+- 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: What next? (/showthread.php?tid=2124)
What next? - Troll - 15th January 2006
Ok.The last year has made a few things patently clear.The IFA are not responsible for or, capable of policing optional standards and, Curators simply don`t have the resources to do so. Is this what we call a professional approach to the nations heritage? As a cynic, one could see this pathetic situation as a deliberately moulded environment in which corporate lobbyists maintain their profit margins. Here`s the serious question and, I think it`s time that we started looking at serious answers to it....
What do we do about it?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
What next? - 1man1desk - 16th January 2006
There are several parts to the answer, involving clearer definition of roles/powers/responsibilities and extra resources. Its a bit of a wish-list, but this is how I would see things going:
1. IFA to define standards, and undertake disciplinary investigation and action when transgressions by members are reported to them (they can't police the standards - but they can enforce them on members if information is laid before them);
2. Make IFA membership compulsory for certain defined roles (PM and PO as a minimum?) in developer-led archaeological projects, so that the IFA are able to take disciplinary action if necessary (RAO status for the unit could also be required);
3. All archaeologists responsible for reporting any transgressions they see to the IFA - privately if they have reason to fear employment consequences;
4. All curators to specify that all work is done to IFA standards (they don't all do this at present), to monitor work properly, and to report transgressions to the IFA - County/Local authorities to provide necessary resources;
5. A new PPS to replace PPG16 (and 15?), specifying stronger policy guidance which would give more power to the elbows of curators, and including reference to IFA standards;
6. Statutory status for SMRs/HERs.
Go out and lobby!
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
What next? - the invisible man - 16th January 2006
Good positive response IMHO. Using the same numeration:
1. Standards in the general sense are of course provied by the IFA. Are you referring to a more specicic set of standards? (hold this end of trowel...) and how universal, i.e non-site specific, could they be?
2. I understand that this would be illegal in Europe?
3. I would consider myself duty bound to report transgessions anyway, as an IFA member and as my professional duty, if I was one. (CV available on request
).4. I find this remarkable, frankly. What standards are referred to then? Are they higher than IFA's? Monitoring and resourcing by the curtaors is the key, I would opine.
5 and 6 - yep.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.