Bile hurts so bad -
In parallel worlds, being enfolded with KW++, would be lovely.
Still nerves here seem badly frayed;
Thus, in spirit of harmony,
[and not doing this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBdwAW05Oq0]
I revisit some previous thoughts;
Trade/Profession etc> high manual skills and techniques has a lot in common with many trades, as do many practical concerns in excavations – more nebulous 'heritage management' has much in common with many other office based professions (no disrespect intended)>>>
it may not be possible to square the circle here,
but I suggest thinking about
how different kinds of work can best be 'assessed' >
in relation to the 'trade' end of archaeology - especially (but not only) highly skilled and knowledgeable field workers – I invite general consideration of ICON >
where:
correct
technical practice is of
absolute concern, and consequently is very rigorously assessed.
I invite the CIFA to take up this challenge :
create a new kind of specific 'accredited field-archaeologist',
;specifically to cover the extremely essential, highly experienced individuals who actual make all this heritage out of what is otherwise a pile of wet mud;
people whose expertise and data is foundational to the professions of others, and have been exceedingly undervalued for a very long time.
I want to see veteran archaeologists applying and passing on their skills and knowledge – I think the best are easily worth 'management-level' pay grades, regardless of there specific responsibilities.
I want the best of these people to seen, respected,
and valued, as essential technical experts, excavation
specialists, etc., > this would give a realistic career-end point in 'technical archaeology' for those not ambitious to fight over a small pool of 'office jobs'.
I propose that under such a system, ' accredited excavation specialists ' could form the basis of site-spot checking of commercial practice and skills-base, in the form of
CIFA 'jury service' site visits.
I also challenge the CIFA to also apply rigours checks to those in the more 'managerial' roles in ROAs– ie specifically whether they meet criteria as competent 'professional managers'
(yuk! What is that ?!), regardless of their technical competencies. > IE An effective manager need not be a technical expert, but are all of these managers actually effective
– how can the good ones be highlighted?
Most Importantly for all sides, members or not :
the process of complaints needs to be robust (and possibly redemptive:-
why dont staff complain more? > because in small teams, or as temporaries, it is not only painfully obvious who has likely complained, but since the change in employment laws the vast majority employed in commercial archaeology have very few usable rights...unfortunately many ROAs have a very strong vested interest in NOT employing too many potential 'trouble-makers', i.e. independently trained, high-skill 'trades-people' who 'knows-wots-wot'...the can not help but to prefer instead a strongly hierarchical structure, in which 'site-workers' have very few cards to play.....
>also, sometimes, one might just pity the sad old bastard, and feel uncomfortable about upsetting their mediocre careers/companies...or the poor staff still working for 'em....
