Is a decent specialist report a luxury?

[Unitof1]

cant stand pottery experts or even any of the so called specialists. I think that any of the identification of the things found in excavation should be subject only to the curiosity of the excavator. They are the ones who descided to pick the stupid things up or is it that we think that a digger should only be able differentiate ceramic from stone. I think that the identification should be done by the excavator. If they think some bit of pot is medieval or roman and should be discarded I think that it should be up to them.-

particularly if it is in an evaluation.

Pity Mike Heaton does not still manage to incorporate copyrights into his vision for the selfemployed evaluator although he possibly starting to see the contractual importance of the concept of evaluation. Seems to me that the blinkhorns of this world would do better to differentiate so called reports between that which serves the requirments of evaluation and those that serve some requirment of excavation.

[Dinosaur]

If the Spec/WSI for an evaluation call for an assessment of the resulting finds that would come under the heading of a 'requirement'?

And don't you, just occasionally, have just a teensy weensy attack of curiosity about the stuff that you don't recognise? - think that's called learning, which is broadly the point of archaeology.....oh, and paying the bills of course...

[BAJR]

think that's called learning, which is broadly the point of archaeology..

Oh yes... that's the one - that some seem to forget !

Curious people, and people to help answer that curiosity!

[P Prentice]

P Prentice: 1) I'd seriously suggest changing your specialists! 2) we are aware that standards are falling everywhere, but we're both ceramicists and so we felt that was the area we were best qualified to speak about and you only get 20 minutes at TAG! 3) Not sure what you mean by "low value contextual information". Could you elaborate?

The report also did not fulfil the brief, as the local type-series wasn't used.

2) WRT to IfA-bashing, the point was that their standards are garbage when it comes to finds , and this has been pointed out many times, to no effect. They've been offered much better ones (ie those of the MPRG) but won't adopt them. We want to know why not. Are they seriously interested in upholding standards in archaeology or is it just a load of flannel? Why are they not interested to trying to get a better deal for archaeologists and the archaeology as the current commercial system is clearly not working and getting worse?

Bajr: Well, if everyone had to use type-series because the IfA had it in their standards, then the playing field would be level in that area at least. And if the IfA get their charter, then everyone will have to be a member to practice. Are there many commercial companies left now who aren't RAO?

rather a glib statement regarding changing specialists from someone with not enough work! and by 'low value contextual information' i am referring to the 90% (ERE) that cross my desk wherein the contextual data does nothing to elucidate the deposit sequence on the bit of ground being reported on. in a commercial environment, worrying about, half a dozen post-med sherds and a couple of fragments of animal bone is way down the list of needs, unless of course the planning department has access to someone who has time/inclination/knowledge/wherewithall to read and understand the report and where it does and dosent conform to the brief and the wsi, in which case i will pay a specialist to put a few bells on it. but as that is as common as rocking horse shit i dont need to bother - usually. we dont do what we know we should do, we only do what we are made to do!
you seem to be fretting under the misapprehension that the ifa police the development control process when the reality is that the ifa is run by the archaeological mafia for the benefit of their own business interests - which is a bit odd considering they are the archaeological minority and if people like you wrested the power away from them instead of back-biting and whinging about what they dont do you could impose your own standards - and be just like them.
happy new year

[redexile]

'low value contextual information' i am referring to the 90% (ERE) that cross my desk wherein the contextual data does nothing to elucidate the deposit sequence on the bit of ground being reported on.

Still not entirely sure what you mean - are you talking about the amount of information obtained from the finds assemblages in each context?

in a commercial environment, worrying about, half a dozen post-med sherds and a couple of fragments of animal bone is way down the list of needs,

And you're quite confident that despite the fact a specialist hasn't seen them that they've been correctly identified? There's plenty of evidence that diggers get it wrong.

if people like you wrested the power away from them instead of back-biting and whinging about what they dont do you could impose your own standards - and be just like them.
happy new year

The standards we're putting forward were put together by most, if not all the pottery analysts in the country. They would seem to me to be best qualified to say how the job should be done. I suppose it ultimately boils down to whether or not you give a shit about the job being done properly, and want to maximize the level of the information obtained or not. You might call it whinging, but I'd call it presenting evidence that the current system isn't working and suggesting an alternative.

[redexile]

I do believe that some of these suggestions and comments should be placed in front of the IfA

I really wouldn't waste your time. We've been doing stuff like this for years and they never take any notice. We're just grumpy, bitter old bastards, everything's fine, commercial archaeology is in great shape and standards are higher than ever. BTW is Unitof1 a troll or an idiot? I'm not good at telling the difference.

