12th September 2008, 09:54 PM
Point taken. My apologies if that came over as a bit of a rant (having re-read it,it did!). But this afternoon I am working on seperate projects that require, contrastingly, a huge level of research on one and demand absolutely none on the other and actually require something inbetween for both. I think your thred is an incredibly valid one that highlights the fact that while there has been a constant demand for higher or consistent standards in field archaeology, the realm of post-ex remains hugely varied (at least between the units I have worked for).
In defining what we work for, I think (putting tin helmet on) that it must always and vaguely be for the expansion of our understanding of archaeology, whether it was funded by government (in the past) or by developers (now). Just because the developers want a 'minimum' requirement, it doesnt mean we should pander to it otherwise we have surrendered everything the 'Rescue' generation campaigned for: ie. suitable provision, NOT minimum which is wht developer funding and tendering may be driving us towards (another question, another rant, I know - I shall add body armour to the tin hat)
Have a good weekend y'all
In defining what we work for, I think (putting tin helmet on) that it must always and vaguely be for the expansion of our understanding of archaeology, whether it was funded by government (in the past) or by developers (now). Just because the developers want a 'minimum' requirement, it doesnt mean we should pander to it otherwise we have surrendered everything the 'Rescue' generation campaigned for: ie. suitable provision, NOT minimum which is wht developer funding and tendering may be driving us towards (another question, another rant, I know - I shall add body armour to the tin hat)
Have a good weekend y'all