13th May 2009, 12:32 PM
The architecture comparison is interesting. In terms of training the analogy holds up well.
I, for my part, don't want to see a divide opening up between excavator and archaeologist. I think we've made a case by trial and error for excavation by archaeologists exactly because such a large proportion of interpretation has to be made during the course of excavation. Remember, the builders in construction have a blueprint to work from but the excavator is part of drawing the actual blueprint. Once the feature is gone, it's gone.
From our discussion last year, I think the consensus was that a new archaeologist was expected to have some awareness of process (and also and awareness that they've only just begun to learn).
Some nuances of this debate are peculiarly British. In particular the trade vs profession debate because at every level from policy planning to self identification that means something to the British psyche. Archaeology is equally both, not just as an industry, but for the majority of those involved on a day-to-day level as well. It's like that joke the Germans have about engineers: "In German if you say you're an engineer you're invited in to meet the daughter, in England to meet the washing machine."
I still feel that it's important that where practicable everybody in archaeology should have digging experience because the higher up you go the more of an impact not understanding the process will have. (Can I once again mention academics who are incapable of interpreting a site report? Not all, but it does happen.) Not to mention, I'd not trust someone who had not had plentiful first-hand excavation experience with the project design. (Just like on the whole I find many academics unduly pessimistic about what info can be recovered by excavation. But then working with students at roughly the same level year after year will have that effect.)
The way things work at present everybody is so impatient to be promoted above being a digger because that is the bottom rung. The effect of this though is that the best excavators are taken away from the field. We desperately need a recognised senior site assistant grade which allows the most able diggers to stay both in the field and in archaeology longer.
I, for my part, don't want to see a divide opening up between excavator and archaeologist. I think we've made a case by trial and error for excavation by archaeologists exactly because such a large proportion of interpretation has to be made during the course of excavation. Remember, the builders in construction have a blueprint to work from but the excavator is part of drawing the actual blueprint. Once the feature is gone, it's gone.
From our discussion last year, I think the consensus was that a new archaeologist was expected to have some awareness of process (and also and awareness that they've only just begun to learn).
Some nuances of this debate are peculiarly British. In particular the trade vs profession debate because at every level from policy planning to self identification that means something to the British psyche. Archaeology is equally both, not just as an industry, but for the majority of those involved on a day-to-day level as well. It's like that joke the Germans have about engineers: "In German if you say you're an engineer you're invited in to meet the daughter, in England to meet the washing machine."
I still feel that it's important that where practicable everybody in archaeology should have digging experience because the higher up you go the more of an impact not understanding the process will have. (Can I once again mention academics who are incapable of interpreting a site report? Not all, but it does happen.) Not to mention, I'd not trust someone who had not had plentiful first-hand excavation experience with the project design. (Just like on the whole I find many academics unduly pessimistic about what info can be recovered by excavation. But then working with students at roughly the same level year after year will have that effect.)
The way things work at present everybody is so impatient to be promoted above being a digger because that is the bottom rung. The effect of this though is that the best excavators are taken away from the field. We desperately need a recognised senior site assistant grade which allows the most able diggers to stay both in the field and in archaeology longer.