Archaeology and the global crisis

[BAJR Host]

No discussions... just pages for people to write their story

[GnomeKing]

the problem with greater state control is that i think it likley would be implented in ways that are not the most benificial (whatever that might be...) - likey politics, self-interest and and general c**k-ups would much reduce the appeal.

i agree with troll that the "run-away train of competative destruction" needs to be adressed - i'm not sure that a top-down approach is sufficent - many small scale changes across the proffesional body also seem nessescary - new company structures and goals for example. personaly, given the 'unusual' nature of the proffesion, i don't see what would be wrong with quite radical changes, reflecting not only a better way of Being an Archaeologist, but a better way of living in the Modern world.

[BAJR Host]

run-away train of competative destruction" needs to be adressed

But how? Could you expand on thoughts about company structure that could be seen as both beneficial to the company and the client and the workforce, remembering that each have a duty to survive financially and and mutualy interdependent

[BAJR Host]

Just to send people off the the EAA with a question.. a question still to be answered.

When does talking and profiling turn to action and measurable change.

So far I see no answers to any of my previous (deliberately provocative) posts.

Will this seminar come up with solutions? Will we hear about them please?

Concepts of competence - of barriers to entry - of competitive tenders etc.. of dealing with the wider issues rather than the immediate problems.

As of today.. the recession is over... (so they say) so what archaeology do we take forward? more of the same? or one that moves forward?

Just finished reading the review of the " Invisible Diggers " by Paul Everill and like the reviewer (thanks TM) I am left feeling angry and broken promises and being ignored. Most of all I am angry at myself for letting it happen!

I have this feeling field archaeologists are one of the few to be capable of actually stabbing themselves in the back!

[paulbelford]

OK.

It was a good session, and together with the 'Professionalism in Archaeology' session highlighted a few things.

Firstly we have it very lucky in the UK compared with many other countries. Particularly in places such as Hungary and Romania where even getting archaeology included in development projects is proving extremely difficult. If you thought losing 10% of archaeological jobs was bad, then look to Ireland where there has been a 46% reduction in archaeological jobs since 2007.

Secondly ACTION is happening. The idea of a new Europe-wide Institute for Archaeologists was mooted and recieved broad agreement... enabling common standards, ethics, and parity of accreditation to enable easier movement of labour and transfer of skills and expertise to help us all.

The recession is not over, and will affect different countries differently depending on the ways in which their archaeology is set up. In many ways those of us who follow the 'Anglo-Saxon' model are more fortunate than those who have state-run structures. There are pros and cons on both sides, but I came away with a genuine feeling that something very positive will emerge in the next 12 months which will benefit all of us.

I am not going to give a precis of events, but please ask a specific question and I will try and answer how the EAA meeting discussed it, what the mood was, and what the possible outcomes might be. (I know there is frustration about how slowly things move, but I do honestly think that things are moving for the better.)

And please don't shoot the messenger!

[BAJR Host]

Certainly won't shoot the messenger (unless you provide bad news!)

And thanks for coming back with a report.

This new IfA Europe. I take it this is not the IfA controlling Europe, rather the IfA here being a part of a greater organisation. a sort of UK branch. if this is the case.. and here is my question... whose rules do archaeologists follow? who is in charge.. and how would this afefct UK archaeologists, as you say, we in the UK are perhaps 'luckier' than most. Which countries wish to be part of the Europe-wide Institute for Archaeologists. as difference in techniques, structures, methods, legislation etc....

I can foresee massive problems that will make the EU look like a walk in the park.

Take for example the one thing that gives an organisation bite the sanction or disciplinary - would the same rule apply across all countries? What one country sees as standard practice may not be the same in another... do they all have to conform to the highest level (and why do I get the inkling that will be the UK model )

i have probably used up my quota of questions.. ... so please don't feel obliged to answer em all.

thanks :face-angel:

[paulbelford]

I shall do my best...

The idea of an International IfA was suggested as a means by which professional institutes in different countries could agree to certain common values, ethics and standards. This DOES NOT mean that the IfA would 'take over', rather it would facilitate the setting-up of similar institutes and the cohesion of existing ones. It was acknowledged that the idea of a 'professional institute' was strongest (across all professions, not just archaeology) in countries with a high level of private-sector involvement. So, we already have strong professional bodies in Ireland, the Netherlands etc., but the idea is weakest in those countries where archaeology is state-controlled. Simply because all archaeologists are employed by the state, which sets standards, so negating the need for an Institute.

To answer your specific questions...

"whose rules do archaeologists follow?"

the rules of archaeology in their own country... but this was envisaged as a multi-tiered approach - so a high-level 'code of ethics' which we could all sign up to, below which was a common 'code of conduct' which could be adjusted to suit local circumstances.

"who is in charge?"

although an IfA initiative, this would see the establishment of a new 'international body' which would include representatives from all European (and indeed extra-European) countries who signed up. The ultimate structure would be a democratic one.

"and how would this afefct UK archaeologists?"

not sure.

"Which countries wish to be part of the Europe-wide Institute for Archaeologists. as difference in techniques, structures, methods, legislation etc.... I can foresee massive problems that will make the EU look like a walk in the park."

These were some of the issues raised in discussion. Most enthusiastic were 'emerging' countries of the former Eastern bloc who need international support for archaeology (often under considerable pressure) in their own area. Problems were forseen and it won't be easy - but that is no reason not to have a go!

"Take for example the one thing that gives an organisation bite the sanction or disciplinary - would the same rule apply across all countries? What one country sees as standard practice may not be the same in another... do they all have to conform to the highest level (and why do I get the inkling that will be the UK model)"

I think again that different levels will emerge in relation to the experiences/approaches of different countries. This question was asked during discussion: "Inevitably different standards are arrived at through negotiation, so will the UK partners accept a reduction in standards to accommodate the will of the majority of members"... the answer was essentially "yes, there will be a period of negotiation and compromise".

It is very early days! However I personally think that this is a really positive initiative which will actually take off. The benefits are potentially enormous - accreditation of archaeologists in one country ensures that they can work in another, and we all agree to common standards for excavation, analysis, reporting and archiving.

[BAJR Host]

Hmmm... I am still to be convinced, as theoretically it is 'a good idea' the practical is difficult. By all means give it a go. (look at the BAJR Fed for example - worth a go)

accreditation of archaeologists in one country ensuring they can work in another.... hate to say it... but the EU already allows that and it is already happening. Plus we come down to accreditation... in Poland for example one person I talked to, had to do 5 years at University and then a one year apprenticeship. before being classed as professional... so would that place them above a new UK archaeologist with their 3 years and 6 weeks? i doubt it.

Not wanting to pour cold water on anything which I am sure was an interesting discussion - but.. have we sorted out issues in the UK yet? before telling European countries how to act? :0

Do we not already have this?
http://www.e-a-a.org/codeprac.htm

this
http://www.e-a-a.org/princond.htm

and even this
http://www.e-a-a.org/codef.htm

and to accept that we must negotiate down certain standards which have been hard won... I say no. There are already enough loopholes, getouts, twists and turns - what would be sacrificed next... ?

once again, thanks for brining this to us Paul... :face-kiss: you don't really have to defend anything, as you are the messenger - }

[paulbelford]

Just a few quick points.

1. The EAA is an association of archaeologists, not an institute of professional practice. So yes, whilst we all agree to abide by the EAA code of conduct, there is no formal mechanism for disciplinary action. The EAA is an institution by which archaeologists in Europe and beyond can discuss research, practice and ways forward, but it does not aim to set standards of itself. On the other hand the IfA is a professional institute with real powers of disciplinary action which affect an individual's ability to practise.

2. There is no suggestion that the International IfA will attempt to "tell others how to act". Rather it will act as a facilitator of concord between national organisations. The UK IfA will be a branch of the International IfA, as also could be the Dutch NVvA and the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland.

3. Whilst clearly the EU does allow people to practise in other countries, at present there are (as you have pointed out) various practical barriers to doing this - qualifications, experience and language foremost among them. Hopefully the new International IfA will try and even out the playing field.

4. Previous comments on this thread have bemoaned the lack of action... well here is ACTION actually happening. I firmly believe that this will take shape over the coming months and years. The best way to get engaged is to become involved with the activities of the IfA in this regard and contribute to the debate and help to shape it.

I think it is very positive and we all need to engage with the process - there are lots of issues to be sorted out and only by everyone having their say can we hope to sort them out in the best possible way. No doubt there will be an opportunity to discuss this at the next IfA Conference (spring 2010) and that discussion will help take things forward.

I hope this helps.

Paul

[BAJR Host]

1. The EAA is an association of archaeologists, not an institute of professional practice. So yes, whilst we all agree to abide by the EAA code of conduct, there is no formal mechanism for disciplinary action. The EAA is an institution by which archaeologists in Europe and beyond can discuss research, practice and ways forward, but it does not aim to set standards of itself. On the other hand the IfA is a professional institute with real powers of disciplinary action which affect an individual's ability to practise.

This is perhaps a quasi semantic statement, as I too agree to abide to IfA Guidelines without being a member ? like most archaeologists in the UK (at last count) ? I agree the IfA has real powers of disciplinary action ? however, more importantly, to suggest it affects am individuals ability to practice - to be brutally honest? it does not. Would it not be easier for the EAA to ?add? enforceable standards to its role, rather than build a new organisation?

2. There is no suggestion that the International IfA will attempt to "tell others how to act". Rather it will act as a facilitator of concord between national organisations. The UK IfA will be a branch of the International IfA, as also could be the Dutch NVvA and the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland.

So rather than tell people what to do, it will tell people how to do it. The question remains however about the role of the IfA UK - it becomes on voice among many then?. Each equally represented in a new organisation called the International IfA?

3. Whilst clearly the EU does allow people to practise in other countries, at present there are (as you have pointed out) various practical barriers to doing this - qualifications, experience and language foremost among them. Hopefully the new International IfA will try and even out the playing field.

I still hold that this movement of archaeologists is already happening, poles coming to the UK, Irish coming to the UK, UK to Germany, and France?.etc? indeed when I see French and UK employment laws being on a level playing field I will be very happy! I still suggest that the EAA is already in the right place to reform to cope with that.

4. Previous comments on this thread have bemoaned the lack of action... well here is ACTION actually happening. I firmly believe that this will take shape over the coming months and years. The best way to get engaged is to become involved with the activities of the IfA in this regard and contribute to the debate and help to shape it.

This is perhaps an initiative that is worth pursuing ? however currently it is not actual action?.. it is discussion. Like this initiative, BAJR Federation went through 9 months of thinking and talking about it, then it was launched (Action 1), and it has now to spend a year seeing how it settles in ? Then and only then, when it has found its feet can it start to act properly? so even the BAJR Fed is not fully active yet either.

I was worried by the end sentance about the best way to contribute and shape the debate is to join the IfA ? it is one way?.. and it may be a good way ? but, it should not be the exclusive way?.as it stands just now. Which is why I am glad that this is being talked about in public on this forum. And I thank you again Paul. (ps are you on commission for new members )