28th September 2007, 08:02 PM
Sorry I missed the debate last weekend and I have some difficulty understanding precisely where this thread is coming from (or going to come to that). However, if I can throw one more consideration into this mix....
Whilst the British archaeological 'system' is obviously the concern of most BAJR followers, it isn't the only method or practice through which other European countries regualate and/or practice archaeology.
Some countries or regions of Europe have in effect 'archaeological monopolies', where a single body is responsible for all fieldwork or where separate single bodies are resonsible for the equivalant of what the British would call 'evaluation' and 'excavation'. Perhaps the first step in the BAJR debate is to recognise where Europe-wide standards might actually have some affect. I have the feeling for example that many EU countries have been able to exclude archaeology from the pan-European activities where 'competition' should apply. Whilst of course such bodies might be (and probably are) self-regulating, Euro-wide standards seem in such instances to be a touch irrelevant.
Whilst I know that we have to live with it, I consider that the British 'system' would not be universally welcomed across Europe. Moreover, many European archaeologists would probably be insulted that the British could be so crass as to suggest the implementation of a pan-Euro system of standards whilst standards in Britain are so....um....what's the right word here.....um.....'ill-defined' maybe ...and poorly implemented.
That natural reticence and an exisiting monopoly situation means a BAJR campaign to introduce Europe-wide standards might fall on many deaf or closed ears. Shouldn't BAJR road-test it at home first and see how far it gets falling on Brit-ears before thinking of pressing those standards on the rest of Europe.
Whilst the British archaeological 'system' is obviously the concern of most BAJR followers, it isn't the only method or practice through which other European countries regualate and/or practice archaeology.
Some countries or regions of Europe have in effect 'archaeological monopolies', where a single body is responsible for all fieldwork or where separate single bodies are resonsible for the equivalant of what the British would call 'evaluation' and 'excavation'. Perhaps the first step in the BAJR debate is to recognise where Europe-wide standards might actually have some affect. I have the feeling for example that many EU countries have been able to exclude archaeology from the pan-European activities where 'competition' should apply. Whilst of course such bodies might be (and probably are) self-regulating, Euro-wide standards seem in such instances to be a touch irrelevant.
Whilst I know that we have to live with it, I consider that the British 'system' would not be universally welcomed across Europe. Moreover, many European archaeologists would probably be insulted that the British could be so crass as to suggest the implementation of a pan-Euro system of standards whilst standards in Britain are so....um....what's the right word here.....um.....'ill-defined' maybe ...and poorly implemented.
That natural reticence and an exisiting monopoly situation means a BAJR campaign to introduce Europe-wide standards might fall on many deaf or closed ears. Shouldn't BAJR road-test it at home first and see how far it gets falling on Brit-ears before thinking of pressing those standards on the rest of Europe.