This does all give me a slightly uneasy feeling, although use of the terms 'betrayal' is a bit unhelpful and potentially inflammatory.
Having tried to read through the document but not really having enough time (I wish I had the sort of time that those drawing up clearly do but I'll come back to that) it seems like a bit of a 'Neville Chamberlain' moment. An attempt to appease before desolation is rained down upon us.
What I can't understand about it is the need to make some of the more radical and 'progressive' (really!) suggestions. Instead of building on and improving what already exists it's all about making philosophical changes, many of which I wasn't aware were current thinking (but I am obviously not keeping up). I'm not entirely sure who these proposals are intended to help - is the group of people putting them together really that representative of the bulk of people working in archaeology? The vast majority of those are surely working in development control work, what we hilariously call 'commercial' and yet there seems little acknowledgement of that, rather a lot of theory about the nature of what we do. It also seems to have a lot of unqualified statements and what might be described as assumptions - the references seem to give up after the first few pages.
I assume this is to protect 'the archaeology' - ah, for the sake of 'the archaeology', a common topic on this forum, but one that seems to miss the point that 'the archaeology' is nothing without archaeologists, and right now we have probably one of the biggest, most skilled, and best resourced groups of archaeologists in the world, which is surely the best thing for 'the archaeology'. The archaeologists need to be protected and valued in order to get the best out of 'the archaeology'. Extreme examples perhaps but change the word archaeology to healthcare, or security - presumably in order for those things to be provided well we would want practitioners that are adequately recompensed, trained etc.
Part of the problem, I feel, is trying to present a united front on behalf of all archaeology, when what we do is in many cases very different. We could be building on what has gone on over the last 20 years, instead of remodelling it. However, it is up for consultation so I will try and read it properly and get back to them, as I recommend every does.
Perhaps it is time for a separate organisation, a union or whatever, to represent the bulk of people working in archaeology today, who pay their taxes, carry out their job to the best of their ability, and do not deserve to loose their jobs.
Having tried to read through the document but not really having enough time (I wish I had the sort of time that those drawing up clearly do but I'll come back to that) it seems like a bit of a 'Neville Chamberlain' moment. An attempt to appease before desolation is rained down upon us.
What I can't understand about it is the need to make some of the more radical and 'progressive' (really!) suggestions. Instead of building on and improving what already exists it's all about making philosophical changes, many of which I wasn't aware were current thinking (but I am obviously not keeping up). I'm not entirely sure who these proposals are intended to help - is the group of people putting them together really that representative of the bulk of people working in archaeology? The vast majority of those are surely working in development control work, what we hilariously call 'commercial' and yet there seems little acknowledgement of that, rather a lot of theory about the nature of what we do. It also seems to have a lot of unqualified statements and what might be described as assumptions - the references seem to give up after the first few pages.
I assume this is to protect 'the archaeology' - ah, for the sake of 'the archaeology', a common topic on this forum, but one that seems to miss the point that 'the archaeology' is nothing without archaeologists, and right now we have probably one of the biggest, most skilled, and best resourced groups of archaeologists in the world, which is surely the best thing for 'the archaeology'. The archaeologists need to be protected and valued in order to get the best out of 'the archaeology'. Extreme examples perhaps but change the word archaeology to healthcare, or security - presumably in order for those things to be provided well we would want practitioners that are adequately recompensed, trained etc.
Part of the problem, I feel, is trying to present a united front on behalf of all archaeology, when what we do is in many cases very different. We could be building on what has gone on over the last 20 years, instead of remodelling it. However, it is up for consultation so I will try and read it properly and get back to them, as I recommend every does.
Perhaps it is time for a separate organisation, a union or whatever, to represent the bulk of people working in archaeology today, who pay their taxes, carry out their job to the best of their ability, and do not deserve to loose their jobs.