Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
20th February 2014, 10:11 PM
Jack: I said remove archaeology from the planning process and transfer the staff to a statutory regulatory body....you can choose to still call them county archaeologists if you wish.
Tool; Far as I am concerned our heritage is already the property of all of us (call that the state if you will). No transfer is necessary...
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
21st February 2014, 09:39 AM
GnomeKing Wrote:I think I am with Kevin and you guys on this:
GoodJob!
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/ , also, is well worth a try, with very little to lose...
:face-approve:
It has surprised me how little response there has been from anybody except heritage professionals to the mess that our heritage is now in, cuts to local Government heritage services along with the abdication of central Government responsibility to monuments in custodianship. Spliting EH and basically dumping the responsibility for some of our most sensitive sites on to a totally new charity who despite the 80 million they have been given will never have the resources to maintain them suggests a central Government that does not give a d.... about our national heritage.
No where do I see the general out cry that followed the proposal to sell off the forests. I suppose heritage and archaeologists are not as cuddly as trees:face-crying::face-crying:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2012
21st February 2014, 11:40 AM
Trees don't smell so much.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
21st February 2014, 01:14 PM
Wax Wrote:No where do I see the general out cry that followed the proposal to sell off the forests. I suppose heritage and archaeologists are not as cuddly as trees:face-crying::face-crying:
The drawback to mostly dealing with stuff that's hidden below ground. We should follow the fracking route and cause a few earthquakes or something to get noticed
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
21st February 2014, 02:01 PM
I all comes down to make yourself relevant.
When I asked recently if anyone cared about a 10th century fish bone assemblage from a site in London. I provided the answer. nobody apart from the person who dug it, the specialist who examined it and the.....ah... 2 then.
I can ( and often is) be made relevant and open and accessible ( does not always mean it will be) and we have to sell ourselves - not as sullen faced "pros" behind a fence, who are too busy to talk to the public. but as serious, approachable, providing a service, appreciated for what we do for the public.
just saying
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
21st February 2014, 05:01 PM
Trouble is we have run out of time, I have spent years trying to make archaeology relevant to the public and in the part of the country I work in so have many others. Some battles have been won but all too many have been lost and the creeping erosion of our heritage services is now undoing all the good work. By the time the public wake up to what is going on we will have lost an awful lot that could/should have been saved. To me this is a far more important issue than the ins and outs of what the IFA has or has not done for archaeologists or whether a charted organisation is a good or bad thing (I have given up caring)
What do archaeologists matter if the Government of the day and the general public don't give a ....... .... about heritage?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
22nd February 2014, 05:36 PM
A closed shop may well be the end result of this chartered business, after all, the IfA seem only to really want the major players to join their exclusive members club and pretend archaeologists with an NVQ and six months experience!
I'd happily become chartered if the IfA allowed me to, but with over twenty years experience in the field, the ability to run/write up large projects, adequate up to date training, glowing references and the ability to run my own fairly successful archaeological practice dealing with archaeology/planning issues on a dayly basis means that the IfA believe I can only achieve PIFA level and certainly not anything higher, so you see, they will never allow me to put my company in as an RO, let alone chartered.
My business loses many contracts each year as some clients are currently under the illusion that if you are not in the IfA club then you are neither trained or qualified, once the whole chartered things becomes a reality then planning archaeologists will be telling developers they must use a chartered company, after all they already tell them they should use RO's, the end result could mean more out of work archaeologists and the smaller non RO companies closing down? There's nothing on the IfA website about that scenario is there?
So, maybe some of you out there, the ones who have been in the business for a very short amount of time and who don't really on this profession to pay their mortgages etc and who think it's 'a jolly wheeze' being an archaeologist shouldn't be so quick to bang on about how marvelous the dear old IfA Club is.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
22nd February 2014, 10:32 PM
I don't want to see any archaeologists lose their job, but archaeology is a relatively small market and there seems to be an over supply of contractors and individuals vying for work. That would be the case whether there was an IfA, a chartered IfA or no IfA. Its not possible unless there is a franchise or geographical monopoly for any contractor, big or small to guarantee a share of the market. Should we deny sponsors the right to choose? Should we deny curators the right to insist upon quality control? All I know is, and I have said it several time in this thread, the IfA can neither engineer nor promote a closed shop....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
23rd February 2014, 12:45 AM
Sadly they can't guarantee quality control, but can inhibit the legitimate business of individuals. Archaeology isn't a licensed occupation, so shouldn't be engineering a situation where non-members are, by default, barred from conducting their business. Well, that's one view, anyway...
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
23rd February 2014, 02:08 AM
Tool Wrote:Sadly they can't guarantee quality control, but can inhibit the legitimate business of individuals. Archaeology isn't a licensed occupation, so shouldn't be engineering a situation where non-members are, by default, barred from conducting their business. Well, that's one view, anyway...
Are you suggesting that curators are trying to create a closed shop? I don't think that is is allowed...but they are allowed to ask for proof of qualification and competence. It has nothing to do with the IfA. Local authorities curators can ask for proof of qualification and competence from any contractor.....and why shouldn't they. Who has anything to hide?
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
