Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[trowelfodder]

How will this scheme allow the personal and professional development of archaeologists? It is often argued that there is little career structure within archaeology and I can only see this worsening, and the gap widening between those archaeologists who are lucky enough to have a permanent job and those without.

Those with - may even see improvements if the IFA CPD programme is followed will have the opportunity to progress within the proffession

Those without - how will they ever get to the required levels to ever do more than move from unit to unit? They may be capable of writing up reports and running jobs but will never be able to suitably demonstrate these skills so how do they progress? Little or no resources are expended on casual staff and there is no incentive to train them

And what about those archaeologists (and lets face it these are hardly a minority) who are employed job by job to undertaken watching briefs, evals etc. They may never see the inside of the office and have minimal contact with the employers - they do a great job but would only ever be able to have the work on the basis of another person who is not involed with the day to day running of the site have a qualification. But because of the way that the system is set up they will not ever have the opportunity to gain that qualification themselves.

[kevin wooldridge]

The headline of the day.....'Unit helps interpret someone else's BAJR post'. Thanks Unit might never have done it without you, but I'm not sure I'm ready to defer to your understanding of charitable trust status and the protection confered against insolvency.

Ken, can't precisely recall how many years we have known each other, but I am wondering how different things might have been if we had engaged an 'interpreter' from the outset. Previously I'd always put it down to your difficult south Wales accent.......

[Martin Locock]

Unit - I don't think the civil servant members of the IfA would be in a position to force through the measure. You do realise that local authority staff aren't civil servants?

[Unitof1]

Yes I understand that public sector workers like to be differentiated from civil servants as though they serve different masters. It?s a bit like trying to get excited about the sacrosanctity of the adiles, pratars, censers, quastors and tribuns within the civitas, diocesian and colonial system at any one point in time and place in the roman past.

http://www.civilservant.org.uk/

http://www.civilservant.org.uk/definitions.shtml

where do the fast track toss pots ?public sector workers -wonder in the archaeological world?

Not at the ifa 2012 most extraordinary meeting to be held sometime in March in a room in Oxfordshire as dictated by whom and paid for by whom?

[Martin Locock]

Anyone who doesn't like the standard and is a member of ifA can attend the EGM and vote at it.

[Unitof1]

we still don?tknow what the final draft will be, consultation ends 17th, they then rearrange the word order and do what with it when?

Will the final version only be shown at the wonderful meeting a few minutes before the big democratic vote?

Sorry fellow so called archaeologists, I am not a civil servant so don?t get paid subs and expenses to visit oxford but mainly I don?t agree with any of the code of conduct* which is now a some what diluted and meaningless nothing and will be even more so after ehs egm for yet another standard but also because the codes are pure civil service so no point in being a member.

*not though as bad as the code on contracts which is utter drivel.

Come across a standard for stewardship of the historic environment which I didn?t care existed. Whats that if not a standard for the "advisors" (somehow archaeological" and "practioners")?

This document

is for people commissioning, carrying out and regulating work on historic assets and places.

Seems to have been created by the Association of County Archaeological Officers or is that algao who don?texist anymore didums

[Martin Locock]

I believe the stewardship standard (produced by IfA a few years ago) was aimed at those devised management plans for archaeological assets (regardless of planning context), while the new standard is aimed at those who identify the need for archaeological works but do not themselves carry them out. It could be argued that these overlap a lot (as do the FE and Excavation standards), but they benefit from tighter focus and more helpful guidance to those using them.

[Unitof1]

aimed at those devised management plans for archaeological assets

thats all right then devised whatys for what and not by me.

FE and Excavation standards

The only overlap that I can see in the so called FE and Excavation standards is that the civil servants bolded their recently inserted utter crap

However it arises an archaeologist should only undertake a
field evaluation which is governed by a written specification or project design
(see Appendices 2 and 3), agreed by all relevant parties as this is the tool
against which performance, fitnessfor purpose, and hence achievement of
standards, can be measured. In Northern Ireland if an evaluation involves
excavation a qualified archaeologist must obtain alicence to undertake work from
the EHS.

As far as I can see as an archaeologist to do archaeology I am the relevant party I agree with myself and don?t see why I would have to write anything down and agree it with myself. Possibly a closed shop institute might insist that its members agree with at least one other or two other members maybe that it is archaeology that your doing but what the Michaels is ?relevant parties?- up yours curators. Of course once I have done whatever it is that I do you don?t have to accept a word of it if you don?t want.

if an evaluation involves excavation

bizzare only a public servant would put the horse before the cart but thats what happens when you have an institute overrun with civil servants. Of course without their support, subs and grants the institute would cease to exist.

[trowelfodder]

[/QUOTE]Anyone who doesn't like the standard and is a member of ifA can attend the EGM and vote at it [QUOTE]

But this measure will affect all archaeologists not just IFA members and arguably non-members will be worst effected.

I do not want to join the IFA. I will not be forced into it - but the only way to stop the IFA pushing through self-serving legislation which will prevent me from working is to join them! WTF! !

[kevin wooldridge]

Well be assured Trowelfodder that as the situation stands at the moment (and if I can get along to the meeting) I will be voting against the proposal...I hope a few other hardy souls will be joining me....