Well, I'm not sure we're not mixing apples and oranges here. I think there
is a certain amount of boring stuff (i.e., technical jargon and thick
description) that is required in a contract archaeology report. There are
only so many ways you can describe the clay content of the AB horizon and
the numbers of sherds plucked out of which level in which unit, and none of
them are literary (although the idea of trying this is a pleasantly
humorous one). The parts which ought to be readable to the public (not to
mention the rest of us) are the interpretations, the summary, the
recommendations. Then, like tables in the appendix, the technical hoohah is
used as support.

kris
Kris Hirst
Office of the State Archaeologist
The University of Iowa
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
<http://archaeology.miningco.com>
Scribal Traditions http://scribaltraditions.com