Gaye and fellow HISTARCHers:
Archaeologists fulfill their most important responsibility when, after
having excavated at a site with the best possible methods and informed
by a research design, they thoroughly and in a timely manner, report
their methods and findings. I argued in a piece in Historical
Archaeology a couple of years ago that good technical reporting provides
the basis for good interpretive writing. Without the analyses that one
works through in a technical report, the message issued to the public
generally will be incorrect, insupportable, or focused on method and not
findings. (Parenthetically, I don't see how you can publish a piece in
book or journal form without first preparing a technical report...not
only will the published piece be of better quality, but the data will be
available for evaluating the published interpretations.)

Again in general, the problem seems less common in the private sector
where whole or part of a contract price is withheld pending submission
of an acceptable report. Whether or not contract archaeologists develop
interpretive material from such projects often depends, at least in the
USA, on whether or not it is a stipulated product in the contract.
Private companies rely on billable hours...if a product cannot be
billed, it is difficult to invest resources into it.

Where archaeology is undertaken in the public sector with public funds,
that is where I see a significant problem. I have witnessed numerous
instances where the resources for such projects are expended on
fieldwork, often leaving little or nothing for laboratory work, much
less for analysis and reporting. I object strongly to these types of
projects and feel that the professional organizations need to address
them explicitly in their ethics statements. The journal editors might
also consider rejecting journal submissions that do not cite, in text
and in the citations section, the technical report upon which a piece is
based.

Where technical reports are completed and public products are created,
we also need some means of evaluating those products. We have all sorts
of standards for peer reviewing contracted reports and scholarly
articles, but none--so far as I am aware--for evaluating products
designed for public audiences. I think that is a serious problem that
must be rectified.

Technical reports are repositories for data and are not intended for
general audiences. They do provide, however, the foundation for all
interpetations, regardless of intended venue, scholarly or public.

Jim Gibb
Annapolis, MD