10th June 2005, 01:36 AM
I personally think that nearly everyone who works in archaeology would like to be better trained, multi-skilled and have a job that is more than just routine. Its just that sometimes beyond a certain promotion point, and especially in larger units, you actually end up reducing the variety in your job. I can understand why many archaeologists feel (and bearing in mind the often minimal pay differential between digger/supervisor/project officer) that all that hassle isn't actually worth it?
It is perhaps a shame then that so much 'effort' in archaeology is put into establishing and maintaining hierarchies of employment status, when there are so many other areas that cry out for attention. Surely in this day and age it must be possible for archaeologists to devise amongst theirselves a system where employment is on an equal basis with equal shares of responsibility and reward. Which doesn't mean that you don't have project officers or diggers, but that everyone has equal respect for the efforts of others.
There is also an attitude problem in archaeology connected with the perception and perpetuation of employment hierarchy. A personal observation is that the employing of 'Stepford Supervisors' seems to becoming increasingly prevalent amongst larger contracting units, where the system and manner of employment is turning perfectly sensible and hard working diggers into cloned ninnies once they go one notch up the ****ty stick that archaeology holds out as a career ladder, forgetting the cameraderie of the trenches as they turn into die-hard sociopaths.
Of course, I don't claim this is a totally new phenomenon and it has been going on for some time. A much respected friend said to me at about the time that the EH Central Unit replaced the old DOE Central Unit, 'I've seen the future Kev. It wears a Barbour jacket, combs its hair, smells all kind of clean and is called ********' (name censored to spare blushes!!)
I believe that if archaeologists felt more respected they would naturally fell more engaged with their job, whoever they worked for. One step in the right direction might be for the IFA to abolish MIFA/AIFA/PIFA grades and have a single-membership grade. Two steps in the right direction would be for the IFA to rename itself the 'Institute of Archaeologists'. Three steps in the right direction would be for BAJR to refuse adverts that refer to 'Archaeological Technicians' or 'Assistants' or similar dumbing-down titles and call us all 'Archaeologists'. You could instead have an advert that said 'Archaeologist with Field Specialism', 'Archaeologist with Finds Specialism' etc etc.
It is perhaps a shame then that so much 'effort' in archaeology is put into establishing and maintaining hierarchies of employment status, when there are so many other areas that cry out for attention. Surely in this day and age it must be possible for archaeologists to devise amongst theirselves a system where employment is on an equal basis with equal shares of responsibility and reward. Which doesn't mean that you don't have project officers or diggers, but that everyone has equal respect for the efforts of others.
There is also an attitude problem in archaeology connected with the perception and perpetuation of employment hierarchy. A personal observation is that the employing of 'Stepford Supervisors' seems to becoming increasingly prevalent amongst larger contracting units, where the system and manner of employment is turning perfectly sensible and hard working diggers into cloned ninnies once they go one notch up the ****ty stick that archaeology holds out as a career ladder, forgetting the cameraderie of the trenches as they turn into die-hard sociopaths.
Of course, I don't claim this is a totally new phenomenon and it has been going on for some time. A much respected friend said to me at about the time that the EH Central Unit replaced the old DOE Central Unit, 'I've seen the future Kev. It wears a Barbour jacket, combs its hair, smells all kind of clean and is called ********' (name censored to spare blushes!!)
I believe that if archaeologists felt more respected they would naturally fell more engaged with their job, whoever they worked for. One step in the right direction might be for the IFA to abolish MIFA/AIFA/PIFA grades and have a single-membership grade. Two steps in the right direction would be for the IFA to rename itself the 'Institute of Archaeologists'. Three steps in the right direction would be for BAJR to refuse adverts that refer to 'Archaeological Technicians' or 'Assistants' or similar dumbing-down titles and call us all 'Archaeologists'. You could instead have an advert that said 'Archaeologist with Field Specialism', 'Archaeologist with Finds Specialism' etc etc.