2nd March 2005, 03:30 PM
I agree that standards are subjective. I think the responsibilty for setting and maintaining standards lies with the curators. Contractors are generally not in the position to negotiate with developers for more than the minimum amount of investigation.A curator should be able to translate a regional research framework into standards which are tailored to address the particaular issues. That includes making sure that the seperate elements of recording are done to the same standard so that this will in turn inform the regional research framework. Standards ensure that similar sites can be assessed across a level playing field.The EH/Church of England document on the treatment of human remains is a broad brush approach. I referenced it in a recent brief and it has caused some headaches.But thats the point, these things must be put out, reviewed and adjusted if neccessary.
I will publish a regional standards document this summer which I hope will be refined and refered to in the new RDF.Contractors then have a clear guide to what is expected, if a WSI does not meet these standards I will not be able to agree it. Its the best solution I can come up with. I would like to see the industry re-think who we are and what we are trying to achieve because from my point of view it is not working.
I will publish a regional standards document this summer which I hope will be refined and refered to in the new RDF.Contractors then have a clear guide to what is expected, if a WSI does not meet these standards I will not be able to agree it. Its the best solution I can come up with. I would like to see the industry re-think who we are and what we are trying to achieve because from my point of view it is not working.