earlier structures. Once again, though, the older archaeologists wouldn't be too fussed about removing things that don't interest them (Heinrich Schliemann, who discovered Troy in the 19th century, famously carved through about nine levels of habitation and several thousand years, because he was only interested in finding the Troy of The Iliad; he also looted all the gold and jewellery for himself, so not the most ethical archaeologist out there).

Hope some of that is helpful to you.

THW

[lostatsea]

TheHoarseWhisperer : Thanks for the insight.Some of that was new to me especially the differences(nationally)In "Style"of procedures . However Two things Limit what I can represent. One I only have 6 Sections of space I can represent the progression in. So each is a snapshot (Drawing) taken to represent the work up to that time. I think I can go back and put in some secondary Shallower and deeper exploratory trenches.
Two : Professor Tyrell is more of a library archeologists than a "field" man. Through years of study he pieced together the lay out map and so he " Knew" where the first building should be . If only he knew he was digging up the wrong settlement! Also each progression is supposed to represent a hand drawing of the areas revealed . Only a general representation is given therefore most "non significant " Details have been left out.
At this stage of the Dig things are being done rather recklessly with a rather large force of men. Also This dig is meant to prove the professor's theories and grant him his claim to fame. Things are being Hurried ! Once I work out a scale I'll be looking for help setting a realistic rate of progress per Snapshot and will adjust the journal entries as necessary. Right now I just trying to get it finished and if time permits I'll go back in and add the pretty details. Thanks for the input it has given me some great ideas to include if time permits.

[Wingshaw]

TheHoarseWhisperer : Thanks for the insight.

Any time.

Professor Tyrell is more of a library archeologists than a "field" man.

Until last year, that was me, too (although I preferred the term armchair archaeologist)

THW

[lostatsea]

The Hoarse Whisperer :

Until last year, that was me, too (although I preferred the term armchair archaeologist)

. OOPS no offense intended ! I tried to add some "Depth" (pun intended). Still needs some tinkering I believe. I have the art styles I like for the buildings. I haven't tried it on the dunes yet to see how that goes. This would be section #3 What do you think! Others are welcome to comment as well !

[Deadshade]

I thought that A and B were supposed to be excavations.
But as the shadows show, they are actually on a hill (light is shining from SE according to the dunes). So how could they have been "excavated" ?