4th September 2008, 04:48 PM
I get the impression that one of the problems with many archaeologists is that they seem to feel a sense of shame at enjoying the 'mud-buddy' fun of archaeology while getting paid, as if to say 'well, it's not a real job so I shouldn't really complain about the shocking wages/conditions/contracts/lack of equipment etc.' I would be the first to admit that I work in archaeology because I enjoy it, but I would also like to be able to make a living and not one day have to wake up under a park bench as an OAP because I couldn't afford a pension or any savings.
Dress this up in a 'all profit is morally unacceptable' and 'I never see the managers/directors mucking in with the rest' and it becomes familiarly depressing (or depressingly familiar). How do people think projects get run? There has to be some form of structure. I can't remember many cases of directors/managers getting stuck in on site but I didn't think this was wrong, because I live in the real world. I don't recall it happening that much on sites while I was at university either, it is the way of things. One day I look forward to being too important (or knackered) to sit on the edge of a site and tell other people what to do, while they grumble about me never getting my hands dirty.
Clearly staff being exploited by poor wages while directors swan about in flash cars is as morally objectionable as it is in any profession, but I wouldn't have thought it was a particularly massive problem in archaeology.
However, the notion held by some that we're all brothers and sisters in some sort of egailitarian struggle does have its dangerous side for those attempting to make a living: I was recently asked to quote for a small piece of work only to be told they already had a price half of what I was suggesting. In following this up I gathered that someone is apparently doing archaeological work as a sideline or hobby, which is great for them if they've got something more profitable to fall back on, but a bit rubbish for everyone else.
Dress this up in a 'all profit is morally unacceptable' and 'I never see the managers/directors mucking in with the rest' and it becomes familiarly depressing (or depressingly familiar). How do people think projects get run? There has to be some form of structure. I can't remember many cases of directors/managers getting stuck in on site but I didn't think this was wrong, because I live in the real world. I don't recall it happening that much on sites while I was at university either, it is the way of things. One day I look forward to being too important (or knackered) to sit on the edge of a site and tell other people what to do, while they grumble about me never getting my hands dirty.
Clearly staff being exploited by poor wages while directors swan about in flash cars is as morally objectionable as it is in any profession, but I wouldn't have thought it was a particularly massive problem in archaeology.
However, the notion held by some that we're all brothers and sisters in some sort of egailitarian struggle does have its dangerous side for those attempting to make a living: I was recently asked to quote for a small piece of work only to be told they already had a price half of what I was suggesting. In following this up I gathered that someone is apparently doing archaeological work as a sideline or hobby, which is great for them if they've got something more profitable to fall back on, but a bit rubbish for everyone else.