26th May 2005, 06:31 PM
I agree on a number of fronts-Single context systems ideally should be worked through methodically as a rigid structured procedure.I also agree on the "horses for courses" front where it`s clear that in a commercial world, compromises are a fact of life and, are feature/site or condition specific. The "compromise" element of the job is something I`m having a rantette about over on the ppg16 debate (with myself). I also agree that in my experience, consultants and curators can be guilty of wildly underestimating the needs of the archaeology in question and trusting the work of commercial units.Conversely,and mirroring the statement made here by Dr Wardle,the results are not always as were intended. There is a huge chasm between those on site and those not. As a result, the archaeology is short-changed as compromise after compromise dilutes the briefs and specs penned by the grown-ups until the conditions are bearly recognised.