28th April 2011, 11:53 AM
It occurs to me that if anything, we need a heavier touch from government curators. It has been established here on this forum many moons ago that the only entity that could be held to account in law is indeed the government curators. If the IfA (or any other Institution) is to step up to the plate as it were, said Institution would then need to become enshrined in and mandated by law. It is arguable that as a profession-we are largely self-governing but with the final say coming from Government Curators. The handing of the flag to an Institution would by default make us an autonomous profession-wholly subject to our own rules. I`m not comfortable with this.
Whilst I support the overall objectives of the IfA, I have in the past been highly critical of their role. This is borne from the fact that the IfA has no mandate in law, IfA membership is voluntary, Ifa rules and regs are generally accepted on paper only and are not effectively policed. In this scenario- if the IfA do indeed step up to the plate and take on the roles of Government Curators then something needs to change-radically. The IfA would need a mandate enshrined in law. I would welcome this in the sense that finally-professional standards may become compulsory, policing would become a legal requirement and therefore more high-profile and comprehensive and the IfA would ultimately become answerable to law. Now that would change things and in principle, I would certainly vote for that.
I do realise that what I`m saying is going to be controversial and is likely to start a pooh-storm but......... if we are proposing that the archaeology profession finally becomes an entity protected and driven by actual legislation then I`m in. Voluntary adherence and lip-service to "guidance" that has no solid foundation in law is destructive and demonstrably inneffective and pointless. I have just enjoyed some time with some of my Australian counterparts and have spent endless hours discussing the differences between our professions. It has to be said-we are decades behind. Australian archaeology (with some differences by states) is enshrined in law and huge fines are imposed upon those choosing to flout them. Huzzah.
A "soft-touch" could be a fine thing but without a heavy hand behind it- this move could make things a whole lot worse than they already can be.:face-stir:
Whilst I support the overall objectives of the IfA, I have in the past been highly critical of their role. This is borne from the fact that the IfA has no mandate in law, IfA membership is voluntary, Ifa rules and regs are generally accepted on paper only and are not effectively policed. In this scenario- if the IfA do indeed step up to the plate and take on the roles of Government Curators then something needs to change-radically. The IfA would need a mandate enshrined in law. I would welcome this in the sense that finally-professional standards may become compulsory, policing would become a legal requirement and therefore more high-profile and comprehensive and the IfA would ultimately become answerable to law. Now that would change things and in principle, I would certainly vote for that.
I do realise that what I`m saying is going to be controversial and is likely to start a pooh-storm but......... if we are proposing that the archaeology profession finally becomes an entity protected and driven by actual legislation then I`m in. Voluntary adherence and lip-service to "guidance" that has no solid foundation in law is destructive and demonstrably inneffective and pointless. I have just enjoyed some time with some of my Australian counterparts and have spent endless hours discussing the differences between our professions. It has to be said-we are decades behind. Australian archaeology (with some differences by states) is enshrined in law and huge fines are imposed upon those choosing to flout them. Huzzah.
A "soft-touch" could be a fine thing but without a heavy hand behind it- this move could make things a whole lot worse than they already can be.:face-stir: