28th September 2008, 08:37 PM
Having already posted on this I'm not sure I can be arsed to go over it all again... however, what struck me is that the situation at present is a bit unbalanced because of the varying ways in which organisations are, erm, organised, and it is difficult to compare one with another.
Certainly some charitable archaeological organisations seem almost wholly commercial in outlook and emphasis, and the comparison with other charities doesn't seem to make sense. I don't think for example that anyone has much doubt what Oxfam does and what its shops are for but I'm not sure many people outside of charitable archaeological organisations (or even inside) could exaplain the difference between what they do and what an entirely commercial archaeological company does. Also, I can't imagine charity shops taking over other shops (charity or otherwise). The difference could also perhaps be summed up like this - if Oxfam, for example, spent 90% of its time generating income, the majority of which was used paying the people who made that income, and then gave thruppence ha'penny to poor starving people, they wouldn't be very good as a charity. What's the difference between a not for profit archaeological company (although most could probably have that added to the front of their names!) and a charity that doesn't make any surplus?
The over all point is that no-one really has the time or understanding to sit down and work out how all these things, erm, work... perhaps the IFA could do it instead of profiling the profession.
Certainly some charitable archaeological organisations seem almost wholly commercial in outlook and emphasis, and the comparison with other charities doesn't seem to make sense. I don't think for example that anyone has much doubt what Oxfam does and what its shops are for but I'm not sure many people outside of charitable archaeological organisations (or even inside) could exaplain the difference between what they do and what an entirely commercial archaeological company does. Also, I can't imagine charity shops taking over other shops (charity or otherwise). The difference could also perhaps be summed up like this - if Oxfam, for example, spent 90% of its time generating income, the majority of which was used paying the people who made that income, and then gave thruppence ha'penny to poor starving people, they wouldn't be very good as a charity. What's the difference between a not for profit archaeological company (although most could probably have that added to the front of their names!) and a charity that doesn't make any surplus?
The over all point is that no-one really has the time or understanding to sit down and work out how all these things, erm, work... perhaps the IFA could do it instead of profiling the profession.