6th April 2014, 06:41 PM
Trying to get this back on track (although the research v commercial discussion is good stuff we have been here before on BAJR) I would endorse Kevin's comment about 'licensing' being the elephant in the room as regards Valetta. HMG response on this has always been that the system of planning conditions/WSIs/work in line with IFA Standards etc provides the same type of cover as a formal licensing system.
Anyone involved in archaeology (especially of the commercial type) knows that this is complete rubbish - firstly it only applies to archaeological work undertaken within the planning system, secondly it relies on an under-resourced process of having archaeological advisors within that planning system applying a set of standards devised by an organisation mainly representing the contractors/consultants who carry out the work.
At the moment anyone can call themselves an archaeologist and can go out and excavate (in line with IFA standards or in complete disregard of same) a significant archaeological site, as long as it is not a Scheduled Monument and the excavator has the landowner's consent and the scale of the excavation does not itself bring the work within the planning regime. It might be nice to inform the county archaeologist of this work but it is not essential. In what way is this in line with Valetta?
Any assertion that our current system is compliant with Valetta requires some agreement that IFA Standards are appropriate and are adequately applied and policed - surely any reading of this forum would throw up a series of questions on this issue.
However - is it not the case that the IFA is now very well-positioned with regard to 'licensing' and therefore compliance with Valetta? It is the IFA that has produced the Standards that HMG regard as being at the heart of the current system that (apparently) ensures compliance with Valetta. Now that the IFA is Chartered, then it is surely in pole position to be in charge of any subsequent system that HMG can point to on the same matter. I would suggest that Chartered Archaeologists registered with the Chartered IFA would be regarded by HMG as a useful form of 'licensing' that would enable compliance with international obligations. What future then for non-IFA archaeologists whether professional or non-professional?
Beamo
Anyone involved in archaeology (especially of the commercial type) knows that this is complete rubbish - firstly it only applies to archaeological work undertaken within the planning system, secondly it relies on an under-resourced process of having archaeological advisors within that planning system applying a set of standards devised by an organisation mainly representing the contractors/consultants who carry out the work.
At the moment anyone can call themselves an archaeologist and can go out and excavate (in line with IFA standards or in complete disregard of same) a significant archaeological site, as long as it is not a Scheduled Monument and the excavator has the landowner's consent and the scale of the excavation does not itself bring the work within the planning regime. It might be nice to inform the county archaeologist of this work but it is not essential. In what way is this in line with Valetta?
Any assertion that our current system is compliant with Valetta requires some agreement that IFA Standards are appropriate and are adequately applied and policed - surely any reading of this forum would throw up a series of questions on this issue.
However - is it not the case that the IFA is now very well-positioned with regard to 'licensing' and therefore compliance with Valetta? It is the IFA that has produced the Standards that HMG regard as being at the heart of the current system that (apparently) ensures compliance with Valetta. Now that the IFA is Chartered, then it is surely in pole position to be in charge of any subsequent system that HMG can point to on the same matter. I would suggest that Chartered Archaeologists registered with the Chartered IFA would be regarded by HMG as a useful form of 'licensing' that would enable compliance with international obligations. What future then for non-IFA archaeologists whether professional or non-professional?
Beamo