[Unitof1]

If the Spec/WSI for an evaluation call for an assessment of the resulting finds that would come under the heading of a 'requirement'?

so what, those resulting finds are mine. I see it as up to me and this is my evaluation which the wsi agreed too being me. Sometimes I might wight in it that a specialist might be refered to if required and then I might be forced to produce some totally illiegal list of so called specialists

in my experience most so called pot specialists could not dig themselves out of a paper bags (as in spot a context and dig it and record it) and the one that can ready admit that the digger should be as good as identifying a bit of pot as they are. One thing that I can vouch for so called pot specialists is that they will all call for a local/regional/national typology but will not and have not done a single thing to produce one while at the same time never once substaniatte, by clear cross refernence, in any of their so called reports/ identifications any justification for their intuitions. When ever they make some reference to some observation of fabric it is my sorry observation to note that they have no relevant chemical or physical methodoloy/standard criteria for the recognition "calciate", flint" , "shell",..etc.

Basically pot specialist are the quacks of the archaeological world. I find that they mostly base their ability to rub a bit of pot between their fingers and tell you what they think it is is based on apparently haveing studyed under some now long dead previous selfapointed pot specialist who similarly came to the subject through the "ARTS". I think that it is very telling that not a single museum in britain has a pot specialist worth mentioning........

if I had a choice between idiot and troll I would feel most insulted to be a troll weras idiot I think would put me somewher above the pot specialists.

[Kel]

in a commercial environment, worrying about... a couple of fragments of animal bone is way down the list of needs

But if those are fragments of chicken bone from an Iron Age site, they could be archaeologically and culturally the most important things there. Can you trust diggers to identify them and bring them to your attention? And if they did, would you believe them enough to have them verified by a specialist? Or would they just be labelled "Bird bone" and archived?

[P Prentice]

But if those are fragments of chicken bone from an Iron Age site, they could be archaeologically and culturally the most important things there. Can you trust diggers to identify them and bring them to your attention? And if they did, would you believe them enough to have them verified by a specialist? Or would they just be labelled "Bird bone" and archived?

firstly you would have had to have already established that the context in which they were found was indeed iron age, that it had not been contaminated, that the finds were not intrusive or residual etc etc. i am not advocating that diggers decide on their own discard policy i am merely pointing out that when the project manager undertakes a post-excavation assessment it is perfectly ok to make decisions pertaining to further reporting based on the evidence at hand without regard to a specialist. first and foremost we have to establish the value of the context and its stratigraphic position in the deposit sequence.
one of the main problems with the old archarchaeology was that resourses were often squandered on futile and meaningless analysis. on large projects this should be a team decision but on smaller projects very often that is not necessary
@redexile - surely the ifa has a well developeded and respected finds goup with a commitee of specialists of considerable repute who advise council. are you suggesting that they are somehow incompetent or are you suggesting that they are not heard by council?

[redexile]

it is perfectly ok to make decisions pertaining to further reporting based on the evidence at hand without regard to a specialist. first and foremost we have to establish the value of the context and its stratigraphic position in the deposit sequence.
one of the main problems with the old archarchaeology was that resourses were often squandered on futile and meaningless analysis. on large projects this should be a team decision but on smaller projects very often that is not necessary

This is one of the problems that Chris and myself have highlighted in past papers - most managers are fields archys, and make their decisions entirely from that point of view. Important/useful artefacts are not always well- or 'usefully' stratified, and archaeology is not just about interpreting layers of dirt. At the risk of reductio ad absurdum, the Staffordshire Hoard was mainly unstratified but more seriously, the example I gave earlier about the small assemblage of pottery from Reading I looked at the other day is a better example.

surely the ifa has a well developed and respected finds group with a committee of specialists of considerable repute who advise council. are you suggesting that they are somehow incompetent or are you suggesting that they are not heard by council?

Indeed it does, and some of them are friends of mine, and are excellent archaeologists. From what I can glean, the council don't/won't listen. Again, we've written a paper or two about this - there is (and probably always has been) a view that finds people are not 'proper archaeologists' (Unitof1's hilariously ignorant rant above sums it up beautifully) and finds are basically a way of providing dates for the strat, and are otherwise boring and useless, especially pottery. Suggest you have a read of some of the stuff we did in the 90s, it covers these arguments extensively.