Is a decent specialist report a luxury?

[BAJR]

Good reply... and nice piece of MPRG promotion ( ps... here is the link for membership : http://www.medievalpottery.org.uk/join.htm )

But rather than the chicken and egg... if they become adopted then they will be free... a pdf is free and like the ( slightly out of date ) Buildings document... it is easy to upload, easy to update and easy for people to use.

here are my two faves... to show you what I mean:

Simpson B and Connolly D (2006) Historic Building Recording Guidance for Curators and Commercial Archaeological Contractors. East Lothian Council
WJH Willems Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard (KNA) commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

Go on.... to become accepted... it must be seen

[Kel]

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

PCRG pottery guidelines are available to download for free here http://www.pcrg.org.uk/Publications1-2.htm Has anyone from the MPRG asked how they manage it? I can't imagine they're any more financially flush. I did attend a conference in Southampton this year where various period pottery groups undertook to work more closely together (and then hilariously proceeded to present entirely separate and unrelated papers in their "joint" presentation). Is it about time that some types of expertise and resources were pooled?

[redexile]

Is it about time that some types of expertise and resources were pooled?

According to El Presidente of the MPRG at TAG, they're working on producing joint standards with the PCRG and the Roman equivalent. But I agree, they should be free to download. I'll have a word.....

[BAJR]

WE love you..... I would even chip in to help...

[P Prentice]

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.

it is not ifa responsibility because they are not responsible for maintaining standards in archaeology (yet)! and again you seem to be suggesting that curators are powerless. surely this is the problem? if they are powerless they are, de facto, obsolete. clearly a better way of progressing would be to ensure that the curators have sufficient power to insist that their brief is upheld and it surely follows that to do this they need the backing of an independent arbitor with real teeth - ergo ..........
and until planning authorities have an accessable, constantly updated period type series i can see possible reasons why ifa are reluctant to insist on their being referenced.

[redexile]

it is not ifa responsibility because they are not responsible for maintaining standards in archaeology (yet)!

Then why do they keep claiming that they're maintaining standards in archaeology?

you seem to be suggesting that curators are powerless. surely this is the problem? if they are powerless they are, de facto, obsolete. clearly a better way of progressing would be to ensure that the curators have sufficient power to insist that their brief is upheld and it surely follows that to do this they need the backing of an independent arbitor with real teeth

They're not powerless, there's an enormous amount of variation - well funded, well staffed curatorial depts do their job well (eg Worcestershire) other places, like the county highlighted in our paper, do not have the staff or the clout to fully enforce their briefs. We need statutory HERs and planing archaes, and properly staffed DCA depts.

until planning authorities have an accessable, constantly updated period type series i can see possible reasons why ifa are reluctant to insist on their being referenced.

They are accessible! It's just that contractors will not pay pottery analysts to travel to where they are kept to use them. Not using them keeps down the price of the tender. And a slightly out-of-date type-series is still better than getting a digger to take a guess at the date of the pot, then making up a name for it which nobody else recognises, which is what is essentially happening now. Most type-series were created in the 1990's, if not earlier, and were updated for the first ten years or so of their lives. I doubt many of them need much updating, if any. Again, this is all in the paper.

[P Prentice]

Then why do they keep claiming that they're maintaining standards in archaeology?

that is different from being responsible

We need statutory HERs and planing archaes, and properly staffed DCA depts.

not arguing here

They are accessible! ..... Not using them keeps down the price of the tender.

what is the cost of putting them on-line?

[redexile]

what is the cost of putting them on-line?

c 10k, plus £350 pa in web-hosting. It's in the paper......

[P Prentice]

c 10k, plus £350 pa in web-hosting. It's in the paper......

not very much for EH to fund if they could be persuaded

[redexile]

not very much for EH to fund if they could be persuaded

They funded the initial setting up of some of them, but don't want to get involved with the on-line versions it seems from what people who've tried to get money for them have told me. I think they see it as not really their responsibility, which I can understand, and they're pretty much broke anyway, or at least the archaeology section is.