Are Standards in field Archaeology Slipping

[BAJR]

All fun stuff

and did I read a comment about lost copyright. Sigh…

Although detecting is interesting and these are fascinating conclusions about detecting and soil conditions - had hellish time with detector and haematite rich area - anyways… are we all done with standards.

Would anyone agree that it is tricky to create “A” standard. Rather there must be a standard that allows flexibility (but constrained to allow like for like comparison AND curatorial standard)

[Wax]

I suppose "standards" are a bit like context sheets they vary from unit to unit inthe way they are set out but to do the job properly there needs to be elements that appear in all of them. It's agreeing what the basics are that is the problem

[GnomeKing]

Of course, most of the time, whatever the 'method', there is no problem. Until of course a Problem occurs...:/

But: I'll just butt in here - to say again, "without a REAL form of standards-checking and adjudication, standards are merely a question of preference"
I tried for a long time to persuade people that something like the IFA could do this - they have (sadly) proven me wrong
this could be at least half-expected - this time there is (IMO) substantial documentation to raise questions about the competency, and the motivations of the IFA as a Corporate Body.

Because I support the original code of the IFA, i can not just sit back and do nothing. The Archaeology and the Evidence are what they are - it is not me who made it, nor did i put in the ground > and it can not be easily made to go away by simply shutting eyes tight.

(gnomeQuixote)

[Marc Berger]

hosty sighing about copyright. sigh

WAX "I suppose "standards" are a bit like context sheets they vary from unit to unit" The point that I have been trying to make very badly is that if there are any standards and I am not sure they exist they rest squarely with the digger, not the unit, not the county, not the ifa, not the context sheet. I think that standards if they exist, exist for the particular act of excavation whether on a watching brief or an evaluation. So that if there is any complaint made to anybody it must be a complaint about the digging done by the digger. Any complaint about a digger not being allowed to dig or stopped from digging is politics and not about the standards of digging.

Thing is if you follow a Valetta convention view of "excavator" by qualification then it could be interpreted that once qualified you can do what you like because what ever you do is the standard. I myself tend to the view that archaeology is owned by the landowner and they can do what they want with it. At best all I can get out of it is .....sigh so to be accused of not getting any sigh out of it presumably is against standards but I am not sure how you would go about proving that sigh had been deliberately forgone.

Gnomeking don't think that the use of "original" code of ifa was not noted. Currently I am interested in the use of ISBN numbers in archaeology, particularly on the internet? (a bit of a sigh subject). Did this original code have a ISBN number?

[P Prentice]

standards - waved about to jolly on the canon fodder and abandoned on battlefields in the face of overwhelming odds

[monty]

Slipped alarmingly to the point of whack out the top fill, shovel some in a sample bucket and on to the next feature ......... 'must keep the client happy'.......

[Dinosaur]

Ah, that explains some of the undercutting.... :face-crying:

[Wax]

So does anyone think standards have improved in the last ten years?

[Marc Berger]

yes and all for the better haven't you noticed although I must qualify my answer with there arnet ant=y standards to worry about

[Mike.T.]

So does anyone think standards have improved in the last ten years?

No.

There's still some unprofessional / cowboy units out there and some ''consultants'' / county mounties cut from the same cloth.