1st April 2014, 11:30 AM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:There are plenty of folk who express a preference just to work on site (I would guess carrying out all site tasks and not just digging holes) and they provide a valuable resource...but it is a fact that the hierarchy of UK archaeology bases its wage structure on people moving away from field work either to office based jobs or worse moving to the dark side. Some employers provide training that enables field staff (diggers) to widen their career potential, but to be truthful many exploit staff who express a preference to stay close to the section face....Would be interested to hear any suggestions as to how that situation could be remedied.....not sure why the implication is that people who work in the field are denigrated but i am sure that skilled field teams are necessary and are currently undervalued. i will also maintain that good archaeologists are usually good diggers but good diggers are not always good archaeologists. it is the process of examination and consideration that leads to interpretation and dissemination - all neccessary and at the end stands an archaeologist. some people play important roles in that process but only an archaeologist does it all. licensing seems to be the obvious answer and graded scheme for renumeration would benefit the industry no end
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers