+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Digger Article (/showthread.php?tid=1794)
Digger Article - roywhiting - 28th January 2005
Interesting story Digger. I think I know what epsode you're talking about. A unit in the Midlands put in a ridiculously low tender for a project and submitted a crap report, which was rejected by the local planning officer. Said resulting mess and non-discharge of the archaeological planning condition delayed the construction of the new development, costing millions to the developer. I hope the curator's meeting will come up with something productive to handicap the kind of crap tendering that plagues this profession. In the final analysis though, the kind of disruption that is caused to developers (and in this case it seems a real mess) will backfire on the unit concerned, because many developers will not touch them with a barge pole in the future. Unfortunately, collateral damage from this sort of scenario includes the image of archaeology and archaeologists being damaged. The development industry will can tar us all with the same brush, which undermines us all.
Digger Article - the invisible man - 28th January 2005
Not to mention the archaeology lost for ever at the site concerned!
In addition to all the other points we've discussed here - hotline, curatorial vigilance and meetings and so on - I would like to suggest a more rigourous tendering procedure, on a firm and like for like basis. The impression I get is that the process is often vague, as are the briefs and specs, in comparison with other industries.
A "form of tender" and properly priced tender document - a proiced specification - should always be submitted. The stanbdard document should be provided with the invitation to tender. Any qualifications should render the tender void. An obvously underpriced tender can be rejected as unsafe.
A leaf can be taken from the consturction industry's book here.
Digger Article - Geofizz - 31st January 2005
My curator says he has no ability to do a spot visit. As a result all the evidence was destroyed long before I even got the letter informing me of this.
Until there is a body with archaeologists with the ability to enter a site and inspect, plus the ability to make charges - archaeology has its future placed on the whim of those involved and there is nothing we can do.
Digger Article - troll - 31st January 2005
Mr Fizz-Agreed, until the day when people like the IFA (hopefully more grown-up, professional and interested) take responsibility for this role, the eyes and ears on the ground will, as usual, be the archaeologists on the ground at point of trowel. Hence-the BAJR hotline.Use it sir and pass it on.I would recommend that your curator has a quiet word with the people employing him and remind them of their duties to the public. Councils are quite happy to spend ridiculous amounts on often bizarre and pointless exercises-expose them for doing so and, ask them to justify their actions if they respond in the negative.
Digger Article - the invisible man - 1st February 2005
Geofizz, what do you mean by "ability" to enter a site? I suspect there is a play on words here if you mean that your curator says he has no power to enter a site. The party in possession of the site may refuse entry to another party but that is not the same!
A parallel situation is that a building contactor may refuse entry to the architect but would be insane to do so, as the architect could not thenm certify payment or completion. So if a curator cannot verify that the planning conditions have been discharged, he cannot therefore certify such and the archaeological work cannot be complete.
The ICE Conditions of Contract hardly mention the Curator. The equivalent position of the architect is the Consultant. The Curator is therefore in the equivalent position of the Building Inspector. Nu builder would ever refuse access to such a person as the building could never be completed, ever.
If by "ability" you mean lack or resources, financial and human, now that is the real problem as we have discussed before.
Again, as I have said before, the IFA will never inspect individual sites, and there is no reason on earth why they should. That is not what professional bodies are for.
Digger Article - troll - 1st February 2005
Tempts me to ask the obvious sir- what is the point of the IFA? Secondly, what value is there in voluntary standards? How do we convince the public that their heritage is safe in our hands? Mr Geofizz- what letter? what destruction? What evidence and who "informed" you?
Digger Article - the invisible man - 2nd February 2005
The point of the IFA is the same as all the other "true" professional bodies... errr... can I phone a friend?
. Registration is their main function, I guess, with associated powers of discipline and regulation, and codes of conduct, guidance notes maintenance of professional standards, promotion of the profession and, in this case archaeology, special awards for serving the body for 25 years...... Seriously, some are more effective than others, and most don't seem to be very popular with their membership. Second - none whatsoever IMHO. Who said there was?
My feeling is that the public believe that heritage is far safer in our hands than it really is. The archaeologist seems to be regardrded very highly, thanks I suspect to TV (and the odd adventure film)
Digger Article - troll - 2nd February 2005
Valiantly answered sir. Thing is, I`m an archaeologist but a priori am a member of the public and I`m afraid that no amount of entertainment archaeology will convince me that heritage is safe in our hands.Simply, because the IFA have absolutely nothing to do with the profession. In truth, any muppet can practise and the way things are, the IFA dish stamps of approval out without understanding the question and deny that anyone else knows better. I find this nauseating as a professional and as a member of the public-a good enough excuse to riot! Who`s for a new and professional Institute without the arrogance?
Digger Article - the invisible man - 3rd February 2005
Yes, I agree Troll. In an ideal world I would like to see archaeology as a "true" profession, that is the term or style "archaeologist" as a protected title - as are architect. doctor and so on.
For a start, commercial archaeology should only be permitted by "licensed" or registered persons or bodies - in other words, competent, and accountable. This would not prevent amateur societies doing fieldwork, as it is not commercial i.e. paid.
Then, any person or firm guilty of misconduct can be removed from the register.
Digger Article - Alfie - 3rd February 2005
I fully and totally agree with you both. Licensed Archaeologists is in my view the only way to go.How do we get there though? I would not want to see the IFA as the licensing authority because they would simply licence their members, and they have proven that they cannot police their membership. I think it would have to be the Home Office, with the local coroner or council as the regulators? David? what are your thoughts?