27th January 2010, 11:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 27th January 2010, 12:01 PM by GnomeKing.)
Additionaly -
there have been many stories over the years of frankly crap work done/managed by people who have only a very limited understanding of the subject - perhapes each time we see it we think "oh well what can be done? this usless-waste-of-air-and-space must be the exception..."
Nope - they crop up every where, and they have ruined many archaeological excerscises and mangled the experience for Real archaeologists.
Fix them, and i think a number of issues will start to become easier.
At present it is extreemly difficult to get anybody to take compliants about how the archaeology of a site is being done seriously - i dont mean the major shockers, but the routine day-to-day things taht dont always seem so significant.
limited modes of thought and interpretation (backed by fairly limited/low levles of specific eductaion) abound, and are prepetutated amongst junior staff who are told "this is the way it must/always be done" - dissent is in practice extreemly difficult and possibly highly dangerous to ones career.
This needs to be fixed - from it will follow higher job sytisfaction, respect, collaboration between people with various levels and types of knowledge ----and ultimatley substantially improved quailty of work - --- quality work will demonstrtae value --- value will provide a bassis for re-negotiating the role of archaeolgoy in the commercial and public spheres.
there have been many stories over the years of frankly crap work done/managed by people who have only a very limited understanding of the subject - perhapes each time we see it we think "oh well what can be done? this usless-waste-of-air-and-space must be the exception..."
Nope - they crop up every where, and they have ruined many archaeological excerscises and mangled the experience for Real archaeologists.
Fix them, and i think a number of issues will start to become easier.
At present it is extreemly difficult to get anybody to take compliants about how the archaeology of a site is being done seriously - i dont mean the major shockers, but the routine day-to-day things taht dont always seem so significant.
limited modes of thought and interpretation (backed by fairly limited/low levles of specific eductaion) abound, and are prepetutated amongst junior staff who are told "this is the way it must/always be done" - dissent is in practice extreemly difficult and possibly highly dangerous to ones career.
This needs to be fixed - from it will follow higher job sytisfaction, respect, collaboration between people with various levels and types of knowledge ----and ultimatley substantially improved quailty of work - --- quality work will demonstrtae value --- value will provide a bassis for re-negotiating the role of archaeolgoy in the commercial and public spheres.