Is a decent specialist report a luxury?

[Dinosaur]

PP - sorry, crossed posts! - yes, we seem to have a level of agreement there :face-approve:

[redexile]

if these (industry) standards are failing it is the responsibility of every professional archaeologist to do something (other than carp), by presenting the evidence and not unsubstantiated hearsay.

well, this is what we're trying to do - like it says in our paper, the number of pot reports using the county type series in one county has fallen from 80% to 40% in six years, despite the use of it being mandatory. That's clear evidence of a drop in standards. It's an easy one to measure of course, assessing the quality of something like fieldwork is a lot trickier.

[P Prentice]

well, this is what we're trying to do - like it says in our paper, the number of pot reports using the county type series in one county has fallen from 80% to 40% in six years, despite the use of it being mandatory. That's clear evidence of a drop in standards. It's an easy one to measure of course, assessing the quality of something like fieldwork is a lot trickier.

ok fair enough but why then alienate half your potential support by denegrating the ifa? why not use their stated aims, standards and guidance etc to aid your suit.
it is afterall in everybodies interest to have higher standards - or is it?

[redexile]

ok fair enough but why then alienate half your potential support by denegrating the ifa? why not use their stated aims, standards and guidance etc to aid your suit. it is after all in everybodies interest to have higher standards - or is it?

Because the reports which don't use the type-series conform to IfA standards! They've been asked to adopt the MPRG standards which include things like using type-series, but they won't, despite the fact it would lead to an immediate improvement in pottery work. They won't give a reason why not other than flannel, much like Aitchison's rejection of a developer tax on radio 4, their argument is basically 'because we say so', and they won't take part in any sort of dialogue. As I've said a few times, the best way forward appears to be to ignore them and try and sort it out ourselves. We're merely presenting evidence to support this stance.

[BAJR]

This is one of those no win scenarios. BAJR is often accused of creating a minimum 'level' of pay and often standards in general are seen as we have to achieve them and no more- that way we must pay no more than we have to for anything. ( good business sense, bad archaeology )

ALGAO do seem unable to create the universal standard - and it is intersting that the first document that may be accepted is the one I wrote a shile back with Biddy Simpson for guidance for contractors and curators in building recording. It is not per ce a standard, rather an explanation of what is required, and a checklist to ensure every contractor is aware of ( and can cost for ) what is expected. and the curator is able to check if they received what they asked for - rather than a minimum standard, it is a guidance document - which could work for any area.

ie I would like to see a pot report that includes x, y, z then there is no middle ground there is no grey area of wiggle room. the document is created by those that 'know'/understand what makes an acceptable pot report. It is s flow chart to acceptable levels. NOT minimum standards.

The IFA, EH et al ( and BAJR ) can be accused of creating minimum standards - but perhaps we should look at this from a different angle - and as the paper has opened up teh debate as never before, this is only a good thing - Can we remove standards and replace them with requirements....

THis also works with excavation - an area x metres by x metres will require y number of excavators and z supervisors. if you have 2 360 machines. you will require 2 excavators and 1 supervisor. etc... then there is never room for cost cutting.

It does mean the DCAs need support - to ensure there are still some left... AND they need to really work together. The IfA could support this... it could help them ... and ALGAO would need to be helped. For every area of competence ( as PP alludes to ) the specialists in each field create the ground rules for a 'good outcome'

Just my tuppence.

everybody's interest to have higher standards - oh indeed! But it can be difficult when you have a crick in your neck looking over your shoulder at the bottom line....

Realistic tenders please. ( ah... to win them, they already are )

[redexile]

I would like to see a pot report that includes x, y, z then there is no middle ground there is no grey area of wiggle room. the document is created by those that 'know'/understand what makes an acceptable pot report. It is s flow chart to acceptable levels. NOT minimum standards.

Which is exactly what the MPRG Standards are.

[P Prentice]

Because the reports which don't use the type-series conform to IfA standards!

this is not ifa responsibility, this rests with the planning authority. if you are suggesting that planning archaeologists get bullied by contractors then all the more reason to invest more authority with an independent, recognised, authority!
as a matter of interest how many counties/unitary authorities have continually updated and accessable type-series ?

[redexile]

this is not ifa responsibility, this rests with the planning authority. if you are suggesting that planning archaeologists get bullied by contractors then all the more reason to invest more authority with an independent, recognised, authority!
as a matter of interest how many counties/unitary authorities have continually updated and accessable type-series ?

Why is it not the IfA's responsibility if they are responsible for maintaining standards in archaeology? As we said, most curators can't enforce this even if it's in the brief.

I don't know the exact number, but in the south of GB, Derbys, S Yorks, Lincs, Warks, Staffs, Northants, Oxon, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, London, Surrey, Hants Sussex, Kent, Worcs, Glos and Leics all have type-series. Berks and Cambs don't have one, but Cambs is about to publish one I believe. Few are published in one volume, and very few are available on-line. They are all available to consult I believe, but you have to go to where they are kept. Their locations are published in the latest MPRG 'Frameworks' document. Most of them are not updated regularly. Bucks only has one for the north of the county around MK. Not too sure of the situation in the far south-west or the north of England, Wales or Scotland, don't work there. Suggest you re-read our paper that BAJR linked at the beginning of the thread, most of the questions you're asking are answered in it!

[BAJR]

Which is exactly what the MPRG Standards are.

And that is indeed what we need.

Small problem though...
http://www.medievalpottery.org.uk/occpap2.htm

Ah... I have to buy a copy for 4:50 - when it would be better to have it available to download. To be adopted, documents are better freely available and this makes them widely available.

unless I miss the link to the downloadable version.


Now... to aid so refreshing thought again... ahem... here are links: ( I also include another interesting paper...

Not so Much a Pot, More an Expensive Luxury: Pottery analysis and archaeology in the 21st century"
Paul Blinkhorn and Chris Cumberpatch

UNBOLTING THE POTSHED DOOR: THE ROLE OF THE CERAMIC ANALYST IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROCESS
by Paul Blinkhorn

[redexile]

And that is indeed what we need.

Small problem though...
http://www.medievalpottery.org.uk/occpap2.htm

Ah... I have to buy a copy for 4:50 - when it would be better to have it available to download. To be adopted, documents are better freely available and this makes them widely available.

It would be nice, but the MPRG has no funding other than membership, which is a stunningly cheap £20 per year, and that includes a free copy of the annual journal, which the membership fees also pay for. I'm sure if they were adopted as national standards, you wouldn't have to pay for them. £4.50 - still only the price of a bag of chips and a pint (well, round here, anyway)