+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: site tech role (/showthread.php?tid=3953)
site tech role - Dinosaur - 11th June 2011
P Prentice Wrote:well whoopy sh*t! so you and a few other men can handle a shovel ..... and stifle the careers of anybody who thinks its about a bit more than handling a shovel
Excellent, you can be baited :face-approve:
Obviously when I said MEN I also meant WOMEN too, my apology :face-crying:
If we stop employing diggers with more than 2 years experience that's me with no workforce on Monday then. As Jack has previously pointed out, some people dig cos they like digging and have no urge to 'progress' except to become better diggers, that's certainly the 'career' path I've always taken, although that's involved acquiring additional skills like being able to write reports (means more digging jobs since those 1 person sites require both skill sets), getting a working knowledge of all the specialisms so that I know in a technical sense what's worth sampling etc on site and modifying excavation approach accordingly (am currently undergoing a crash-course in OSL), reading any and everything, especially site reports, to know how the current trends in technique, theory etc are running and what's currently in which people's research agendas which can modify what gets dug and how, etc etc (I'm one of those sad gits who actually reads all the specialist reports and occasionally requests a second attempt, specialists be warned...), a good hands-on level of experience with tricky finds-recovery (up to and including using cranes) is always handy -but at the end of the day after 30+ years I'm still fundamentally just a rather over-experienced digger - you telling me that shouldn't be allowed? - would rather stuff was being dug by people who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING -raw experience counts for quite a lot in a line of work where every job is a new adventure, am getting fed up with having to deal with surprise skellies cos no one else on site has ever dug one, for instance (and my knees aren't really up to it any more). Oh, and what happens on sites that drag on for more than 2 years, sack the lot at 24 months? I've been intermittently playing on my current site since 1998....
site tech role - moreno - 11th June 2011
Damn! TWO conscientious posts! I might just faint! Admittedly I'd have to subscribe to both. I continue to work in the field because I'm a FIELD archaeologist. No reason you can't continue field work and progress, just have to work at juggling a bit harder. There are those that already do so, just means being a bit more choosey whom you work for. Granted, it's economically dependant, but in saying that, one can wear many hats...
site tech role - BAJR - 11th June 2011
Apart from the slim stiletto in the underbelly.
I have to and will agree with Dino on this from the same experiences as well. When asked last week what I wanted to be called I said archaeologist... "ah... but the diggers are archaeologists too!" came the startled reply. Exactly.. and damn good they are too. as am I. and I am just a digger who is older.. I like what I do and see being an old digger as a career. Like Dino I keep up to date, I read and continually learn. OSL... ye gawds.. ( that's in the to do pile. !)Handling a shovel is a noble art that is a career in itself. It is perhaps useful to see field archaeology as NOT the bottom rung but a career in itself. ( knees and back excluded!)
I have a feeling that should Dino and I meet it would sound like the snapping and clicks of a thousand twigs as our bones settled into a comfortable position!
site tech role - Dinosaur - 11th June 2011
As a slight digression, any of you clever mathematical types (I'd reached my limit at/before A level - solid D grade...) know if Baysian analysis can be used on OSL/TRM data etc (ie other dating techniques that produce statistical date ranges) and if so whether data from different techniques can be combined? - have a nightmare job where am going to get some OSL or C14 and occasional strat relationships, but not too many of any individual type, and pretty much no dateable finds unless things take a sudden turn for the better, but the possibility of some clever maths might affect what/how to dig
.....yes, that's one of the possibilities that you should be taking into consideration before reaching for those sample tubs/tubes/whatever, what the h*ll is the justification for the sample and what can be done to get the most from the least tonnage of soil you're lugging off site, basic digging skill really, no point humping soil around for no reason, just speeds up the arthritis, routine/random sampling's ok but the client in general ain't going to pay for the analysis stage once they've found out how much it cost to seive it...really no point taking hundreds of litres of sample from a burnt post-pipe, except in unusual circumstances (eg. enough intact post for dendro), once you know it's oak and you've got a nice lump of outer rings for C14, unless you're planning a BBQ....had to stop someone this week, and its 300m+ back to the cabins...
site tech role - kevin wooldridge - 11th June 2011
I don't quite understand how this has turned into a 'cull everyone with more than 2 years experience' thread. I think the point my friend was trying to make (and with which I concur) was that he wasn't going to recruit anyone to the lowest grade of archaeological excavator i.e tranee, beginner, call it what you like, who had more than 2 years experience, I checked with him to clarify that he did not intend this of course for more senior positions eg supervisor, Ass Supervisor, Project Officer, specialist.
