The knife is drawn in a dotted technique,highlighting corroded parts with a thicker stipples , thus there is a fullinsight of the texture of the object. This means that illustration providesenough information to recognise the material, its texture and condition of it.Notwithstanding that the illustration is well drawn, there are evident visualdrawbacks such as: no identification of the blade on the drawing, thereforewithout any description in the report it is complicated to recognise the blade,that is also depicted on the illustration. Another mistake on that illustration is that there is no scale thatwould help to understand the size of objects, thus the viewer will not be ableto get the full picture about the iron knife.
As the report says the iron pegwas possibly a part of the canal between 1748 and 1800, therefore forarchaeologists it has no significance. The last three objects are cannon balls(Fig 12,13,14) that were used from around blacked in corroded parts. There is ascale under the (Fig 12) and (Fig 13) that equals 10cm, but this scale isuseless for these drawings as it is located right in the middle betweendrawings (Fig 15), thus the viewer cannot use this scale to get the right sizeof objects. Whereas, drawings shows thickness of these cannons. This means thatthese drawings can be easily used by other archaeologists to analyse theseobjects due to its detailed illustration of texture and shape. These cannonsare depicted in a stipple technique and using outline lines in order to highlightshapes. However, the lighting is totally wrong as there are shadows thatusually are drawn when there is a light from the top left.
Figure 14 is themost inaccurate with overly thickened outlines, that creates quite distorted view. Nevertheless,these cannons are important objects valued by archaeologists as they areassociated with the Battle of the Boyne that took place in July in 1690 from 8am and 12 noon.