13th February 2014, 08:49 PM
Lovely... Harmony and argued debate.
to GK's coherent ideas, I also agree... though this does tend towards the GErman syste, where a 3 year course in the technical aspects of excavation do not make you an archaeologist. but rather a technician - and that sticks in ma craw!
I would however be happy with An Archaeological Technician (thems that do things to the earth) Archaeological Specialists (thems that have machines that go beep or magnifying glasses) and Archaeological Managers. (thems that wear suits and gortex, but win contracts )
A scheme that rewards "good practice" rather than just punishes bad.
much to contemplate
I absolutely agree
to GK's coherent ideas, I also agree... though this does tend towards the GErman syste, where a 3 year course in the technical aspects of excavation do not make you an archaeologist. but rather a technician - and that sticks in ma craw!
I would however be happy with An Archaeological Technician (thems that do things to the earth) Archaeological Specialists (thems that have machines that go beep or magnifying glasses) and Archaeological Managers. (thems that wear suits and gortex, but win contracts )
A scheme that rewards "good practice" rather than just punishes bad.
much to contemplate
Quote:I've just been chatting to a land surveyor (someone who uses a GPS and TST properly) about their chartered institute (RICS).
£250 per year, need to be qualified to degree level, need to attend CPD regularly, to join you have to be continualy assessed for about 2 years and it is dominated by suits rather than real surveyors. He is not a member and has no problem getting work.
Compare and contrast...
Perhaps we have little to fear from the Royal Institute of Chartered Archaeologists!
I absolutely agree