18th April 2006, 05:33 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardleApologies for the slow reply to this, in which time the debate has moved on.
Illuminated makes some very interesting comments.
for example:
"I can not see how any routine task in field archaeology can be given a set 'standard' time. There are too many variable factors ranging from .....spoil dumping difficulties, not always having the best tool for the job ....
I can also see people making a huge rush for the one or two good mattocks and barrows first thing in the morning. I personally find having good tools is a great benefit to speed and efficiency, but the general standard of tool quality on most sites does not reflect this need (another issue perhaps)."
All other things being equal if there were enough good mattocks and better spoil management etc how much would the speed of an excavation increase. Both of these things are down to poor management. A mattock costs UKP 30 even a slight increase in speed say 2% this could equate to something like a UKP500 per year more pay for a grade III.
If what Illuminated is saying is right then one reason for the poor pay in archaeology is some pretty poor management at a very basic level.
Just to clarify, spoil management usually has nothing to do with on site management. It is only ever a problem in urban or otherwise consticted sites, and is determined by the size and location of the area being excavated, as specified in the brief being worked to. Any digger with a bit of common sense can see where the best place to dump spoil is and how to best get it there, and has the capability to construct or move a barrow run. It is surprising to hear the view from the office that field archaeologists and their supervisors are running round like headless chickens creating problems for themselves. The problem comes from the original decision on the location of the trench in relation to its surroundings.
In relation to having a set time for digging a type of archaeological feature, the physical restrictions of the particular site would be an important factor determining how quickly a particular feature could be excavated, and one that varies widely.
As for tool conditions, the majority i've seen are in a worn but useable state, and a lot of it comes down to personal preference. I prefer a mattock with the longest blade and heaviest weight of head i can find, others may prefer the lighter ones with shorter blades, or even those with the arm jarring plastic handles. If my performance was being judged against others for cash on a criteria of speed, I would feel hard done by if i couldn't get what I thought was the best tool for the job. Specifying in a brief that adequate tools must be provided can do no harm, as many tools provided are substandard and barely fit for purpose.
My view is that while a stakeholder / profitshare scheme may be a good thing, archaeology as an industry is fundamentally unsuited to perfomance related bonuses. Speed of completion is the only way this bonus could be earned, and that speed could only come about through rushing, corner cutting, or not finding what was expected. The vast majority of field archaeologists are doing their best anyway, and a bit of extra cash would not speed them up.
It was mentioned above some jobs have tighter financial constraints than others, and the trend is to underbudget in relation to archaeological potential rather than provide sufficient contingency. Putting a performance related bonus on a jobs like these (most jobs i've worked on) is a joke.
Perhaps the most fundamental and overlooked point about performance bonuses, speed and archaeology is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO FIND UNTILL WE HAVE EXCAVATED IT. That is why we are excavating in the first place. To put a fixed cost on an unknowm is hard enough (hence contigency monies). To put a speed related bonus on top is ridiculous.