a field archaeologists lot....

[vulpes]

Couldn't agree more Mole. These notions of the 'sharp' end, 'coal face' etc. are all well and good. And if people think that being a site assistant is 'where its at', thats fine too. Personally I find that being a Project Officer/Manager is 'where its at', much more varied work, still some time spent at the 'coal face', time spent training staff and so on. I also believe personally that field archaeology is about a lot more than just the fieldwork - and the pre and post-excavation bits although not undertaken 'in the field' or at the 'coal face' can be pretty rewarding too, but then site assistants are just that, and none the worse for it, just missing out on all this fun though.

[Alfie]

I was a Project Officer once for a large(and basically evil) consultancy.I employed a digger who had come from 5 years at a county unit which had just used him to dig holes where the supervisor pointed, and someone else did the recording.I guess the point I am trying to make is it should be a choice. Archaeologists in my opinion should be able to dig a site, direct a site and write up a site in order that they understand the reason why a context sheet must have all the boxs filled in or why they are digging another section across the linear, all of this can and should be learnt on the job.

[Mole]

Yes, totally, Alfie. Some site assistants, with years of practical experience have no idea why they are doing what they are doing and sometimes see it as the PO being picky. I recently had a SA who constantly wrote 'Because I was told to' on sample sheets as his reason for taking the sample. I managed to 'cure' this by getting him to prioratise the samples for processing and don't even mention context sheets that have in stratigraphic relationship boxes 'see section'. I think that where possible getting SA's to help with post ex tasks does give a greater understanding of why certain processes are in place - although their are some things that we generally do 'because we always have' that I still don't understand the reasons for.

[the invisible man]

There is also the dreaded financial side of the coin (pun intended!). An SA is costed as such, and in the eyes of the employer someone doing that job is costing and earning that amount of money. Therefore whether you have 6 months or 20 years experience, you have the same value to the company.

Exaample: in my previous proper job I was an Associate in a small practice. This meant I was a senior sort of bod, but being a smallish firm I not only supervised and ran teams but also got to bash out working drawings. Now, I was bloody good at this, and could produce better details quicker than younger staff, but I cost twice as much. I should in theory spend my time allocating these tasks to cheaper people and taking an overall view.

So from an employers point of view the experience of someone like Troll should be exploited, in bringing on younger staff, supervising, helping in decision making and so on. If he chooses not to put this assett, his experience, at the employer's disposal, it can be argued that he is acting as a site assistant like any other. Of course it's not quite as simple as that, a good experienced person is always worth more in any walk of life.

[troll]

good points all round! Alfie has hit the nail on the noggin-a site assistant should be an archaeologist i.e, an individual who understands all of the processes. As the discipline could arguably be seen as a processual one (not in the biblical sense), it would seem ridiculous to employ those who simply dig blindly. On the issue of responsibility, I agree, there has to be a team/individual at the helm to ensure a professional cohesion. It has to be said however, that site assistants should take full responsibility for the jobs they are given. Without an adequate grounding in how the bigger system functions-this is almost impossible for the SA to achieve. As Vulpes rightly points out, archaeology is not just the bit in the field-tiz the bits either side that should be the motivational factors in defining the role and abilities of the SA. I personally feel the best SA` are the ones who can make good coffee, roll fags in the pis*ing rain and laugh when the muppetry gets too much....p.s "no promotion unless MIFA" this nearly made me pi** my self. What on earth convinces people that IFA membership at any level is a guaruntee of competence? Missing Intrinsic Field Ability......

[Beardstroker]

Did it actually say MIFA or did it actually mean member, as in PIFA?

I assume the latter as there can't be that many MIFA's who would actually deign to dig, or indeed be capable of it

[troll]

Not sure Stroker! I think pressure is being applied to ensure that most unit workers join the IFA. This pressure, believe it or not, seems to be applied by unit managers who see it as a requirement of potential clients/developers.To a certain extent-they have a good point, developers nowadays look for membership of professional institutes in their service providers. Obviously, what potential clients are unaware of is twofold;
1. the IFA are not a professional institute and,
2. the IFA have done nothing to maintain standards or police their Members for twenty years.

[deepdigger]

No mate it says MIFA, I have checked and thats what it says! I would love to send a copy in but i would have no job shortly after if it got out. I'm planning on getting out anyway so you can have a copy then. and the rest of the story on this sad company.

deep

[BAJR Host]

I can and will go straight to the IFA with this...

This is discrimination and not even fair discrimination (is there such a thing).. etc etc.

You could of course give me a private email .. or phone me direct

I am discretion personified... BAJR is a bit like a swan... paddling like bu###ry beneath the surface.

email : info@bajr.org
tele (Sat : 01620 810331 - Sunday 0787 6528498 evenings 01620 861643)

BAJR (or should I say Terrier)

[gumbo]

Hiya. Just nipped back to the orifice from site, and thought this thread was particularly interesting.

The SA debate has got to the crux of the matter I think. Commercial archaeology is hierarchical, it is organised to make profit (or at least break even,) and this keeps a number of people at Site Assistant level down. I think that a good number of people now at SA level have been convinced or beaten into submission by management that they are shovel monkeys.

I dont know what the answer is, but I feel that the separation of the excavation and post-excavation processes (i.e. a supervisor or PO goes off at the end and does the report, or someone completely random in the bigger units)is a big problem. IF everyone at SA level knew exacatly how a site archive needs to 'work' to best facilitate a report, you would see the standard of work on sites improve.

Unfortunately I cant see this happening in commercial archaeology as it has cost implications. I gained this sort of experience by involving myself in a research project, but the quality of research projects is highly varied. People need to be taught post-ex in the same way as people get taught excavation. Due to the fact that commercial archaeology is often skewed to site 'clearance' with large projects sitting in units archives (as paltry post-ex budgets are argued over) the importance of post-ex, and the learning process attached to it, is often being marginalised.

Back off to site then...

Gumbo