28th December 2012, 12:13 AM
(This post was last modified: 28th December 2012, 12:16 AM by Unitof1.)
Quote:If the Spec/WSI for an evaluation call for an assessment of the resulting finds that would come under the heading of a 'requirement'?
so what, those resulting finds are mine. I see it as up to me and this is my evaluation which the wsi agreed too being me. Sometimes I might wight in it that a specialist might be refered to if required and then I might be forced to produce some totally illiegal list of so called specialists
in my experience most so called pot specialists could not dig themselves out of a paper bags (as in spot a context and dig it and record it) and the one that can ready admit that the digger should be as good as identifying a bit of pot as they are. One thing that I can vouch for so called pot specialists is that they will all call for a local/regional/national typology but will not and have not done a single thing to produce one while at the same time never once substaniatte, by clear cross refernence, in any of their so called reports/ identifications any justification for their intuitions. When ever they make some reference to some observation of fabric it is my sorry observation to note that they have no relevant chemical or physical methodoloy/standard criteria for the recognition "calciate", flint" , "shell",..etc.
Basically pot specialist are the quacks of the archaeological world. I find that they mostly base their ability to rub a bit of pot between their fingers and tell you what they think it is is based on apparently haveing studyed under some now long dead previous selfapointed pot specialist who similarly came to the subject through the "ARTS". I think that it is very telling that not a single museum in britain has a pot specialist worth mentioning........
if I had a choice between idiot and troll I would feel most insulted to be a troll weras idiot I think would put me somewher above the pot specialists.
Reason: your past is my past