18th August 2010, 01:34 PM
Vulpes I apologise that I did not pick up on your example of the pharmacy industry trying to separate out a regulatory body, which I interpret as a suggestion that archaeological curation should be separate. But it seems to me that the practitioners still need only be regulated by their codes of conduct. I don’t know why the pharmasits are trying to separate-the wiki suggests that the government is trying to enforce it and governments come and go but possibly these apparent professions should never have been under the same charter which is what I suggest for field archaeologists. It makes no sense why there should be curators trying to operate under codes designed around field work. Maybe you need algao to affect some association/charter?
As for the necessity of your curatorial position as you know my argument is that curation would kick in through heritage statements as requested though PPS to accompany all planning applications and would relieve you of the necessity to make unsubstantiated adjudications. Out of interest has a curator ever been found short of the codes?
As for grumpy beast the poll has put me into the 4% against the 85% for, but it is well known that the ifa does all it can to encourage discussion on the bajr forum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Archaeologists
who writes this rubbish
As for the necessity of your curatorial position as you know my argument is that curation would kick in through heritage statements as requested though PPS to accompany all planning applications and would relieve you of the necessity to make unsubstantiated adjudications. Out of interest has a curator ever been found short of the codes?
As for grumpy beast the poll has put me into the 4% against the 85% for, but it is well known that the ifa does all it can to encourage discussion on the bajr forum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Archaeologists
Quote:[SIZE=3]There are also frequent references to the IfA on BAJR Forum,[6] where the workings of the IfA are challenged. This has often resulted in dialogue and has been beneficial in removing the image of the IfA being a "hidden organisation" from the contracting archaeologist. In recent years the IfA has done much to address these criticisms, improving its disciplinary and complaints procedures and committing significant resources to dealing with allegations of misconduct and complaints against members and Registered Organisations.It turns out that contracting archaeologists want more disiplinary and complaints procedures?
[/SIZE]
who writes this rubbish
Reason: your past is my past