I'm not sure that I follow what you mean.....
If you mean that the reports are substandard I wouldn't agree. They are interim and therefore by their nature appear piecemeal at present.
The website is providing provisional information as and when specialist reports are completed. There does not appear to be any problem with the quality of the content. Much of it is technical in nature and as provisional data it cannot, by definition, contain all of the information. I too look forward to reading the completed reports.
If on the other hand you mean how do I make sense of the intervention reports (which are not always the most accessible of documents to non-specialists). It is the result of 23 years of research as a field-archaeologist and researcher whose specialist field is lithics and prehistoric landscape archaeology:-)
 Reply | with quote | Posted by smallblueplanet
27th December 2004ce
14:36 |
stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Treeman, Dec 26, 2004, 02:59)- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Treeman, Dec 26, 2004, 03:03)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (moss, Dec 26, 2004, 14:13)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (smallblueplanet, Dec 26, 2004, 15:02)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (fitzcoraldo, Dec 28, 2004, 15:27)
- Orion's belt? (pendant, Jan 18, 2005, 23:35)
- Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (Dave1982, Oct 29, 2014, 17:14)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: stonehenge mesolithic post holes (BrigantesNation)