6th December 2010, 07:23 PM
Perhaps you should read this...
Further to your email below, Professor Carver has asked me to get in touch regarding the open access Editorial from our latest issue (Volume 84, issue 326, December 2010).
The Editorial is now available on open access at http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/084/0933/ant0840933.pdf
[URL="http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/084/0933/ant0840933.pdf"]
[/URL]
Why was I not required to produce a specific popular report? Have you ever required this on a small building archaeology project? I would just tell you to F off and nowhere in your minimum requirements would you be able to force it, unless I had agreed at teh start, which would be highly unlikely. It will also be the subject of a public lecture and an Art project... so more than one way to involve the public, and make the client feel they got a service, not just a box ticked.
Working in a framework is good.. it provides consistency... but here is a thing... show the standard guidelines for Development Control decisions? :0 To me, the ones who step outside the Framework, who push the limits and the possibilities are to be praised most. LEts be honest, its a mixed bag, and one report could pass through without a glitch in one county, but would be rejected in another. It s tough job... and most I know do a damn fine job.. within their Framework
Without being too partisan here... Vulpes - are you saying you have never heard of overstrip? of targeted test trenches in locations designed to minimise archaeology found? of missing plans? of redrawn plans? of lost archives? etc... We brought it on ourselves.. and must all bear responsibility for deftly stabbing ourselves repeatedly in our own backs. (Not easy!)
Further to your email below, Professor Carver has asked me to get in touch regarding the open access Editorial from our latest issue (Volume 84, issue 326, December 2010).
The Editorial is now available on open access at http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/084/0933/ant0840933.pdf
[URL="http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/084/0933/ant0840933.pdf"]
[/URL]
Why was I not required to produce a specific popular report? Have you ever required this on a small building archaeology project? I would just tell you to F off and nowhere in your minimum requirements would you be able to force it, unless I had agreed at teh start, which would be highly unlikely. It will also be the subject of a public lecture and an Art project... so more than one way to involve the public, and make the client feel they got a service, not just a box ticked.
Working in a framework is good.. it provides consistency... but here is a thing... show the standard guidelines for Development Control decisions? :0 To me, the ones who step outside the Framework, who push the limits and the possibilities are to be praised most. LEts be honest, its a mixed bag, and one report could pass through without a glitch in one county, but would be rejected in another. It s tough job... and most I know do a damn fine job.. within their Framework
Without being too partisan here... Vulpes - are you saying you have never heard of overstrip? of targeted test trenches in locations designed to minimise archaeology found? of missing plans? of redrawn plans? of lost archives? etc... We brought it on ourselves.. and must all bear responsibility for deftly stabbing ourselves repeatedly in our own backs. (Not easy!)