6th December 2007, 07:39 PM
I think this is a very interesting topic.
I think everyone who has been involved in the project should be credited in an acknowledgments section with what they did (be that excavation, ilustration etc etc).
I don't necessarily think that the report writers name needs to be on the front cover, but I think it should be on the inside cover at least. I dont like the over corporate 'no credit' approach as I think this somehow dehumanises the process. Ok, so we might actually be doing a 'excavation to assessment to monograph' painting by numbers exercise, but we dont have to admit that...
This brings me onto my main point: its always nice if a report writer (perhaps in conjunction with a specialist or a manager)has gone the extra mile, you know, a well researched, genuinely enthusiastic background section, a bit of stratigraphic reasoning or something on taphonomy that doesnt necessarily have to be there, or tying things into a historical or research priorities framework in a subtle way, or recognising when unusal specialist work or details really do matter etc etc etc I tink it is so noticeable when a report actually has a bit of soul or colour. This is the main reason why I think a report writer should be credited; because report writing is a specific skill that is hard to do exceptionally well.
As for the politics of who gets to write the report, thats another story! In my personal experience there are big issues about talent being recognised and fosterered properly, and we are in danger of losing the art from archaeology (and that doesnt haveto sit uncomfortably with cost effectiveness).
G
I think everyone who has been involved in the project should be credited in an acknowledgments section with what they did (be that excavation, ilustration etc etc).
I don't necessarily think that the report writers name needs to be on the front cover, but I think it should be on the inside cover at least. I dont like the over corporate 'no credit' approach as I think this somehow dehumanises the process. Ok, so we might actually be doing a 'excavation to assessment to monograph' painting by numbers exercise, but we dont have to admit that...
This brings me onto my main point: its always nice if a report writer (perhaps in conjunction with a specialist or a manager)has gone the extra mile, you know, a well researched, genuinely enthusiastic background section, a bit of stratigraphic reasoning or something on taphonomy that doesnt necessarily have to be there, or tying things into a historical or research priorities framework in a subtle way, or recognising when unusal specialist work or details really do matter etc etc etc I tink it is so noticeable when a report actually has a bit of soul or colour. This is the main reason why I think a report writer should be credited; because report writing is a specific skill that is hard to do exceptionally well.
As for the politics of who gets to write the report, thats another story! In my personal experience there are big issues about talent being recognised and fosterered properly, and we are in danger of losing the art from archaeology (and that doesnt haveto sit uncomfortably with cost effectiveness).
G