Is it me? the rise of teh "trainee"

[P Prentice]

I have yet to meet anyone who could be left alone to identify, excavate, record and interpret all the diverse archaeology we in commercial archaeology have to deal with within that time. Now, if you consider that you can train someone to that standard within that timeframe, I'd question what it is you actually want from people working in this industry. And more to the point, I would worry about the archaeology!
2) I mentioned, to some derision, that there are still occasions where the extent of features has been debatable even to experienced POs. My opinion is that where things are uncertain, the best person to make the decision, regardless of my own feeling, is the person who has the responsibility for offering the overall interpretation of the site. And that is the PO. So, through a process of dialogue, we come to a conclusion. Archaeology is both a collaborative and a subjective business. If you think you can, 100% of the time and entirely on your own, get it all right then I would call you a liar to your face. It ain't happening.

you seem to have become a bit confused again. it takes two weeks to learn the process but there are no circumstances, even should 111 months have passed, when a digger is left to their own devices without the direct and supervision of someone higher up the chain just as that person will be supervised by someone higher up still. i would not expect anybody to take responsibility unless they were paid to do so. for all those old lags out there still doing the basic digger job, whatever their stated reasons, i expect most dont want or cant get any further for very good reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to dig.

[Tool]

you seem to have become a bit confused again. it takes two weeks to learn the process but there are no circumstances, even should 111 months have passed, when a digger is left to their own devices without the direct and supervision of someone higher up the chain just as that person will be supervised by someone higher up still. i would not expect anybody to take responsibility unless they were paid to do so. for all those old lags out there still doing the basic digger job, whatever their stated reasons, i expect most dont want or cant get any further for very good reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to dig.

Confused is my speciality... You make a fair point. I'd say, with my many seconds of experience, that it does depend very much on the individual though. Some have a natural affinity for digging in the dirt, some need more teaching, and some will never get it as long as they've got a hole in their Harris Matrix...

[Sikelgaita]

I've been doing this for 11 months now. It took considerably more than two weeks to get promoted from trainee. And rightly so. I have yet to meet anyone who could be left alone to identify, excavate, record and interpret all the diverse archaeology we in commercial archaeology have to deal with within that time.

Two weeks to learn the basics. I think that to be able to 'identify, excavate, record and interpret all the diverse archaeology we in commercial archaeology have to deal with' is impossible, we barely 'scratch the surface' in a lifetime of learning as an archaeologist. Every feature provides a new and unique challenge and an opportunity for learning. Maybe every new context I excavate should be recorded in my CPD log.

I mentioned, to some derision, that there are still occasions where the extent of features has been debatable even to experienced POs. My opinion is that where things are uncertain, the best person to make the decision, regardless of my own feeling, is the person who has the responsibility for offering the overall interpretation of the site. And that is the PO.

No derision was intended.

I would turn this around and say that as a PO, after robust dialogue, in a situation like this I would ultimately base my decision upon the feelings of the person who has excavated the feature and who has been in closest contact with the 'uncertain soils'.

[Wax]

I wonder what do people see as the "natural" progression through a career in archaeology? Bearing in mind that for a field archaeologist the oportunities to progress to higher management levels within the field are not there (or didn't use to be without a commitment to travelling around). To progress can require a degree of moving around that does not favour a good life, work balance. I would much rather work in the field but my skills, reluctance to be away from home for months on end and the oportunities that were there led to me now being a mainly office based archaeologist. I still get out and dig but mainly as a volunteer. I would also be the first to admit that the physical demands of digging have left their mark and I could no longer keep up with someone twenty years younger.
The role of digger is what I enjoy most but it has not been sustainable and let's be honest with the retirement age now around 68 and the c..p wages is it realistic to see one's career played out at the trench face?

[Sikelgaita]

are your trainees archaeology graduates or are you not fussed?

I don't have much choice who I am training, they just get sent to me. None are archaeology graduates, although one is in the second year of their archaeology degree course. I don't think that a having a degree is any guide to whether that person (to quote Tool) 'will have a natural affinity for digging in the dirt'. I have met graduates who are great diggers, I have met graduates who think they know it all because they supervised the first years on the university training dig, I have met graduates who dislike the physical side of being a digger etc. I have met some non graduates who have that natural affinity for digging and also many who just don't get it etc. If that person wants to learn and work hard then that is all that I am fussed about.

[kevin wooldridge]

At the end of the day surely it is about pressure and stress. Lessons learned in a classroom, at a field school even through on the job training need to be honed in the white heat of the moment. I have met all sorts of extremely talented archaeologists who just cannot handle stress.....I am sure that the deadlines imposed by commercial archaeology exacerbate the situation, but I have also seen folk succumbing to stress on less pressured excavations.....The reverse is also true and some truly fantastic archaeologists may appear lacking (at least on paper) but are able to carry out consistent and considered work in situations that would have many other people running for the hills....Its not just about training in skills but also about building reserves of both physical and mental stamina.....some people may appear to have that naturally, others need longer to develop. That's probably where the suggestion of the adequacies of 2 weeks training is at its weakest....

[Dinosaur]

I wonder what do people see as the "natural" progression through a career in archaeology?

Interest, enthusiasm, disillusion, despair, anger, apathy, consultant, death

[Marc Berger]

If you think you can, 100% of the time and entirely on your own, get it all right then I would call you a liar to your face. It ain't happening

I like the on your own bit. As prentice says when in the trainee supervisor order when are you alone. what the director situated well away from the dirt wants to hear is sycophancy. Whether using a trowel or a bulldozer there will be no market to judge the quality of the product and as Kevin's says it's about being affable and getting on with each other, accepting your dues, rather than the Valetta convention licence to dig pay me to dig under which the director has based the price for the job. Call me a liar and I will show you "my" licence. In the supervisor trainee model confusing getting it right is pretending that they are archaeologists when that's reserved for the director general contracts. I probably work on my own too much and come over a bit shouty but you can when you work by my own licence, I have a really annoying monotone whistle as well.

[P Prentice]

I don't have much choice who I am training, they just get sent to me. None are archaeology graduates, although one is in the second year of their archaeology degree course. I don't think that a having a degree is any guide to whether that person (to quote Tool) 'will have a natural affinity for digging in the dirt'. I have met graduates who are great diggers, I have met graduates who think they know it all because they supervised the first years on the university training dig, I have met graduates who dislike the physical side of being a digger etc. I have met some non graduates who have that natural affinity for digging and also many who just don't get it etc. If that person wants to learn and work hard then that is all that I am fussed about.

i think the singlemost important thing keeping contracts short and wages down etc is the assumption that anyone can dig and that the profession does not require graduate entry. on one hand the industry is intent on showing the world just how easy it is to do archaeology and then it moans about being seen as some kind of esoteric calling that does not require propoer pay and conditions - we are looking ever more like jobbing labourers for anitiquarians.

[Marc Berger]

here here - what it says in the context sheet is only words but then in most European countries the trainees are not allowed to fill in context sheets (if they have them).