The Pinnacle?

[deepdigger]

Ok, so you're working as a digger for a medium sized unit, where do you see the pinnacle of our career ladder? Assuming that you intend(and do) stay in the field, where would you like to see yourself in a few years time? When would you be able to say "this is ok, this is for me til......."?
I'd like to know cos i just can't see anyplace right now!!

deep

[kevin wooldridge]

I personally think that nearly everyone who works in archaeology would like to be better trained, multi-skilled and have a job that is more than just routine. Its just that sometimes beyond a certain promotion point, and especially in larger units, you actually end up reducing the variety in your job. I can understand why many archaeologists feel (and bearing in mind the often minimal pay differential between digger/supervisor/project officer) that all that hassle isn't actually worth it?

It is perhaps a shame then that so much 'effort' in archaeology is put into establishing and maintaining hierarchies of employment status, when there are so many other areas that cry out for attention. Surely in this day and age it must be possible for archaeologists to devise amongst theirselves a system where employment is on an equal basis with equal shares of responsibility and reward. Which doesn't mean that you don't have project officers or diggers, but that everyone has equal respect for the efforts of others.

There is also an attitude problem in archaeology connected with the perception and perpetuation of employment hierarchy. A personal observation is that the employing of 'Stepford Supervisors' seems to becoming increasingly prevalent amongst larger contracting units, where the system and manner of employment is turning perfectly sensible and hard working diggers into cloned ninnies once they go one notch up the ****ty stick that archaeology holds out as a career ladder, forgetting the cameraderie of the trenches as they turn into die-hard sociopaths.

Of course, I don't claim this is a totally new phenomenon and it has been going on for some time. A much respected friend said to me at about the time that the EH Central Unit replaced the old DOE Central Unit, 'I've seen the future Kev. It wears a Barbour jacket, combs its hair, smells all kind of clean and is called ********' (name censored to spare blushes!!)

I believe that if archaeologists felt more respected they would naturally fell more engaged with their job, whoever they worked for. One step in the right direction might be for the IFA to abolish MIFA/AIFA/PIFA grades and have a single-membership grade. Two steps in the right direction would be for the IFA to rename itself the 'Institute of Archaeologists'. Three steps in the right direction would be for BAJR to refuse adverts that refer to 'Archaeological Technicians' or 'Assistants' or similar dumbing-down titles and call us all 'Archaeologists'. You could instead have an advert that said 'Archaeologist with Field Specialism', 'Archaeologist with Finds Specialism' etc etc.

[Curator Kid]

At the IFA Conference earlier this year there was some mention of renaming it the "Institute For Archaeologists" to try and make it more inclusive of field staff. Presumably the name change is slight so they can keep the stationery...

I loved digging, was really happy doing that job, and never seriously thought much about career progression. Things change though (whether you want them to or not) and eventually I did my back in, and had to do more post-ex and writing up, then site supervising and project officer stuff. Funnily enough, I liked this as well, and have ended up monitoring other people's work and shouting at developers down the 'phone about how important archaeology is (which is fun too). My point I suppose is that there are lots of different jobs to do whilst still staying in the profession, and you don't know what circumstances will offer you at any one time. I don't really know where the pinnacle of the archaeology career ladder is - I'm not even sure that there is one - but for me it certainly isn't where I thought it was when I started out.

[Oxbeast]

A 'pinnacle' sounds a bit uncomfortable to be on. And lonely. I would rather be on the 'humpback bridge' of the profession.

I like the idea of not being an archaeoloical assistant any more. After all, the assisstant assists the people who do the REAL work. Igor was never properly credited for his vital supporting role, working with Dr Frankenstein.

[BAJR Host]

I am indeed preparing for the non dumbing of archaeological job names!



Another day another WSI?

[mercenary]

My employer does not even use titles for staff. We are all Archaeologists. I'm not sure if this is an enlightened view or a hangover from when the unit was small. Interestingly this is accompanied by the highest wages I've encountered in the industry.

