Quote:quote:I would argue that more and better training is necessary, in order to cope with the demands of actually undertaking archaeology. Training should provide not just technical skills and personal skills, but the knowledge and understanding of the bigger picture of Archaeology (capital A).

Quote:quote:It would be interesting to know what training diggers reading this would like to have. Is it formal training in specifically archaeological skills? Or is it the chance to exercise greater reponsibility and develop through experience?

Quote:quote: but surely this very question has been extensively answered? Surely the new NVQs address this very issue? Or have I missed something?

Quote:quote: All university archaeology courses (including conservation etc) should have a mandatory field methods and techniques course run by someone who has a wide range of experience (not just paleolithic digs in 'the levant' or rescue sites in the 70's. That course should cover all the basics, including the history of archaeological techniques and be enough to give an awareness and a grounding in techniques to all students studying archaeology, even if they never want to set foot on a site. They will be using data from sites so they must know the basics. The course should have visiting lecturers from commercial and research units etc, specialists, curators who can give real life examples from within the last 5 years.

Any students considering going into field archaeology should then have access to modular courses, again with visiting lecturers as required, with seminars and workshops on subjects such as matrices and context sheets so they can be explained in depth. Practical skills and awareness of their uses should be taught, as should legislation, H&S issues, surveying, and all the MAP2 site to archive type stuff.

Universities need to link up more with units, I've suggested that evening seminars are held every year for students who may want to do some paid work where a supervisor from a local unit gives them a realistic insight into commercial work so they have an awareness and can ask questions. Lecturers should maybe be given time to do placements on sites so they can keep abreast of changes/keep in touch with reality, and university research digs should really use some commercial supervisors -I've done this, and it works well, even if it can show up the 'director' as being useless (not on the sites I worked on I hasten to add).
The whole 'someone else's problem of training' needs addressing, now most entrants are via university it should have got easier, not harder... Its about aptitude and attitude to a great extent, and those who are switched on can learn very fast, but they need to be given a framework within which to place this fast learning curve and that is best done at universities.
I welcome the NVQs, but they should be integrated into university courses in some way, and be rolled out properly, I sent a query to the IFA about two months ago and haven't had a response yet. The NVQs could sort this problem to an extent, if combined with effective CPD and coaching/mentoring, but it does rely on decent pay retaining sufficient experienced site staff to do this job and keep the pryamid stable