Any thoughts on this folks?
I can't believe there isn't anything controversial / not clear!
For example can we really use the same generic standard to record
analytical work on environmental samples, and on whole landscapes?
Or should I just argue with myself!
Ed
I wrote..
> I've drafted it to cover a wider range of analytical work than the
> environmental and conservation work discussed so far. Its scope is
defined
> as: -
>
> "Records of analytical work that gathers information about and
describes
> characteristics of material remains"
>
> This could be environmental samples or collections of artefacts, but
I'm
> hoping it could also include work to analyse groups of monuments or
other
> landscape features. The morphological analysis of crop-mark sites
> undertaken by the EH National Mapping Programme might be an example.
I'd
> be interested to hear if conference thinks this is too
> ambitious!
>
|