5th July 2013, 01:46 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:It seems to me that it is the archaeology which should make the report or archive important if anybody thinks that it is worthwhile to produce them. ....... and economically unsustainable. Nobody whats your reports or put it more bluntly nobody will pay you any money for them I can guarantee you that 99% of all reports ever attempted if tossed in a bin will not make a difference to anybody.
Thing is you want to base chartering and the whole point of the ifa on monitoring. What I would agree to is a system which once you have joined allows you to do what you want. Like once you qualify as a doctor you can prescribe drugs to your clients. If you want to go around producing most excellent reports out of a load of old rubbish please don't drag me into it.
she has a point here. a chartered archaeologist really should be able to determine what is worth doing and what is not. a chartered archaeologist should be able to command prestigeious fees for their expertise. a chartered archaeologist, whether on site or in management should be accountable to their peers - and only their peers.
it is dino's fallacy to suggest that only management want chartered status and they want diggers to be lackies. currently diggers are lackies when they should be chartered. mostly managers want to get paid more than they currently do just like everybody else. if diggers are paid more then management would be also. one of the main reasons diggers are paid so badly is because of the enormous expense of back covering, beaurocracy and administration of pointless report writing and archive deposition. a charterered archaeologist should be able to determine what is worth saying and what is worth keeping.
and where does the ifa fit in this utopia?
there will be no need for the ifa
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers