27th December 2012, 01:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 27th December 2012, 01:20 PM by P Prentice.)
redexile Wrote:P Prentice: 1) I'd seriously suggest changing your specialists! 2) we are aware that standards are falling everywhere, but we're both ceramicists and so we felt that was the area we were best qualified to speak about and you only get 20 minutes at TAG! 3) Not sure what you mean by "low value contextual information". Could you elaborate?
The report also did not fulfil the brief, as the local type-series wasn't used.
2) WRT to IfA-bashing, the point was that their standards are garbage when it comes to finds , and this has been pointed out many times, to no effect. They've been offered much better ones (ie those of the MPRG) but won't adopt them. We want to know why not. Are they seriously interested in upholding standards in archaeology or is it just a load of flannel? Why are they not interested to trying to get a better deal for archaeologists and the archaeology as the current commercial system is clearly not working and getting worse?
Bajr: Well, if everyone had to use type-series because the IfA had it in their standards, then the playing field would be level in that area at least. And if the IfA get their charter, then everyone will have to be a member to practice. Are there many commercial companies left now who aren't RAO?
rather a glib statement regarding changing specialists from someone with not enough work! and by 'low value contextual information' i am referring to the 90% (ERE) that cross my desk wherein the contextual data does nothing to elucidate the deposit sequence on the bit of ground being reported on. in a commercial environment, worrying about, half a dozen post-med sherds and a couple of fragments of animal bone is way down the list of needs, unless of course the planning department has access to someone who has time/inclination/knowledge/wherewithall to read and understand the report and where it does and dosent conform to the brief and the wsi, in which case i will pay a specialist to put a few bells on it. but as that is as common as rocking horse shit i dont need to bother - usually. we dont do what we know we should do, we only do what we are made to do!
you seem to be fretting under the misapprehension that the ifa police the development control process when the reality is that the ifa is run by the archaeological mafia for the benefit of their own business interests - which is a bit odd considering they are the archaeological minority and if people like you wrested the power away from them instead of back-biting and whinging about what they dont do you could impose your own standards - and be just like them.
happy new year
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers