Ford Figure 1



Note that illustrations are cropped and enlarged from the original printed version of the article. Otherwise, the salient details cannot be viewed with ease on a monitor. One really needs to consult the original printed article to appreciate the observations made by the author. Also, the captions have been altered slightly to reflect the on-line appearance of the illustrations.
Figure 1. Some commonly encountered problems in artwork. With one exception, all illustrations in this article are taken from the Journal of Field Archaeology.

A) The lettering in this illustration was created by a primitive pantographic system known as leroy lettering. The spongy, crude quality, particularly noticeable here, is often a problem. Real type (see detail viewss below) is usually superior.

A

On the left we see a detail of leroy lettering, on the right real type.

B) The lines in this map vary in thickness, to the point where some of them are broken, particularly at the top. The little cross symbols are much too irregular. The stipple dots along the coast are carelessly applied. The lettering was done by hand; real type, being more uniform is often better (in the detail, compare the hand-lettered "Pylos" with the word set in real type, and inserted in parentheses adjacent to the hand-lettered words). The monitor display, being a bitmap, does not show the type for "Pylos" very well.
B

Return to the Ford article.


Maintained by
abw@bu.edu
Last modified: Tue Oct 24 16:15:21 EDT 2000