Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
CIfA Client guide published
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/bajrpress/cifa-...published/
This guide is aimed at anyone who needs to meet the requirements of legislation or policy that relate to archaeology. It explains what you need to do and why you need a professional archaeologist to help you through the process.
BAJR has one as well. but what do you think... ( apart from the CIfA bias of course... which one has to say is pretty fair.
http://www.bajr.org/DeveloperWeb/Planning.asp
Would you consider ging to clients>>
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
cIFA guide reads ok on paper, given that it just a rehash of the kinds of advice that Counties and numerous other bodies already give... - shame all they have is words and no ability deal with real issues about archaeology
Again, the cIFA should not be involved in planning here (unless they are trying to replace the Public Servants...) - certainly not before providing a robust method of measuring archaeological outcomes, which it clearly (IMO) has failed to do.
I prefer BAJR guide - it has integrity
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:This guide is aimed at anyone who needs to meet the requirements of legislation or policy that relate to archaeology. It explains what you need to do and why you need a professional archaeologist to help you through the process.
might it be better if these guides were a bit more specific as to who the guides are for. I particularly would like them to put this right at the beginning
Quote:In England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ownership of objects rests with the landowner, except where other law overrides this (eg Treasure Act, 1996, Burials Act 1857). In Scotland, in the absence of an original owner or his/her demonstrable heir, ownership of objects rests with the Crown. The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist must make this clear at the inception of the project (in the brief/project outline, specification or project design).
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
How about a rule- if you put up a thread you should at least make a second contribution within twenty days or so...........
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2015
Marc Berger Wrote:How about a rule- if you put up a thread you should at least make a second contribution within twenty days or so...........
Yes.
Now let's talk punishments for transgressions......
I'm thinking along the lines of:
inserting deliberate spelling mistakes within any offenders' report- 'cute' for 'cut', 'archaological' for 'archaeological', etc
or,
the deliberate over-cutting of a previously perfect section just before the photo is taken.
It's got legs this }
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
not sure it can be a mistake if its deliberate. Also not sure that there is such a thing as an overcut section. Will give it a go.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2015
Marc Berger Wrote:not sure it can be a mistake if its deliberate. Also not sure that there is such a thing as an overcut section. Will give it a go.
A literal type of guy eh?
No such thing as an overcut section? Are you sure you're not a geologist rather than an archaeologist and have been posting on the wrong website since 2014?
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
26th June 2015, 09:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 26th June 2015, 10:26 AM by Marc Berger.)
How about geoarchaeologist. if you have got a section, your not exactly digging single context. I suppose that if somebody did a half section of a feature and then filled it back in and then you went and took out the back fill, you could find yourself overcutting their previous section. Also I suppose if the brief said half section and then you took out three quarters, is that an over cut section? A lot of these quantities are measured in plan and don't really take much notice about how the feature may squirm about down below.
What you taking picture of sections for? Did you work it out from the cifa guide for "Clients"?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2015
Marc Berger Wrote:How about geoarchaeologist. if you have got a section, your not exactly digging single context. I suppose that if somebody did a half section of a feature and then filled it back in and then you went and took out the back fill, you could find yourself overcutting their previous section. Also I suppose if the brief said half section and then you took out three quarters, is that an over cut section? A lot of these quantities are measured in plan and don't really take much notice about how the feature may squirm about down below. What you taking picture of sections for?
You are UnitofOne and I claim my £10.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
26th June 2015, 10:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 26th June 2015, 10:54 AM by Marc Berger.)
I cant be and you missed off my "Did you work it out from the cifa guide for "Clients"? "
Whats good about this cifa guide is that it imagines that the "Client" is global and so by doing gets to not mention NPPF or indeed any national heritage conventions. In fact its more than global its for people who are yet to decide out of all the globals which global to go with
Quote:You may be seeking archaeological expertise as
• a national or international government department or agency
• a private developer or contractor
• a land owner
• a local authority
• a public sector body
• a local community or
• another private organisation
I suspect Ritual Coconut you might find the quide quite handy. Worth keeping a copy for all those international government departments that keep bugging you over over-cut sections
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
