IfA to be abolished and replaced by......

[kevin wooldridge]

Sorry, I can feel a rant coming on. Tried to resist, but... This whole IfA debate seems to revolve around whether they are actually representative of archaeology in this country. It is demonstrable that they are not, both from numerous comments in here and the fact that I haven't met a single field archaeologist that would willingly be a member.

Apologies in advance. There are several mistakes in your post that I will try and correct. Just for a matter of accuracy. Otherwise Tool I am perfectly happy that you have an opinion.

There has been some previous discussion as to what percentage of UK archaeology is represented by the IfA. There are slightly over 3000 members. At the height of the last boom the number of archaeologists in the UK did not exceed 6000 persons. So whatever way you like it the IFA is/was representative of at least 50% of archaeologists, in reality (as I suspect the number of UK archaeologists is much less than 6000) it probably represents a majority of archaeologists. Secondly irrespective of individual membership, an even larger majority of archaeologists are subscribed to the aims of the IfA through their employer being an RAO. Staying on the outside of that is a possible option, but it is rather like Norway and the EU...having to obey the rules without having any part of the decision making process that sets the boundaries. Thirdly the drop-off in membership of the IfA after the last downturn was much less than the drop-off in the overall number of archaeologists employed. That suggests to me that whilst archaeologists may have reservations about the effectiveness of the IfA, that doesn't extend to giving up on its aims completely.

As to the BNP analogy. That is not correct and you choose extremism to perhaps be provocative. My argument with engaging with the IfA has nothing to do with the colour of your politics, but is concerned with being involved in the democratic process. I have never seen a serious proposal that strengthens the case for disengagement from the democratic process being a better option than allowing all who wish to have a voice being allowed to express that voice. So being involved with the IfA demonstrates a conviction to widening the voice of the whole profession and giving its exponents opportunity to set and decide policy. Not being involved is a choice but its not a choice that allows participation in the process. You might have an opinion as to how effective the generally conservative opinion of the majority of UK archaeologists is, but you can't argue that they should be refused a voice. As a fairly committed lefty I too would prefer the IfA to follow a much more radical line, but in the 28 years I have been a member of the IfA, I have never seen a point where the MAJORITY of the profession wish to follow that agenda. So I respect their decision and don't condemn them just for being involved in the process. If more of the 'critics' joined the reform agenda might take on a new impettus.

I will say again. There is no possibility that UK archaeology will become a closed shop as a result of the IfA becoming Chartered. Speculation to that end has no basis in fact. Whether sponsors or curators of archaeology decide (for quality control and insurance purposes) that they only want to use Chartered members is another matter.....