I don't quite understand how David can be against this proposal. Surely BAJR jobs stipulates that trainee posts should be for trainees and not an excuse to employ experienced staff on a lower wage?
site tech role - BAJR - 12th June 2011
BAJR is not against it, and of course there is some confusion creeping in here.
On a recent dig I had people with way more than 2 years experience as field archaeologists. and I myself 'stayed' in the field as a digger for many a long year I still do, and last year after 30 years digging I was in the field again as a digger on a diggers wage.
It is not the best idea to in effect suggest diggers are somehow at the bottom rung. I can be a raw recruit, a new digger, a digger, a seasoned digger a veteran digger etc. and just as specialist and competent at my trade. Lets move away from the idea that anyone who stays digging is somehow a failure or at best needs pushed up the tree to project officer etc. I am sure a few POs will agree that having old lags on site is worth its weight in gold.
If the idea is not to cull diggers at 2 years... then I don't understand the statement
Quote:His arguement to support this policy was that any archaeologist with greater than 2 years experience was overqualified for the posts he was offering (basically field assistant) and by that stage in their career should be motivated more by their career development than their need of a job.
Give me 3 10 year diggers in addition to new blood thanks... rather than a permanent workforce of people with less than 2 years. :p
site tech role - Dinosaur - 12th June 2011
The main problem with the current system is that more experienced diggers who chose to remain as diggers don't tend to get any recognition of their increased experience/skills set in the form of, eg, more money, despite their (usually) increased contribution on site - that'll be why some of us had to start taking supervisor jobs to pay the bills - being 'supervisors' doesn't make us any less 'diggers', just means spending a few minutes a day pointing people at new things to dig and fending off the client....still haven't quite figured what 'Senior Project Officer' is supposed to entail but I'm sure the management will explain it eventually.....still seems to involve just as much shovelling.....
site tech role - moreno - 12th June 2011
Shouldn't it be the case that "we" (the profession, groups professing to represent said profession) consider digging a specialised skill? It seems to be the gist of recent posts this is what is being alluded to. When regarding archaeology the idea that anyone can dig is an incorrect proposition. It doesn't take long to sort the experienced from the inexperienced, and when on a commercial site, whom do you end up spending more time with?
To become a very well rounded and experienced "digger" takes years of field experience. When traversing the career ladder, do you really turn off this experience simply to fit into the currency of the particular role you find yourself in? I'd like to believe an experienced individual draws upon these skills and puts them to use in what ever role they are in. It is about time these skills are recognised by archaeology's representative bodies.
site tech role - GnomeKing - 12th June 2011
being able to track individual contributions made by 'diggers' would go some way to recognising the skills possessed by Field Work Specialists...clearly this can go far beyond shovel wielding, fundamentally useful though tool skills are. Recording.Drawing.Interpretation.Task and project planning.Guidance to project managers. - many aspects that old diggers have.......
The issue of Copyright is relevant here, in that this is teh only issue that approaches the inviolable nature of archaeological creation vs 'mud-shovelling/bucket carrying' . How can the real contribution of 'old diggers' and Field Work Experts be tracked and rewarded?
site tech role - moreno - 12th June 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:know if Baysian analysis can be used on OSL/TRM data etc (ie other dating techniques that produce statistical date ranges) and if so whether data from different techniques can be combined? - have a nightmare job where am going to get some OSL or C14 and occasional strat relationships, but not too many of any individual type, and pretty much no dateable finds unless things take a sudden turn for the better, but the possibility of some clever maths might affect what/how to dig
I'm no expert and there are probably others who understand this method far better. From what I do understand Baysian Stats in this case was used to tighten up 14c calibration. Dr. Bayliss was using seriation in conjuction with Baysian calibration. The seriation was based on a very robust data set and was tested statistically for reliability. If your interested in more information on Baysian Calibration have a look this site: http://bcal.shef.ac.uk/top.html
Perhaps you might want to consider scaling down your approach? MS Access is fab for database and SPSS is a good stats package. For other than calibrating, try testing your data with NPAR, Chi Square, Frequency and Probability tests for reliability. I had good results using these stats for analysing lithic data through stratum and accross site locations. There are some good books geared for archaeologists and stats, and maths were never my strongest suit. The books were a huge help. As for testing your data, test like for like first, then look at the results in comparison:face-approve: