26th May 2010, 12:05 PM
I seem to recall that the ifa somewhere guestimated that a desktop roughly cost ?750 and an evaluation ?7500. These expenses are predominantly for labour Those desktops and evaluations should have standards and an adherence to those standards can be seen as a restrictive practise or an exclusion practise to a profession. Doctors don?t allow you to write their proscriptions, civil engineer don?t allow you to sign their calculations off, I being into copyright don?t think that a professional archaeologist should allow someone else to fill in their context sheets. I also don?t think that archaeology should exist without an archaeologists and I know that that is not a standard argument. Now as a professional archaeologists I can understand that if I can get someone to do my desktop or evaluation for less but charge the client more, that somewhere in between I am supposed to make a living. I take this as a basis of being a professional archaeologist but it is also the basis of being a cowboy. The commercial archaeology system set up in this country is based on the profession being monitored by professional curators who insist on wsi for every minute action undertaken in the name of archaeology presumably because all archaeologists are one job away from bringing the facade of archaeology into disrepute..
I know that to attempt to make a living at archaeology is sad and unfortunately I cant self fund it. Now to make a living you might have to dress being an archaeologist up a bit and call your self a community archaeologist particularly if funds have appeared from somewhere which will not fund an archaeologists who might be undertaking archaeology as a living as this might be interpreted as gain. After tax payers monies the dodgiest money there is comes from gambling. Now we all know that the british museum, famous curators of the elgin marbles, was founded on lottery monies but eventually it was seem that lotteries were morally corrupt. Then after a while it was found to be alright although only under proscription. Now what dodgy monies like to be seen as is pillars of the community, they particularly like their pictures taken with the community and particularly the children. Not that that matters. What matters to me is the sense of authorship or if you like authority which is what an archaeologist should give to archaeology and to tell the truth I think that that authority should be paramount in the archive of any archaeological project. ?.which is hard to see through a report/publicity document which might be also trying to secure future funding.
Not driving in any particular direction but there is a difference between a project with a named responsible archaeologist and one where the authority is obscured. + add the word professional to archaeologist rather than community. ?6000 I might try some of that.
I know that to attempt to make a living at archaeology is sad and unfortunately I cant self fund it. Now to make a living you might have to dress being an archaeologist up a bit and call your self a community archaeologist particularly if funds have appeared from somewhere which will not fund an archaeologists who might be undertaking archaeology as a living as this might be interpreted as gain. After tax payers monies the dodgiest money there is comes from gambling. Now we all know that the british museum, famous curators of the elgin marbles, was founded on lottery monies but eventually it was seem that lotteries were morally corrupt. Then after a while it was found to be alright although only under proscription. Now what dodgy monies like to be seen as is pillars of the community, they particularly like their pictures taken with the community and particularly the children. Not that that matters. What matters to me is the sense of authorship or if you like authority which is what an archaeologist should give to archaeology and to tell the truth I think that that authority should be paramount in the archive of any archaeological project. ?.which is hard to see through a report/publicity document which might be also trying to secure future funding.
Not driving in any particular direction but there is a difference between a project with a named responsible archaeologist and one where the authority is obscured. + add the word professional to archaeologist rather than community. ?6000 I might try some of that.