16th August 2006, 10:47 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle For example for a IFA desk top regulation 3.1.11 states 3.1.11 However it arises, an archaeologist should only undertake desk-based assessment which are governed by a written specification or project design (see Appendices
2 and 3), agreed by all relevant parties as this is the tool
against which performance, fitness for purpose and
hence achievement of standards, can be measured.
I would ask all curators on BAJR to state how many briefs that have issued and specs they have read and all the consultants to say how many they have written for an assessment? (Excepting desk top studies covered by EIA.)
However, the latter part of IFA reg 3.2.5 states:
The brief/project outline or a specification may be prepared by
the applicants or their agents, but it is essential that the planning
archaeologist has agreed the proposals so that they have been
accepted as âfit for purposeâ
..which seems a get-out for the overworked curator. I am guessing that many archaeological contractors who undertake DBA work could produce a 'generic' written DBA specification if so required. (Pointless after all in such a document being too detailed as it could by definition require as much research as the intended DBA).
My understanding is that this is not actually an 'original' IFA regulation, but one they have borrowed from the ACAO guidelines.