Is a decent specialist report a luxury?

[redexile]

WRT to the CIL-type levy, I think the developers will like it because when a big site comes up, the archaes tender to a central pot of money, controlled by a DCA or similar. The developers don't take a big hit, but they don't decide who gets to do the work. Got a lot more research to do yet, but reckon a less than 1% levy on all developments would easily pay for all the development-related archaeology needed. The intention is to set it so that there is enough money to do the job, the DCA dept sets the budget, and awards the tender on the quality of the PD, so the competition isn't financial. A few off the record chats with people have suggested that on some of the roads schemes in the last few years, even when there was loads of archaeology, it was less than 1% of the overall budget. The TAG paper is based on some data I've got from researching grey reports. Doing it in my spare time, but I've got plenty of that at the moment. Getting hold of data on cost is a lot harder!

Chris and I are considering organizing a one-day conference next year looking at alternative ways of doing commercial archaeology - not sure if it's feasible yet, and we don't want an extended moan-fest, altho we are trying to get people from inside commercial archaeology to present evidence showing it's all going to hell, which is what I'm doing with the grey report pottery survey at the moment. If people want to do papers anonymously, we'll get other people to read them, perhaps even non-archaeologists - obviously, we'd need to see them first! The starting point will be "this isn't working, what do we do?" - there's no intention to debate whether it's working properly or not. It's early days, and the mid-winter break is in the way at the moment, but I'd appreciate any thoughts that the poor buggers in the trenches have. Like I said, we're not interested in arguing about whether it's working or not, we're looking for alternatives. If anyone wants to PM me, feel free.

[Pottery_Ben]

Hi everyone,
I too was in the session at TAG and agree with the general point that standards are slipping. Whilst ideas for heritage taxes are a nice idea, the fact remains that even if they were introduced it would not happen overnight and something more immediate is needed. What I don't think is particularly constructive is the IfA bashing, in fact following the session I looked back over the standards and, although not perfect, I think they are certainly better than made out in the paper, however standards are only of any use if they are enforced! For example, when was the last time a curator sent back a report because the pottery report was inadequate? It happens rarely, because few curators have specialist knowledge. Now I'm not saying that all curators should be pot specialists, that is obviously ridiculous, but they should at least have access to training about what a good finds report is, for example or, as I think Paul suggested, access to some form of peer review system.

I think actually the IfA finds standards are a fairly decent attempt. They highlight the need for retention strategies and that nothing should be thrown away without assessment (of course these days there is need to discard things unfortunately due to archive issues) and that specialists should be suitably qualified. This isn't defined, but the implication is that they should meet the criteria of corporate IfA membership (ie PIfA or above) IN RELATION TO THE SPECIALISM - ie. they may be a rubbish digger but a briliant zooarchaeologist and their IfA membership grade will reflect this. Importantly these standards do go as far back as the PD stage and therefore, if joined up with those for evaluation/excavation the framework is in place to have a standard (we can debate whether it is good enough) in place for post-ex which is joined up with excavation strategy.

Paul is correct that the MPRG standards have not been 'adopted' by IfA - however the MPRG standards are directly referenced in the appendix to the standard, the implication being that documents in this appendix should be used where appropriate. The IfA should not, in my opinion, be duplicating existing standards, but signposting them from a generic document as they do. Perhaps though, this signposting, and those between different sections of the standards needs to be more clear.

Now I am an advocate of the IfA, I think they are generally a good thing. I know Paul and Chris urm... aren't. But Chiz made a great point in the session, that the way to affect change is to get involved! So I urge any anti-IfA specialists to at least pay the £10 to join the IfA finds group. That way you don't have to sell your soul to the IfA or go through the assessment procedures to get in, but can at least become involved in discussions over new standards and the ways the current ones are enforced in a formalised and meaningful way. Incidentally I know for a fact that this issue is being pursued by IfA (they recently appointed a standards promotion manager) and the standard of university teaching and training in finds is being examined by at least 2 IfA special interest groups.

The issue of budgets for finds work is also important and it strikes me that the potnetial for large artefact assemblages is never (or at least very rarely) addressed in the considerations of archaeological potential reached in DBAs, perhaps this could be addressed - if this potential is highlighted from the beginning then there is no excuse for an adequate budget not being in place for these projects!

Overall the only way out of this mess is for specailists to be pro-active in lobbying IfA, ALGAO and others, but also by offering something in return, be it structured input, training opportunities etc. My five point plan for relatively quick change, would be:

1) Ensure that the existing IfA standards are referenced in briefs and WSIs and are enforced. This falls to curators in the end, but specialists and specialist groups have a role to play. Talking to colleagues there is a view in some quarters that there are a few grumpy old men getting in a huff. So it is important to articulate the points in a clear and constructive way to the relevant people.
2) Ensure that curators have adequate training to enforce these standards, with groups such as the IfA Finds Group or Medieval Pottery Research Group (other forms of pottery are available) offering training or advice sheets.
3) Get involved in the drafting of new standards and highlight the need for different elements of standards to reference one another, so that they form a more coherant whole - e.g. by getting involved in IfA Finds Group.
4) Observe best practice ourselves and lead by example - I know most of us do this already, but it is imperative that our own standards don't slip.
5) Pressure for finds and environmental evidence to be considered early in the process, and that means pushing for them to be assessed in DBAs or statements of potential and making sure that relevant finds data is available and disseminated through HERs. They should also have received better treatment in regional research frameworks (although the pottery research groups each have their own) but that ship has largely sailed for now...

