26th May 2007, 02:44 PM
Mind you, there are circumstances where machining stuff out is the correct thing for a poor embattled supervisor to do: for example features deemed too unimportant to deserve the resources to excavate fully (particularly in comparison with whatever else you have to dig). Maybe they really aren't as interesting as they look, or maybe it's all down to those evil consultants again. As for rubbing bits off people's context sheets, well I'm in favour of annotating and retaining the primary archive even if it's patently wrong (as it sometimes is), but there's also a valid (albeit old fashioned) argument for making it 'right', particularly the quantifiable data. In any case it shouldn't be an issue, as people should be writing their context sheets in black biro. That's how the archivists like it.
Maybe UK archaeology is comparable with the worst in the world, as MV appears to suggest. I don't think so though, having visited ongoing excavations in a number of countries. Not even close.
Maybe UK archaeology is comparable with the worst in the world, as MV appears to suggest. I don't think so though, having visited ongoing excavations in a number of countries. Not even close.