9th April 2008, 12:46 PM
I sit in front of a very large series of bookcases which contain reports going back into the 1970s. Prior to PPG16, for a number of important sites, there are lenghty, well written and illustrated reports. For the vast majority of sites - and this is sites where there is archaeology - you are looking at 2-3 sides of typing, a location plan with trench locations sketched onto it and details of the trench sketched in these. Frequently there are no levels on sections or plans and in many occasions it is not possible to locate the trenching within the site. This is before you ask questions, or even try to find the answers to, the extent of sampling, specialist reporting etc. I have had one or two of these sites re-excavated as it has not been possible to tell the extent to which the archaeology was actually cleared. This modern work has resulted in large, detailed mapII assessments.
IFA curatorial standards: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...nterim.pdf read it and comment. If you get past about page three without stuffing pencils up your nose ready to bang your head on the desk you are a far better person than me.
IFA curatorial standards: http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...nterim.pdf read it and comment. If you get past about page three without stuffing pencils up your nose ready to bang your head on the desk you are a far better person than me.