28th December 2012, 01:14 PM
That's not what I meant - I meant everyone has an area of archaeology which they are more qualified to work in than all the others. I realise everyone has to start somewhere, but you can't let untrained/inexperienced people do stuff without a suitably experienced person checking they've done it right. I presume you wouldn't let a team of people with no digging experience whatsoever dig a site without a more experienced hand there to keep an eye on them. The MPRG standards which we reference in our paper suggests the amount of experience necessary. It's a figure that we all pretty much agreed on as a general guideline - some people obviously learn faster than others. Anyone can set themselves up as an specialist, but when they clearly know nothing about the subject, it becomes pretty obvious very quickly (eg, that 'report' we highlighted in our paper). In the same way, anyone can claim that they're a field archaeologist, but the same applies. You must have come across new diggers who obviously don't have a clue what they're doing (I had one turn up at a site I was running clutching a potting trowel). I presume you wouldn't let them work unsupervised?
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler