Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[Dinosaur]

True, but there are still lots of sites dug by them and under other regimes (MSC being probably the biggest offender) that have never been written up and probably never will be. At least a contract and a deadline creates an incentive to get the work done.

Think of the 7 MSC schemes I can remember working on, two weren't worth publishing in any shape or form and have quietly remained as grey literature buried in an archive somewhere, one got summarised in a local journal, THREE have appeared as glossy monographs and no idea about the other one, suspect something will have ended up in a regional journal. That's actually quite a good publication ratio compared to what goes on these days - oh and these were all for different units in different parts of the country, so not just one unit being better than another over publication

[P Prentice]

I was thinking about the development of professional practice, and my judgement would be:

project objectives better commercial
quality of fieldwork better pre-commercial
speed of fieldwork better commercial
completeness and consistency of recording better commercial
quality of recording better pre-commercial
production of report/publication better commercial
quality of report/publication better pre-commercial
archive completeness better commercial


So it's not a question of good and bad, but rather a shift in what we think we are trying to achieve. Which is not to say that we can't adopt the best of pre-commercial practice: I suppose the problem is that those elements are harder to quantify, measure and cost.

curiously i dont agree with much on this list - guess its all relative to ones experience

i would rather still be working for a county unit, doing a proper job with research as an objective - not an afterthought

[Dinosaur]

i would rather still be working for a county unit, doing a proper job with research as an objective - not an afterthought

Good grief, we agree on something :face-approve:

...I promise not to tell if you don't, would hate to ruin a beautiful relationship :face-kiss:

[Unitof1]

a county unit, doing a proper job with research as an objective

this never existed,

now an ordnance survey archaeologist working out of the county museum for most of the first half of the 2oth century just think of the book possibilities.

ps yes what is martine going on about. just what does the term pre-commercial mean as better, better than what like pre better than commercial or give up.

and we a re another day closer to standard curators. Just how much did it cost eh hay.

[Martin Locock]

I was comparing my impression of the performance of professional archaeology before and after PPG16. Under some headings I believe that standards have got worse since PPG16, some have got better. In general I would say that there is a higher proportion of competently dug and reported archaeology these days but a lower proportion of outstandingly good projects and reports.

[vulpes]

i would rather still be working for a county unit, doing a proper job with research as an objective - not an afterthought

http://www.bajr.org/Employment/UKEmploym...sp?ID=8632

There you go. Knock yourself out :face-approve:

[Unitof1]

Isn’t pre ppg so long ago that it’s not worth remembering particularly the concept that it was professional- it wasn’t. It was defiantly not professional afterwards either- as most of us here argue almost daily. It’s a bit like suggesting that the ifa was set up by professional archaeologist for professional archaeologists. It wasn’t-it was pure public servant. Pre-ifa, does that sound like some post-professional divide. It doesn’t. And thens* there’s RAOs or is it ROs, all headed by mifas whys that then? because mifas are not professional enough or is it to make RAOs look professional. Thing is professional means what and to whom? Currently my own view is that archaeologists have no control over the archive and are basically metal detectorists -so should act accordingly.

Dino thinks that three mps glossy monographs are a result,does he see this as a product of professionalism- I hope that it doubtful. Wonder who wrote them and what has become of them? I would put them all into the sad git bracket and as for the glossy bit that’s restricted to the cover, what ever happened to that bloke from that company called something like mastiuspus remperatum now theres an industry defining farce and its still ongoing.

[Sith]

what ever happened to that bloke from that company called something like mastiuspus remperatum now theres an industry defining farce and its still ongoing.

Ooer, I was a bloke from mastiuspus remperatum [sic] but not the bloke. Something did emerge from the ashes that was TR and appears to be still going or at least they're advertising in The Archaeologist if that counts as an existence.

[P Prentice]

http://www.bajr.org/Employment/UKEmploym...sp?ID=8632

There you go. Knock yourself out :face-approve:

i said research as an objective - duh

[P Prentice]

Currently my own view is that archaeologists have no control over the archive and are basically metal detectorists -so should act accordingly.

who needs a metal detector when you've got a jcb u nit
go on give us your definition of an archaeologist - its friday