27th February 2012, 02:41 PM
gwyl Wrote:i don't care who provides standards for curators - just as in principle i don't care who provides standards for ALL archaeologists, commercial, academic or amateur. but standards are a must, now. i've dealt with legacy sites and dead archives and it is apparent that the level of quality of work is constantly subject to external constraints, be it skills or funding or interest in the site.
if the IfA want to do it, in the absence of EH or some other state body, so be it. (Personally a national licence for all practioners is my preference). I agree that the proposal as it stands needs work. how many people writing about how bad it is actually commented during the consultation period?
what i have a problem with is a free for all approach. sites don't get written up,. people carry out unnecessary work, people fail to carry out necessary work. furthermore, curators across the country have a variety of approaches which are sometimes inconsistent and are occasionally frustrating for their high-handeedness, other times extremely effective and forethoughtful. best practice needs transparency and agreed common standards. we all know of sites that have been bollixed by poor curator handling, poor excavation, or poor writing up. and as for the shnky archives that are depsoited by some within the profession...
course, the best way for the IfA not to represent you is to stand apart and wave a fist shouting you don't and you'll never represent me; clearly the Groucho Marx approach has its supporters, but i can't quite see the point of tarring everyone who gets involved with the brush of co-option. it's a bit like calling everyone in a union a communist. lots of people getting involved and figthing might however have a positive outcome for the majority, which are the least well-paid.
but to return to the point in case, the way things are at the moment, without common standards, the quality of archaeology at a county level is not the same. some places have implemented HLCs etc. others don't see the point, but this shows up when carrying out DBAs or other work which sits on county borders. equally monitoring can be a phone call or can be almost a job interview; this is a system like so much in this country open to abuse, which everyone subsequently turns round open-mouthed and gasps 'how could this happen so, in such a world-class economy?'
(and i don't believe in only ROs working in the profession either, just in case someone out there thinks i do... the licence system should be tied the individual and their ability to complete projects to an appropriate standard)
@Unit: the TCPA only applies in the UK, i think you'll find. As you raised the idea of people coming into the UK to carry out archaeology, i thought i'd just point out that elsewhere in Europe an HER type system is in operation. and some form of monitoring is built into the process of archaeological works. I think most foreign archaeologists would be up to speed on the concept. the UK is not a special case. i'm afraid that you'll need to rephrase some of your other comments as i can't understand you.
good post - glad you are back
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers