Is a decent specialist report a luxury?

[vulpes]

Whatever it's shortcomings, the publication referred to was never marketed as guidance to be rolled out across the land. It still stands out as the only systematic attempt on this scale to look at what we do when we 'evaluate'. But, it was focussed on sites in only a single county and developments which were largely (but not exclusively) linear.

[P Prentice]

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webad...53371.0310

[redexile]

Looks like Swedish archaeology is heading down the same sh1t-pipe as here in the UK:

http://www.academia.edu/1971016/The_key_...akest_link

[Dinosaur]

Yes, a lot of that sounds strangely familiar.....

[GnomeKing]

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webad...53371.0310

" The 2% sample etc is used because everyone else uses it because that was the first one to be used, and was originally pulled out of thin air because it "looked about right". It has NO valid basis whatsoever, so any work which is carried out utilizing a methodology which is flawed must, by extension, be flawed itself. I would suggest therefore that lots and lots of flawed work is not a healthy state of affairs, and not better than a small amount of work carried out to a high standard utilizing a rigorous methodology. "

:face-thinks:

[redexile]

This just appeared on Britarch from the Director of the Wiltshire Museum wrt their refusal to accept archaeological archives due to a lack of funding/space:

"We have just announced that we are no longer able to take archives from developer-funded excavations. The glimmer of hope is the innovative
solution that has been developed by Wiltshire Council. There is a proposal to use funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy to create
adequate storage"

Interesting, given that one of the things suggested in the paper that started this thread was the fact that we could perhaps use the CIL for funding archaeological resources. One to watch, I think

[Dinosaur]

...or stick to finding shiny stuff that museums actually want for display :face-stir:

[redexile]

...or stick to finding shiny stuff that museums actually want for display :face-stir:

Shiny things are sooooo 2009 - it's dead kings or nothing these days

[Dinosaur]

On that note, what's with the modern thing of museums being big empty spaces with nowt on display? e.g. you need to take a flask and sarnies for the long trecks between the near-empty and distantly-spaced display cases at the multi-million pound Wallsend Roman fort museum, the £10M Whitby Abbey museum appears to contain less actual finds than the old wooden hut it has replaced, and what the **** has happened at the the Yorkshire Museum (which used to be dead good, not any more)? - I know they have an accute storage problem, but taking 90% of the stuff off display is hardly going to help matters, although I'm sure the 7-year old school parties think its marvellous...luckily on the way out last summer I was surveyed, just for once a useful 10 minutes of my time... }}

[CARTOON REALITY]

On that note, what's with the modern thing of museums being big empty spaces with nowt on display?

Does this mean I can start charging people to see the inside of my wallet?
I think trying to provide a controlled environment for certain finds (iron, bronze etc.) has outwitted many architects - particularly when the museum is inside a refurbished old building and residual damp is an issue (even modern concrete can continue to release moisture many years after it's set.) Sealed cabinets can be used but they are expensive and finds tend to be a budgetry afterthought on the part of many building designers. So it's all about space - lots of it, space doesn't rust (as far as I'm aware.)
Yip, empty museums seems to be the way forward . . .