Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
9th February 2007, 01:18 AM
I'm currently 'resting' between contracts and looking at other careers (that can guarantee more than 6 months work at a stretch and don't involve working 60 hour weeks outdoors in the snow sharing rooms with strangers).
As someone with 6 years professional digging experience and a lasting love of archaeology, the first thing I'll do if the lure of the trowel doesn't get me back in the spring is join and actively participate in any local societies.
I agree it is a bit much for full time professionals to spend weekends doing extra archaeology, though I do know people who do this, and take my hat off to them.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
9th February 2007, 11:54 AM
Societies are all different, and have different memberships, aims and aspirations: these change over time within any one society as well. Having said that, there is indeed a definite tendency for a "white middle class middle aged" membership, only really interested in attending monthly lecture meetings and the occasional outing. So what? Membership can only consist of those who want to join! Some societies have excellent programmes of speakers, from the academic and commercial spheres, and it can be well worthwhile joining just to hear them. Others have some complete drivel of course.
Some societies have memberships clamouring for fieldwork - excavation - but committees who either don't want to know, or the oppurtunities do not exist, for reasons you will all know. Others do fieldwork but are "cliquey" and only a select few are allowed to join in. Yet others have committees who are keen on fieldwork but cannot raise the enthusiasm of the membership.
It also seems to me that there is (AUP in mind) a bizarre campaign of misinformation by a popular magazine, representing commercial archaeologists as deliberately and malicously squeezing the downtrodden gentleman/lady amateur out of the picture for reasons of pure greed, and giving the impression that but for these monsters the good retirees of suburbia would be happily carrying out PPG16 work for nothing. A gross distortion of the picture....
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
12th February 2007, 10:50 AM
Interesting results, so far.
Out of interest, why do the majority not join? Is it lack of interest in the local archaeology, or is it a financial decision (can't afford the subs)?[?]
One of the fundamental inspirations for me getting into archaeology was the local landscape (I was fortunate to grow up in a part of the country with prehistoric and later monuments all over the place, so the past was very visible - huge standing stones next to the bus-shelter sort of thing), and I have maintained a strong bond with the history of my local area ever since. I also maintain an interest for professional reasons in the area in which I now work.
If people are moving around a lot, does this divorce them from local issues and engender more of an 'objective technician' approach to digging? Is this better than building up a detailed local expertise, which can identify and investigate local variations in the archaeological record, or does the latter approach lead to parochialism?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
12th February 2007, 12:43 PM
`white middle class middle aged`
I don't think this only applies to Local Societies, but to a large extent the archaeological profession as a whole, or just simply white middle class.
So it seems amateurs and professionals do have something in common 8-)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
12th February 2007, 01:42 PM
To a certain extent, that is true, jeff. However IMO, there has been a certain levelling out in class (if not in ethnicity) amongst professional fieldworkers in the 20 plus years I've been working in archaeology. Probably as a result of the succession of YOP/YTS and MSC programmes that were running in the late 1970's to mid eighties, more then anything.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
16th February 2007, 02:42 PM
Invisible, we seem to have been members of the same society. I was a member and on the committee of one for many years and they behaved exactly as you described. In fact they have run projects that have won national awards but that they don't publicise because those presently in charge weren't involved.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
WSIs do not concern me, Curator. I want that site, not excuses
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th February 2007, 12:59 PM
I have to say that I find this poll a bit offensive and poorly put thought out.
I am neither young or left wing (50 and liberal democrat). I am a member of several archaeology societies such as Oxfordshire, Berkshire, London and Middlesex. I am active member of my local history society and attend many of their meetings (unfortunately in the winter they are held in the afternoon because most of the members do not like to go out after dark).
The local archaeology society is however another matter the AUP prevents commenting. The rift between them and me is entirely of their own making.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
18th February 2007, 12:49 PM
"a bit offensive and poorly thought out". Then don`t answer it Peter.
"The rift between them and me is entirely of their own making". Who said anything about a rift between you and anyone else? I don`t understand sir......:face-huh:I think that local Societies comprise members of the public with enough passion for archaeology to make the next logical step by becoming actively involved in a variety of ways.If the truth be known, many of us in the commercial world started out as volunteers-mostly within the framework of local Societies.There does seem to be a certain attitude that constantly draws difinative lines between "amateur" and "professional" and for me, those lines blur the closer you look.If indeed, Societies are seen to comprise of middle classess then we should all accept that any communication between us and the wider public has failed. It has to be said that these "middle classes" are historically, a large representative slice of the voting public and as such, should we not exercise a more inclusive approach? I think that greater communication across the board is fundamental but ,local and regional Societies at least,should be included within regional research frameworks and provided with greater avenues of communication.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
18th February 2007, 07:25 PM
Keep your hair on Troll - I dont like stereo typing on grounds of age or politics or class.
In my days as a proper archaeologists I lectured to many societies archaeological, historical and metal detector. A complete range of backgrounds as one might expect in West Yorkshire and South Wales the same is also true in Oxfordshire.
I cannot think of any other "profession" where amateurs are given so much credence however.
I discussed these kind of issues in my BAJR paper.
The point I was making is that the rift between many amateurs and professionals is not neccessarily of the fault professional.
I do not see archaeology as a leisure activity and I do see why professionals should be expected to give freely of their time to facilitate people's hobbies.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
18th February 2007, 07:32 PM
[quote]Originally posted by drpeterwardle
I have to say that I find this poll a bit offensive and poorly put thought out.
Sorry Prof, didn't realise I was setting an exam question. best stick to pub quizzes.
