IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress

[Dinosaur]

SSSSSHHHH!!!!

Have half persuaded SeedyGirl to do a project on some 14 year old samples that turned up during a tool store clearout last week (no idea how they'd avoided a skip this long), don't put her off....

[kevin wooldridge]

I guess that after 14 or 15 years, the funding for processing samples within the original project budget would be long gone....perhaps 'profit motivated' archaeologists need to consider that aspect when looking at backlog. If the original budget isn't paying for it presumably someone else is being charged....Is that fair?

[Dinosaur]

Entirely fair if SeedyGirl's looking for a private project to enhance her CV - and better to do something that has a wider value (in this case adding info to an existing site) rather than a lot of these little stand-alone bits and bobs that students often seem to do. Am lucky enough to have one project stored for years at a Uni - we've had free storage and they use it as a teaching collection on occasion, so have far more in-depth analyses of some of the finds than would have been possible as part of the original commercial project. Hopefully might get the thing properly archived in the near future, finally!

Know what you mean though

Would be a lot better if the commercial environment allowed for better analysis at the time - however I've got a (coincidentally, honest) 1998 project where the significance of part of the assemblage wasn't recognised at the time, so can't really blame the client for not having been asked for more cash at the time, the interest in it is topical now, what with changing directions in archaeological interests, so it's currently being re-visited via a research grant

[RedEarth]

Why not? Thats the whole point of commercial archaeology, to make money. Its just that one group of money-makers are attempting to unilaterally restrict the rights of the rest to do the same in an open and competative environment, tender by tender. If they're so good they shouldn't be scared of the competition

You do seem to have quite a confused set of ideas. One minute berating the 9 to 5ers 'only in interested in it because it's a job' the next claiming that all commercial archaeologists are interested in is making money. How very contradictory.

Of course, there are different ways of protecting your position both personally and as an organisation: restricting access to the trade based on membership of a professional body (the intention, whether true or not, to restrict it only to those who are judged by their peers to be capable), and doing it be crapping all over your junior staff by issuing appalling contracts etc etc and thus making sure you win work but at the same time restrict access to new people (by either putting them off entirely or suggesting they not be kept on because they, for example, had the film speed on the camera set to 1000 rather that 250), and keep the jobs for a select few. I'm sure there are other ways but those are two that spring to mind. If you can manage to both of these things you might actually be able to make a profit in commercial archaeology.

[RedEarth]

Entirely fair

Presumably she'll be doing this in her own time rather than as some form of in house training and personal development?

[Dinosaur]

Presumably she'll be doing this in her own time rather than as some form of in house training and personal development?

Actually I'm not sure why she's wanting to do it, it's always possible she's just interested?

[Dinosaur]

You do seem to have quite a confused set of ideas. One minute berating the 9 to 5ers 'only in interested in it because it's a job' the next claiming that all commercial archaeologists are interested in is making money. How very contradictory.

There's a difference between doing the minimum, shite job and grabbing the cash, or alternatively attempting to do some decent archaeology while making enough to live on? :face-stir:

[RedEarth]

Actually I'm not sure why she's wanting to do it, it's always possible she's just interested?

Although you said you had 'half persuaded'. So which is it? I don't really care, but you did seem to say one thing then the opposite.

[RedEarth]

There's a difference between doing the minimum, shite job and grabbing the cash, or alternatively attempting to do some decent archaeology while making enough to live on? :face-stir:

There's also a difference between doing a good job but having to screw people over in terms of contracts/wages/conditions in order to achieve it and still win work and attempting to improve all of these things through mutual co-operation and helping each other out while still maintaining standards. There's too many loose canons in archaeology who think that only they know best and that they shouldn't be accountable to anyone else nor indulge in any collaboration to improve things as a whole. Can't you see that more people joining the IfA might actually improve things in the long run, rather than just sniping from the sidelines? It might take a while but the end result might be worthwhile (to get back to the topic though, I still don't see the point of a Royal Charter at this stage).

[Dinosaur]

Although you said you had 'half persuaded'. So which is it? I don't really care, but you did seem to say one thing then the opposite.

She's going to do something, I'm just busy persuading her that my stuff's the best


Why would more people joining IfA improve things in the long run? Once everyone's a member they'll have no incentive to enforce anything, at least at the moment there's some competition to make them at least try and look that they're the guardians of the holy standards, even if they can't be assed to enforce them