Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[Dinosaur]

It is not acceptable that primary records are altered Willy Nilly, or simply ignored in write-up , in the way that appears common practice.

That's what red biros are for - I agree that that primary site record is sacrosanct, at the end of the day what was written at the time is, however barking, the only directly recorded eye-witness account of what was there. In reports I regularly write what I think the archaeology was and represented, but if it differs significantly from what was originally recorded I say so - if only cos when the site next door gets dug in 2 years time and the thing originally recorded as a Roman ditch and I reported as a medieval pit actually turns out to be a Roman ditch I don't want to end up looking like a prat. And if you have absolutely no idea what a feature, say so, don't make up garbage (you know who you are out there, amazes me how some reports make it past curators...)!

[Sith]

amazes me how some reports make it past curators.

Me too sometimes, however, I usually put it down to them being too busy to read every word unless it's something they think is sufficiently important or high profile.