7th September 2010, 04:08 PM
overseas Wrote:You may, or may not, need local knowledge to dig a site effectively. You do, to write it up, unless site reports are limited to simple stratigraphic, physical and structural descriptions. Detailed contextual knowledge enables a site report to propose, with greater effectiveness, the significance of the archaeology under investigation.
One of the ironies of UK archaeology and its relationship to the planning system is that the significance of potential archaeological deposits is discussed at great detail in assessment and evaluation reports often well before a trowel is lifted in serious anger on the site in question. I at least can understand the reluctance of project sponsors to see too much time spent rehashing those arguements in the final report when they have already been well aired.....
I think one of the answers would be a GIS based report structure for archaeological reporting where earlier documents can be seen as an integral part of a finished report and not just part of the archive (where conclusions/significance discussions can be updated rather than rehashed).... such a system would be cheaper and more efficient than the present paper based reporting model and more widely accessible!!. I can see a potential for such a system . A good example is the way that Oxford Archaeology organise their archaeological library - see disscusion elsewhere on BAJR - and that seems three quarters of the way to that aim already...
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...