30th June 2013, 09:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 30th June 2013, 09:20 PM by kevin wooldridge.)
Curators who are members of the IfA have a duty to follow the IfA Code of Conduct and the standard and guidance for archaeological advice.......This was put in place last October and was subject to discussion on BAJR forums. Some people took advantage of the consultation period and the re-consultation period to reply directly to the IfA and ALGAO.....The advice states in section 13.1.2 'Advisors should seek to ensure the compliance of all archaeological work with IfA standards and guidance and the agreed specification, and should monitor the quality of all stages of assessment, investigation and post-investigation work', and in section 13.1.5 'Advisors should seek to ensure that archaeological investigation is undertaken only by practices or individuals that can demonstrate adherence to IfA or other recognised standards. To facilitate this they should consider requiring that suppliers be professionally accredited by the IfA’s Registration scheme or other recognised accreditation scheme. Advisors should not use local lists of suppliers unless they are compiled and monitored using criteria at least as stringent as those for IfA registration'. So it could be said that curators are following advice mandated through their membership of IfA
My memory is that this guidance was formulated in close liaison with the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers so not only represents the view of the membership of IfA but also of the organisation with the responsibility of representing those who implement the advice. It might not be popular with all sectors of UK archaeology, but surely with the backing of all involved and the extensive consultation undertaken (and re-consultation as I recall), this matter has to be considered done and dusted. Apologies David as I can see the issue is causing you angst, but when do we say enough is enough?
My memory is that this guidance was formulated in close liaison with the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers so not only represents the view of the membership of IfA but also of the organisation with the responsibility of representing those who implement the advice. It might not be popular with all sectors of UK archaeology, but surely with the backing of all involved and the extensive consultation undertaken (and re-consultation as I recall), this matter has to be considered done and dusted. Apologies David as I can see the issue is causing you angst, but when do we say enough is enough?
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...