15th February 2014, 02:27 PM
archaeologyexile Wrote:Hi tool I'm afraid I thinks that very nieve. The only way pay and conditions increase are when the workforce organises itself not to accept lower terms and conditions, be it union, cartel or charter!
As to any division between fieldworkers and those that write up, I don't care about qualifications or where someone works, they key for me is interpreting the data that you dig. Even if your not doing this you should be aiming to. Why not join a local society and help,them do it! The division between digging and writing leads to poorer interpration!
I would say that it is naive to think that an industry employing a few thousand is likely to be allowed to engineer a situation that forces an industry that employs well over a million and is the biggest single employment sector in the UK to part with more of its money. That's the reality of the situation - a large proportion of those employed in archaeology do so within the commercial sector. This is paid for by the construction industry that sees us as a necessary evil that eats into their profits. Us being able to force them to pay more for something that they consider an inconvenience of the planning law just ain't going to happen. Trying to do so would only force the government to either relax the planning laws further, or legislate that any Tom, Dick or Harriet can in fact provide the information required under the current planning law. Neither of those scenarios benefit us or archaeology.
I maintain that the dual approach of engaging more with the public (and I'm not inclined to say here precisely how I personally do or don't do my bit) in the hope that there is a continued political will to keep archaeology as part of the planning process (no bugger else is likely to pay for it!) and work with the construction industry to find ways in which they can use the archaeological aspect of their work to promote themselves, and maybe even make some money back from it. This might not seem very idealistic, but it's a pragmatic approach based on the real world situation.
I'm glad you don't want to differentiate between those in the field and those who aren't. Others sadly do. I also though think it's a mistake to concentrate too much on the interpretation. Of course it's important to offer one in light of what you see, know and can work out, but it's even more important to record accurately what is there so that others, later and with access to a wider view can also interpret what we dug up. The primary concern of excavation is to replace what we destroy hidden in the ground with an accurate, concise, intelligible record of it, placed in an archive that is accessible to others. That's the deal in my book. If on top of that you can offer insights into the whys and the wherefores so much the better, and at least the crowd I work for actively encourage that.