kevin wooldridge Wrote:I am sure therefore that there will still be a place for both amateur and non-chartered participants.

BAJR Wrote:. part of the criteria would be publication of work done -

P Prentice Wrote:i'll make no bones about it - i want to see clear air between those that dabble and those that provide a professional service. currently even metal detectorist can call themselves archaeologists and con some old ladies into thinking that they can provide them with a service; anybody who once spent a summer on a training excavation can set up as a business and destroy the resource. i know of people without any credibility at all teaching courses and skanking their students. i know people who have set up local clubs and are busily destroying some important sites with the help of people that they have conned by calling themselves archaeologists. the term has no meaning at all but a great deal of currency. chartered archaeologists should unambiguously be able to do provide all these services and do them to agreed standards. why would you not think this was a good idea?

Kajemby Wrote:I'm no advocate of the IFA, but surely an organisation is only as strong as its membership - If 99% of archaeologists are registered with the IFA, logically the IFA would be endorsed by 99% of archaeologists?

Therefore surely then, the IFA would not be self appointed? They (the leadership) would be appointed by people that share the values of the IFA, pay the money and join the organisation. Whether that is 99%, or 1% of archaeologists, they would still not be self appointed.


It might be different if the IFA claim to represent all archaeologists, but they don't - they say, clearly, that they represent their membership.

Tool Wrote:Thank you for once again so assiduously demonstrating the problem, by stating the one thing no-one seems to be quibbling about - that everyone involved should be following the highest standards - but continuing to fail to even acknowledge the issue that the policing of such standards may not be best left in the hands of those who themselves are not policed, who are not representative of that which they claim to serve, nor who appear even to be aware of the realities of life on the ground for so many in the industry. Oh, and who says their standards are actually the ones that will best serve archaeology? So please, if you want people to take you seriously, don't deliberately misrepresent what others are saying, and offer something concrete. This concept that having chartered archaeologists overseen by an institution that many field archaeologist have nothing to do with is the panacea for all of the ills of the industry is frankly bizarre when no-one can even explain where they get their legitimacy from. As Jack so rightly says, it's a scenario that largely fails in other circles, it can offer no guarantees, has no track-record worthy of mention, and may in fact damage the practice of archaeology by imposing a one-sided view on how it should be done imposed by those who themselves may not be the best practitioners, but with no recognisable recourse to consensus view.

Tool Wrote:More to the point, maybe we're all ignoring the fundamental problems, in that this industry is just a bit-part player in a far wider political, social and economic story in which archaeology exerts less than a tenuous influence. Now, if we had a body that actively engaged with both practitioners of archaeology and the wider public to bring this subject that we all care about into the debate about planning law, identity, the importance of knowledge and learning, whilst also promoting best practice and best employment conditions, then maybe we'd all jump on board. Rather more important than dictating what grade pencil is used to produce a section drawing?