20th October 2011, 06:49 PM
I read reports on an almost daily basis, and to a large extent, how interesting they are depends on what was found. It's obviously much easier to write an engaging and stimulating report if the subject-matter lends itself to it, rather than about another evaluation or watching brief where nothing came up. However, it also relates to something that came up on the thread about whether archaeology is a science or not, namely the ability to use the dry 'facts and figures' of contexts and plans to tell the story of the site. Yes, in some cases people can get carried away and may speculate beyond what can be supported by the evidence, but the reports I find most readable are those where the author has at least tried to work out what the various features mean in terms of the site as a whole.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum