Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
18th February 2006, 06:45 PM
Roy. Greetings. We disagree on many issues but here "diggers are not specialists" we stand on opposite sides of a canyon sir.I have passed your offering onto site staff on a number of sites who warmly invite you to take part in their work.Please advise as to dates when you would be available.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
20th February 2006, 01:08 AM
diggers are not specialists???? i understand that you do not necessarily need to have a degree in archaeology to become an experienced excavator but you do need the ability to understand complex relationships, record stratigraphically, excavate in challenging conditions and much much much more. Skills that can take years to master. I agree that diggers play a valuable role but to leave it at that undermines the job in my opinion and I apologise if saying this causes offence. It is much more than this and should be emphasised accordingly, after all not just anybody could pick up a trowel and tackle complex urban deposits. It may not be in the same category as for example an osteologist or zooarchaeologist but surely it is a specialism in its own right. At the end of the day if it wasn't for the specialist skills and knowledge of the digger there would be nothing for all the other 'specialists' to study.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
20th February 2006, 12:45 PM
There has to be some discrimination between a field archaeologist with five years experience and a graduate who has been working in professional archaeology for three weeks. No one could possibly describe the latter as a specialist. The whole 'we are all equal' (or at least, 'we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others')thing doesn't help the quality of fieldwork in this country, but with little incentive to stay in the profession (a practically meaningless title such as assistant supervisor and an extra ?300 a year)field archaeology seems destined to follow a downward spiral. There is a shortage of experienced field staff in this country and not doing enough to recruit and hold on to these people is doing the profession no favours. If working alongside the construction industry has not taught archaeological units trying to recuit that ability and experience should be rewarded, then they will be recruiting in vain. Love of archaeology does not pay the rent.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
20th February 2006, 01:54 PM
Troll and Diggerhobbit - we're not disagreeing about the level of skill a field archy has or their value on site, just the specialist label. I spent 7-8 years as a digger and a few more as a supervisor on a wide variety of sites in this country including very complex deep-strat sites in urban centres. I believe I mastered complex stratigraphy (although you never stop learning)but I never labelled myself a specialist and neither should you. I have proven myself after years of slog but I don't feel the need to try and enhance my achievements or CV with an irrelevant term.
The job of excavator demands that you understand complex etc strat as part of the basic job description. It's a valued skill to master all that stuff but its not a specialism. Finds and enviro etc are specialists, but just because they are should not mean they are valued above experienced site staff. I for one don't believe they should be.
To repeat my point the other day - if diggers are specialists then so is absolutely everyone alse in all sectors of the profession. By definition that's ridiculous
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
20th February 2006, 05:56 PM
I think we are getting into a confusion over two different uses of the term "specialist". On the one hand refering to a person with years of experience in a particular area and on the other to a person who requires specific skills in order to do a particular job.
I would consider field archaeologist/site assistant/what ever you want to call the job as a specialism in the second sense, it takes a particular set of skills that can't be learnt from and are not neccessary in any other job; although of course this takes time to develop into a specialism in the first sense.
To use an analogy with our friends in construction no one would expect a plumber to be good at laying bricks, but a newly qualified plumber won't neccessarily be as skilled as one with years of experience. And vice versa of course.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
20th February 2006, 06:41 PM
I do see your point Roy but I agree with LadyJen, i think the term 'specialist' can be misleading in that it can be used to describe different categories or degrees of specialism, i would by no means class myself as a 'field specialist' or emphasise this fact on my CV - all i am saying is that I think field archaeology is a specialism simply because the skills that diggers have to acquire/learn/attempt to master to do the job that they do are 'specialist'. I know you can apply this reasoning to just about any job but i do not see that this devalues the term in anyway, but this is just my personal opinion.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
20th February 2006, 07:42 PM
Thankyou to all for your responses on this.In my humble opinion, the future of fieldwork in the UK will depend upon a number of factors.One of the most important has to be the stage that we set for potential undergrads and the newly graduated.I don`t feel that we should continue to expect young people who invest in three or four years of full-time study (with all the hideousness that goes with it!) to stick around in an increasingly unprofessional environment that actively uses them as labourers.In just about every other flavour of the discipline, remmuneration (arguably) reflects the role and competence of the individual (quite funny when one reads this back).In Field Archaeology, a digger is a digger is a digger .Some units are not particularly interested in whether an individual has one week or ten years experience just so long as the site is excavated on time. Experienced field archaeologists as you well know, have to master a range of skills and apply them efficiently within a tight time constraint.Day in-day out.Eventually, those of us who can stomach the pitiful conditions end up with a skill-set that took years to accumulate.Field Archaeologists will only ever be as good as the people they work alongside.There is a steadily increasing number of old hands leaving the profession and taking all that experience with them.I`m afraid that people can only stomach conditions for so long before they walk away.My point is that in a commercial environment, the Field Archaeologist loses out at every turn.Building site labourers earn stacks more than they do.Usually, they live together in rented accommodation on short-term contracts.Some have never seen a contract.Field Archs are consistantly on the wrong end of illegal/incompetant Health and Safety practises, poor reflections of welfare facilities and almost universally, on the wrong end of hideously incompetant project designs/method statements.In all weathers.Just what is it that the profession expects Field Archaeologists to be grateful for? There are fieldies out there with astonishing levels of insight, competence and motivation.Usually, there is a graduate or two in tow who benefit from this.Often, there are a number of MIFAs who would be lost without them too.I think the profession at large should make it`s mind up.Do we excavate sites with one degree holder and hoards of volunteers and just make it up as we go along or, do we strive towards the recognition of a professional and multi-skilled workforce? Field Archaeology is a specialism.I`m not remotely interested in being called a specialist.I`m a field archaeologist.Tiz what I do.Does`nt make me disposable labour.Does`nt make me the bottom of the IFA pile.The data retrieval phase is the most important stage in the process.Throw muppets at it and you get carnage.Scene of Crime Officers are valued as such.As an archaeologist, my job is just as complex, requires a broad range of skills and-unlike the Policemans job-my scene of crime has been out in the rain or covered in sh*t for thousands of years.Value the field workforce.It`s older, experienced hands are on the way out and attracting new graduates will be pointless when there`s no-one there to train them.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
20th February 2006, 11:37 PM
and well said...as for roy, your comment that field archaeologists learn complex strat etc as part of their basic job description but not as a specialism...as an osteologist, I am expected to age, sex, calculate metrical data, diagnose pathology and trauma etc etc as part of my basic job description..does that mean that is not a specialism either...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2006
25th March 2006, 04:16 PM
The whole specialist title does seem a little unfair to me when it comes to field staff. Ok so an osteologist etc has to do all sorts of things to the remains. but for the fieldies skill at recovering this material they wouldnt even have anything to be specialist in! Any way as I see it this idea of a specialist only being in post exc also reflects on other strands on this messaging list regarding pay.
Devils advocate time- Is it fair that specialists, who can also technically be seen to be on short term contracts based on the work the fieldies are doing to generate 'artefacts', are by default paid more than fieldies? Recent graduate 'specialists automatically have a pay boost but surely they are as reliant in putting in the days/weeks/months/years to get the relevant level of expertise yet some are seemingly deemed fit to be set loose on the archaeological community as a 'specialist' straight out of an MA/MSc with no practical working knowledge and allowed to pronounce verdicts on the finds. I think a field arch with two months on a training dig with an MA in Field Arch for example was allowed to run and dig a site they would be in for a hard time.
Always look on the bright side
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
27th March 2006, 05:53 PM
I have just read with horror
"If you are one of these people, with all due respect, join your local society and don't damage the prospects of the young people trying to get into the profession by taking their jobs."
Second careers after early retirement is a normal thing to do to top up the pension. Low stress fun jobs are the order of the day. I know of bank managers and lawyers who have become gardeners.
Conservation is seen as one such option. What we should be considered is why such unqualified people would be welcomed into field archaeology not their age.
Peter Wardle
