22nd December 2012, 11:30 AM
Hi everyone,
I too was in the session at TAG and agree with the general point that standards are slipping. Whilst ideas for heritage taxes are a nice idea, the fact remains that even if they were introduced it would not happen overnight and something more immediate is needed. What I don't think is particularly constructive is the IfA bashing, in fact following the session I looked back over the standards and, although not perfect, I think they are certainly better than made out in the paper, however standards are only of any use if they are enforced! For example, when was the last time a curator sent back a report because the pottery report was inadequate? It happens rarely, because few curators have specialist knowledge. Now I'm not saying that all curators should be pot specialists, that is obviously ridiculous, but they should at least have access to training about what a good finds report is, for example or, as I think Paul suggested, access to some form of peer review system.
I think actually the IfA finds standards are a fairly decent attempt. They highlight the need for retention strategies and that nothing should be thrown away without assessment (of course these days there is need to discard things unfortunately due to archive issues) and that specialists should be suitably qualified. This isn't defined, but the implication is that they should meet the criteria of corporate IfA membership (ie PIfA or above) IN RELATION TO THE SPECIALISM - ie. they may be a rubbish digger but a briliant zooarchaeologist and their IfA membership grade will reflect this. Importantly these standards do go as far back as the PD stage and therefore, if joined up with those for evaluation/excavation the framework is in place to have a standard (we can debate whether it is good enough) in place for post-ex which is joined up with excavation strategy.
Paul is correct that the MPRG standards have not been 'adopted' by IfA - however the MPRG standards are directly referenced in the appendix to the standard, the implication being that documents in this appendix should be used where appropriate. The IfA should not, in my opinion, be duplicating existing standards, but signposting them from a generic document as they do. Perhaps though, this signposting, and those between different sections of the standards needs to be more clear.
Now I am an advocate of the IfA, I think they are generally a good thing. I know Paul and Chris urm... aren't. But Chiz made a great point in the session, that the way to affect change is to get involved! So I urge any anti-IfA specialists to at least pay the £10 to join the IfA finds group. That way you don't have to sell your soul to the IfA or go through the assessment procedures to get in, but can at least become involved in discussions over new standards and the ways the current ones are enforced in a formalised and meaningful way. Incidentally I know for a fact that this issue is being pursued by IfA (they recently appointed a standards promotion manager) and the standard of university teaching and training in finds is being examined by at least 2 IfA special interest groups.
The issue of budgets for finds work is also important and it strikes me that the potnetial for large artefact assemblages is never (or at least very rarely) addressed in the considerations of archaeological potential reached in DBAs, perhaps this could be addressed - if this potential is highlighted from the beginning then there is no excuse for an adequate budget not being in place for these projects!
Overall the only way out of this mess is for specailists to be pro-active in lobbying IfA, ALGAO and others, but also by offering something in return, be it structured input, training opportunities etc. My five point plan for relatively quick change, would be:
1) Ensure that the existing IfA standards are referenced in briefs and WSIs and are enforced. This falls to curators in the end, but specialists and specialist groups have a role to play. Talking to colleagues there is a view in some quarters that there are a few grumpy old men getting in a huff. So it is important to articulate the points in a clear and constructive way to the relevant people.
2) Ensure that curators have adequate training to enforce these standards, with groups such as the IfA Finds Group or Medieval Pottery Research Group (other forms of pottery are available) offering training or advice sheets.
3) Get involved in the drafting of new standards and highlight the need for different elements of standards to reference one another, so that they form a more coherant whole - e.g. by getting involved in IfA Finds Group.
4) Observe best practice ourselves and lead by example - I know most of us do this already, but it is imperative that our own standards don't slip.
5) Pressure for finds and environmental evidence to be considered early in the process, and that means pushing for them to be assessed in DBAs or statements of potential and making sure that relevant finds data is available and disseminated through HERs. They should also have received better treatment in regional research frameworks (although the pottery research groups each have their own) but that ship has largely sailed for now...
This won't change things overnight, but would, I feel, start to push things in the right direction. Clearly more funding is required for regional type series, training and retention and all of these things must remain in the general conciousness across the sector, especially as organisations such as IfA begin to look forward and plan for the challenges which the profession as a whole will be facing in the next decade.
I too was in the session at TAG and agree with the general point that standards are slipping. Whilst ideas for heritage taxes are a nice idea, the fact remains that even if they were introduced it would not happen overnight and something more immediate is needed. What I don't think is particularly constructive is the IfA bashing, in fact following the session I looked back over the standards and, although not perfect, I think they are certainly better than made out in the paper, however standards are only of any use if they are enforced! For example, when was the last time a curator sent back a report because the pottery report was inadequate? It happens rarely, because few curators have specialist knowledge. Now I'm not saying that all curators should be pot specialists, that is obviously ridiculous, but they should at least have access to training about what a good finds report is, for example or, as I think Paul suggested, access to some form of peer review system.
I think actually the IfA finds standards are a fairly decent attempt. They highlight the need for retention strategies and that nothing should be thrown away without assessment (of course these days there is need to discard things unfortunately due to archive issues) and that specialists should be suitably qualified. This isn't defined, but the implication is that they should meet the criteria of corporate IfA membership (ie PIfA or above) IN RELATION TO THE SPECIALISM - ie. they may be a rubbish digger but a briliant zooarchaeologist and their IfA membership grade will reflect this. Importantly these standards do go as far back as the PD stage and therefore, if joined up with those for evaluation/excavation the framework is in place to have a standard (we can debate whether it is good enough) in place for post-ex which is joined up with excavation strategy.
Paul is correct that the MPRG standards have not been 'adopted' by IfA - however the MPRG standards are directly referenced in the appendix to the standard, the implication being that documents in this appendix should be used where appropriate. The IfA should not, in my opinion, be duplicating existing standards, but signposting them from a generic document as they do. Perhaps though, this signposting, and those between different sections of the standards needs to be more clear.
Now I am an advocate of the IfA, I think they are generally a good thing. I know Paul and Chris urm... aren't. But Chiz made a great point in the session, that the way to affect change is to get involved! So I urge any anti-IfA specialists to at least pay the £10 to join the IfA finds group. That way you don't have to sell your soul to the IfA or go through the assessment procedures to get in, but can at least become involved in discussions over new standards and the ways the current ones are enforced in a formalised and meaningful way. Incidentally I know for a fact that this issue is being pursued by IfA (they recently appointed a standards promotion manager) and the standard of university teaching and training in finds is being examined by at least 2 IfA special interest groups.
The issue of budgets for finds work is also important and it strikes me that the potnetial for large artefact assemblages is never (or at least very rarely) addressed in the considerations of archaeological potential reached in DBAs, perhaps this could be addressed - if this potential is highlighted from the beginning then there is no excuse for an adequate budget not being in place for these projects!
Overall the only way out of this mess is for specailists to be pro-active in lobbying IfA, ALGAO and others, but also by offering something in return, be it structured input, training opportunities etc. My five point plan for relatively quick change, would be:
1) Ensure that the existing IfA standards are referenced in briefs and WSIs and are enforced. This falls to curators in the end, but specialists and specialist groups have a role to play. Talking to colleagues there is a view in some quarters that there are a few grumpy old men getting in a huff. So it is important to articulate the points in a clear and constructive way to the relevant people.
2) Ensure that curators have adequate training to enforce these standards, with groups such as the IfA Finds Group or Medieval Pottery Research Group (other forms of pottery are available) offering training or advice sheets.
3) Get involved in the drafting of new standards and highlight the need for different elements of standards to reference one another, so that they form a more coherant whole - e.g. by getting involved in IfA Finds Group.
4) Observe best practice ourselves and lead by example - I know most of us do this already, but it is imperative that our own standards don't slip.
5) Pressure for finds and environmental evidence to be considered early in the process, and that means pushing for them to be assessed in DBAs or statements of potential and making sure that relevant finds data is available and disseminated through HERs. They should also have received better treatment in regional research frameworks (although the pottery research groups each have their own) but that ship has largely sailed for now...
This won't change things overnight, but would, I feel, start to push things in the right direction. Clearly more funding is required for regional type series, training and retention and all of these things must remain in the general conciousness across the sector, especially as organisations such as IfA begin to look forward and plan for the challenges which the profession as a whole will be facing in the next decade.