For many years, archaeologists have relied on Munsell Soil Color Charts (MSCC) as tools for standardizing the recording of soil and sediment colors in the field and artifacts such as pottery in the lab. Users have identified multiple potential sources of discrepancy in results, such as differences in inter-operator perception, light source, or moisture content of samples. In recent years, researchers have developed inexpensive digital methods for color identification, but these typically cannot be done in real time. Now, a field-ready digital color-matching instrument is marketed to archaeologists as a replacement for MSCC, but the accuracy and overall suitability of this device for archaeological research has not been demonstrated. Through three separate field and laboratory trials, we found systematic mismatches in the results obtained via device, including variable accuracy against standardized MSCC chips, which should represent ideal samples. At the same time, the instrument was consistent in its readings. This leads us to question whether using the “subjective” human eye or the “objective” digital eye is preferable for data recording of color. We discuss how project goals and limitations should be considered when deciding which color-recording method to employ in field and laboratory settings, and we identify optimal procedures.

No abstract

No abstract