Southport consultation

[Martin Locock]

Moreno, I think your first two points belong together: you have explained how archaeologists can bypass fixed requirments at the moment; the Southport vision would remove this flexibility.

I think the 'light touch curation' angle is coming from reducing resources to handle curating, but surely the curators who have been complaining so loudly for the last 20 years that they are under-resourced and over-worked would welcome a reduction in the need for detailed oversight of every stage of every project?

[Unitof1]

i humbly suggest that pss5 says that we dont need curators for a day longer. how have they got away with it for twenty years

[moreno]

I explained how archaeologists have built up working relationships with their counterparts in government.

I would think this is due more to the nature of bureaucracy. I would think that we all (archaeologists) are under-resourced and over-worked.

[P Prentice]

i humbly suggest that pss5 says that we dont need curators for a day longer. how have they got away with it for twenty years

i look forward to hearing that you have come'a'grovelin back to our beloved ifa in order to ply your undercutting, lilollady skimming tirade trade

[troll]

It occurs to me that if anything, we need a heavier touch from government curators. It has been established here on this forum many moons ago that the only entity that could be held to account in law is indeed the government curators. If the IfA (or any other Institution) is to step up to the plate as it were, said Institution would then need to become enshrined in and mandated by law. It is arguable that as a profession-we are largely self-governing but with the final say coming from Government Curators. The handing of the flag to an Institution would by default make us an autonomous profession-wholly subject to our own rules. I`m not comfortable with this.

Whilst I support the overall objectives of the IfA, I have in the past been highly critical of their role. This is borne from the fact that the IfA has no mandate in law, IfA membership is voluntary, Ifa rules and regs are generally accepted on paper only and are not effectively policed. In this scenario- if the IfA do indeed step up to the plate and take on the roles of Government Curators then something needs to change-radically. The IfA would need a mandate enshrined in law. I would welcome this in the sense that finally-professional standards may become compulsory, policing would become a legal requirement and therefore more high-profile and comprehensive and the IfA would ultimately become answerable to law. Now that would change things and in principle, I would certainly vote for that.

I do realise that what I`m saying is going to be controversial and is likely to start a pooh-storm but......... if we are proposing that the archaeology profession finally becomes an entity protected and driven by actual legislation then I`m in. Voluntary adherence and lip-service to "guidance" that has no solid foundation in law is destructive and demonstrably inneffective and pointless. I have just enjoyed some time with some of my Australian counterparts and have spent endless hours discussing the differences between our professions. It has to be said-we are decades behind. Australian archaeology (with some differences by states) is enshrined in law and huge fines are imposed upon those choosing to flout them. Huzzah.

A "soft-touch" could be a fine thing but without a heavy hand behind it- this move could make things a whole lot worse than they already can be.:face-stir:

[the invisible man]

I wholeheartedly agree that a heavier touch approach from curators is essential (but sadly unlikely). Even if the IfA achieve chartered status and the the term "archaeologist" becomes a protected title (again, sadly unlikely I suspect) their role would be different from that of curators. A professional institute is concerned with "professional" matters, more generalized, if you will. Monitoring of specific contracts cannot be done by an institute, is not appropriate and isn't done in other professions. It is however entirely appropriate for the curatorial body to ensure that the required conditions have been fully discharged, including fully carrying out the work to the necessary standards. The closest analogy that springs to mind is building control officers, ensuring that Building Regulations are complied with by inspecting and passing "plans" and inspecting work on site. Of course building contractors will also have architects monitoring work for compliance with the contract (including standards) - it would be nice to think that archaeological consultants, the equivalent role, are and will performing that duty..... but yes I agree with Troll - more power - more resources - to the curators! (No I am not one!). Obviously I can't see this happening though, quite the reverse in fact.

[troll]

Greetings Invisible.......

If indeed the consultancies were to take on a formalised curatorial role (and I totally accept that many do so now anyway) they too would require a legal mandate to do so. Clear and unambiguous legislation would protect the profession and the consultancies from the potential of conflicts of interest. Consultancies (in my view) are a priori bound to work in their clients interests. It can be argued of course that the maintenence of professional standards would be in their clients interests but- where consultants are interpreting those standards whilst working in their clients interests, conflicts may arise? I think that what I am getting at is this........ if the transfer of responsibilities from Curators is actually on the cards, regardless of whom they are passed onto-they will require at least an equivalent legal mandate to those of the Curators.

[P Prentice]

i also fear for the light touch and i have no confidence in the industry policing itself

The closest analogy that springs to mind is building control officers, ensuring that Building Regulations are complied with by inspecting and passing "plans" and inspecting work on site.

you have to pay for the presence of a building inspector so it stands to reason that a contractor should pay for a development control archaeologist

it just needs ifa to standardise monitoring procedure and provide a respectable appeals procedure

[Marcus Brody]

You have to pay for the presence of a building inspector so it stands to reason that a contractor should pay for a development control archaeologist

I thought that this had already been trialled in a couple of English counties, not sure what the results were, though.

[Boxoffrogs]

Marcus...yes it has been trialed and boy did the Units kick up a fuss about it! Would they do so again? You bettchya! I was part of that trial (in a life long ago) and the bitchin and whinging was mighty to be heard..."Our client won't accept that" was the cry....well hell up your prices a few bob a day guys to allow you to take is as an 'on cost'...It got to the point that units forgot to mention that they were on site, Oh! Happy days!