This won't change things overnight, but would, I feel, start to push things in the right direction. Clearly more funding is required for regional type series, training and retention and all of these things must remain in the general conciousness across the sector, especially as organisations such as IfA begin to look forward and plan for the challenges which the profession as a whole will be facing in the next decade.

[Dinosaur]

@Redexile - long time since I last got drunk with you! (in The Bos I believe) Greetings

Non-RAOs are still alive and well thanks, and certainly this one seems to manage to cost in having all finds (including stuff like later post-med pot, clay pipe,

[redexile]

Ben - I've been talking to a few people since TAG and some of the stuff I've been hearing is quite interesting, and pertinent. One curator, at one of the few well-staffed planning depts left, told me they always send back reports if the CTS hasn't been used, but with many, they have so little clout that if they do send reports back because the CTS hasn't been used, the council planning dept and the developer's lawyers descend on them like a ton of bricks for holding up work on 'a minor technicality'. In the original draft of the paper we did talk about the problems of curators not having specialist knowledge, but had to cut it due to lack of time. The county I highlighted where the number of reports using the CTS has fallen from 80% to 40% in 6 years states in all briefs that the CTS should be used. It's being ignored, by organizations which are all RAOs. The fact the remains that standards are falling rapidly, and there is one organization that claims to uphold standards, and that's the IfA. If it's not their fault or responsibility, then who's is it, and what is the point of the IfA existing? I refuse to join until they start looking like they actually are doing something about the state of archaeology, and actually enforcing their own standards. We're both constantly amused by the claim that the fact the IfA isn't working is the fault of people who do not belong to it.

WRT to budgets - if you read the IfA standards, they state that all artefact analysts in a project should be involved from the very beginning. They never are. We highlighted this fact in an older paper (on my academia.edu site somewhere) - guess what? It was ignored completely and things carried on as usual. So we can confidently state that just about every single RAO has been constantly in breach of IfA standards since they were introduced. We pointed this out. What did they do about it? Nothing. Would they have done something if we were members of the IfA? I think I can guess the answer to that, and it's not 'yes'.

Chris and I have been dismissed as grumpy old b*stards since we started doing these papers in 1993. It's a lot easier for people to do that and carry on whinging about everything in the pub than to actually get off their backsides and try to sort this mess out. This hasn't happened overnight - it's been a gradual decline for 20 years, and it's getting exponentially worse.

With regards to policing ourselves and doing work to a high standard - it won't happen. It's got to be compulsory for everybody. As Bajr effectively said earlier, if we budget to do work to a high standard, we'll lose the tender to someone who'll give the pottery to a digger who 'knows about pot'. And it's true. Easy to blame the curators, but they don't really have the staff or clout to do it - neither they nor HERs are mandatory, and I suspect if they get too pushy, they'd find themselves ignored or 'cut'. Remind me to tell you about the Northampton Sol Central development over a pint sometime. Can't do it publicly or I'll end up in court

We don't expect to be able to change the system overnight, but we need to start pushing ASAP. Or we can do nothing and watch archaeology go down the pan.

[Dinosaur]

Oh yes, meant to say, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments in the paper re. the 'medium sized animal' comments, there's far too much of that even in proper specialist reports, I refuse to believe that such large proportions of animal bone are unidentifiable to species with a bit of effort...

[redexile]

Dinosaur - the Bos? In Bournemouth? If so, that was a long time ago!

WRT to RAOs - yes, there's some very good people out there who aren't, and some try and do a proper job. Here in the south midlands, it's hyper-competitive - we have anything up to a dozen or more different contractors working at any one time, and it's utterly cut-throat

WRT to period specialisms, yes it is a problem, but (particularly) Roman and post-Roman are both vast fields. There's only so much space in one brain, and most aren't big enough to hold the knowledge required to do both well. That doesn't stop some from claiming they can though. I often tell clients to send me the lot and I'll separate out the Roman and earlier stuff as I go along. It doesn't take that long, and I don't charge very much for doing so, but a lot seem reluctant to do so. Hand -made stuff can be a b*stard to date - if they were all using the same clay and temper then small bits all look exactly the same. A bit like asking a zooarch to identify the species on the basis of a few splinters of bone. Don't shoot the messenger!

[Dinosaur]

Rudston? - although still a very long time ago....

[redexile]

Dear god, Rudston... 1987? I've got a photo of 'payday in the pub at Rudston' on my FB site somewhere. Are we still banned from the campsite?

[kevin wooldridge]

Paul....you mentioned at one point in the TAG presentation about publishing the paper somewhere. I think the recent comments on BAJR would also make a fine appendix to the original paper, where they elaborate on some points and add opinion on others......wish all BAJR dialogues were as illuminating as this one has been in the past couple of days!!

[redexile]

Kevin - that's not a bad idea, may even integrate them into the text of the final version.