Starting Afresh

[1man1desk]

I've just logged on after an absence of some days.

Slightly depressing really - a new thread with a positive, forward-looking approach; it's been here 4 days, over 100 people have read it, and not one response.

Well, here's a start. One problem that concerns me is the widespread ignorance and misunderstanding between different branches of the profession, often reflected in the discussions on some BAJR-Baiting threads. Many archaeologists appear unaware of the existence of some other branches of the profession, or completely misunderstand what people in other branches do.

I think that the root of the problem is in the approach of the universities, most of whom devote little if any time to informing their students about the potential careers open to them or about the basis upon which commercial archaeology in the UK works.

However, there is a potential solution that is not dependent on reforming university courses. Responsible organisations that wish to be seen as good employers could offer more CPD courses to their own staff, and as part of that could invite members of other parts of the profession to give short talks about what they do, given either in the evenings after work or at lunchtime.

I would be happy to contribute to this kind of thing from the consultancy side.

By the way, when I talk about 'branches of the profession', what I have in mind are:
1. Field archaeologists;
2. Specialists (artefactual, environmental, etc);
3. Curators;
4. Consultants;
5. Academics.

Anyone got a different list? Have I forgotten anyone?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

Just glad to see a post!! thought I would wait until someone started! Cheers

I have copied your thread to a new thread.... hope you don't mind!

Another day another WSI?

[troll]

I think that it would be fair to say that simply because the industry is fragmented and compartmentalised, universities will apply a wide brush in an attempt to cover all main subject matter. In other words, students are given at least (I would hope) an understanding of the many arms in archaeology. One would imagine, that seeing as fieldwork in the commercial world can be seen as the main bread winner for the mass of practising archaeologists, that universities would ensure a good standard of field training- I`m not convinced that that`s universal by any means.I do believe, that many universities running degrees in archaeology are obviously out of touch with the standards required in the real world.I have worked alongside people who graduated from a uni that has a commercial unit-the standard of graduate is clearly way ahead of the norm. I would like to see more university involvement....controlled involvement.....

[eggbasket]

Part of the problem, based on conversations with a variety of professors and lecturers, is that the universities do not see archaeology as a vocational degree. As such, they are attempting to turn out miniature versions of themselves (mini-academics) and not people qualified to work in the real world. People often compare archaeology to engineering and this is where the analogy falls down. In engineering, the majority of degrees, as far as I can tell, are designed to get you into the marketplace and include a year with a company learning how engineering is applied. Many of the engineers I know actually had their first job after university with the company at which they did their year out. Archaeology courses assume that you will learn the trade on the job, if you go into commercial archaeology, either by working for a unit or by volunteering. If archaeology courses changed to accomodate the modern commercial world then the graduates would be more employable and more aware of what to expect. It is clear that many graduates do not know what to expect when they graduate.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Periphrastic Sesquipedalian

Preternatural eventuation is an amaranthine potentiality

[troll]

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"..................

[drpeterwardle]

In last century many sites were excavated by local labour supervised by a staff consisting of site assistants, who did the drawing, and supervisors who wrote the diary. Then there was the finds assistant and the field chemist and of course the cook.

The labour were paid at either a rate set by government or based upon local authourity rates for labourers.

In some places archaeology graduates were used instead of local labour employed on effect on cash in hand basis to avoid tax and giving employment rights.

The body for field archaeologists was only open to people who had been in charge of a substanial project.

I would suggest that in fact things have changed dramatically in the last 15 years. Which is not to say more change is needed.

Peter

[1man1desk]

We seem to be getting a little off-topic here - the aim is to identify a problem and discuss solutions, not bang on about the problem without taking it forward.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Cautionary Tale]

Dragging ourselves back to the subject of public involvement, I was part of one of the supervised Time Team 'Big Dig' projects which meant people could see an archaeological trench being excavated and take part (though the health and safety aspect was a nightmare, fortunately most of this was taken on by Troll). The Southampton Unit regularly undertake community digs (by all accounts successfully and long term), so perhaps there is mileage in authority units pushing public involvement forward.

[BAJR Host]

.....of archaeological work (including any post-excavation work) and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.

10. If significant archaeological remains are uncovered, the applicant is expected to make provision for public accessibility, either through local media involvement, school visits/talk, open days (dependant on site conditions), exhibitions or evening talks. Community involvement should be seen as a positive step in creating both a local sense of history and an important aspect for the development and community well-being.

Section from the East and Midlothian Specifications for archaeological work. So it can and is being done and promoted....

Just have to get it seen as normal - and of course not every site is suitable. In fact... having the local society standing on your patio as you carry out a watching brief may not be the best use of this clause


Another day another WSI?

[troll]

Would love to move things forwards....just can`t seem to get past an overwhelming middle-class coffee morning attitude exuding from the brickwork. Yes- things are different from 15 years ago.Not entirely surprising.No, things are nowhere near good enough as they stand. If you don`t mind, I think that I have no choice but to "bang on" until someone can be bothered to look outside of their own window. Mr Hosty asks what it is that we feel could be done better. How about cross-disciplinary communication and the formation of an agenda that we can ALL move forwards with?