27th June 2006, 02:19 PM
From Troll:
On Dr Peter Wardle's points, though, I would be very worried about field archaeologists driving machines. I find it difficult to believe that an archaeologist who is an occasional machine driver could be either as skilful or as safe as a full-time professional.
I think the real solution is for unit management/field officers to be more willing to take a strong line with machine drivers and to reject drivers who don't cooperate, or whose skills are not up to the standard needed. It shouldn't fall on individual diggers or supervisors, as in the other thread mentioned by Dr Pete.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:There is not enough briefing of staff prior to breaking ground across the board.A site tour is a rare thing in itself and is by no means enough.A site staffed by archaeologists who have`nt read method statements/project designs is a site excavated using only 10% of its most valuable resources-field archies.In a similar vein, you will always get more from staff of other industries if your own are well informed and engage with them.I would like to add my unqualified support for everything said by Troll in the long post from which this sample was taken. Briefing site staff and keeping them up to date is generally very poor in British archaeology.
On Dr Peter Wardle's points, though, I would be very worried about field archaeologists driving machines. I find it difficult to believe that an archaeologist who is an occasional machine driver could be either as skilful or as safe as a full-time professional.
I think the real solution is for unit management/field officers to be more willing to take a strong line with machine drivers and to reject drivers who don't cooperate, or whose skills are not up to the standard needed. It shouldn't fall on individual diggers or supervisors, as in the other thread mentioned by Dr Pete.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished