29th July 2010, 01:41 PM
[SIZE=4]The ifa set up was a precursor to commercial archaeology. It was set up by the civil service for want of a better description. It imagined that there was a need for an association for independent individual field archaeologists. It produced codes and standards for people working in field archaeology. Commercial field archaeology evolved, the pseudo legalities evolved, but the introduction of the latest pps5 clearly shows up that the current standards were written for ppg16 and probably by the same people who wrote ppg. But now ?scheme of works? have for years refused to refer to watching briefs. In that time we have also had a lot of devolution and the creation of authorising authorities. The civil service have now produced something called pps5. I think it applies around here. Amazingly what difference has it made (and there in lies the trick). Its wooly fluffy and as stupid as ppg. They will change it again. Any association for field archaeologists should not be referring to national pseudo-legalities. It should have standards for a profession that are not tied to politics. Let us watch as the ifa go through its codes and standards and replaces ppg16 with pps5. It?s the type of thing the civil service wastes millions on a year doing as a result of its latest great new ideas.
We are in a down turn, ethics, standard practises, mergers may stretch this profession to new limits but the ifa is swamped by non commercials which it has no problem imaging are not effected by this down turn-must sound like bread and butter to the ifa. I would also say that it positively ignores field archaeologists. Unions are better at talking to diggers than the ifa (just).
You have to ask what aspect of being a member is so important to non commercials. The highest standards in undertaking an evaluation contract? Why are they hanging around. In what way are they a benefit to field archaeologists? This so called survey also shows that the ifa differentiates between its mifas. Yes its better to have a survey but it how far is it from being a total sham. Oh lets add 2829 to the numbers, makes it look like us is them. Thing is will the ifa produce this survey without the 2829 in it, would they break it down into mifas, non members. If they did they might show that in fact there have been no redundancies in the mifas which might make it an attractive position for a field archaeologist to take-excapt .....
[/SIZE]
We are in a down turn, ethics, standard practises, mergers may stretch this profession to new limits but the ifa is swamped by non commercials which it has no problem imaging are not effected by this down turn-must sound like bread and butter to the ifa. I would also say that it positively ignores field archaeologists. Unions are better at talking to diggers than the ifa (just).
You have to ask what aspect of being a member is so important to non commercials. The highest standards in undertaking an evaluation contract? Why are they hanging around. In what way are they a benefit to field archaeologists? This so called survey also shows that the ifa differentiates between its mifas. Yes its better to have a survey but it how far is it from being a total sham. Oh lets add 2829 to the numbers, makes it look like us is them. Thing is will the ifa produce this survey without the 2829 in it, would they break it down into mifas, non members. If they did they might show that in fact there have been no redundancies in the mifas which might make it an attractive position for a field archaeologist to take-excapt .....
[/SIZE]