BAJR Federation Archaeology
The next question: recording - Printable Version

+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The next question: recording (/showthread.php?tid=5111)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


The next question: recording - GnomeKing - 6th November 2013

Wax Wrote:Nicely put Mr T}Smile


indeed indeedy


The next question: recording - Tool - 6th November 2013

P Prentice Wrote:just curious, but why are you basing your opinion on the premise that those ‘that tell the world’ don’t know shit from shoeshine and they are corrupt and/or deluded? I was under the impression that this was your first job in this industry – no? and who do you think actually gives a monkies about the job if not your current employer?

My premise is that all those are possibilities, going on similar accreditation type things in pretty much every other walk of life. So, before I'm prepared to accept such a scheme I need a convincing argument of the benefits, and proof that there is a model that doesn't encourage those traits I've mentioned above and elsewhere. So far I've only seen things that increase my concern. So, instead of implying that I know nothing just because I'm new to this specific industry, maybe you could, oh I don't know, maybe say how it could actually help both archaeology and archaeologists, not just from one narrow perspective but relating to all aspects of the industry?


The next question: recording - P Prentice - 6th November 2013

Tool Wrote:My premise is that all those are possibilities, going on similar accreditation type things in pretty much every other walk of life. So, before I'm prepared to accept such a scheme I need a convincing argument of the benefits, and proof that there is a model that doesn't encourage those traits I've mentioned above and elsewhere. So far I've only seen things that increase my concern. So, instead of implying that I know nothing just because I'm new to this specific industry, maybe you could, oh I don't know, maybe say how it could actually help both archaeology and archaeologists, not just from one narrow perspective but relating to all aspects of the industry?
what things have you seen that increase your concern? are you referring to mal-practice, exploitation, or just poor recording? and actually any archaeologist who is not actively demonstrating why it is a bad idea is tacitly endorsing it as a good idea. if you stay it will roll over you unless you get on board http://www.archaeologists.net/


The next question: recording - Wax - 6th November 2013

Tool Wrote:maybe you could, oh I don't know, maybe say how it could actually help both archaeology and archaeologists, not just from one narrow perspective but relating to all aspects of the industry?
Yes please, rather than telling us we have to join before we get steam rollered. And note the "not just from one narrow perspective".


The next question: recording - kevin wooldridge - 6th November 2013

Tool Wrote:.... maybe you could.....say how it could actually help both archaeology and archaeologists, not just from one narrow perspective but relating to all aspects of the industry?

Go on, I'll go for it.....how about 'higher professional standards, better qualified and more highly incentivised staff cannot be considered a backward step'.....whether that needs Chartered status to achieve is maybe questionable, BUT with no other alternative on the table (or even in the pipeline) it has to be the only path worth following. I'd be happy to consider an alternative if one presents itself, but I don't think the profession can wait another 30 years (The length of time it has taken IfA to reach this point).....failure to follow this lead is by default an acceptance that there is nothing wrong with the current state of the industry....that is just not defensible!!


The next question: recording - Dinosaur - 7th November 2013

kevin wooldridge Wrote:Go on, I'll go for it.....how about 'higher professional standards, better qualified and more highly incentivised staff

IFA hasn't managed any of that in 30-odd years, why should a Charter be any different?


The next question: recording - Tool - 7th November 2013

So, the IfA would become the self-appointed guardians of archaeology, but with a charter next? So the majority of archaeologists/diggers won't have any influence unless they pay lots of money to join? It gets better and better!


The next question: recording - P Prentice - 7th November 2013

Dinosaur Wrote:IFA hasn't managed any of that in 30-odd years, why should a Charter be any different?
but they have - they gave us standards and even you have acknowledged you abide by them.


The next question: recording - P Prentice - 7th November 2013

Tool Wrote:So, the IfA would become the self-appointed guardians of archaeology, but with a charter next? So the majority of archaeologists/diggers won't have any influence unless they pay lots of money to join? It gets better and better!
that would be self-appointed guardians of archaeologists and all members at all levels have a say and influence. paying something to earn more is not unreasonable but carping about something without offering an alternative is.


The next question: recording - Dinosaur - 7th November 2013

P Prentice Wrote:but they have - they gave us standards and even you have acknowledged you abide by them.

Although not noticeable that some ROs do [I'll concede most do, but then so do most non-ROs] - pretty meaningless since there's never been any noticeable attempt to enforce them