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

[P Prentice]

Thanks, really thought provoking.



I don't see why it is unhelpful. Plenty of local societies run community projects. Amongst them are some very experienced amateur archaeologists whose skills and experience (both in the field and reporting) far outweigh those of some MIfA's I have met. I might even take this one step further and (controversially) argue that this could also be applied to some of the experienced metal-detectorists out there. Might not allowing reputable metal-detectorists into the IfA help build bridges between the two communities?



How many companies offer training in report writing to first time report writers?

An archaeologist, keen and eager and wanting a career in the job they love, is given the opportunity to write a report. That report takes longer than the tight budgetary constraints allow. It requires a great deal of editing. Tut, tut, tut say the managers not good enough. Tut, tut, tut, say the curators and consultants, not good enough. No more opportunities for that budding report writer and so they remain a digger and unable to reach that elusive CIfA benchmark. As with fieldwork, report writing improves with experience.



I would apply this statement equally to archaeological consultants.

Partly I believe this happens because, when looking to appoint, Local Authorities and consultancies sometimes tend to see BA or MA after someones name and think that these are meaningful indicators that the person being considered for the post is a good archaeologist, even if they have only limited fieldwork experience. Maybe that university essay they brought along as proof of their written skills clinched it. Why did that candidate with 10 years experience in the field not supply some wriiten evidence. Most archaeology degrees are Bachelor of Arts yet the majority of the skills required in the field are practical and technical with some physical thrown in. To me it seems that this dichotomy is central to the problem. The CIfA seems to recognise academic achievement above all else yet for many archaeologists they spend their time learning and improving a different skill set.



We are in agreement on this.



Apologies, my experience in archaeology is a bit more wide ranging than just fieldwork. A little bit of artistic license was applied (at the present time at least) but I am sure that this working day is not far from the truth for many diggers, supervisors and Project Officers.



I think that undercutting in archaeology is a much more complex issue than just RAO vs Non RAO. Undercutting comes in many forms, many are subtle. For instance the definition of a workplace. I would be interested to know how your employer defines your place of work and then ask why some RAO's seem to interpret the definition of 'place of work' differently for diggers.

i dont disagree that amateurs often have superior skills to professionals but they often dont have a clue either - which currenty is no bar to mifa. i also think that you dont have to be a good archaeologist to be a good project manager by the way.
i would see cifa as a person one could confidently approach for advice regarding the whole range of archaeological interest, be that standing up in court to excavating a deeply stratified site, publishing such a site, knowing if a site has been dug properly and having the wherewithal to do something about it when it is not. so i dont think it matters what your job title is or what your qualifications are because we all know they dont mean diddly squat when it comes down to being a good archaeologist. if the vested interests get there way, which they will unless enough who care stand up for themselves, cifa will be as useless as mifa