27th February 2008, 02:13 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
What is needed is an integrated system of protection and an integrated professional body behind it.
To be worth while going through the charter process what it will achieve has be set out.
That is what the reformed IFA is aiming to achieve whether the merger with the IHBC happens or not according to their latest release. (From the AGM October 2007)
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...script.pdf
From Summing up by Peter Hinton:
'We have had a helpful response from IHBC, but there is one part of it that I am uncomfortable about; there is a perception that the IFA should only represent those who are involved in the investigation and interpretation of the Historic Environment, which is not the case. Our Mission Statement says clearly 'The IFA exists to advance the practice of archaeology and allied disciplines by promoting professional standards and ethics for conserving, managing, understanding and promoting enjoyment of heritage.' and has used similar words since 1982.The APIFA (Association for the Promotion of an IFA) statement from the late 1970s also indicated that we were also looking to represent those engaged in conservation, as does the Memorandum of Association. We therefore represent individuals who work with all aspects of the historic environment both above and below ground, and in these proposals we are actually catching up with the vision of our founders. The public sector has combined archaeologists and conservation officers and so has the private sector and the voluntary sector: it is the professional institutes who haven't got it yet.
We were asked what would happen if the membership voted for a merger? Well if the other body does not want a merger then we cannot do it; and Council has decided that if we have to expand on our own, then we will. We will achieve it with IHBC, or we will achieve it alone. The archaeology word has given us problems. People have expressed opinions that they don't want us to homogenize into a bland Historic Environment institute. My response is why does it have to be bland? The higher education sector does need some investigating however. We must change but we may have to leave our comfort zone to do so. But we also must not lose sight of the popularity of the archaeologist name, for all that the general public mostly do not understand its range.'