+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Guardian Archaeology League Table (/showthread.php?tid=1565)
Guardian Archaeology League Table - diggingthedirt - 14th May 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
Now, I think it is accepted on this forum that one or more degrees in archaeology are useful, but not essential, to work as an archaeologist on excavations or field projects, at any level of responsibility. The majority of people doing such work do have degrees, but there are many very good archaeologists who don't.
However, my own view is that a high level of academic knowledge and understanding is required to analyse, interpret and report on the results of archaeological projects, and a high level of professional expertise is required to adequately design and manage or oversee archaeological projects. The best way to obtain those academic and professional abilities is to study for at least one academic degree and to obtain professional training, and to combine both with a substantial requirement for field experience.
There already is an informal divide in archaeology between career diggers on one hand, and those who want to move into jobs that require the academic and professional skills that I mentioned above. Would it be a good idea to formalise that in a similar way to the architects, with different specified levels of qualificaiton required for each of the two career paths?
Good points here, that outline how the problem lies with how the commercial sector is structured.
Although 'Shovel Time' is crucial in understanding how all the bits join up, it is a luxury many can't afford, especially those who enter archaeology later in life, and who have greater financial obligations. Some would like to stay in the field, but simply can't afford the salary and the impact on their personal lives from constant moving and short term contracts.
Many choose to specialise from the off, and this is compounded by a lack of suitable career out-points allowing archaeologists to move between roles. I'm thinking particularly about development control/consultant/contractor pathways. Recruiters will inevitably plumb for the safe option, selecting people with direct experience rather than import talent from the other side of the coin.
This is problematic in British Archaeology, where the process is specification led. There are obviously exceptions, but I have worked with some consultants and development control archaeologists who are less than comfortable interpreting a trench. Formalising this division with separate qualifications will surely only add to this problem, and make it increasingly difficult for fully rounded archaeologists - expert generalists - to move into decision making roles.
http://www.diggingthedirt.com
Guardian Archaeology League Table - Fishslice - 14th May 2009
To the list of qualifications can I add the Post Grad Diploma in Field Archaeology from OUDCE.
While expensive (at the time and I got funding) I found it a great way to way to bridge the gap between being a student and working. I got to see how a range of organisations worked (commercial through to academic) and worked on some nice projects. It and also taught me skills and contacts that got me my first break in archaeology ( although sometimes I wish they had used a plank with a nail and the words ?retrain as an accountant?).
I suppose it was a year of volunteering that was very beneficial
Guardian Archaeology League Table - Sith - 15th May 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by diggingthedirt
Many choose to specialise from the off, and this is compounded by a lack of suitable career out-points allowing archaeologists to move between roles. I'm thinking particularly about development control/consultant/contractor pathways. Recruiters will inevitably plumb for the safe option, selecting people with direct experience rather than import talent from the other side of the coin.
This is problematic in British Archaeology, where the process is specification led. There are obviously exceptions, but I have worked with some consultants and development control archaeologists who are less than comfortable interpreting a trench. Formalising this division with separate qualifications will surely only add to this problem, and make it increasingly difficult for fully rounded archaeologists - expert generalists - to move into decision making roles.
Some interesting points here. My own move towards the dark side was prompted by site meetings with consultants who had no clue what they were doing or asking us to do. Likewise some curators and DC archaeologists; the lower ranks of whom often seem to be filled with inexperienced graduates who are the only people who can afford to take the level of salary on offer.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Your lack of archaeological imagination disappoints me Curator
Guardian Archaeology League Table - EarlySlav - 15th May 2009
As pointed out already and by some of us a few years back that the paid value of a experienced digger does not go up over time. To earn more they either have to look for promotion or stop digging. A feature is only dug once.
Guardian Archaeology League Table - Talisien - 15th May 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by EarlySlav
A feature is only dug once.
Ooh, the temptation... :face-stir:
Guardian Archaeology League Table - Austin Ainsworth - 15th May 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by TalisienCouldn't resist the temptation:-
Quote:quote:Originally posted by EarlySlav
A feature is only dug once.
Ooh, the temptation... :face-stir:
I once ran a site where a digger excavated around the fill of a feature, removing the natural and leaving the bowl-shaped fill of a small pit standing proud. The fill was later excavated by another digger after the original digger had been told that their services were no longer required. You can dig a feature more than once but first you need a complete muppet to misunderstand the processes involved in digging a feature.
It's four years since that happened and I still shake my head in disbelief
![[Image: visigoth.jpg]](http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg189/boltonsquanderer/visigoth.jpg)
Guardian Archaeology League Table - mercenary - 16th May 2009
Austin,
Your tale reminds me of a photo I saw of an academic's excavation of a pit alignment at the Thornborough Henges, where [u]all</u> of the pits had been excavated in the fashion you describe. Perhaps you were too hasty dismissing the digger, and he was only practicing what he had been taught at university?:face-huh:
Guardian Archaeology League Table - trowelmonkey - 16th May 2009
OOOh, I once came across a ditch slot where the oldest (outside) fill had been dug out to the point where it petered out toward the base. This was a big ditch, nearly 3m across. When I asked what the excavator thought the feature was and how the fill related to it he shrugged his shoulders and said, "dunno, but I think it's manmade." This was someone with nearly 2 years commercial experience according to the cv.
Guardian Archaeology League Table - Ken Denham - 17th May 2009
Just been on a job recently where the guy in charge was desperate to get away on holiday. Medieval pit, 2m meters deep and he tried to say there were only two phases of deposition.
My reaction;
Ok mate, you fill in the context sheets and put your signiture to it.
Guardian Archaeology League Table - vulpes - 17th May 2009
:face-topic: