The future of CRM archaeology
Posted: 05 November 2009 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2009-03-23

Dear ASAPA members

Members of the ASAPA council met with representatives of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) earlier in the year and SAHRA raised serious concerns regarding the practice of some CRM professionals in South Africa. If applicable, please take careful note of these set out in the following paragraphs and make the appropriate changes to your practice. In addition, SAHRA has indicated that they would like to move, over the next two years, toward insisting on multi-skilled teams ‚?? all members of which would have appropriate credentials. We invite you to comment on this (see below). Finally, the ASAPA Council once again requests that all members please apply for and update their accreditation as appropriate. 

Heritage Impact Assessments
First, and most seriously, SAHRA brought to our attention that there are several archaeologists, including members of ASAPA, who have chosen to submit Archaeological Impact Assessments (AIAs) under the title of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs). Heritage Impact Assessments do not include only the archaeological and historical remains. An important aspect is also the intangible heritage that may be present on the landscape. These may include features on the landscape that are related to the ritual or spiritual aspects of the landscape; indigenous knowledge systems; living heritage; and other important oral historical data that might be obtained from local communities. Such information may only become available after consultations with local communities. Archaeologists may not be the most appropriate practitioners to solicit this information from local communities and should thus work with anthropologists and historians when appropriate.

Please note that in our Code of Conduct (consult the constitution on our website at http://www.asapa.org.za/index.php/constitution), it states that members undertake to:

3.18     Refrain from undertaking assessments for which they are not accredited, or do not have, or cannot provide, the relevant experience and/or expertise.

3.19 Not mislead the public or clients in any way (ASAPA constitution, Appendix B, p. 18).

Further, in our minimum standards of practice, ASAPA members undertake to:

1.1 Assess the adequacy of their qualifications for the demands of the project, and minimise inadequacies by acquiring additional expertise and/or bringing in associates with the requisite qualifications, or by modifying the scope of the project (ASAPA constitution, Appendix C, p. 20)

Note that ‚??Heritage Impact Assessment‚?? is a legally defined term and misrepresenting an AIA as an HIA is a serious matter that may ultimately have very negative effects on the heritage in the area concerned, as well as on your relationship with your clients. Please note that ASAPA cannot offer any support to members who may be threatened with legal action by their clients in instances such as these.

Maps
SAHRA noted, as in the past, that many CRM archaeologists continue to not supply adequate maps and/or GPS coordinates of sites with their reports. The inclusion of maps is essential as they indicate the location of sites at various scales, these locations are important for clients as well as the heritage agencies and environmental departments who assess the reports. SAHRA indicated that they cannot accept reports without the relevant maps. 

‚??Template Abuse‚?Ě
SAHRA also indicated that a number of practitioners repeatedly use the same template and simply change site names and contractor details. The data is then hidden in a mass of unnecessary padding. This practice makes it difficult for heritage agency and environmental department officials to assess reports, and calls into question the quality of the work reported. 

The future of CRM archaeology
SAHRA and the ASAPA Council are concerned about the standards of both phase 1 and phase 2 impact assessments. Often archaeologists use unqualified or unaccredited persons to conduct phase 1 assessments, and these frequently are conducted without Principal Investigators. Consequently, important sites are not identified or their significance is misidentified. Similar practices appear to characterise some phase 2 excavations.

As part of a process to raise the standard of CRM practice SAHRA has indicated that they intend to move, over the next two years, toward insisting on multi-skilled teams. Teams will have to include PIs from a range of relevant fields specified by SAHRA. The required specialisation fields will be area specific. In addition all team members would have to hold appropriate credentials. If you have any comments on this proposal and/or views about how it might affect your practice, please send them to one of the CRM officers on council: Tim Hart (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) or Jaco van der Walt (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)).

Accreditation
The ASAPA Council has previously written to members requesting that you apply for the relevant accreditation linked to your expertise and experience. This request was based on clause 3.18 of the ASAPA Code of Conduct. Conducting CRM work without accreditation thus constitutes a breach of the ASAPA code of conduct and can lead to the institution of grievance procedures.

The accreditation system acts as an independent, peer-review verification of a member‚??s expertise in particular fields, which can be drawn on by SAHRA, other heritage bodies and potential employers in assessing the member‚??s qualifications. The extent to which the accreditation system works, largely depends on the willingness of ASAPA members to recognize and adhere to it. By ignoring it and acting outside of its bounds, practitioners essentially devalue the system for all those involved. We recognize that members may outgrow their current accreditation. We therefore urge you to update your CRM accreditation status as appropriate and as often as necessary.

Natalie Swanepoel
Chairperson,
ASAPA

 Signature 

cool smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2011 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2009-11-05

1. Multi-skilled teams appointed by CRM archaeologists will increase costs of impact assessments. It is important for archaeologists to be as multi-skilled as possible (obviously with the necessary credentials) to avoid high costs. The environmentalist should appoint the necessary multi-skilled teams during an EIA.

2. One will be stunned to know the number of archaeologists who can effectively do basic map reading in SA, which is technically correct! Necessary theoretical and PRACTICAL work/courses are important for skills development in mapwork.

3. I agree with the abuse of templates. Each assessment should be evaluated on its own merit and the report should be built around that. Quality of work is essential. Never compromise speed for accuracy and never compromise accuracy for speed!

4. Is there a lack in uniformity regarding proformas, fieldwork and report writing in SA?

Profile