1st March 2005, 06:55 PM
Dr Wardle, the term "standards" as used in this context relates to the ability and or intention to carry out fieldwork to an acceptable and, professional standard. I have encountered the inept, the blind, the incompetent, the corner cutter and the muppet in my journies.If that`s not bad enough, I have also met the consultants who lie for a living at the expense of the archaeology. For my part, I feel that the IFA is nothing more than a farce, a charade and, a parody of just what a modern professional institute should be all about. Whilst I agree with you that a quallitative analysis would be useful, your model would be far too simplistic and would`nt take a wide enough account of variables. Some field units are excellent but unfortunately, some very skilled and talented archaeologists find themselves working under muppets recommended by the IFA
The fundamentals are clear-heritage belongs to everyone and the nation understands and identifies itself through it`s cultural resources. Archaeology has been thrown to the wolves of commerce and as a result, the cheapest (in every way) crud wins the contract, the consultants use them and the IFA register them.I`m sure you know what I mean as you are re-writing a report for one of them.My question is this-faced with twenty years of this pantomime, how could the IFA face the public with this? Second-how can we look the public in the eye if we ourselves do and say nothing?
The fundamentals are clear-heritage belongs to everyone and the nation understands and identifies itself through it`s cultural resources. Archaeology has been thrown to the wolves of commerce and as a result, the cheapest (in every way) crud wins the contract, the consultants use them and the IFA register them.I`m sure you know what I mean as you are re-writing a report for one of them.My question is this-faced with twenty years of this pantomime, how could the IFA face the public with this? Second-how can we look the public in the eye if we ourselves do and say nothing?