+- 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: Do you think archaeology should be licenced? (/showthread.php?tid=171)
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - BAJR Host - 30th June 2006
Do you think archaeology should be licenced?
Its a tricky one.... but the choice is yours... trusted archaeologists or anyone can have a go.. you decide.
Another day another WSI?
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - 1man1desk - 3rd July 2006
The poll question begs a number of subsidiary questions, leaving me in the 'not sure' camp.
What is the nature of the licence?
Are we talking about something like the Irish system (an individual, previously assessed as being 'licenseable', applies for a licence to to do a particular piece of work on a specific site)?
Or,
Are we talking about giving licences to individuals that are not related to a particular piece of work (e.g. a general licence that lasts 1, 2 or 5 years or forever)?
If the latter, would the licences be limited to specified areas of expertise?
Who is going to administer the system and decide on who gets licences? What will the criteria be?
Too complicated for a simple poll, if you ask me.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - m300572 - 3rd July 2006
Licenced to do what Mr Hosty - dig, survey, sit in an office, drinking tea and pushing paper around.........??
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - Paul Barford - 3rd July 2006
Would people like Semir Osmangi? be able to get one to dig through goodness knows what in search of... well, what exactly?
Paul Barford
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - BAJR Host - 3rd July 2006
Ye s..... stuffff.... and er..... BArking... !
You been snooping round ma hidden volcano with ancient Atlantean Civilisation have you !!
Seriously...
Licenced as in the Irish model, where to actually 'be' an archaeologist with responsibility for a site/desk/pile of paper, you have to show to a panel of peers your competance... oh... alright yes I am heading towards chartered... but as that could be a while away.... licenced to dig/survey/research etc etc will do jsut now.... and best of all...
if you is crap... you don't get...
if you do crap ... you get it taken away
if you want it ... you better be to a standard.
Another day another WSI?
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - trowelhead - 4th July 2006
Who would be the panel? The experience I have had in Ireland is that the panel was made up mostly of academics and as they live very much in a different world how could they judge "competance" by qualification? experience? or standing. Does this mean that all MIFA types would be exempt from interview. If so this creates an ivory tower for academics to sit on. An then what of AIFA there are a lot of these that direct and are perfectly capable archs. Would it be a case of im alright jack pull the ladder up. The quality of work archaeologist do should be overseen by the IFA or EH as that is what they are there for. In addition who would be responsible for the licensing EH or IFA. And if so would one be then superior to the other, tricky!
I think Chartered would be the best way forward say PIFA, AIFA, MIFA then Carch perhaps. As with engineering the individual would under go supervised CPD and follow a set period of training leading over time and from subject and site experience build up a competancy that can be assessed by an independant body seperate from IFA or EH and in doing so remove a nepatistic or lofty approach.
But I agree it is a tricky one but also at the end of the day lets get pay and conditions sorted first then the above bit later. Also with this in mind what of pay does this mean the developer would be paying more to a Carch than one not chartered and in that case would qoutes for work go up allowing the bigger arch firms to out qoute the smaller units as they dont have the salerys to pay Carch`s and what would the salery be anyway?
Close enough for a country job!
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - 1man1desk - 4th July 2006
From BAJR Host:
Quote:quote:Licenced as in the Irish model, where to actually 'be' an archaeologist with responsibility for a site/desk/pile of paper, you have to show to a panel of peers your competance... oh... alright yes I am heading towards chartered... but as that could be a while away.... licenced to dig/survey/research etc etc will do jsut now.
Under the Irish system, you do need to be validated in advance - but you don't get a licence as such; instead, once validated, you can apply for a licence each time you want to start a project - and the licence can only apply to one archaeological site (plays merry hell with multi-site projects). Also, some types of big development (e.g. highways) are exempt from the licencing system nowadays.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - 1man1desk - 4th July 2006
I agree with much of what Trowelhead says in his last post, but not with his last point.
A new Chartering or Licencing system would not allow big units to outbid small ones for work they could otherwise do. The whole point of such a system would be that, for certain defined types of work, you would not be allowed by law to do it if you were not Chartered or Licenced.
So, by definition, units so small that they could not afford to employ such a person could not bid in the first place - but then should they be allowed to, if they can't employ someone competent to do the job?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - Oxbeast - 4th July 2006
This would certainly have effects of restricting the supply of labour, and driving up wages. from my point of view this is only a good thing. If you could get chartered, and have some kind of structured CPD, it would probably stop many talented people leaving the profession in their mid twenties. If they had the prospect of job security and a living wage to look forward to.
Also, it might do something about the dross of the profession: people who have been digging forever, but still can't interpret or record. Because it is virtually impossible to get fired in archaeology (certainly I've never heard of it), these people keep popping up and trashing sites. Perhaps not getting a licence would encourage them to move on.
Do you think archaeology should be licenced? - Oxbeast - 4th July 2006
Sorry for slightly ranty last post. Rant mode off.
The Irish system has its drawbacks, but it does make the licensee responsible for post ex and publication. This is not to say that they have to actually do it all, but it is their license on the line. A licensing or chartering thingy over here might have positive effects on the backlog of publication at many units.