11th October 2005, 08:11 PM
I agree that we need to understand each others mandate too. I have to say that I`m a bit taken aback by the almost universal assumption that field archaeologists are simply diggers. This brings me back to a number of other threads-I`ll be brief- if field archaeologists are seen through 19th century eyes then, yes, we are just payed workers who move dirt from one place to another.Pedochromic exfoliators if you like. No wonder we graduate into the lowest paid profession in the UK. The days of a site being dug by masses of workers overseen by someone with a degree in classics is way over (some may like to differ..) and frankly, some of the misconceptions aired on here are shocking.I`m guilty too, I`ve spat my dummy out at most....
I remember recently annoying someone on here to such an extent that they felt the need to list (in some detail) exactly what their role entailed. It`s painfully clear that we don`t communicate effectively among ourselves. Tis also clear that whilst many processes come into play before trowel cuts said dirt, the practitioners of each endeavour never meet. Much like a car assembly plant where each worker has their own enclosed, soundproof booth. Absurd. In contrast with the ethos of the 19th century, sites are now worked by qualified and experienced field archaeologists. Girlies and boylies that appear to have no unified voice other than their own. Tiz this mob that has been the most vocal in the call for the monitoring of standards-after all, they get to experience the full monty at the bottom of the process slide. The field teams get to work with what all the other grown-up archaeologists give them. We need to communicate effectively, things need to change quickly too.Whilst I`m for negotiation and for the imposition of the recommendations of the House of Lords, I`m also for someone, somewhere, to make things happen.OK, I promise not to name names. Thats about it. Institutes promise and then have 10 year studies. Unions make grand claims but simply absorb money. APPAG may well have not bothered. This is not negative......this is a catalyst for change. Work by the rules-yes, but, I`m not seeing change fast enough. In 1890 Frank Kitz (political activist) expressed his dismay at those whom he had hoped would work on his behalf "they seem to be afflicted with the timidity of anaemic respectability"..................
I remember recently annoying someone on here to such an extent that they felt the need to list (in some detail) exactly what their role entailed. It`s painfully clear that we don`t communicate effectively among ourselves. Tis also clear that whilst many processes come into play before trowel cuts said dirt, the practitioners of each endeavour never meet. Much like a car assembly plant where each worker has their own enclosed, soundproof booth. Absurd. In contrast with the ethos of the 19th century, sites are now worked by qualified and experienced field archaeologists. Girlies and boylies that appear to have no unified voice other than their own. Tiz this mob that has been the most vocal in the call for the monitoring of standards-after all, they get to experience the full monty at the bottom of the process slide. The field teams get to work with what all the other grown-up archaeologists give them. We need to communicate effectively, things need to change quickly too.Whilst I`m for negotiation and for the imposition of the recommendations of the House of Lords, I`m also for someone, somewhere, to make things happen.OK, I promise not to name names. Thats about it. Institutes promise and then have 10 year studies. Unions make grand claims but simply absorb money. APPAG may well have not bothered. This is not negative......this is a catalyst for change. Work by the rules-yes, but, I`m not seeing change fast enough. In 1890 Frank Kitz (political activist) expressed his dismay at those whom he had hoped would work on his behalf "they seem to be afflicted with the timidity of anaemic respectability"..................