9th January 2006, 11:42 AM
But EH is a quango.
Clearly the IFA is a better position to represent archaeologists than EH, which has a far wider remit - and apppears to more interested in standing buildings than archaeology. A profession cannot be represented by either a quango or government body, it must govern itself.
In what way would EH standards be more enforcable or oterwise "better" in principle than those of an institute? Standards are set by contract, or by code of conduct.
EH or any similar body cannot lay down standards governng Code of Conduct, that is, ethical and professional standards, as opposed to performance criteria: therefore you need institute codes anyway.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Clearly the IFA is a better position to represent archaeologists than EH, which has a far wider remit - and apppears to more interested in standing buildings than archaeology. A profession cannot be represented by either a quango or government body, it must govern itself.
In what way would EH standards be more enforcable or oterwise "better" in principle than those of an institute? Standards are set by contract, or by code of conduct.
EH or any similar body cannot lay down standards governng Code of Conduct, that is, ethical and professional standards, as opposed to performance criteria: therefore you need institute codes anyway.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.