6th November 2010, 02:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 6th November 2010, 02:09 PM by moreno.)
Certainly there would be restrictions to what could be offered by universities and continuing education. Let’s not view this as a roadblock to offering a level of training to individuals seeking commercial archaeology employment. Does one really need a site to be instructed on recording methods, site photography, using a transit, and which end of the tape to hold? Community oriented projects come to mind where potential dig staff may cut their teeth.
A fish tank, much cheaper and easier to demonstrate with and carry to one’s vehicle. Skills to prepare for employment, some things can only come with experience.
Perhaps at the moment, but isn’t this what needs addressing?
[FONT="][/FONT]
Dinosaur Wrote:Buying large plots of land in the centre of old towns (which is pretty much the only place they'd be guaranteed of large quantities of stratified deposits) would be just a tad expensive?
A fish tank, much cheaper and easier to demonstrate with and carry to one’s vehicle. Skills to prepare for employment, some things can only come with experience.
Dinosaur Wrote:The only realistic way at the moment of giving students any significant level of site experience would be longish placements with commercial units, which under the current regime isn't a goer since any unit doing that would immediately be accused of undercutting and using cheap labour....and no unit is going to pay full wages to 'trainees' when they can get 'experienced' diggers for the same money....as the heading says, Catch 22...
Perhaps at the moment, but isn’t this what needs addressing?
[FONT="][/FONT]