Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
27th August 2012, 11:48 AM
Most of the best 'older' diggers I've worked with over the years haven't been project officers - obviously since if they were project officers they wouldn't be diggers, and once someone's been promoted they pretty much stop gaining digging experience, all that paperwork etc..... :face-thinks:
@Kel - good post, well argued and gives me something to look forward to in my old age when my fingers are too knackered to type any more :face-approve:
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
27th August 2012, 12:49 PM
I belive all archaeology should be public facing (which covers a range of options from easily accessible reports to full on community projects). But and it is a big but, not without strong professional involvement and guidance. Public involvement should not result in down grading of the profession and damage to the archaeological heritage but rather the development of a different type of professional archaeologist. ( I see the Southport agenda as fundamentally flawed but with some good points).
like BAJR and Dino I see strong local (council) units as the way forward though how and who pays for it is another matter.
As I did not start my archaeological carear until my very late thirties I see a strong element of unintentional truth in Kel's post.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
27th August 2012, 06:41 PM
Joke? You mean this was supposed to be a serious subject....oops!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
27th August 2012, 06:57 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:Joke? You mean this was supposed to be a serious subject....oops!!
Judging by Kel's response, apparently not. Those 20 something year-olds with families, mortgages etc don't count as grown ups apparently (I am not one of them I hasten to add, not one of the 20 something year olds anyway). I'm no longer sure what is serious/ironic/a joke on this forum.
The 'profession' in every shape and form is clearly totally and utterly doomed.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
27th August 2012, 07:21 PM
There are relatively few 21 year old new undergrads with mortgages and families, compared to Kevin's 35 year olds, is the point I was making there.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
27th August 2012, 07:33 PM
The thread was intended as a serious question as there is a lot of complaining about the current state of British archaeology. I wondered how people thought it should be run. (Of course there is room for humour in any answers).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
27th August 2012, 08:10 PM
Kel Wrote:There are relatively few 21 year old new undergrads with mortgages and families, compared to Kevin's 35 year olds, is the point I was making there.
Are your sure? How about 25 year olds? 28 year olds? What difference does it make? Heard about someone I vaguely know the other day, don't how old he is, mid-20s perhaps, with young family, perhaps a mortgage almost certainly rent. Can't stay in archaeology anymore due to the poor employment options. Is that fair?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
27th August 2012, 08:24 PM
Having completed an undergrad degree last year and knowing a large number of early-to-mid-20-somethings as a consequence, I know of only one who has a child and partner. I still contend that few people in this age bracket would expect to find themselves in this type of domestic situation. Most of those I know have either moved back with parents or still live in shared rented accomodation as they did when students - and they expect to be there for a while yet. Fresh undergraduates would generally not expect to be earning a wage in any profession, which allowed them to live a family lifestyle. This is not a new development - thus it was when I was 21 and earning a wage so low that I still qualified for Housing Benefit.
Quote:Heard about someone I vaguely know the other day, don't how old he is, mid-20s perhaps, with young family, perhaps a mortgage almost certainly rent. Can't stay in archaeology anymore due to the poor employment options. Is that fair?
I don't know if it's fair, but it was pretty predictable. It's not a sudden horrible shock that archaeology is poorly paid and that you're unlikely to be able to support a family on the wages it offers. That's been the case for years now.
And I think Kevin's comment about 35 year olds was intended to be unfair. I merely reacted to that in similar style.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
27th August 2012, 08:40 PM
I think that this does reflect the generational conflict we have in archaeology with the majority of those who were instrumental in creating the situation as it is today now holding senior positions and to a certain extent they have pulled the ladder up after them. Then they talk down to the next generation about how they had it so tough - maybe an anecdote about how we should be grateful we have a rancid b & b and only 5 days a week as they all lived in a tent/septic tank/derelict building and were grateful for it..... then in the next breath say they have been running sites since they left uni and have had a permanent job for 30years!
And there are problems for every stage of your life, no matter what choices you make and at what point you settle down, have a family, buy a house or anything else. But the choice of job shouldn't prevent you doing this. I love what I do but I hate the choices I have made because of it - I am not yet there but i'm also not a mile away from the 35 cut off and I don't know how much longer I can stay. I have ten years in the field and no kids, no morgage, no stability............. and is it worth it?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
27th August 2012, 09:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 27th August 2012, 09:07 PM by Kel.)
Quote:And there are problems for every stage of your life, no matter what choices you make and at what point you settle down, have a family, buy a house or anything else. But the choice of job shouldn't prevent you doing this. I love what I do but I hate the choices I have made because of it - I am not yet there but i'm also not a mile away from the 35 cut off and I don't know how much longer I can stay. I have ten years in the field and no kids, no morgage, no stability............. and is it worth it?
I can empathise trowelfodder, but am in kind of the opposite situation. I had to do jobs I loathed for 20+ years in order to pay off the mortgage, so that I could afford to spend a few years (probably a finite amount of time) involved with the archaeology that I love. The result of this decision process is that I'm entry-level at an age when I'm too old to be useful as a field archaeologist, limiting my already meagre opportunities for employment. Also, I've emerged into a world where both commercial and academic opportunities are shrinking. If I'd gone into archaeology in my early-20s, I could never have afforded my own home. That was the trade-off I made. Was a mouldy 2 bed flat in a crappy area worth 20+ years of my life? Under the circumstances, probably, yes. But ask me again in five years and I'll probably tell you different. However, I'd be hard-pressed to cry foul. Where I am and where I'll end up are the result of what I alone have decided.
Ultimately, your life choices are just that - yours. All of our decisions have consequences and we all get to live with them. Sometimes they turn out to be worth it, sometimes not (I know plenty of people who have admitted that they wouldn't have had children if they'd understood what this would actually entail). But often we won't know for a few years or until it's too late to change our minds, so it's best to just enjoy the journey as best we can.
