CBA Community Archaeology Report

[Unitof1]

I tried reading the report, this sentance made me laugh,

The concept of ?community archaeology? is not new (and see Liddle, in prep., for discussion of its development in Leicestershire in the 1970s).

I noticed that the report was put together by somebody called the CASO and presume that is the Dr http://www.britarch.ac.uk/caf/wikka.php?wakka=CommunityArchaeologySupportOfficer acknowledged on the front cover?.and funded by the Headly Trust. The trail starts here??.follow the money got this far before getting vertigo http://www.sfct.org.uk/headley.html. So the report is not by the CBA its by a trust which has its own agendas?some of which appear to have specific religious bias and amongst others.

[SIZE=3]But is it fair, as commercial archaeology has to do as presently organised, that a unit, say Oxford, digs a site in, say, Dorset and then buggers off taking all the information and finds with them. I know that they did some community liaison, but once again local people did not have a chance to connect with their past, as located in their area.Whats in a a name and community archaeology.
[/SIZE]

Somewhere at the back of the cave there is OXFORD ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED

But like the trade names of the ifa it was and is

OXFORDARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT LIMITED (Old Name )
OXFORD ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT LIMITED (Old Name )
OXFORD ARCHAEOLOGY (Working Name )
OXFORD ARCHAEOLOGY NORTH (Working Name )

And its charitable objectives are

TO ADVANCE EDUCATION IN THE SUBJECT OF ARCHAEOLOGY FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD

They dropped the original benefit to oxford bit about two years ago I think and went global to cover all bases like dorset (although the said unit hangs out in the oxford county council pension fund-I honestly don?t want to say that again). Not sure who it pays rent to.

The unit I imagine, with the full backing of the ifa, they have the ROA bits covered, would say they have the community of Dorset covered and that you need not worry yourself.

[SIZE=3]That is why, Unitof1, CAs need to be watched over and abide by a code of practice that is tailored to their work and needs, as are RAOs. Units employ IfA members because it is supposed to guarantee a certain standard of work/experience in the employee as defined by the IfA, so why not CAs too?
[/SIZE]

Possibly Comarch you might come to find that the exploitation of the ifa has you stitched up as much any field archaeologist by higher established authorities and probably half your battle is a similar one to archaeological field workers: that the ifa is really designed for organisations mostly which already have governmental/civil service subsidy or statutory authority. Basically comarch your are competing with the CBA, the charity units, all the established quangos and trusts, the academics for a little piece of the archaeology action??.based on the concept of archaeological field skills.