23rd June 2009, 12:00 PM
Good concept, and one that other digs would be wise to follow. If more 'training digs' had this kind of attitude and were linked in to syllabi, units and and seminars, then we'd be in a better state. Although I guess they all think that they do this already...
How long would a 'placement' be? I'd worry about whether you could get enough across to students (ie your students) in say a two week average visit to really prepare them for 'real archaeology'? When I was involved in research excavations in UK we tried to nurture 'attitude' to add to any existing 'aptitude', and give people the opportunity to develop skills at their own pace. Unfortunately most skills need more than a 'if its tuesday it must be GIS' approach, and most people can't afford to spend more than two weeks on a paying site. If you could get bursaries or funding then great and people could stay longer and then it would be seriously worthwhile. Maybe this would be best aimed at students who have already learnt the basic site skills or they will be so bombarded by new concepts that many will just turn off, or flounder.
The other problem is getting enough trainers/mentors who know what they're doing, and getting the money to pay them a decent wage. So the student/mentor ratio must be low, maybe 3:1 at the most? Bit like how we'd all like it on site. And that's expensive.
And finally, from personal experience, people go on digs for a lot of reasons, sunshine and palm trees being a fairly big one. Know your prospective users, and tailor to them. Are there enough wannabe archaeologists with a few hundred quid who want to do this? A lot of 'interested' people get quite quickly burnt out by an intensive training course, whereas someone set on being a professional digger will want more.
And is it going to be relevant to your users? I understand that the archaeology in ?Cyprus is probably great, but does it train people for wet fields in February over here working with machines etc. If you get a good reputation from units and universities then this won't matter, but without it you'll just be another foreign jolly with ideas above their station.
Good luck!
How long would a 'placement' be? I'd worry about whether you could get enough across to students (ie your students) in say a two week average visit to really prepare them for 'real archaeology'? When I was involved in research excavations in UK we tried to nurture 'attitude' to add to any existing 'aptitude', and give people the opportunity to develop skills at their own pace. Unfortunately most skills need more than a 'if its tuesday it must be GIS' approach, and most people can't afford to spend more than two weeks on a paying site. If you could get bursaries or funding then great and people could stay longer and then it would be seriously worthwhile. Maybe this would be best aimed at students who have already learnt the basic site skills or they will be so bombarded by new concepts that many will just turn off, or flounder.
The other problem is getting enough trainers/mentors who know what they're doing, and getting the money to pay them a decent wage. So the student/mentor ratio must be low, maybe 3:1 at the most? Bit like how we'd all like it on site. And that's expensive.
And finally, from personal experience, people go on digs for a lot of reasons, sunshine and palm trees being a fairly big one. Know your prospective users, and tailor to them. Are there enough wannabe archaeologists with a few hundred quid who want to do this? A lot of 'interested' people get quite quickly burnt out by an intensive training course, whereas someone set on being a professional digger will want more.
And is it going to be relevant to your users? I understand that the archaeology in ?Cyprus is probably great, but does it train people for wet fields in February over here working with machines etc. If you get a good reputation from units and universities then this won't matter, but without it you'll just be another foreign jolly with ideas above their station.
Good luck!