30th July 2006, 11:26 AM
Hello Muddy,
firstly, just because Dr. P and many others of us cut our teeth as volunteers that doesn't mean we support the continuation of that process. They aren't called the bad old days for nothing.
Secondly, the erosion of our profession that you suggest would be an unforgiveable disaster.
There is the issue of standards. You suggest that graduates don't know what they are doing; well how will vounteers be better? Who are these putative volunteers? Some of the best archaeologists I know came into the profession through the manpower services comission, but I suspect that a lot of their '80s peers were only there for the dole money. I really don't think that there is a mass workforce of people out there yearning to leave their jobs and dig for free. If there were, the professional units would be employing them. Furthermore, where are these professional supervisors going to come from? The volunteers I presume. So you have effectively removed the tier of archaeological CPD where you learn what you are doing. Shortening the ladder doesn't help you move upwards, it justs helps standards move downwards.
Incidentally, I don't think public archaeology makes anyone money. Units do it either because it is written into their (charitable) foundations, or because someone in the organisation still remembers why they first thought archaeology was important, probably back when they were an idealistic volunteer in the '70s or '80s.
I'm not anti-volunteer. I love working with volunteers as they have so much enthusiasm. What they don't generally have is the skill-set required of a paid worker, and when they do I suggest that they ask to be paid.
'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur
firstly, just because Dr. P and many others of us cut our teeth as volunteers that doesn't mean we support the continuation of that process. They aren't called the bad old days for nothing.
Secondly, the erosion of our profession that you suggest would be an unforgiveable disaster.
There is the issue of standards. You suggest that graduates don't know what they are doing; well how will vounteers be better? Who are these putative volunteers? Some of the best archaeologists I know came into the profession through the manpower services comission, but I suspect that a lot of their '80s peers were only there for the dole money. I really don't think that there is a mass workforce of people out there yearning to leave their jobs and dig for free. If there were, the professional units would be employing them. Furthermore, where are these professional supervisors going to come from? The volunteers I presume. So you have effectively removed the tier of archaeological CPD where you learn what you are doing. Shortening the ladder doesn't help you move upwards, it justs helps standards move downwards.
Incidentally, I don't think public archaeology makes anyone money. Units do it either because it is written into their (charitable) foundations, or because someone in the organisation still remembers why they first thought archaeology was important, probably back when they were an idealistic volunteer in the '70s or '80s.
I'm not anti-volunteer. I love working with volunteers as they have so much enthusiasm. What they don't generally have is the skill-set required of a paid worker, and when they do I suggest that they ask to be paid.
'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur