+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Digger Article (/showthread.php?tid=1794)
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 24th February 2005
Are you critisising us!!!!!!!!!!
BAJR
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 24th February 2005
Can we move this topic to the new section...above
Digger Article - Geofizz - 24th February 2005
I still say we are wrong to think IFA is going to do anything to change the current situation regarding archaeology.
We need some legal protection for sites - something that can be enforced on all.
Digger Article - the invisible man - 24th February 2005
Absolutely. I would go as far as to suggest that the whole set-up of commercial/development led archaeology needs to be carefully reconsidered. It's a real child of its time, based on the dogma that competition will solve everything and self-regulate any given field. Clearly this is not (always) the case.
Digger Article - Tom21 - 24th February 2005
That article is definately happening, I'll let you know more about it when I know the print deadline has passed. No point in giving people the chance to suppress it.
Digger Article - Geofizz - 24th February 2005
I'd totally agree with you Mr Invisible. The current situation makes no sense whatsoever, anyone that says otherwise has to have "the profit motive".
Digger Article - drpeterwardle - 1st March 2005
I write this knowing I will probably be in a minority of one (any excuse not to finish a rewrite of a desk top prepared by another organisation).
On these occasions I often wonder if I am working in a different system to everybody else. Curators, for example, have a right of access to development sites providing they are conforming to H&S.
How serious is the problem of ?standards?? I get the impression from reading these threads and other things over the years that the answer is very common. Is this really so? In any system things are going to go wrong and no organisation or individual can produce perfect work on every occasion. Life is just not like that.
I think that what is urgently and continually required is an assessment of how the current system is working. There are a number of easy and quantifiable ways this can be done.
I would argue if on 90% of occasions things are ?acceptable? then there is basically nothing wrong with the system or the people operating it.
If on the other hand things are not acceptable on 90% of cases then clearly the standards are too high.
I think we suffer from the use of anecdotal accounts rather than quantitative analysis.
I also think we have still not bottomed out what quality actually is for example a good quality report will be printed on 90g not 80g paper (does this really matter?).
We also have to consider if things have gone wrong why they have gone wrong and if the situation was avoidable. For example if a project has gone wrong because there was insufficient money it has to be considered if:
1. The information provided was correct
2. was a mistake made
3. was too much risk being taken for the money
4. did circumstances change
5. was the situation contractually unfair
6. The paymaster changed the payment terms and actually paid up
7. or did the people tendering deliberately go into a contract expecting to loose money.
In reality I would suggest that these are all commercial decisions and are not matters for any external body provided that the organisation concerned are grown up enough to accept they are going to make a loss. In particular they must realise that they cannot reduce the loss by ?cutting corners? or reducing the amount of work they do.
At present we seem to be going down a ?stick? rather than ?carrot? route in order to raise standards. Is this the right way to go?
Peter Wardle
Digger Article - troll - 1st March 2005
Dr Wardle, the term "standards" as used in this context relates to the ability and or intention to carry out fieldwork to an acceptable and, professional standard. I have encountered the inept, the blind, the incompetent, the corner cutter and the muppet in my journies.If that`s not bad enough, I have also met the consultants who lie for a living at the expense of the archaeology. For my part, I feel that the IFA is nothing more than a farce, a charade and, a parody of just what a modern professional institute should be all about. Whilst I agree with you that a quallitative analysis would be useful, your model would be far too simplistic and would`nt take a wide enough account of variables. Some field units are excellent but unfortunately, some very skilled and talented archaeologists find themselves working under muppets recommended by the IFA
The fundamentals are clear-heritage belongs to everyone and the nation understands and identifies itself through it`s cultural resources. Archaeology has been thrown to the wolves of commerce and as a result, the cheapest (in every way) crud wins the contract, the consultants use them and the IFA register them.I`m sure you know what I mean as you are re-writing a report for one of them.My question is this-faced with twenty years of this pantomime, how could the IFA face the public with this? Second-how can we look the public in the eye if we ourselves do and say nothing?
Digger Article - Alfie - 2nd March 2005
I think from a curatorial point of view aiming to produce "acceptable" results is questionable. Acceptable in that sense could be taken to mean the minimum required has been achieved.I hope we aim higher. Or perhaps 90% of projects have acceptable health and safety? I dont know which 10 per cent of the sites/diggers we dont mind losing. I would say the conditions that diggers work under can only be classed as unacceptable in 90% of cases.I dont think a licence system should be thought of as a stick, surely those who meet industry standards already, would wish to protect themselves from those who undercut them unfairly and generally lower industries perception of us?
Digger Article - drpeterwardle - 2nd March 2005
I think this is the crux of the matter. If the conditions that diggers work under are unacceptable in 90% of cases action is needed and action is needed fast.
The point is that standards are relative in any event. The phrase ?best practice? is used a lot in these kind of discussions. I take this cynically to mean ?normal practice? as opposed to the highest standard possible given an infinite amount of time and money. I say a clear cut agreed practical and achievable standard which can easily and objectively be measured is required.
The first step is surely to establish what the norm is and then decide how it can be improved if improvement is necessary. I would draw attention to recent joint EH/Church of England document on the treatment of human remains as an example of this. (I would note that there is also a licence system in place already for the treatment of human remains.) While I support about 90% of what is in this document some of it is impractical and I thus doubt if it will be followed.
Peter