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.

中文翻译：

---

客观错误好还是主观正确好？

多年来，考古学家一直依赖孟塞尔土壤颜色图表 (MSCC) 作为标准化现场记录土壤和沉积物颜色以及实验室陶器等文物的工具。用户已经确定了结果差异的多个潜在来源，例如操作员间感知、光源或样品水分含量的差异。近年来，研究人员开发了用于颜色识别的廉价数字方法，但这些通常无法实时完成。现在，一种现场就绪的数字颜色匹配仪器被出售给考古学家，作为 MSCC 的替代品，但该设备在考古研究中的准确性和整体适用性尚未得到证实。通过三个独立的现场和实验室试验，我们发现通过设备获得的结果存在系统性不匹配，包括与标准化 MSCC 芯片的可变精度，这应该代表理想的样本。同时，该仪器的读数是一致的。这导致我们质疑使用“主观”人眼或“客观”数字眼睛是否更适合颜色数据记录。我们讨论了在决定在现场和实验室环境中采用哪种颜色记录方法时应如何考虑项目目标和限制，并确定最佳程序。这导致我们质疑使用“主观”人眼或“客观”数字眼睛是否更适合颜色数据记录。我们讨论了在决定在现场和实验室环境中采用哪种颜色记录方法时应如何考虑项目目标和限制，并确定最佳程序。这导致我们质疑使用“主观”人眼或“客观”数字眼睛是否更适合颜色数据记录。我们讨论了在决定在现场和实验室环境中采用哪种颜色记录方法时应如何考虑项目目标和限制，并确定最佳程序。