CIfA Client guide published

[Marc Berger]

Tsmarsh its good that your bothered, I don't dislike but yes I disagree, not with your definitions but with the blurring of the boundary between archaeology and by that I mean field archaeology and "heritage". So for instance should I treat "heritage statement" under the codes and standards for "desk based assessment" if we want to play doing archaeology to ifa standards as I don't think there is one for heritage statement. For me a desk based assessment can only be done by a field archaeologist sitting down at a desk. Once you have got the taste for working under your own desk based assessment I have struggled to work under anybody else's. As pointed out in the current "what makes a good new digger" exampled by ritualcoconut a lot of people come into archaeology working under somebody else's desk based assessment and wsi and are encouraged as such because they make good employees.

I haven't a clue whats required for a heritage statement and don't intended to ever have. This appears to be a big problem. As you are aware I also have experience of where the mounties have taken great umbrage to my desk based assessment being called a heritage statement. I was of the conceit that me being a field archaeologist sitting down at a desk would be all that would be required. I certainly got out of it all that I required to increase my competence to undertake an evaluation.

As I tried to point out with the hants doc there quite a lot of horse before cart in this heritage statement concept so as you say

Desk-based assessment and field evaluation are “methods to find out what’s there”. The Heritage Statement describes what is significant about what is there and how the development has responded to that significance.

without an evaluation (field) of the archaeology good luck with your statement and similarly for

Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

The point of a field evaluation is to work out the costs of excavation which is a very real "value"

what I think hostys looking for is the view from field archaeologists for their clients or possibly even a useful view from clients of field archaeologists. One of the problems that I have is a lot of my clients have already been to the mounties and presume that I am a heritage specialist and what they bring is briefs requiring post determination "assessment" for want of a better phrase. I notice that you have not picked at the 128 and 129 Indetermining/proposal aspect of this environment and what to do if these assessments are left until after the decision is taken.

Please be bothered. Not many are mostly because they have not given it a go.