2nd September 2006, 03:56 PM
Greetings sir.Again I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.The actions of consultants, curators, project managers and field officers are laid bare for all "site workers" as you choose to call them.In one sense, you are absolutely right-the people that you describe as having the "power to do something about standards" are those involved in the processes.Unfortunately, the group of people that you list are indeed the species that most require a kick in the arse.As is traditional in our "profession", it is the "site workers" who strive to maintain standards.This is largely because for the group of people that you list, professional standards are seen as a dirty by-word and an obstruction to a healthy profit margin.I am deeply sorry that you believe the incidence of "gross breaches" to be a rarity and am even more perplexed to hear thar you feel that subtle breaches would be undetected by fieldworkers. In reality, nearly every other project that I have taken part in has involved either major breaches of professional standards or a string of more subtle breaches.On every occasion without exception, the breaches (subtle or not) have been the exclusive feeding grounds of the people you list. Professional field archaeologists are a bit sick of being on the end of incompetant or contrived decisions made by people who claim to know what they are talking about.Field staff see the reality of the consequences of decisions made by the people in your list every day.The saddest thing about this is that no-one polices the muppetry so rampant amongst the group you describe. A workforce that all works to the standards and guidelines of the IFA would be quite capable (and extremely eager) to curb the behaviour of the grown-ups.Its about time someone did.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)