3rd September 2012, 05:36 PM
so this is how you want this problem to go away
First bury your head in the sand that british universities have got away with massivily overproducing something that it calls an archaeologist.
Second after seeing the over supply as not the problem see the problem being field work experience
And then third seeing field work experience as a:
Thing is if you have a basic bunch of humanity students the chances are that they droped mathematics and most associated sciences including that bizarre one geography as quikly as they could at age sixteen if not earlier. To the BAs of this world the basic technical process 345 triangle seem like rocket science, do actually require background philosify and are not easily taught if you think that you can do it by wrote and get away with not doing any first principles or that extending the principles is what we should be doing. Thing is most university field schools are run by humanists for humanists who like to imagine that excavation is a form of controled labouring rather than a contemplation and development of the technical process. Quelle what a surprise it comes to them when they discover that without baysian statistics, any mannor of satistics, oh and theres databases and that is quite a compliacted therory isnt it Kev as is any of the other basics of computing and electronic topography, dateing....they are fit only to make the tea and pretend that the solution to their miserable existance is to join a union.
and then fourth thing is preservation in situ. The premis of commercial archaeology and possibly of scheudaling monuments is that we are not capable as yet (havent got good enough technique, money or people) or believe that it would be beneifical to leave to future generations archaeology because they would be better able to excavate these features. This premis surely means that we dont realy see archaeology as something that should be used as a training dig purely for the sake of astheic agenda research which is what most of the humanititis university people do when doing their "training" holidays with a bunch of students where 95% have no intension ever to do any digging.
If we were to excuse a university excavation I believe that it would only be if the intension was to extend the "science" of the subject. As for commercial firms doing the training I would say that they are not good enough full of the humanist excusers.
So to start again if you were to get rid of 90% of the university departments doing archaeology which ones would we have to keep and which ones could sod off to classics, anthroplology, history, english literature, ppe?
ps I see msc people as the lowest form of humanyaist and most of my careea I have fed them pity.
First bury your head in the sand that british universities have got away with massivily overproducing something that it calls an archaeologist.
Second after seeing the over supply as not the problem see the problem being field work experience
And then third seeing field work experience as a:
Quote:basic technical processes (drawing a section; planning; taking a level) aren't terribly complicated and are pretty easily taught, but I think we can agree that these basic skills are only part of the process of becoming a proficient excavator. So much of being a good digger comes from experience (gained in a range of conditions, types of sites, types of archaeology; types of features etc) - these can only be gained by ample time on site, perhaps a minimum of six months.
Thing is if you have a basic bunch of humanity students the chances are that they droped mathematics and most associated sciences including that bizarre one geography as quikly as they could at age sixteen if not earlier. To the BAs of this world the basic technical process 345 triangle seem like rocket science, do actually require background philosify and are not easily taught if you think that you can do it by wrote and get away with not doing any first principles or that extending the principles is what we should be doing. Thing is most university field schools are run by humanists for humanists who like to imagine that excavation is a form of controled labouring rather than a contemplation and development of the technical process. Quelle what a surprise it comes to them when they discover that without baysian statistics, any mannor of satistics, oh and theres databases and that is quite a compliacted therory isnt it Kev as is any of the other basics of computing and electronic topography, dateing....they are fit only to make the tea and pretend that the solution to their miserable existance is to join a union.
and then fourth thing is preservation in situ. The premis of commercial archaeology and possibly of scheudaling monuments is that we are not capable as yet (havent got good enough technique, money or people) or believe that it would be beneifical to leave to future generations archaeology because they would be better able to excavate these features. This premis surely means that we dont realy see archaeology as something that should be used as a training dig purely for the sake of astheic agenda research which is what most of the humanititis university people do when doing their "training" holidays with a bunch of students where 95% have no intension ever to do any digging.
If we were to excuse a university excavation I believe that it would only be if the intension was to extend the "science" of the subject. As for commercial firms doing the training I would say that they are not good enough full of the humanist excusers.
So to start again if you were to get rid of 90% of the university departments doing archaeology which ones would we have to keep and which ones could sod off to classics, anthroplology, history, english literature, ppe?
ps I see msc people as the lowest form of humanyaist and most of my careea I have fed them pity.
Reason: your past is my past