Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
16th February 2005, 11:44 AM
I began by looking at this site as well Register of Professional Archaeologists. If anyone has a momnet ... it may be worth contacting them and seeing how they fare in the USofA with this scheme. It would be good to contact all teh Curators, the IFA, the CBA and REscue with a complete and fully worked out system... then see is the Contractors would agree as well. After all... if they say no... then thats it scuppered!
anyhoooooo... heres the link
http://www.rpanet.org/
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
16th February 2005, 01:49 PM
Unless it's made statutory, in which case they'd have no choice. If it isn't, then it's back to square one anyway.
No doubt legislation will swiftly follow, as of course this government places such a high value on heritage, as no doubt will its successor, of whatever flavour.}
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
16th February 2005, 03:02 PM
Dont know about that American website David, all a bit Stargate.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
16th February 2005, 11:01 PM
Bit Stargate... but like the style...
No nonsence SciFi approach to graphics...
What about Indiana Jones and the Institute of Archaeologists
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
17th February 2005, 11:41 AM
I've just heard about a certain County Archaeologist that gave a very interesting talk about some henges last weekend. Apparently he spent more time explaining why the camopaign against the adjacent quarry was fundamentally flawed and filled with idiots, he ridiculed those that had signed the petition against the quarry and explained that there was very little archaeology where the quarry was planned.
This was in advance of him receiving the Archaeological Evaluation and prior to the council determining the application.
A fellow member of the Heritage Unit was spotted at the end of last year giving out leaflets on behalf of the developer.
Does this not show prejudice? I take it this sort of thing happens all the time.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
17th February 2005, 03:15 PM
An interesting quote from the new Digger letters from Evelyn Baker: "If 'curators' and clients insisted on RAO or MIFA status or proven equivalent for site directors"
ok.
no.1 as a "curator" I do not believe I can legally insist that any contractor is a member of a voluntary organization.
no.2 why just Directors? Why not Diggers?
no.3I would not insist that anyone should join the IFA until such time as the IFA represents all archaeologists, (see 2)
Also:"We are encouraging more participation from archaeological planning officers who have a crucial role - they write the briefs, inspect sites and sign them off. This should deal with non-IFA cowboys - the minority who undercut by cutting corners."
The IFA are going to encourage me to participate, which will deal with the problem. What the hell does that mean? Are they going to encourage me to do my job? I already do my job.I have to. ITS MY JOB.
So to sum up: the IFA do a lot of secret work(but dont like to talk about it)If important people were MIFA it would be ok. Its not the IFA's fault anyway because its the Curators responsibilty, or no, actually its the Diggers who let the side down -you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I am a little bit annoyed.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th February 2005, 03:47 PM
Spot on Alfie.... We do our job... (though from Toms post... some curators try harder than others !!
) and then we get told that we should do our job... because if we are not doing our job, then we should be doing our job... apart from that... just get on with it... and do our job..
well thats us told!
:face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
17th February 2005, 04:49 PM
Alfie
1.No you can't (and obviously wouldn't if you could). So the sooner there is a body or organization with whom units and/or individuals are required to be registered, the better. Put another way, a licensing system.... Whether this is a new improved IFA, the CBA, the BBC, the CIA, Baldric with a laptop or whoever, is irrelevant in principle, but there needs to be someone, independent and with teeth and/or a big stick (and carrots).
However. the important phrase in the letter is "or proven equivalent". Thus the MIFA status is only used as a reference for standards, there is no requirement for membership. Presumably only the director is specified as he/she is deemed to be responsible for the site and thus for ensuring that personnel are appropriate.
2. Not all diggers can be MIFA's or equal! Frankly I'd like to see the mythical Professional Body insist that a proportion of diggers are sub-PIFA level, i.e. paid trainees, thus creating a entry level career path. But as 1. above, the idea is surley to require that an appropriate level of expertise is provided in any given situation.
3. IFA can only represent its members. Thus there is a vicious circle, almost a Catch 22.
We've discussed the curatorial role many times. Good to hear that you are doing your job but it seems from this forum that many aren't, or more accurately probably can't due to under-resourcing. But the IFA person is basically correct is stating that it's the curators who have to monitor and enforce in the first instance as they are part of the planning process setting the conditions. I don't think they intended any criticism of you (curators).
However, I now understand the IFA tactics. By ensuring that digers wages are kept low, they ensure that diggers cannot afford to moan in pubs and therefore have to submit photographic and documentary evidence of rogue units to the IFA.
You see, they are on the case after all, it's just more subtle than we thought!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
17th February 2005, 05:43 PM
I take your points invisible man. I have calmed down now, unfortunately I read the letter after I had a 6ft 4 developer screaming in my face this morning( I gave as good as I got as I eyed him in the nipple).In my opinion it comes down to:
I cant enforce a voluntary code of practice because I have to explain the differance between good archaeological practice and bad archaeological practice to planning officers, enforcement officers, planning commitees and ultimately magistrates.The difference between a report with no context register, absurd section drawings, and matrices which are impossible is something only an archaeologist will understand.Some bad archaeologists are very convincing. Hopefully it doesnt get to that stage because as I said before I use all the powers at my disposal to cajol, persuade and sometimes intimidate to get the results we need.
I can enforce a legal licence which is administered by archaeologists, I believe it will happen and it will be good for us all.
I shall go and moan in a wine bar tonight (curators wages)and pretend that I too am something in the City.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
17th February 2005, 07:46 PM
Evelyn Baker...mmm...I seem to remember that PPG16 says somewhere that the IFA is the professional Institute and is responsible for maintaining standards. What an extraordinary display of arrogance and a superb example of just how far removed from reality the IFA are/were. Oh, I feel that I have to thank David Bonner for explaining how things are! Wow.Was that an apology or an excuse? Was`nt much cop was it? I`m still happily working with a firm that does what it says on the tin- there`s still hope!
