The next question: recording

[GnomeKing]

I am sure therefore that there will still be a place for both amateur and non-chartered participants.

yes...but not in commercial, proffesional, or planning related work !!!

The ~IFA Charter# is dead in the water....let it sink, and good ridance!

(An Employees Charter (see Australia) written by the lowest levels to hold thier employers to account on technical and other standards is whole different thing...)

Over many years the IFA has demonstrabley failed to act against companies who breach good practice - these same people should not be trusted with more authority!

[BAJR]

Moving away slightly from the topic... but hey... that's the joy of BAJR ..

I can't agree or disagree with that personal statement... but would agree that you get the governance you deserve... }

For me... I am happy just to see Licenced Directors on a rolling yearly basis... and only they can run commercial projects. dammit... I would even apply for a Licence. and that would allow an amateur group to put forward a person as a licensed archaeologist... you just need somebody who is competant and comes up with teh goods. -- ergo... part of teh criteria would be publication of work done - in a timely manner. every year. we all reapply... prove we have done good the previous year ...get our licences... and back to work. that would also have real teeth to failing...

[Dinosaur]

By all accounts Licenced Directors were a raging success in Ireland? Stuff getting bulldozed seems to have featured on here....

[GnomeKing]

. part of the criteria would be publication of work done -

i like the sentiment
BUT:

it is already hard enough for people to get breaks in "Report Writting"
(+ copyright#....)
--- such a sceme could matters far worse, with report witting being jealously hoarded........(.>>> & clearly interpretation and perspective could be even more limited than they already are)

AND:
who decides what constitutes a sufficient report vs an oustanding report vs incompetent ramblings......?

(well obviously peer and community review would be best, but how?
>>> if potentials of digital documents/digital communities are realised better, + there are publicly available commercial reports/interim statments done in timely fashion, then maybe there are ways to 'open' the problem of who decides...)

[Tool]

i'll make no bones about it - i want to see clear air between those that dabble and those that provide a professional service. currently even metal detectorist can call themselves archaeologists and con some old ladies into thinking that they can provide them with a service; anybody who once spent a summer on a training excavation can set up as a business and destroy the resource. i know of people without any credibility at all teaching courses and skanking their students. i know people who have set up local clubs and are busily destroying some important sites with the help of people that they have conned by calling themselves archaeologists. the term has no meaning at all but a great deal of currency. chartered archaeologists should unambiguously be able to do provide all these services and do them to agreed standards. why would you not think this was a good idea?

Thank you for once again so assiduously demonstrating the problem, by stating the one thing no-one seems to be quibbling about - that everyone involved should be following the highest standards - but continuing to fail to even acknowledge the issue that the policing of such standards may not be best left in the hands of those who themselves are not policed, who are not representative of that which they claim to serve, nor who appear even to be aware of the realities of life on the ground for so many in the industry. Oh, and who says their standards are actually the ones that will best serve archaeology? So please, if you want people to take you seriously, don't deliberately misrepresent what others are saying, and offer something concrete. This concept that having chartered archaeologists overseen by an institution that many field archaeologist have nothing to do with is the panacea for all of the ills of the industry is frankly bizarre when no-one can even explain where they get their legitimacy from. As Jack so rightly says, it's a scenario that largely fails in other circles, it can offer no guarantees, has no track-record worthy of mention, and may in fact damage the practice of archaeology by imposing a one-sided view on how it should be done imposed by those who themselves may not be the best practitioners, but with no recognisable recourse to consensus view.

[Tool]

I'm no advocate of the IFA, but surely an organisation is only as strong as its membership - If 99% of archaeologists are registered with the IFA, logically the IFA would be endorsed by 99% of archaeologists?

Therefore surely then, the IFA would not be self appointed? They (the leadership) would be appointed by people that share the values of the IFA, pay the money and join the organisation. Whether that is 99%, or 1% of archaeologists, they would still not be self appointed.


It might be different if the IFA claim to represent all archaeologists, but they don't - they say, clearly, that they represent their membership.

I think the more important question is why is the IfA so unappealing to so many practitioners of archaeology? One view is it's the fault of the practitioners for not getting involved, the other view is that the Institute itself has failed to make itself relevant to those it seeks to represent. People being people will embrace that which furthers their own ends. Most (OK, all from what I can think of) of those involved in this industry that I've spoken to do it not for the money, the fame, the conditions, but because they love doing it and care about it enough to endure the lack of money, the anonymity and the often pretty dire conditions. So, who has the wrong approach?

There is another issue here though, and that is the assumption that all in the world of archaeology is bad and needs this rather dubious fix. Is it that bad?

[GnomeKing]

Is it that bad?, is a good question...

maybe the problems the iFAil is trying to adress are not the most pressing...(its not that bad) :face-thinks:

[Tool]

More to the point, maybe we're all ignoring the fundamental problems, in that this industry is just a bit-part player in a far wider political, social and economic story in which archaeology exerts less than a tenuous influence. Now, if we had a body that actively engaged with both practitioners of archaeology and the wider public to bring this subject that we all care about into the debate about planning law, identity, the importance of knowledge and learning, whilst also promoting best practice and best employment conditions, then maybe we'd all jump on board. Rather more important than dictating what grade pencil is used to produce a section drawing?

[P Prentice]

Thank you for once again so assiduously demonstrating the problem, by stating the one thing no-one seems to be quibbling about - that everyone involved should be following the highest standards - but continuing to fail to even acknowledge the issue that the policing of such standards may not be best left in the hands of those who themselves are not policed, who are not representative of that which they claim to serve, nor who appear even to be aware of the realities of life on the ground for so many in the industry. Oh, and who says their standards are actually the ones that will best serve archaeology? So please, if you want people to take you seriously, don't deliberately misrepresent what others are saying, and offer something concrete. This concept that having chartered archaeologists overseen by an institution that many field archaeologist have nothing to do with is the panacea for all of the ills of the industry is frankly bizarre when no-one can even explain where they get their legitimacy from. As Jack so rightly says, it's a scenario that largely fails in other circles, it can offer no guarantees, has no track-record worthy of mention, and may in fact damage the practice of archaeology by imposing a one-sided view on how it should be done imposed by those who themselves may not be the best practitioners, but with no recognisable recourse to consensus view.

reading your recent posts i am left with the impression that you have not bothered to read the ifa literature. i dont know anybody who thinks it is perfect or cant be improved but i do know that most of its membership, at every level, care about their profession. a few might well care about money and prestige but they are a minority. most in senior positions (contracting) spent their time at the coal face and most worked very hard to get where they are. most in entry level positions have ambition to rise within the profession and do research. some are happy just digging up interesting shit. most people in the profession deserve to be paid more and have better job prospects, better terms and conditions. a significant majority of professional archaeologists have joined together to try and do better. membership acting in the best interest of the membership is not a crime against non-members it is the basis of any democratic movement. carping on about legitimacy is frankly as ridiculous as impugning members for possibly not being the best practitioners as no other body has any measurable standards. ifa has 3000 voices and you have listened to how many?

[P Prentice]

More to the point, maybe we're all ignoring the fundamental problems, in that this industry is just a bit-part player in a far wider political, social and economic story in which archaeology exerts less than a tenuous influence. Now, if we had a body that actively engaged with both practitioners of archaeology and the wider public to bring this subject that we all care about into the debate about planning law, identity, the importance of knowledge and learning, whilst also promoting best practice and best employment conditions, then maybe we'd all jump on board. Rather more important than dictating what grade pencil is used to produce a section drawing?

these are all issues that the ifa is trying to address. members have their own agenda but a consensus is a compromise. it does need more digger voters.