Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[moreno]

Kevin, I recollect a conversation with the IFA regarding the EAA. I seem to remember that the IFA were in talks to address those issues you raised. What came of it, I have no idea. Worth a mention though.

[BAJR]

I like the idea of protecting curatorial groups, though how this is achieved by restriction to ROs, and talking about "advisors" and vague mention of European Equivalents... I am unsure.

can anyone enlighten me about the actual purpose of this document, as I may have got it wrong? or have I?

[kevin wooldridge]

Thanks Moreno. I will ask IfA about this matter as well

[deadlylampshade]

I'd obviously disagree with the various statements quoted that would appear to suggest that curatorial bodies should only accept work done by ROs, and I'm not really sure why these have been included, other than that the IfA possibly believes that repeating their opinion often enough will eventually bludgeon people into accepting it, but I think that these are incidental to the main thrust and purpose of the document.

(my italics)

Sadly, with my cynical head well and truly screwed on, and having just waded through the Southport Group report once more, I think the IfA are positioning themselves as the prescribed guidance organisation as in the aforementioned report it says that the EH "Practice Guidance will not survive transition to the National Planning Policy Framework"

I believe the IfA have seen a window of opportunity to do EXACTLY what is said in the italics. I am still thinking about this but if it is done in SUPPORT of the Curators retaining their role and not just self interest and possibly agrandisement I wouldn't have such a problem with it. As long as there is a review of their standards and guidance asap!!

At the moment I DO have several problems with it...and need to go and read the new guidance again.:face-thinks:

[Madweasels]

While the scheme has been more widely adopted by organisations providing archaeological services to commercial clients, its relevance has increased as a benchmark of quality for advisory services considering alternative delivery models.

Can anyone shed more light on what exactly this is supposed to either mean or refer to, especially the 'alternative delivery models'. If these models do not involve commercial clients, does this imply that the RO scheme should be rolled out to include Universities, individual community archaeologists, local societies who carry out non-invasive and invasive work? Is this an attempt to introduce a blanket registration scheme, irrespective of contractual responsibilities to a commercial client?

[Martin Locock]

Universities, community archaeologists, local societies who carry out non-invasive and invasive work

These can be ROs if they wish (maybe not appropriate for individuals but they can be individual members) (societies and parts of some universities have joined) . The RO scheme applies regardless of whether contract work is involved. I think the point of the statement is that the standards required by the curator should be consistent (in terms of managing the resource) regardless of who is doing the work; the short answer about blanket registration is therefore yes.

[Unitof1]

IfA and ALGAO, with funding from English Heritage, Historic Scotland
and Cadw, are developing an IfA Standard and guidance to cover the role
of providing archaeological advice primarily, but not exclusively, through local
authority historic environment services.

IfA and ALGAO, with funding from English Heritage, Historic Scotland
and Cadw,

Just trying to imagine whose fingers are in whose pies.

Funding - does anybody know how much funding and what the funding is for-in my world those that pay the piper call the tune.



Suggest that consultation@archaeologists.netare asked things like who are you, are you with ify or algonow english nationalisttwit scotland the brave yet again or cadowcow or a combination of them or all of them at the same time.

Also ask how many of them are on ?unfunded?pensions for life (just for me) and why haven?t a single curator round my way lost their jobs yet. I could do all their jobs for free or if not me the case officers or are they going to rewrite TCPA?



Curators never existed RIP not needed

ps cant be bothered to read the consultation

[Unitof1]

IfA and ALGAO, with funding from English Heritage, Historic Scotland
and Cadw, are developing an IfA Standard and guidance to cover the role
of providing archaeological advice primarily, but not exclusively, through local
authority historic environment services.

IfA and ALGAO, with funding from English Heritage, Historic Scotland
and Cadw,

Just trying to imagine whose fingers are in whose pies.

Funding - does anybody know how much funding and what the funding is for-in my world those that pay the piper call the tune.



Suggest that consultation@archaeologists.netare asked things like who are you, are you with ify or algonow english nationalisttwit scotland the brave yet again or cadowcow or a combination of them or all of them at the same time.

Also ask how many of them are on ?unfunded?pensions for life (just for me) and why haven?t a single curator round my way lost their jobs yet. I could do all their jobs for free or if not me the case officers or are they going to rewrite TCPA?



Curators never existed RIP not needed why dont museums pay for my archive

ps cant be bothered to read the consultation

[Marcus Brody]

Also ask how many of them are on ?unfunded?pensions for life (just for me) and why haven?t a single curator round my way lost their jobs yet.

Or why not ask them yourself, if it bothers you that much. Why rely on someone else when the document is available for consultation by anyone? And to say that not a single curator has lost their job yet is inaccurate. OK, none may have lost their jobs in Lincolnshire, but plenty have across the country as a whole.

Curators never existed RIP not needed why dont museums pay for my archive

Apart from the logical fallacy of wishing something that you claim never existed will rest in peace, I think that most rational people would acknowledge that curators do exist, and that a substantial majority would disagree with their statement that they're not needed. For most people working in commercial archaeology, the bulk of jobs come through conditions attached to planning consents by curatorial archaeologists. I know that you propose an alternative model, whereby every planning application would have to be accompanied by an archaeological assessment, but realistically that's not going to happen - the housebuilding lobby already complains vocally enough to the government about having to deal with archaeology on the 10% of sites where it's raised as an issue, there's no way the ConDems would impose a system on their developer buddies where they had to pay for an archaeologist for every case.

ps cant be bothered to read the consultation

Well, that's a solid basis for criticising it - nothing like basing your arguments on the facts, is there!

[Unitof1]

Can I assure you that I reside at least two counties south of Lincolnshire where as we speak the case officers are in open war with the socalled curators wasting of everybodies time.

No I don’t want to read the consultation. I want to read the funding agreement from english nationalisttwit scotland the brave yet again and cadowcow with ify and their algonow coathangers for this “consultation” to create ify standard rubbish documents which we should all not like to remember will be part of a three tier approach at national regional anywhere else you can think of thingy lost the will to live. What is the brief-hay why wasnt it put out to tender....

Come on whos consultation baby is it (surely not some politicians like Alex Salmonds the brave) but then this isn’t about politics, is about civil servants desperately trying every which way to become irreplaceable when their work load has dropped to nothingski and exposed them to exactly what do they do questions. Oh lets have a consultation -what exactly do curators do?

Come on District Councils time to rip up those service level agreements.