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

[archaeologyexile]

Presumably the money comes from something close to a closed shop and thus less competition!

[Tool]

Maybe I'm being a bit dumb - it wouldn't be the first time - but I can't quite see how the IfA (chartered or otherwise) or any other organisation can engineer a closed-shop situation in regards to competition for work. Going on comments that appear on here occasionally it would seem they are presently doing the opposite, by allowing those not deemed suitable for RO status to be so, rather than preventing those eligible from becoming ROs.

[archaeologyexile]

Well the point must be that only qualified archaeologists can do archaeology and to be a qualified archaeologist you must be in the charter...? It may be that you have to have a Chartered archaeologist in charge!

But the only way to improve conditions is to restrict competition or to hold everyone to higher standards which at present the IFA can't do!

[Tool]

OK, I can see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure whether they would be able to do such a thing, either legally or practically. Lets face it, at least around this part of the world, there (surprisingly) seems to be a shortage of archaeologists willing to dig. I was careful there not to say 'shortage of diggers', as I'm kinda getting wary of that term. There are some who like to think that those who spend their time out in the field digging, recording and trying to make sense of the reality in the ground, whatever their educational qualifications or letters after their name, are lesser archaeologists than those who sit in offices and universities, with a degree and letters but maybe little if any practical knowledge of that which they preach, who rely on the data provided from the field to produce their glossy (and often in my view wildly unsupportable) theories for publication.

To my mind, the only sustainable way to raise pay and conditions within this industry, and like it or not it is an industry, is for us collectively, including the IfA, to raise the profile of archaeology with the public, so that it does become important, so that the paymasters have to think that they are not just losing money on some bureaucratic necessity but doing something that is important in its own right.

[archaeologyexile]

Hi tool I'm afraid I thinks that very nieve. The only way pay and conditions increase are when the workforce organises itself not to accept lower terms and conditions, be it union, cartel or charter!

As to any division between fieldworkers and those that write up, I don't care about qualifications or where someone works, they key for me is interpreting the data that you dig. Even if your not doing this you should be aiming to. Why not join a local society and help,them do it! The division between digging and writing leads to poorer interpration!

[Dinosaur]

A number of years ago I received an email from the co-author (an office-based specialist) of a paper we'd written for a journal asking me where I'd got my doctorate from...errr...what doctorate???...they seemed quite upset when I pointed out that I'm a shovel-operative (injuries permitting)... says it all, really... you don't need all those fancy letters after your name to produce equally valid work, so Tool, don't let anyone fool you into thinking you're any the less for being a 'digger'

[Tool]

Hi tool I'm afraid I thinks that very nieve. The only way pay and conditions increase are when the workforce organises itself not to accept lower terms and conditions, be it union, cartel or charter!

As to any division between fieldworkers and those that write up, I don't care about qualifications or where someone works, they key for me is interpreting the data that you dig. Even if your not doing this you should be aiming to. Why not join a local society and help,them do it! The division between digging and writing leads to poorer interpration!

I would say that it is naive to think that an industry employing a few thousand is likely to be allowed to engineer a situation that forces an industry that employs well over a million and is the biggest single employment sector in the UK to part with more of its money. That's the reality of the situation - a large proportion of those employed in archaeology do so within the commercial sector. This is paid for by the construction industry that sees us as a necessary evil that eats into their profits. Us being able to force them to pay more for something that they consider an inconvenience of the planning law just ain't going to happen. Trying to do so would only force the government to either relax the planning laws further, or legislate that any Tom, Dick or Harriet can in fact provide the information required under the current planning law. Neither of those scenarios benefit us or archaeology.

I maintain that the dual approach of engaging more with the public (and I'm not inclined to say here precisely how I personally do or don't do my bit) in the hope that there is a continued political will to keep archaeology as part of the planning process (no bugger else is likely to pay for it!) and work with the construction industry to find ways in which they can use the archaeological aspect of their work to promote themselves, and maybe even make some money back from it. This might not seem very idealistic, but it's a pragmatic approach based on the real world situation.

I'm glad you don't want to differentiate between those in the field and those who aren't. Others sadly do. I also though think it's a mistake to concentrate too much on the interpretation. Of course it's important to offer one in light of what you see, know and can work out, but it's even more important to record accurately what is there so that others, later and with access to a wider view can also interpret what we dug up. The primary concern of excavation is to replace what we destroy hidden in the ground with an accurate, concise, intelligible record of it, placed in an archive that is accessible to others. That's the deal in my book. If on top of that you can offer insights into the whys and the wherefores so much the better, and at least the crowd I work for actively encourage that.

[Tool]

A number of years ago I received an email from the co-author (an office-based specialist) of a paper we'd written for a journal asking me where I'd got my doctorate from...errr...what doctorate???...they seemed quite upset when I pointed out that I'm a shovel-operative (injuries permitting)... says it all, really... you don't need all those fancy letters after your name to produce equally valid work, so Tool, don't let anyone fool you into thinking you're any the less for being a 'digger'

This highlights one of the problems I have with the IfA - they seem (and I'll emphasise seem) intent on perpetuating this them and us view. Now I don't have an archaeology degree and I have no intention of paying for IfA letters after my name if I can possibly help it, because in the world I work in they are an irrelevance. Does this mean I can never be called an archaeologist in the eyes of some? Even though I can dig, record and yes interpret with increasing competence month on month, as well as, and in some cases better than, those with similar or more experience and also a degree?

[Dinosaur]

I kinda miss the days when most people did archaeology cos finding out new stuff about the past was cool (suspect I'm a bit outdated in still following that approach) - seems these days that an awful lot of people are in it as a forum where they can be managers and boss other people about - IfA just smells of that kind of approach, ignoring how it treats archaeologists, has it ever actually done anything to benefit British archaeology? Seems to me that many local societies and individuals (and, dare I say it, the likes of the CBA) have had a far greater impact

[Tool]

I kinda miss the days when most people did archaeology cos finding out new stuff about the past was cool (suspect I'm a bit outdated in still following that approach) - seems these days that an awful lot of people are in it as a forum where they can be managers and boss other people about - IfA just smells of that kind of approach, ignoring how it treats archaeologists, has it ever actually done anything to benefit British archaeology? Seems to me that many local societies and individuals (and, dare I say it, the likes of the CBA) have had a far greater impact

Can't argue with that! Pretty much how it looks to me, too. And yes, that's precisely why I 'do' archaeology (irrespective of what I'm called...) - getting your hands dirty trying to find out what we were doing, what we were like hundreds or thousands of years ago, what's not to love! :face-approve: