17th March 2011, 01:55 PM
To me, archaeology (in its broadest sense) has been begging for a long time for an umbrella organisation that acts simply to offer a focus and reference point for all of the groups in the discipline, formulate a united agenda which covers the requirements at the time and represents the entire archaeology community. Is this what Andy Brockman is suggesting?
Andy and David's battlefield analogies seem to be exactly what has happened for so long - petty and depressing as that is. Would all of those various groups devolve a small amount of what they believe to be their responsibility (and act with a little humility) to enable an umbrella group to be formed, with its only bias and focus being the health of the discipline?
Us 'pros' can hide in the commercial world and keep our heads down under the guise of professionalism and chartership as the anonymous email would suggest but this seems to me to weaken the cause and isolate ourselves from our true value to society and can only end in developers and anyone else who's own agenda we may conflict with successfully targetting us - and it isn't just commercial archaeology that suffers as a result of that.
The answer to one of David's initial questions, 'who can we ally ourselves to?', surely begins with OURSELVES. From that we can establish who we are and where our value lies. Different organisations represent different areas and this shouldn't change (CBA = community and amateur arch; IfA = professional/commercial arch; Unions = workers in the commercial field etc - they all work best when they concentrate on their core aims and areas, whatever the argument is over what those may be). However, there is nothing to stop these organisations working together on a united agenda - their agendas don't necessarily conflict - it just requires the diplomacy and the support of their 'constituents' to move that forward.
I'll participate and offer whatever I can.
Andy and David's battlefield analogies seem to be exactly what has happened for so long - petty and depressing as that is. Would all of those various groups devolve a small amount of what they believe to be their responsibility (and act with a little humility) to enable an umbrella group to be formed, with its only bias and focus being the health of the discipline?
Us 'pros' can hide in the commercial world and keep our heads down under the guise of professionalism and chartership as the anonymous email would suggest but this seems to me to weaken the cause and isolate ourselves from our true value to society and can only end in developers and anyone else who's own agenda we may conflict with successfully targetting us - and it isn't just commercial archaeology that suffers as a result of that.
The answer to one of David's initial questions, 'who can we ally ourselves to?', surely begins with OURSELVES. From that we can establish who we are and where our value lies. Different organisations represent different areas and this shouldn't change (CBA = community and amateur arch; IfA = professional/commercial arch; Unions = workers in the commercial field etc - they all work best when they concentrate on their core aims and areas, whatever the argument is over what those may be). However, there is nothing to stop these organisations working together on a united agenda - their agendas don't necessarily conflict - it just requires the diplomacy and the support of their 'constituents' to move that forward.
I'll participate and offer whatever I can.