Archaeology... it's the future!

[gorilla]

Following on from the IfA thread (and others I suppose)... where do you see archaeology in 5 to 10 years time? Do you think things will have changed for the better, worse or (sigh) not at all? What would you do to see things changed?

(from what I can gather, certainly from a certain persons viewpoint, getting rid of all curators would be a start)[:0]

[Unitof1]

There was time when the curator and the archaeologist was the same person, then the archaeologist bit was kicked out to survive in the primeval soup. Boo

I see an end to curators or rather the curators will join the archaeologist in the soup and all holes dug in the ground will require archaeocurators. They will be very bored most of the time.

[gorilla]

Might as well get the ball rolling... my changes. Some are... errr... a bit pie-in-the-sky while others will be seen as being 'Stalinesque'. Whatever... my thoughts.

1. IfA... fully registered, fully chartered, compulsory to join. To call myself an archaeologist, I will have needed to prove that I am an archaeologist... and no, this does not necessitate having a degree. Experience, aptitude (knowing which end of a trowel to hold) and archaeological savvyness are as valuable as any BA/BSc. Some of the best archaeologists I know don't have degrees (and conversely, some of the most qualified I know couldn't dig a hole to save their life).
2. IfA accountable, transparent and answerable to its members. If something is wrong internally (ie structurally, operationally) or with a member organisation / individual... there is adequate arbitration and whatever decisions are made (have to be made), are through judiciary meetings. No-more boys club (sometimes I see the IfA as a bit of a masonic lodge). Internal (and possibly external audit) necessary and done without baulking. Membership of the chair open to all. Representatives of all factions of archaeology to sit in on meetings.
3. All archaeological organisations (and working individuals) should become (must?) RAO.
4. IfA fees reduced in line with ability to actually pay.
5. RAO's invest in staff... continuing development and training compulsory (and paid).
6. Pay brought in line with other chartered organisations (particularly at the starting, lower scales). For a developer to have to employ a RAO registered archaeologist, they should pay an archaeologist what he/she is properly worth. If building surveyors and lawyers can get away with it, why can't we?
7. Pay scale is predetermined and correct across all sectors... how can some organisations (for the same job description) pay a pittance when others pay well?
8. Job descriptions and titles are also predetermined... one unit's supervisor is another's project officer. Silly, confusing and, in the view of other professions, laughable.
9. Proper, formal provision of a pension (for all, to all).
10. Membership of a union(s) is permitted. Also, the individual should be able to join a different union to that of his employer... seen examples in the past where there was a conflict of interest due to the plaintiff and accused being members of the same union.

[BAJR Host]

Damn, I would sign up for that... I may even put that up on BAJR to be ticked off as each happens!

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[gonetopot]

gorilla - with all due respect....


have you been drinking?

I totally agree and share your aspirations but as someone who has now been in archaeology for 6 years, I have seen precious little meaningful change during that time and don't forsee anything radical changing in the next 6. Despite this I do actually support the aims of both yourself and the IFA.

Of your aspirations if we could see the 'chartering' (or something similar' of archaeologists to ensure a much stricter compliance of standards and regulation then this would be a very good thing.

[gorilla]

Thanks BAJR hosty... and sorry (sort of).

As I've said... 'tis my persoanl thoughts (borne of years of frustration and hope). Some of it is rant, a lot of it is personal diatribe. And, yes, it does look like a manifesto.

I'm just interested in what people see as the way forward.

Free free to add to it. I certainly could think of a few more things to add. For some here... feel free to argue with it. But at least start looking to where we should be going, rather than continually wondering about where and what we are now (and/or moaning about what we were).

[oldgirl]

I would agree with much (or even all!) of what gorilla proposes, although not all of the comments.... [8D] Although there is one point I would make. My only concern about chartered status (I'm 99% for it!)is what people call themselves before. I agree that a degree is not enough, and that experience is another route in, but how do we address the issue that rears its head all the time even now, which is how do people get this experience in the first place? Whether it's getting a job or getting into our professional body, you usually have to have some experience.

So, what would we call the people in this position and how would we ensure that they are not exploited?

gonetopot - there have certainly been some major changes in some areas and the new Heritage bill will make a lot more in some parts of the UK. The IfA has changed quite alot of things (not least its name!) in order to move forward. The one I have most knowledge of (as I'm not on Council) is the Validation Committee and the change in criteria.

All in all, as an addition, I'd like to believe that there will be more team working and more understanding of the fact that all archaeology is the product of a team effort.

Oh, and Unitof1, I love the idea of an archaeocurator... I sort of imagine a blob with lots of arms and two heads?

[gorilla]

Gonetopot... no alcoholic beverages were harmed in the making of that manifesto. Perhaps a bit too much coffee though (and some heavy cheese last night).

Maybe 'tis a bit of a pipe dream. And, even on here (respect), 'tis only open to a limited audience.

Then again, maybe someone from the ole' IfA may be watching and may take note.

[AchingTrenchHeadAtADesk]

I believe that eventually what Gorrila describes will happen but only after a good shake up of the IfA. This will include clarity and greater definition of the standards and guidances, and their CPD descriptions, as Gonetopot has suggested.

I also think that there needs to be widely seen investigations of a few units to illustrate that the IfA have teeth. Yes this might ruffle a few feathers but archaeologists need to be shown that standards, wages and CPD matter, and that the archaeological community (as recognized through a chartered IfA) will not accept it.

Until this happens, we’ll still be having the same old argument.

[Oxbeast]

"6. Pay brought in line with other chartered organisations (particularly at the starting, lower scales). For a developer to have to employ a RAO registered archaeologist, they should pay an archaeologist what he/she is properly worth. If building surveyors and lawyers can get away with it, why can't we?"

I hate to say it, but professions with chartered status still start at a low point. Land/building survey companies routinely take on people and pay them G1 wages. Likewise for pupillages in law. Its around the middle/top end that the difference is most acute; i.e. where the actual chartering is.

"10. Membership of a union(s) is permitted. Also, the individual should be able to join a different union to that of his employer... seen examples in the past where there was a conflict of interest due to the plaintiff and accused being members of the same union."

This is already a legal right.