16th May 2010, 11:29 AM
Thank you very much RedEarth, that was a very interesting post. The point about FLOs was a good one. I will avoid political philosophy so as not to wander from the thread! The election and all that has developed since has wound me up. I very much agree about the number of dodgy projects going on. That is why, Unitof1, CAs need to be watched over and abide by a code of practice that is tailored to their work and needs, as are RAOs. Units employ IfA members because it is supposed to guarantee a certain standard of work/experience in the employee as defined by the IfA, so why not CAs too? Right now I have to walk in off the street and convince a local authority, for example, that I am competent at what I am suggesting they help me to do in the community with archaeology projects. It would help me and them a lot to have some sort of professional backup, as they have with CBA checks. RedEarth, I very much agree as regards the training Catch 22. I wish this question had been addressed when I was in the field, and hope that the next generation of archaeologists will have a different experience. I also agree that to have full time field archaeologists doing CA will not work and is unfair, unless they really have a commitment to it, as I know some have from personal experience. I have two friends in the 'job' who are and love it, because they are working with enthusiastic people, unlike the general atmosphere that pervades the average site hut at lunch time! The answer is that we all need money for training, in all aspects of archaeology - where from is the next question. Yes, yes, I know ownership is a solid concept in archaeology (we study material culture!). But is it fair, as commercial archaeology has to do as presently organised, that a unit, say Oxford, digs a site in, say, Dorset and then buggers off taking all the information and finds with them. I know that they did some community liaison, but once again local people did not have a chance to connect with their past, as located in their area. Or is it just the landowner/developer/unit/supervisor/digger that has earned the right of 'ownership'? Wasn't it in 1832 that the question was discussed as to people only having the right to have a say if they have a stake (property/land) in the country? Discuss. This will be marked...