17th September 2012, 11:36 AM
What would interest me most is how are going to try and define what they mean by an archaeologist or archaeology. Seems to me that they wont be willing to do that especially with field archaeology terms like watching brief, evaluation and excavation and will probably fudge it with other terms like heritage worker, historic environment.
This is the central problem with the ifa in that the ifa has standards which appear to be directly concerned with field methodologies and craft but which are probably not the day to day concern of the majority of the ifas members. Even the bizzar RAO excuse of haveing a mifa director I dont see how that ever made it their responsibility for a messed up evaluation. Bit like a solidger saying that they tortured the prisioner be cause they were ordered too. That the ifa have sort to ever increase their membership base with illustrators, geophysicists and all manner of proffessions who could probably more ligitimatley define their own chartered status around standards applicable to their professions shows the ifa up for what it does not represent which is field archaeologists.
I wonder how much overlap they can have with other chartered organisations or even none chartered like museums?
It could be that in chartering the use of the word archaeologist that they dont get field archaeologist. It could be pointed out to the charterists that yes they can have "archaeologist" but they dont get "field archaeologist" and that they should remove all their standards on field archaeology which are not applicable to the ifa members. We could point out that they very publically droppped "field" from their name which would suggest that they have no use for it.
Be interesting to know if there is any mention of copyrights as well
I am still at a bit of a dissadvantage in knowing whats in this consultation. cant someone make it more public?
This is the central problem with the ifa in that the ifa has standards which appear to be directly concerned with field methodologies and craft but which are probably not the day to day concern of the majority of the ifas members. Even the bizzar RAO excuse of haveing a mifa director I dont see how that ever made it their responsibility for a messed up evaluation. Bit like a solidger saying that they tortured the prisioner be cause they were ordered too. That the ifa have sort to ever increase their membership base with illustrators, geophysicists and all manner of proffessions who could probably more ligitimatley define their own chartered status around standards applicable to their professions shows the ifa up for what it does not represent which is field archaeologists.
I wonder how much overlap they can have with other chartered organisations or even none chartered like museums?
It could be that in chartering the use of the word archaeologist that they dont get field archaeologist. It could be pointed out to the charterists that yes they can have "archaeologist" but they dont get "field archaeologist" and that they should remove all their standards on field archaeology which are not applicable to the ifa members. We could point out that they very publically droppped "field" from their name which would suggest that they have no use for it.
Be interesting to know if there is any mention of copyrights as well
I am still at a bit of a dissadvantage in knowing whats in this consultation. cant someone make it more public?
Reason: your past is my past