Current job advert

[Wax]

Of course when there are no county Mounties and planning archaeologists to read and understand the DBA/EIA then units will present the cheapest product they can get away with to the client. (Market Forces?).

[Dinosaur]

In our experience most of our clients would rather have a properly researched DBA with some suitable advice attached like 'move the building to the west side of the site to avoid the Roman cemetery that so-and-so dug in 1870 and is mis-located on the HER' - avoids lots of distress and expense further down the line....all comes down to educating the clients really, once it's been explained to them they can usually see that a little additional expenditure at the outset can potentially save them millions further down the line. And then they come back next time...

- of course this relies on employing people to do DBAs who are capable of hunting out original references/site records/archive/whatever and actually able to understand/reinterpret them in the wider context of the site, have enough practical experience to understand eg how much damage that Victorian carpet factory will have done to the site (often surprisingly little) etc etc. Its amazing how many urban sites have been lost unrecorded because they were written-off at the outset due to cellaring when there was probably plenty of evidence surviving between and below the cellars...

[GnomeKing]

Yes indeed Wax - especially when there has been little opportunity for scrutiny beyond 1 or 2 people actually working + reporting on a site...

Inexperienced staff + overworked 'old-hands' + over stretched curators + commercialism = unhappy archaeology :face-crying:

Dino - you are dead right about those cellars...lots of related examples could be given...i am sure we all have some

(...so sad this has just become a case of 'this is just the way it is'/'dont rock the boat'...we all make mistakes, but the healthy thing is to acknowledge and address them....unfortuatley this is often prevented by conflicts with unsubstantiated corporate hierarchies...and lack of peer scrutiny)

[Dinosaur]

There seems to be a surprising level of agreement on this thread, at least where what's-good-for-the-archaeology is concerned, think there's some hope for British archaeology after all! :face-approve:

- just need to get the actual profession sorted out :0

....although I'm sure P Prentice is hankering to chip in and bring us all down again :face-stir:

[Jack]

Save what you can/ drive change from within is my plan!

[GnomeKing]

Ah 'The Insider', the 'Whisleblower', 'The Counter-Illuminati' (stirry stick, stirry stick, yap yap yap)
Working within the System to Change It? (shocked face!)
Come now J, whatever will that achieve? (top hat/cigar/braces)

"Tried it - all that i have to show is a Soul worn away...."

[Dinosaur]

Save what you can/ drive change from within is my plan!

Aah! the corruption resulting from a decent(ish) salary, a warm office and a good pension plan........

[BAJR]

Once again I may return to Skills, training and respect.

Where can people learn skills, where can they get training, where can they get respect and resulting pay/benefits?

I am still waiting for the skills passport scheme to roll out. There is great support for it... but I am still waiting to see it move forward.

Lets appreciate skills, and reward them. This is bigger than BAJR, but I will move ahead if I have to.

[Medway Blue]

I would tend to agree with the last two post here. I believe that a Project Officer should be well versed and capable of not only running the larger (more complicated) sites but also look after their staff by maintaining a healthy working environment........as well as meeting project specific requirements, timescales and budgets, while trying to keep Project Managers happy and (of course) Curators and Consultants. Jack is correct, there may be a shock awaiting!

[Medway Blue]

Opps....there are more posts here than I thought so not the last two posts.....