1st October 2012, 02:03 PM
P Prentice Wrote:for my money i think interpretation starts before setting foot on site, is foremost when one is digging and is often turned on its head when one is writing it up. there is no such thing as objective archaeology no matter how many boxes you have filled out. report writers need to be on site being a royal pain in the ass looking over shoulders and asking questions - the rest is for the gods
I agree totally too!
We need to be objective about our objectivity.
I'd like to see a day when archaeological interpretations have an error range based on the differing interpretative tolerances at each stage from site prep to publication!
I'd equate wild-unsubstantiated interpretations as inaccurate measurements
The statement of errors is the main (?only) section missing from the site report design when compared to a lab report.