22nd August 2011, 01:01 PM
RedEarth Wrote:My issue with the wish for quality archaeology is severalfold - you can't dictate what will turn up, it's entirely relative depending on what you find interesting and where you are working, and it is therefore unquantifiable.
Not entirely true. A pipeline may have several sites along it. Not all archaeology is unknown, especially if you've done a decent DBA, geophysics and trial-trenching.
Also on site a supervisor/PO picks who gets sent where, or, who does what area, who digs that grave, who gets to mattock off that 0.5m thick layer etc etc. Lots of choices.
On a management level staff preferences can be taken into account when deciding who gets sent to which job (sometimes) as long as people aren't being too much of an arse.
So if Mr A is only after more cash and isn't particularly bothered about juicy archaeology, he's an ideal candidate for that pipeline job with lots of opportunities for overtime but low potential for decent archaeology (narrow easement).
Whereas Miss B loves archaeology and would prefer to dig juicy archaeology and doesn't want to do overtime.........so no pipeline for her, but that large open-area excavation of a graveyard/ settlement etc....
RedEarth Wrote:At least wages and conditions can be controlled in some meaningful sense. How happy would people be if they had decent archaeology but no idea what their pay or hours were going to be one week to the next? I also worry that it makes archaeologists sound like spoilt brats - they are doing a job that many people think sounds fantastic anyway (compared to their 'mundane' employment) and then people complain that the quality of the archaeology isn't good enough. Give me a break! Do people realise how insulting that is to someone who does a genuinely grim job on poor wages?
I agree (I used to be a kitchen porter!). But that's not the point here. Maybe I should have started the title with 'Given the choice.......'