23rd September 2009, 03:19 PM
I shall do my best...
The idea of an International IfA was suggested as a means by which professional institutes in different countries could agree to certain common values, ethics and standards. This DOES NOT mean that the IfA would 'take over', rather it would facilitate the setting-up of similar institutes and the cohesion of existing ones. It was acknowledged that the idea of a 'professional institute' was strongest (across all professions, not just archaeology) in countries with a high level of private-sector involvement. So, we already have strong professional bodies in Ireland, the Netherlands etc., but the idea is weakest in those countries where archaeology is state-controlled. Simply because all archaeologists are employed by the state, which sets standards, so negating the need for an Institute.
To answer your specific questions...
"whose rules do archaeologists follow?"
the rules of archaeology in their own country... but this was envisaged as a multi-tiered approach - so a high-level 'code of ethics' which we could all sign up to, below which was a common 'code of conduct' which could be adjusted to suit local circumstances.
"who is in charge?"
although an IfA initiative, this would see the establishment of a new 'international body' which would include representatives from all European (and indeed extra-European) countries who signed up. The ultimate structure would be a democratic one.
"and how would this afefct UK archaeologists?"
not sure.
"Which countries wish to be part of the Europe-wide Institute for Archaeologists. as difference in techniques, structures, methods, legislation etc.... I can foresee massive problems that will make the EU look like a walk in the park."
These were some of the issues raised in discussion. Most enthusiastic were 'emerging' countries of the former Eastern bloc who need international support for archaeology (often under considerable pressure) in their own area. Problems were forseen and it won't be easy - but that is no reason not to have a go!
"Take for example the one thing that gives an organisation bite the sanction or disciplinary - would the same rule apply across all countries? What one country sees as standard practice may not be the same in another... do they all have to conform to the highest level (and why do I get the inkling that will be the UK model)"
I think again that different levels will emerge in relation to the experiences/approaches of different countries. This question was asked during discussion: "Inevitably different standards are arrived at through negotiation, so will the UK partners accept a reduction in standards to accommodate the will of the majority of members"... the answer was essentially "yes, there will be a period of negotiation and compromise".
It is very early days! However I personally think that this is a really positive initiative which will actually take off. The benefits are potentially enormous - accreditation of archaeologists in one country ensures that they can work in another, and we all agree to common standards for excavation, analysis, reporting and archiving.
The idea of an International IfA was suggested as a means by which professional institutes in different countries could agree to certain common values, ethics and standards. This DOES NOT mean that the IfA would 'take over', rather it would facilitate the setting-up of similar institutes and the cohesion of existing ones. It was acknowledged that the idea of a 'professional institute' was strongest (across all professions, not just archaeology) in countries with a high level of private-sector involvement. So, we already have strong professional bodies in Ireland, the Netherlands etc., but the idea is weakest in those countries where archaeology is state-controlled. Simply because all archaeologists are employed by the state, which sets standards, so negating the need for an Institute.
To answer your specific questions...
"whose rules do archaeologists follow?"
the rules of archaeology in their own country... but this was envisaged as a multi-tiered approach - so a high-level 'code of ethics' which we could all sign up to, below which was a common 'code of conduct' which could be adjusted to suit local circumstances.
"who is in charge?"
although an IfA initiative, this would see the establishment of a new 'international body' which would include representatives from all European (and indeed extra-European) countries who signed up. The ultimate structure would be a democratic one.
"and how would this afefct UK archaeologists?"
not sure.
"Which countries wish to be part of the Europe-wide Institute for Archaeologists. as difference in techniques, structures, methods, legislation etc.... I can foresee massive problems that will make the EU look like a walk in the park."
These were some of the issues raised in discussion. Most enthusiastic were 'emerging' countries of the former Eastern bloc who need international support for archaeology (often under considerable pressure) in their own area. Problems were forseen and it won't be easy - but that is no reason not to have a go!
"Take for example the one thing that gives an organisation bite the sanction or disciplinary - would the same rule apply across all countries? What one country sees as standard practice may not be the same in another... do they all have to conform to the highest level (and why do I get the inkling that will be the UK model)"
I think again that different levels will emerge in relation to the experiences/approaches of different countries. This question was asked during discussion: "Inevitably different standards are arrived at through negotiation, so will the UK partners accept a reduction in standards to accommodate the will of the majority of members"... the answer was essentially "yes, there will be a period of negotiation and compromise".
It is very early days! However I personally think that this is a really positive initiative which will actually take off. The benefits are potentially enormous - accreditation of archaeologists in one country ensures that they can work in another, and we all agree to common standards for excavation, analysis, reporting and archiving.