Nice one G 😀
I have a bit of a problem with these calls for standards, by people who have openly stated they have never been involved in any such projects.
What Standards?
– Holes should be dug at rate A to rate B and must never exceed rate C?
– They should not exceed depth X?
– All finds no matter how small must be recorded in situ to >5mm accuracy? That is ok with a relatively sparse sites that a few hundred years old by a relatively modern aircraft that breaks into several thousend pieces ranging from cornflake to complete engines with everything mixed up by the crash and any subsequent recovery / investigation.
– All sites must have full geophysical surveys carried out with plotted results?
The list could go on with conservation, public access etc etc.
Standards are set by who?
– Someone with relevant experience
– Someone qualified in a closely related field but with no relevant experience
– Agreement by committee
– Yellow paint :diablo:
Set for what reason (exactly)? And I am not talking about ‘to do the job properly’, I am saying why is a particular standard going to be applied to a particular situation.
Anyone who says, ‘because that is the way we do things’ needs to be asking some serious questions about their own procedures for seeking any possible increases in efficiency and effectiveness. To go back to the motoring analogy, you go to a garage an find a bloke pumping up a truck tyre with a foot pump and ask him why he is using it and not a mechanically / electrically driven compressor you would expect a very good answer or you would say something along the lines of ‘mad as a brush’.
These standards are to be monitored by who, a self appointed body (which in effect almost every professional body life began as), County Archaeologist, English Heritage, MoD?
The same applies to the matter of any possible qualification with the addition of to what level? Degree, diploma or A Level eqiv?
Report writing should in my view be part of any project, but publishing it can be a problem. As we carry out a lot of primary sources historical research in archives and would have to put that material into reports there then is the issue of copyright and royalties which would have to be overcome.
The report for my last recovery, unpublished but not entirely undistributed, ran to 27 pages with full references etc. This was approved by the archaeologist for the area. Where would you suggest any such reports for not archaeology should be published?
The only recovery I have been involved in that had ‘professionals’ present seems never to have a complete report submitted, despite some fairly thorough if a little rushed data collection (by them) including DGPS X/Y and Z axis measurements of all major parts and even components attached to these to show orientation as found. A recent query with the County SMR / Archaeologist proved that a report of virtually no use had been submitted by professionals for a dig that was over 4 ½ years ago, there was none of that DGPS data in the report.
Sign In
