Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
8th January 2006, 07:10 PM
So how many Curators (hands up now) use the IFA standards to regulate what they can hope to see as a well dug/drawn/surveyed site and report.
Or Do we all make it up as we go along? In shich case should ALGAO be standarising (or at least adopt the IFA standard)
We can't get away from the fact that the IFA have the 'best' guidelines, the matter of who ensures the compliance is up to a) The Curator and b) everyone... as it does state clearly that we ALL curate the heritage resource... so if you are on a site... you see the archaeology being damaged/improperly dug etc etc then you have just as much a duty to do something. Now this also requires communication so that you know why a site is being 'dug' in a particular way... so
Clear knowledge of who does what... and also communication with all those involved from Curator to Digger
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
8th January 2006, 08:53 PM
Curses... fair point....... any link to them?
I know however that the HS guides are ... er.... politely... er... rather ... flexible .... or should that be fluffy?
A link m'dear I beg ye [:p]
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
8th January 2006, 10:47 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Beer Beast EH also have guidelines for the proper conduct of archaeological investigations. Perhaps a look at their guidance for standards and methodoloies may be in order before the IFA credo is accepted wholesale.
I'm sure that you (Beerbeast) are right about the EH guidelines and I believe I have seen a guidance document issued by the London Division. But I don't seem to be able to find the right web-page for online EH guidance documents relating to the conduct of archaeological investigations. Do you have any more specific details about the location of EH guidelines? I have tried Googling and using the EH 'site search' but to no avail....
More general query. Do CADW and/or HS have published guidelines relating to the conduct of archaeological investigations.? Are these accessible online?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
8th January 2006, 10:54 PM
Thanks Beer.... However a few clues could help... EH is even bigger than BAJR
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/serve...w=nav.8384
is a start... in fact theone on Golf is bloody useful - cheers!
I should also point oout that our New Cheif at Historic Scotland is Malcolm Cooper (ex of EH) and he has my vote! ALready we have a group of 5 led by a specialist who deal only with development control.
In many cases though I notice that the IFA and other groups cooperate to provide Guidance Docs.
More info please Beer.. even a hint
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
8th January 2006, 11:28 PM
I notice that the National Heritage Act 2002 allows English Heritage the powers to financially support organisations that promote EH's aims. It seems to me that the IFA satisfy that function regarding archaeological standards and perhaps might be worthy of direct EH funding to enable monitoring of those standards.
Can I be the first to recommend the title OffArch (or even 'Arch off!!) as the title for the Office of the Commissioner for Archaeological Standards.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
9th January 2006, 12:23 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Beer Beast A straw poll in the organisation that I work for, (last week), revealed a degree of cynicism and a lack of willingness to join the IFA that appears symptomatic throughout the industry. For those supporters of the IFA I ask this question, why should this situation prevail, why is it not otherwise; what is it about the IFA that is being mis-represented to such a degree that two thirds of British professional archaeologists refuse to join? Is it the fault of the organisation in its own publicity or is there something fundamentally wrong in the ethos of the IFA?
I'm guessing though that as you and your colleagues work for an IFA RAO, despite your cynicism and lack of willingness, by default you subscribe to the IFA standards and Code of Conduct.
A recent estimation of IFA membership amongst RAOs suggested that perhaps 50% of staff employed by RAOs might not be members of the IFA. However, they also by default subscribe to the IFA Codes and Standards. It is therefore likely that closer to two-thirds of British professional archaeologists are covered by IFA 'rules' irrespective of whether they deign to join the club. That is a sizeable achievement by any standard and one that would easily satisfy the conditions for acceptance as a chartered body.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
9th January 2006, 11:42 AM
But EH is a quango.
Clearly the IFA is a better position to represent archaeologists than EH, which has a far wider remit - and apppears to more interested in standing buildings than archaeology. A profession cannot be represented by either a quango or government body, it must govern itself.
In what way would EH standards be more enforcable or oterwise "better" in principle than those of an institute? Standards are set by contract, or by code of conduct.
EH or any similar body cannot lay down standards governng Code of Conduct, that is, ethical and professional standards, as opposed to performance criteria: therefore you need institute codes anyway.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
9th January 2006, 01:56 PM
Quote: "EH also have guidelines for the proper conduct of archaeological investigations. Perhaps a look at their guidance for standards and methodoloies may be in order before the IFA credo is accepted wholesale." - posted by Beer Beast
I don't think there is any rivalry between EH and IFA to get their documents used in preference, essentially because the documents they produce are not equivalents/alternatives; they are doing rather different things, and can be applied together (I frequently do that in specs, or when writing the archaeological requirements in a Design and Build Contract, or similar).
The EH documents provide technical guidance (not a standard) on the management of archaeological projects and on certain specialist archaeological activities. MAP2 in particular was written originally to provide internal guidance on the management of EH's own projects, and largely assumes that all projects are set-piece excavations. It requires quite a bit of adaptation/ad-hoc amendment to apply it meaningfully to, say, a PPG16 evaluation.
The IFA S&Gs on the other hand are intended to provide a 'Standard' against which the quality of a piece of work can be measured (usually expressed in a single paragraph) and 'Guidance' on the application of the standard. They are written to apply to each of the main types of archaeological project that occur in commercial archaeology. The technical guidance is less detailed than in the EH documents - presumably to avoid duplication of effort, and to ensure universal applicability.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th January 2006, 02:24 PM
Now look at the IFA section... Tim Howard replies...
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
14th January 2006, 05:44 PM
Yes-Thankyou Tim.Not entirely sure that there was anything new or indeed unpredictable in the response. It was said here that those of us that are not IFA members help to make the IFA "weak".Had Tim`s response outlined just one indication of a seriously pro-active stance on the many issues voiced on this forum, I would have sent them dosh by return of post.I`m afraid the IFA have yet again failed to sell themselves and are obviously quite happy to maintain the status quo and churn out stock answers.Beery- I`m afraid the IFA are in no position to represent field archaeologists any more so than EH. Afraid it looks like wer`e on our own.Again.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
