The next question: recording

[Tool]

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?

OK, numerous points about that reply, so I'll be anal and number them...

1. Thank you for what at last appears to be a genuine reply. Whether I agree or not, it at least appears to be an effort. Which is nice.
   
2. No-one, as far as I have seen, questions whether the membership of the IfA cares about archaeology. What is being questioned is whether the membership is aware of what archaeology is to the majority of those who practice it.
   
3. "most in entry level positions have ambition to rise within the profession and do research": that is rather loaded. The implication is that digging isn't research, but academia is. Research only comes from primary data, and that comes, on the whole, from people digging in the dirt. Now there is little doubt that a lot of diggers would also like the opportunity to explore their particular area more in an academic way. But that ain't going to happen because they'd also like to get paid. So, maybe one step forward would be to integrate academic archaeology more with commercial archaeology?
   
4. ​Do we deserve better pay and conditions? See my reply above. But that depends vey much on things over which we appear to have little influence and voice. So, there's another way forward - promote archaeology to a wider audience so that people other than ourselves think that we deserve better.
   
5. "a significant majority of professional archaeologists have joined together to try and do better." Again, questionable. I'd contend that the majority of professional commercial archaeologists haven't. See previous comments." 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." Totally agree with the first part, but... it's not reflected in reality. I work in commercial archaeology. Commercial archaeology employs somewhere in the region of half of all those under the archaeology umbrella? All those who I speak to who don't have an imposed imperative to be a member aren't. So, what is that telling us? (See also above...)
   
6. Yet again, who says theirs are the best standards? Even with my limited experience I've seen things considered by some to be the accepted convention, but contribute nowt to our understanding. OK, I admit that some of that may be down to lack of knowledge and experience, but on the other hand, how much is down to 'we've done it this way since **** so that's how we do it'?
   

[Tool]

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.

If that is true then more power to their elbow. Ultimately unless this is addressed this debate may become moot, because the industry could cease to exist. Then we all lose.

[kevin wooldridge]

Tool: The IfA is pretty much the 'Marmite' challenge to many archaeologists - you either love it or hate it. No kind of rationality explains the phenomena. That isn't just the case since 1990 (generally considered the jump off point for 'commercial' archaeology in the UK), people were saying the same about the IfA way back in 1982 when it all began. I think you are right that the 'No' camp at the moment is largely concentrated in the lower reaches of the commercial archaeology field, but its not because of commercial archaeology per se. The make-up of the IfA ruling council at the moment shows that the majority of its members are engaged in 'commercial' archaeology....

....its probably therefore a 'class' thing - the IfA are considered the Vitamin B 'bourgeoise' and the dispossessed feel a little aggrieved that they might be forced into spreading Marmite on their scraps of stale toast....no amount of trying to convince the underclass of the benefits of IfA Marmite will ever work....even the Diggers Forum comes in for criticism as being 'Marmite-lite'.....Vegimite perhaps!!

...the endgame however is that the IfA will press ahead with their campaign for Chartership and once achieved that will no doubt have an effect on everyone involved in archaeology, especially those involved professionally. As a result I am sure the die-hard opponents of IfA will become even more deeply ingrained, but hindered by the fact that 30 years of opposition has failed to coalesce into an effective alternative. And therein lies the essential truth of the IfA dichotomy, it may not be perfect but it's the only vitamin enriched breakfast spread on the table and Chartership will only further strengthen that position!!

Hope I haven't pushed the Marmite analogy too far...but it does seem an appropriate metaphor. I know lots of competent archaeologists who are pro-IfA and lots of competent archaeologists who dismiss it completely. No rationality whatsoever...most of them are still friends though. I'd be more worried if an archaeological friend told me they had joined the Conservative Party......

[Tool]

But I like Marmite! I get your point though. Maybe the IfA should be putting more effort into increasing their appeal and apparent relevance to all of us who do have this image of a bunch of people out of touch with reality, sat in their ivory towers? Their website could do with a major overhaul and re-write for a start... I actually think there would be a huge benefit to having an active body representing us both within the industry and in the wider world. At present I, and seemingly many others in this segment of archaeology, don't feel the IfA fit the bill. This isn't helped by the very patronising attitude shown by some of its supporters, which just goes to reaffirm this negative image. Now I'm not sure this is the time and place for political comment, but totally agree with your last point...

[Tool]

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...

It does seem a more logical approach to have those leading works to be licensed, but who does the judging, and by what criteria? To work, everyone, or at least the vast majority, has to have confidence in the system, and that includes clients and the public too. That confidence seems to be somewhat lacking at the moment.

[Tool]

ifa has 3000 voices and you have listened to how many?

Apologies for yet another post, but this comment really does exemplify what I, and others, have been on about. Yes I'm new to this game, but I do work in an environment populated by an itinerant workforce. Most of those I've spoken to have been about, working around the country for various units, so collectively are probably closely connected to a large proportion of the commercial workforce. I've also done a bit previously on volunteer projects. So, I've seen a good cross-section of those who work in the field. The IfA may have 3000 voices, but to my knowledge that does not include most of those who are out there day in and day out getting cold, wet and covered in mud actually producing the data that those in their nice cozy studies can sift over and produce their lucrative theories. So, again, slightly patronising and sadly indicative of an attitude that sounds warning-bells about the competence of those supposedly vested in the power to further our aims. Address this issue, and yes there have been suggestions as to how this could be done, and maybe we can move on. Stick with that attitude that those that disagree do so because they don't know any better will only reinforce the divisions and hasten the fragmentation of this industry. Your choice - actually listen to what is going on out there or become a dictatorial irrelevance.

[P Prentice]

... The IfA may have 3000 voices, but to my knowledge that does not include most of those who are out there day in and day out getting cold, wet and covered in mud actually producing the data that those in their nice cozy studies can sift over and produce their lucrative theories.

actually listen to what is going on out there or become a dictatorial irrelevance.

when i said research i was of course referring to the product of our labours, the report on the work that attempts to explain the implications of what was found. it is research if done correctly. it is what archaeologists do - or at least contribute to and be recognised for that contribution. and you may well say that producing some of the data is as important - i would not disagree, but i dont think the majority of diggers at the start of their career, dreamed they would still be digging at the end - particularly those that hope to remain til retirement. most people who start drop out because they dont get enough back considering what they have to put in. this is not acceptable and should not be tolerated. but it is and it is our own fault. many in positions like mine spent 10 or 20+ years digging and know exactly what it is like - we are not another species and we worked hard to get where we wanted to be to do the work that we want to do.

your second point is decidedly ukip

[Tool]

when i said research i was of course referring to the product of our labours, the report on the work that attempts to explain the implications of what was found. it is research if done correctly. it is what archaeologists do - or at least contribute to and be recognised for that contribution. and you may well say that producing some of the data is as important - i would not disagree, but i dont think the majority of diggers at the start of their career, dreamed they would still be digging at the end - particularly those that hope to remain til retirement. most people who start drop out because they dont get enough back considering what they have to put in. this is not acceptable and should not be tolerated. but it is and it is our own fault. many in positions like mine spent 10 or 20+ years digging and know exactly what it is like - we are not another species and we worked hard to get where we wanted to be to do the work that we want to do.

your second point is decidedly ukip

By its nature, this business is always going to be bottom-heavy. It takes a lot more people to dig a site than it does to write the report on it. There is never going to be the positions where the pen is used more than the trowel to account for everyone who starts in the business.
But you do raise an interesting point. The task of the digger is often incredibly physically demanding both in terms of the work itself and the conditions in which it is done. It takes its toll. Is there a simple solution to this? Higher pay might help, but all the money in the world doesn't fix a knackered body.

So you think the concept that a body supposedly representative of an entire and diverse industry should be appealing to, and representative of, a large percentage of its employees is a bit UKIP do you? Now that is the funniest thing I've heard today! Well it would be funny if it didn't represent the very real situation where the body that is supposedly representative of an entire and diverse industry seems content to alienate a whole segment of that industry's employees. A dictatorial irrelevance seems even more apt... Me? UKIP? That's going to keep me chuckling for a good few hours!

[P Prentice]

By its nature, this business is always going to be bottom-heavy. It takes a lot more people to dig a site than it does to write the report on it. There is never going to be the positions where the pen is used more than the trowel to account for everyone who starts in the business.
But you do raise an interesting point. The task of the digger is often incredibly physically demanding both in terms of the work itself and the conditions in which it is done. It takes its toll. Is there a simple solution to this? Higher pay might help, but all the money in the world doesn't fix a knackered body.

So you think the concept that a body supposedly representative of an entire and diverse industry should be appealing to, and representative of, a large percentage of its employees is a bit UKIP do you? Now that is the funniest thing I've heard today! Well it would be funny if it didn't represent the very real situation where the body that is supposedly representative of an entire and diverse industry seems content to alienate a whole segment of that industry's employees. A dictatorial irrelevance seems even more apt... Me? UKIP? That's going to keep me chuckling for a good few hours!

a body supposedly representative of its members with a manifest commitment to the nations archaeological resource - a bit like politics - and i'm glad it made you laugh

[GnomeKing]

it is research if done correctly (this is indeed the problem)

most people who start drop out because they dont get enough back considering what they have to put in (indeed this is unacceptable)

it is our own fault (say what?!)

many in positions like mine spent 10 or 20+ years digging (how very interesting...did you 'research' harder than your once colleagues?, maybe just prepared to put up with not enough when others were not? you presumabley are "awright Jack?"))

it is our own fault (who dat?))

{blimey, some PPeople...)


ps: "i would like to ask you mister president, who voted for you?" "have you noticed this morning that greek bonds are trading 200 pionts higher than german bonds?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez-88_hIrLY
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/12/05/best-video-ever-nigel-farage-gets-ridiculed-in-eu-parliament/
it is what it is....


pps: i used to enjoy 99% of Marmite, but since finding out that 1% is Pure Turd, i have gone of it.