5th December 2010, 10:34 PM
I'm not at all appalled by that Dinosaur, and I'm not sure that I should be. I'm also not too concerned that eval reports may be boring, or mechanistic, as Chiz et al point out they're done for a set purpose (and to a price point). From my contracting experience I'm also quite sure that the majority of clients (developers) couldn't give a monkeys about the 'that's interesting' that you allude to BAJR, although that aspect would be of concern to a curator trying to weigh up significance in terms of PPS5. To go back to the 'heavily structured' format, it is (as Chiz points out) horses for courses and has it roots in the various standards IfA, MAP2 etc. In it's place I don't see it as a great problem as it at least ensure that the 'important' stuff is in there and doesn't prevent the writer from adding extra interpretation / information above the minimum. That said I have sent excavation reports back on occasion because they are completely overwritten / theorised. There is a balance to be struck between the information retrieved and the level of inference appropriate.