2nd April 2014, 12:43 PM
Marc Berger Wrote:Yet you call them all diggers Jack. Its very similar to bajrs/ifa pay scales. .........<snip>
[h=2]ar·chae·ol·o·gist[/h] [ahr-kee-ol-uh-jist] Show IPA
noun a specialist in archaeology, the scientific study of prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, etc.
But archaeology covers many sub-specialisms which in themselves have sub-sub-specialisms.
Yes my tree pertains to diggers/field archaeologists/site technicians whatever you wanna call them as thats what the crux of the argument was/is about?
I'm sure dating labs have their own career structure etc, as do universities. But with respect to equating field archaeologists to supervisors, project officers, senior project officers, managers etc.....
A master digger would be an assistant supervisor. A Grandmaster digger would be a PO/SPO.
If, as a digger you can't interpret a site in its regional context well then your not equivalent to an experienced project officer :face-stir: Discuss.
I'm not suggesting that someone who only digs and has never supervised a site, reported on it, published and been peer reviewed cannot have that level of knowledge or skill.............its just unlikely that they have received training or have a proven record in doing so.
A 'digger' on a commercial excavation could have, of course, ran, written up, interpreted and published any number of non-commercial sites or indeed be the world expert in say, Bronze Age hairgrips. But if this was the case there would be a proven record of such?
Exceptions must exist though.............mustn't they?