29th April 2005, 06:41 PM
good points all round! Alfie has hit the nail on the noggin-a site assistant should be an archaeologist i.e, an individual who understands all of the processes. As the discipline could arguably be seen as a processual one (not in the biblical sense), it would seem ridiculous to employ those who simply dig blindly. On the issue of responsibility, I agree, there has to be a team/individual at the helm to ensure a professional cohesion. It has to be said however, that site assistants should take full responsibility for the jobs they are given. Without an adequate grounding in how the bigger system functions-this is almost impossible for the SA to achieve. As Vulpes rightly points out, archaeology is not just the bit in the field-tiz the bits either side that should be the motivational factors in defining the role and abilities of the SA.
I personally feel the best SA` are the ones who can make good coffee, roll fags in the pis*ing rain and laugh when the muppetry gets too much....p.s "no promotion unless MIFA" this nearly made me pi** my self. What on earth convinces people that IFA membership at any level is a guaruntee of competence? Missing Intrinsic Field Ability......
I personally feel the best SA` are the ones who can make good coffee, roll fags in the pis*ing rain and laugh when the muppetry gets too much....p.s "no promotion unless MIFA" this nearly made me pi** my self. What on earth convinces people that IFA membership at any level is a guaruntee of competence? Missing Intrinsic Field Ability......