11th November 2005, 10:42 AM
I'm not sure I agree with where you're heading with this argument eggy. Whilst it's true that the reports are paid for by the clients, and designed to answer planning questions, the actual primary users of the reports are people like me, who are required to check all the details of the project's work and assess whether its been conducted properly. The function of the report is to present the results of the on-site work, and to fulfill this objective the stratigraphic information, finds catalogues and all the rest of the "boring" details are essential. How else can I know if the work's being done competently - from a half hour site visit? You'd be surprised how much of this information is just plain wrong when I get the chance to see it presented unexpurgated. Besides, if you ask a client why he's paid for a site to be dug and report to be done, he'd usually answer that it's to clear a planning condition and satisfy the County Archaeologist's requirements. The vast majority of them couldn't care less about the archaeology unless it looks pretty or they can flog it to someone. I agree that the synthesis part of reports could be written better however - if this section's as tedious as the CBM catalogue (and some are) then the report's failed dismally.