Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
As it is written in site reports today, the modern language of archaeology is not a handsome tongue, efficient though it may be at conveying neutral data (another horrid word). Are there lessons to be found in the beguiling style of site reports from a couple of centuries ago? And is there more to their charm than antiquarian romance?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ian Hodder (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: