9th February 2005, 03:54 PM
Nice to see you back David. I agree that it would have been good for the IFA to address this issue, but they havent. I think that they are now seriously beginning to hamper change by inaction. Another reason that the IFA should not be the licensing authority is a potential conflict of interests i.e. how could they explain a MIFA or AIFA not getting a licence?
Licensing should apply to all archaeologists, it would rationalize a clear career progression from Site Assitant (i.e. provisional,earning your stage 1 licence)to supervisor (stage 2) to director and/or specialisms(licensed to excvate human remains, maritime archaeology etc)to Regional Archaeologists (licence would show you have the correct specilasims to curate the particular historic environment you are responsible for) That way at least when you are starting out and putting up all that being a digger entails you would be building something for the future, something worth having.
Licensing should apply to all archaeologists, it would rationalize a clear career progression from Site Assitant (i.e. provisional,earning your stage 1 licence)to supervisor (stage 2) to director and/or specialisms(licensed to excvate human remains, maritime archaeology etc)to Regional Archaeologists (licence would show you have the correct specilasims to curate the particular historic environment you are responsible for) That way at least when you are starting out and putting up all that being a digger entails you would be building something for the future, something worth having.