5th January 2007, 01:19 PM
âbut the underlying reasoning behind any requirements for workâ
Then maybe the great public funded monkeys have to do the âworkâ themselves and leave us commercial independent baboons alone to make our money from our craft elsewhere as we are incapable of seeing the light of the one true faith (power of place). http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1447
All these threats of legislation and monitoring can only really suggest to the general public that the natural state of an archaeologist is as a charlatan down to the point of charging the client to come and monitor the archaeologist that the curator had already approved in the spec-bloody odd
isint that the rub. I think that I could have been parachuted onto Trolls dbas/methodless statements and project designsless site and so long as I had a contract which I had negotiated. Now you want to call me a charlatan because I did not understand the great public funded monkeys underlying reasoning. Maybe competitive tenderising is pointing out that these dbas/method/designs exercises are mostly pointless (probably result from the liberal use of the post determination negative condition) attempts to get out of undertaking an evaluation.
The overriding underlying reason is that development is forcing the archaeologists to a place (power of place) in case there is anything of interest and having to come up with a lot of spurious justification in place of a good old predetermination evaluation
And back to
âI for one see no reason therefore for a change in the system and I would be against any move to take power from where it belongs - the elected members.
I cannot see how a professional body like the IFA could have a role in the monitoring of a project in its own right. They have no pays of entry or right to go on a piece of land.â
Well
I suggest that the IFA is the body empowered and that it should take out all the monitoring references in its standards that trust monitoring onto everyone else but themselves. (I would also like to see them get rid of the watching brief standard as an archaeological method but I donât think that you are ready for that) (I also find the artefact discard statements in the standards rather circular in the circumstance where there has been no prior evaluation)
I suggest that the IFA tells any curator who thinks that they should monitor the standards to get on their bike and leave it to us archaeologists to decide down the pub whos rubbish before getting up the next day to agree to everything the next curator thinks is needed and come up with a competitive bid based upon the standard that the rubbish baboon one got away with.
"Someone must be trusted. Let it be the judges." Lord Denning