Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[Dinosaur]

Ooer, I was a bloke from mastiuspus remperatum [sic] but not the bloke. Something did emerge from the ashes that was TR and appears to be still going or at least they're advertising in The Archaeologist if that counts as an existence.

A lot of us still about, embarrassingly - I've still got the mug to prove it, think it's worth anything? Bit rash really, buying advertising material saying "The Established Leader In The Field" just before going bust...... }

[Sith]

A lot of us still about, embarrassingly - I've still got the mug to prove it, think it's worth anything? Bit rash really, buying advertising material saying "The Established Leader In The Field" just before going bust...... }

Blimey! another one. You'll have me going all misty-eyed about Founder's Day next.

[Martin Locock]

Unit writes "Isn’t pre ppg so long ago that it’s not worth remembering". I think the debates about the roles of archaeologists, the planning process, universities, research, national agencies and museums can only be understood by looking at how practice has developed - as Unit rightly implies, the shift towards professionalism (both in the standards sense and the paid-for-doing-the-work sense), including the desire for and creation of the IfA, pre-dates PPG16. Unless we look back that far we are likely to conclude that the current situation is the only possible one, while it is open to major reconfiguration given a direction of travel and enough pressure. In my book I trace the oriigin of many of the most problematic parts of current commercial practice to the unhelpful lessons learned by senior staff when they were working in the 1970s and 1980s.

[Dinosaur]

Current developments in Community Archaeology and The Big Society (and the Flag Fen project under discussion on another thread?) might well be heading us back towards an archaeology reminiscent of those big digs of the 70s and 80s staffed by hundreds of 'vols' herded by a small cadre of paid professionals? :face-thinks:

[Dinosaur]

Blimey! another one. You'll have me going all misty-eyed about Founder's Day next.

I pine after those staff photos on the stairs and the playpen....ok, maybe not

[Unitof1]

Prentice u nit

go on give us your definition of an

archaeologist - its Saturday

anyone who finds value from the physical examination of the past and I like to get that definition as close to those who have a trowel in their hand.
or anybody I say is an archaeologist.

Unless we look back that far we are likely to conclude that the

current situation is the only possible one, while it is open to major
reconfiguration given a direction of travel and enough pressure. In my book I
trace the oriigin of many of the most problematic parts of current commercial
practice

Sorry I haven’t read the book. What I would like to see is a history of who made a killing and how particularly in relation to the definition of anarchaeologist. but mostly to use as examples for future cons on little old ladies. Things like public sector pensions should be brought into it as they make it particularly difficult to put a value on the archaeology at any one time. Also it can be difficult to see the archaeology for the trees, heres an example from wales. (Dino these examples have never left us) Seems to start with a vision and then requires ?177,136 (this figure does not take in defras tax farming costs) or possibly public endematy insurance. Historic name changes are involved –more visions-and anthropology gets to examine the history of its own belly button fluff and plot its assendancy over archaeology. Not sure if any archaeology is killed in the course of the fulfilment of the vision, possibly ?6 worth or what archaeology bares on the history of ppg pre or post. Also is it concerned with the professionalism or standards of archaeology. Do people from this world come in and affect my grubby little existence. Cant see if there is any requirement for curator standards in it. Did the standard vision require a written scheme of works to be approved and the consultation of the HER. Presumably I should applaud the production of more people expecting to find value from the physical examination of the past but presumably any history of professional archaeology will probably be based from the academic take and I can see that my argument is incoherent which is what all good history is unless you believe in god or have any other fundamental bias.

http://www.trinitysaintdavid.ac.uk/en/archaeologyhistoryandanthropology/stratafloridaproject/

[Martin Locock]

I don't think many people made a killing out of archaeology - mainly because they didn't cost their projects, didn't charge enough, and when push came to shove put archaeology before profits. (And I don't think getting a pension after a lifetime of contributing to a pension counts as a killing). The book I mention http://10simplesteps.blogspot.com/2007/1...-book.html makes these points.

I can see that something else has upset you but can't make out what - but I should clarify that I write here as myself, a freelance specialist, not as an academic.

[Dinosaur]

And I'm someone who regards digging holes as an art-form (shame more 'archaeologists' don't), and am certainly not making a killing out of it (and my latest pension prediction was for c.?2k/year when I retire...errr...start saving when you're young, kids out there) despite, as PP keeps pointing out, grabbing any (all too rare) overtime going - in fact if Unit's a one man band presumably he can do any overtime he likes and pay himself as much as he likes...THAT's making a killing in my book, or does he survive by undercutting?

[Unitof1]

Dino overtime pay is an oppressed workers concept not known to self employment. Presumably overtime pay is a concept for those driving the site van full of numpties. If youre self employed and anybody tries to get you an overtime rate they are probably trying to catch you out with trick bajr HMRC questions but then I might be paranoid. Presumably going by your pension you would consider anybody with a 5, 10 or 20k a year pension on a bit of a killing. Pick your killing pension rate and maybe we should see what faces we can dredge up. Have you tried finding out what your betters are on in your ltd company.

[SIZE=3]as myself, a freelance specialist, not as an

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]academic[/SIZE]

that’s possibly what I am trying to get at or rather for this theme is who it that is going around demanding and setting curator standards for a standardless archaeological world when do they remotly exist in a world demanding this obscure standard. Maybe in your histories you might have come across why the ifa initially felt the need to call its self the institute of field archaeologist and then why the need to change its name to the institute for archaeologists. Is it because we never had a standard for archaeologist or that it failed to create any that fits anybody. Freelance specialists, what standard do they huddle under together.

[Martin Locock]

The Institute of Field Archaeologists was founded in 1984 with the aim of promoting high standards of practice by all those involved with the investigation and curation of the archaeological resource. It chose its name to distinguish it from learned and scholarly societies on the one hand and narrow role-based groupings such as SCUM (now FAME). (At the time of its founding, there were few 'curators', although there were county archaeologists and SMR staff). It always was intended to cover archaeologists at all grades, not just the managers.

By the mid 90s the size and nature of the profession in the UK had changes substantially and the IFA recognised that some sectors were under-represented in the membership, partly because the "Field" part of the name put off curators who had extensive archaeological experience but little involvement in undertaking excavation. I was on IFA Council at the time that the name-change was first proposed, and I opposed it since I felt that the original name defined the area of special interest well.

The question arose again in c. 2005 and by this time the need for inclusiveness overcame the affection for the word 'field' and hence the change, so that IfA could be seen to represent anyone working in the sector (better reflecting the reality of its membership).