30th April 2011, 10:45 AM
moreno Wrote:"at present, pretty much anybody can call themselves archaeologists and do planning work"
Not in my experience.
"this means that curators have to specify, monitor, approve each project to ensure standards are maintained"
Lets spin this in a different manner. Not all LPA's require IFA membership to engage in commercial archaeology. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the many who frequent BAJR, individuals (non IFA members) and those working for archaeological companies (non RAO) have worked hard to built up a working relationship with the LPA (s) in a relevant area (s). This would imply that an LPA (curator or whatever label you choose) has used their judgement to allow these people to undertake "planning" work.
If an LPA is not comfortable with an individual or company undertaking such work, they can "strongly" recommend IFA membership (or by working with someone whom is MIFA). If the individual or company can't or doesn't comply, "they" are highly unlikely to obtain the work.
So what is the real reason for hegemony?
"the proposal is that archaeology becomes chartered (either growing of IfA or not), and because the chartered bodies will have to maintain standards to maintain their chartered status, curators can be much more light touch"
I sincerely have a hard time believing this is a universal opinion, one shared by all "curators". To be cynical just for a moment, perhaps the motivation is an IFA membership drive to achieve chartered status. This push by the IFA for chartered status is begining to sound like a Byzantine court. What's next? IFA pro forma that all individuals and companies must adopt and purchase? Standardised permatrace sheets? IFA issued soil descriptions? Why not employ monkeys and be done with it. Better yet robots, they don't require feeding.
I have certainly seen, quite recently, examples of archaeological work carried out essentially by the developer on their own site. A DBA for one quite large development which, surprise surprise basically said there was nothing there, and at least two so-called building recordings - I saw one and it did not do what it said on the tin. Not all of these have got through, but the issue in this case is the difference between the condition being placed and approved by the local authority, often ignoring the advice given by the county Historic Environment Service, who do not appear to get the final say, and which makes a mockery of the whole thing. So yes, anyone can call themselves an archaeologist and do planning work and perhaps get away with it. I have also seen plenty of reports produced by supposedly qualified archaeologists that are truly dreadful but apparently accepted, perhaps under similar circumstances. Not sure what the answer might be in that case.