Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[deadlylampshade]

"P17

9.7 Advisors are responsible for ensuring that the archives of development-led archaeological investigations are deposited in a suitable repository. They should seek to ensure that, prior to the commencement of investigations, applicants or their agents establish contact with repositories willing to accept archaeological archives, or alternatively identify appropriate temporary storage."

Glossary says :
Advisor
An individual or organisation providing archaeological advice and information on the undesignated built, buried, intertidal and submerged historic environment employed or contracted to a local authority, national heritage body, charitable trust, national park, other public body or private sector business.

So...do we have definitions of 'suitable repository'? Seems not. Is the Advisor the consultant archaeologist or the archaeological contractor awarded the contract?

And

"applicants or their agents establish contact with repositories willing to accept archaeological archives, or alternatively identify appropriate temporary storage"

...no definition of appropriate temporary storage.

And who is the applicant or their agent? Do they take the Advisor's advice on this? How hard to they try to find a repository willing to accept the archive> WHo decides how hard they have tried? Or do they order thier own skip??? :face-stir:

There's an awful lot going on in this document isn't there?:0

[kevin wooldridge]

It seems to me that an interim vote at a specially convened EGM in April doesn't leave much time for discussion debate or consultation. Particularly if an indeterminate term from the Southport report of 2 years ago ('EU equivalants') hasn't been corrected by now, there seems little likelihood of it being changed in the next 2 months.

Don't get me wrong I don't disagree with the principal, I just can't see that the IfA is doing itself any favours by adopting a policy that is so 'loose', when for this thing to work it really needs to answer questions rather than raise them!! I guess I am going to have to go to Oxford for the day!!

[RedEarth]

• We can all agree that the archaeology is the most important thing? OR is it the making of an international corporation?
  .

It might sound like heresy but I don't necessarily agree with this - the archaeology is only made into anything by the skills understand hard work etc of the archaeologists who find, explore, record and explain it. Without them it is essentially nothing. So, no, the archaeologists need to be seen as the most important thing, hence dealing with the poor employment conditions and pay, excuses, bad decision making and basically exploitation that mean that make it inevitable that bad practice will result. Continue the mantra of 'the archaeology is the most important thing' but that will only increase the pressure on those trying to do a good job (which I would assume is more or less everyone) because once one person or organisation starts to cut corners (without necessarily cutting standards) everyone is essentially forced to. Any discussion about standards needs to acknowledge that it will basically mean nothing until employment standards are generally increased at the same time, although it is a bit of a Catch 22 situation. Why should anyone be forced to martyr themselves to standards while being forced to worry about whether they will still have a contract after Christmas or whether that receipt for fuel is going to be reimbursed, or whether the site will have a cabin this time etc etc. We will all be held hostage over archaeological standards while our ability to treat each other as professionals continues to diminish.

[Martin Locock]

re the EU equivalents: the Irish Archaeological Institute is closely parallel to IfA and has personal and institutional membership. http://iai.ie/

[Sith]

Is the Advisor the consultant archaeologist or the archaeological contractor awarded the contract?

Poor though it is, I think their definition is anticipating Localism or its effects: that the person 'advising' a local planning authority could be drawn from any one of those groups.

[BAJR]

Could we now break this down into areas where we have comment and/or concern.

European Equivalent - Needs definition. (thank you for the IAI mention - whats left of it).

Advisor - Again, definition. what seems to be the main concern through this consultation is the lack of solid definition.

You have to be absolutely clear, as although Guidance, this document is also trying to be proscriptive. You WILL be an RO or you WILL NOT work. is the general tenor. and add to that, the 'advisor' will also have to be an RO... and if you are a local society, you will have to be an RO. Have I missed anyone?

This then goes beyond guidance and becomes statutory (albeit a steel fist in a velvet glove) I forone have no issue with regulation - but I must ask the Curatorial people out there... I thought you were doing that already? And the other question is --- where is the problem at the moment? Is there an increasing problem with unregulated non-IfA companies producing sub-standard work and then laughing in the face of authority, as nobody can stop them?

This is fundamental... if there is a problem, I have not seen it.

[Wax]

where is the problem at the moment? Is there an increasing problem with unregulated non-IfA companies producing sub-standard work and then laughing in the face of authority, as nobody can stop them?

This is fundamental... if there is a problem, I have not seen it.

This is the key question, from what I have seen the "problem" is with companies, RAO s included who are cutting corners with the archaeology and with the employment conditions of their staff to get a commercial edge over their rivals. I would go as far as saying that staff are suffering rather than the archaeology. I am not sure what forcing people down the route of RAO would do as in the commercial sector remaining financially viable is key and despite everyone's good intentions will dominate how companies are run. I am not against regulation but it needs policing and I am not sure how this can be done when Local Government Archaeology Services are in crisis.

Addressing this crisis is a far more important issue.

[Marcus Brody]

Is there an increasing problem with unregulated non-IfA companies producing sub-standard work and then laughing in the face of authority, as nobody can stop them?

I was under the impression that this document was mainly designed to provide standards and guidance for people providing curatorial advice to Councils in terms of what they should be doing, and that the idea was that it could act as a stick to beat Councils who get rid of their archaeologist but say that this is OK because their conservation officer or planning technician will be providing advice on archaeology - by having standards and guidance for what a HER service should be doing, there's something to point to when making the case that having a conservation officer or planner attempt to fill this role is not acceptable.

I'd obviously disagree with the various statements quoted that would appear to suggest that curatorial bodies should only accept work done by ROs, and I'm not really sure why these have been included, other than that the IfA possibly believes that repeating their opinion often enough will eventually bludgeon people into accepting it, but I think that these are incidental to the main thrust and purpose of the document. If we want some form of curatorial framework to survive in a time when all Councils are trying to make cuts, I'd suggest that this document represents a good opportunity to set out what we'd want them to be doing.

[moreno]

One example of a European equivalent: http://www.e-a-a.org/

Regarding the guidance, I'm not opposed to regulation and would indeed support it but I would question the value of restricting work to RAO i.e. IFA members only.

[kevin wooldridge]

One example of a European equivalent: http://www.e-a-a.org/

I did think of EAA, but I'm not sure that EAA membership can be considered equivalent to IfA membership, especially where quality and qualification might be areas concerning HER archaeological advisors. EAA membership is not subject to validation. Anyone can join irrespective of experience, qualification or expertise. Infact if you attend the EAA conference, annual membership is included as part of your entrance fee.

The Irish Institute of Archaeologists is more rigorous in its membership qualifications, expecting members to have a degree and experience and I would accept that they perhaps could be considered comparable to the IfA.

The EAA and Irish Institute are currently the only EU 'professional' organisations listed on the IfA website and it maybe that the IfA 'EU equivalency' test is defined by these two bodies. I note that the term 'EU equivalent' doesn't occur in the original Southport report (recomm 24) and wonder if the IfAs legal advisors have recommended its inclusion to cover possible challenge under EU legislation. This might suggest the legal grounds for 'excluding' non-IfA members isn't as sound as otherwise suggested.