26th September 2007, 02:25 PM
Hmmm... Not sure why we need a 'Pan-European' standard. Not to mention the difficulties in producing such a document - harmonising archaeological practice in the 27 EU and umpteen other states that make up the continent. I would expect such a document either to be pretty vague or too prescriptive - and really why? Why not a Pan-Global standard??[?]
Still the Dutch paper is interesting - haven't skimmed it all yet - but I would suggest that it has a lot in common with the S & Gs produced by the IFA. Certainly they are not unaware of it and it is the IFA that we have to thank for playing a large part in producing the English translation. That said we have a lot to learn from across the North Sea - not least on preservation in situ.
Would suggest that the recent work of the IFA on the NVQ in Arch Practice fills the gap here.
Otherwise, I find the bit about job titles interesting and would suggest that perhaps the model of Archaeologists, specialist, technicians and the levels of qulifications and experience set out here makes a lot of sense.
Vive la Différence!
Still the Dutch paper is interesting - haven't skimmed it all yet - but I would suggest that it has a lot in common with the S & Gs produced by the IFA. Certainly they are not unaware of it and it is the IFA that we have to thank for playing a large part in producing the English translation. That said we have a lot to learn from across the North Sea - not least on preservation in situ.
Would suggest that the recent work of the IFA on the NVQ in Arch Practice fills the gap here.
Otherwise, I find the bit about job titles interesting and would suggest that perhaps the model of Archaeologists, specialist, technicians and the levels of qulifications and experience set out here makes a lot of sense.
Vive la Différence!