Some people like it and some hate it. There's always a contingent that like heirarchies and titles so as to better compete with colleagues. The lack of titles defuses that mentality, and what replaces it is a heirarchy of respect based on individuals knowledge and skills. This probably works best because the backstab brigade do not find employment with the company (Thank God!); they tend to slime their way to the local competition.

[Sith]

I do agree with most of what people have said on this subject, however, does the term "digger" not have some of the same derogatory overtones as assistant. I don't know many soldiers who refer to themselves as squaddies for instance.

Has the IFA had a shift of opinion on a name change? They rejected a change to the Institute For/OF Archaeologists a few years ago.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Deathstar House
Endor Industrial Estate
Milton Keynes
RD22 3PO

[Oxbeast]

I don't really like 'digger' sounds too much like gravedigger. A digger is the big yellow thing that machines out your trenches. 'Digger' does not reflect the range of stuff that we do, like fieldwalking, desk based stuff, surveying, etc...

[Digger]

IFA tried to change the name to be more inclusive of all archaeologists whether in the field or not. Apparently non of the lower membership grades (those who do)voted so it was the higher memberships (those who don't)that vetoed it. Apparently they are going to try again.

I did Oz Army many years ago and being a digger is non-derogatory. But then you are armed if anyone laughs.

Anyhow, as an exchange of cultural good will I'd like to wish everyone a happy POETS day. (P*ss Off Early as Tomorrows Saturday)[8D]

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge


combs its hair, smells all kind of clean

(rant mode/on)
See what I don't get is why combing your hair and washing is so looked down upon by many archaeoologists. Why is this? I have shared dig houses with people who did not know what soap was and it just made being around them extremely unpleasant. Actually bothering to keep clean and take care of your appearance shows a level of respect for yourself that can carry over into your work. (Bloody hell, I sound like my parents).

WRT "employment is on an equal basis with equal shares of responsibility and reward" just try getting experienced archaeologists to accept that. Why should someone who has worked in the field for years and is really good be paid the same as someone fresh onto the site? This has been one of the biggest complaints that I have heard at units where I have worked. In many cases, experienced staff are paid the same as inexperienced staff because they were employed at the same time but the experienced staff are expected to train the inexperienced staff. This leads into another point; some people are simply not competent enough to take on an equal share of the responsibility, so why should they get an equal share of the reward. Some of these people that are incompetent have been working on site for years and have just never learnt anything. Others are not willing to accept the responsibility, while others are just plain bloody-minded and awkward and will not work as part of a team, whatever you do. Finally, in a commercial world, which units are likely to get together and sort out a system like this? Or is it to be imposed from outside and if so how?
(rant mode/off)

Changing job titles seems a little futile to me. It's the kind of thing that people who want to appear to be doing something without actually doing anything do. As a digger, I never had a problem with that title but others seem to be rabidly opposed to it. What I would be more worried about is how I am treated and paid, not my job title. So, the important questions are; does my unit provide the appropriate PPE? Is my pay reasonable compared to the marketplace? Does my employer show me a decent level of respect by communicating all the right information to me in good time so that I can organise myself? Do my co-workers show me a reasonable level of respect by thinking about my health and safety in the same way that I consider theirs when working? See, it's not all about the units, it is also about the way that your co-workers treat you and how you treat them. If they have no respect for you and don't wear the PPE they are bought and don't act in a safe manner then you are better off out of there because chances are they will cause you problems regardless of how much respect you show them. So, I guess what I am saying is that the name does not really matter as much as the way people act, and too many archaeologists treat each other like ****, not just as bosses but also as co-workers.

As far as the original question goes, I reckon the pinnacle of fieldwork has to be supervising/directing a site. You are out on site with the overview of the fieldwork and you then get to bring it all together and tell the story of the site (in theory). Which brings me to another question; why do so many archaeologists think that the purpose of archaeology is to dig things up and nothing more? Many people I know seem to think that writing the site up is not proper archaeology. Why is this?

Cheers,
Eggbasket

There's nothing like a Dane ...