Essential field skills guidelines

[andy.bicket]

quote:why wouldn't you at least put a slot through and record a palaeochannel?

Palaeochannel, luxury! It literally was a modern, dry stream bed, nothing to excavate/record in section.

(1:face-thinks: It wouldn't be easily practiceable at uni, but what about general etiquette for behaving around heavy machinery onsite, could be included in a lecture/tutorial.

[trowelmonkey]

1:face-thinks: How about site etiquette in general? Look where you're walking and don't just smile,nod and say "yes,yes,yes," to the super/PO while wearing tiny ears phones and you haven't heard a word they said. (Obviously, not you Mr Bicket.)

[shovelnomore]

surely some mistake. Shouldn't a basic awareness of how not to die on site be useful...

Interesting anecdote from a field archaeology Masters course. First lecture on excavation techniques, the question- 'what is your first responsibility as in archaeologist?' We all fluffed about the first responsibility to the archaeology etc, the answer was (obvious now, but it takes someone to point out) 'For your own safety and the safety of those around you.' If everyone knew and appreciated this before they got on site, they'd know to be able to tell idiots who expect them to work in dangerous conditions to p*** off.

Being able to dig like a JCB is no use if you're dead at the bottom of a 3 metre-deep unshored section (I won't name the unit, but I was there and they were stupid enough to take working shots). Not unique as I've now seen at least two other units put photos of 2m plus standing sections that have obviously been trowelled/had ranging rods put up against them/got a section line pinned into them into reports. One of them even consisted of 2m of loose brick and concrete rubble overlying colluvium at the botom of a 45% slope. Would have been slightly less annoying if our tender hadn't included a hefty contingency for shoring. Muppets. Rant over

edited for general illiteracy

[andy.bicket]

Just read your other thread Trowelmonkey, and I see what you mean about etiquette in new graduates. The undergrads I help teach/demonstrate to at the moment are a pretty forthright bunch of folk that know and speak their minds but the critical thing is even for the most senior lecturers/researchers there is a less bowing down to experience and knowledge than I remember as an undergrad, but this is linked to an increase of universities needing to provide value for money education and a career path after the degree, so complex.

Anyone that knows me, knows I'm an arrogant sod with the best of them, so I won't comment further! Pot, kettle, black and all that

:face-topic:

Edited cos I can't remember the smiley codes!

[oldgirl]

I would add:

19) Having some idea what the report will look like aferwards. It often helps in realising why you have to record all that detail.....

[BAJR Host]

Adding to 19

19
b) Follow a process showing the field record, the site archive, how the site archive is used, how illustrations are produced and the report. (a bit of duplication of oldgirls) One thing I often enjoy is understanding the process from start to finish, so if I am in the office I understand the process of how the information was gathered, and if in the field I understand the information the person in the office needs.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Paul Belford]

20. (Actually this should be number 1, but no-one has mentioned it yet). Perhaps it is too obvious but actually just having a simple understanding of the whole developer-funded process would be really useful. Like... what is PPG16 and how did it come about? what is a curatorial archaeologist and how does he/she set the brief? what is a desk-based assessment? how do you know where to put the trenches? why is the developer paying for this? who has which powers to say and do what - curator, contractor or client? what is the broader planning framework? what happens next? what happened before? what is competitive tendering?
etc.

[Sparky]

Actually, No.1 should be, over any understanding of the polluter-pays system, an understanding of why are we excavating and what it brings to our society. There should also be an emphasis on 'lessons-learnt' from the days before our present (less than perfect) system.

[Unitof1]

I think that they should have an extra very good maths qualification.

I has been my suspicion that people struggling with survey, iso, context sheets, matrixes, stratigraphy, pay, tax, contracts, pensions, accountancy, running units or undertaking profiles of the profession is based on extreme number dyslexia inbred at a very early age. My suspicion is that archaeology has a disproportionate number of maths phobia suffers in relation to the general population.

Obviously having left the general population a long time ago I don’t know how common it is to come across people positively mewing in some dark site corner at the prospect of having to lay out a grid or alternatively so ecstatic when they have taken a number count of 1 and turned it into a statistic by the application of a percentage sign or dumb founded that 10 square metres is not the same as 10 metres squared.

Oh the joy of a stake hole with a cut number [034] and a fill number (012) and a group number (356 ) (with one other possible stake hole) with a feature number F.1. (applied by the site supervisor before being dug) with an area code in a site code in a phase or two, with a small find, with a museum accession code, with a picture three times three with three different cameras related to coordinates, graphic numbers, orientation and levels, cross-referenced from the description to two tables and three figures in a numbered bulleted report and GIS database of a watching brief. They are like moths to a flame, they even volunteer. Is cause they read the guardian.

[chiz]

I've spent a lot of time training students on university research excavations, and on commercial sites. The number one bottom line thing that all must know is safety issues. Full stop, no contest.

All university archaeology courses (including conservation etc) should have a mandatory field methods and techniques course run by someone who has a wide range of experience (not just paleolithic digs in 'the levant' or rescue sites in the 70's. That course should cover all the basics, including the history of archaeological techniques and be enough to give an awareness and a grounding in techniques to all students studying archaeology, even if they never want to set foot on a site. They will be using data from sites so they must know the basics. The course should have visiting lecturers from commercial and research units etc, specialists, curators who can give real life examples from within the last 5 years.

Any students considering going into field archaeology should then have access to modular courses, again with visiting lecturers as required, with seminars and workshops on subjects such as matrices and context sheets so they can be explained in depth. Practical skills and awareness of their uses should be taught, as should legislation, H&S issues, surveying, and all the MAP2 site to archive type stuff.

Universities need to link up more with units, I've suggested that evening seminars are held every year for students who may want to do some paid work where a supervisor from a local unit gives them a realistic insight into commercial work so they have an awareness and can ask questions. Lecturers should maybe be given time to do placements on sites so they can keep abreast of changes/keep in touch with reality, and university research digs should really use some commercial supervisors -I've done this, and it works well, even if it can show up the 'director' as being useless (not on the sites I worked on I hasten to add).
The whole 'someone else's problem of training' needs addressing, now most entrants are via university it should have got easier, not harder. There are some excellent university courses out there, with long placements and excellent teaching, but some really are poor. Its about aptitude and attitude to a great extent, and those who are switched on can learn very fast, but they need to be given a framework within which to place this fast learning curve and that is best done at universities.
I welcome the NVQs, but they should be integrated into university courses in some way, and be rolled out properly, I sent a query to the IFA about two months ago and haven't had a response yet. The NVQs could sort this problem to an extent, if combined with effective CPD and coaching/mentoring, but it does rely on decent pay retaining sufficient experienced site staff to do this job and keep the pyramid stable.

I realise this isn't point 1: know how to fill out a context sheet, point 2: have spatial awareness and understand grid and how to lay it out, point 3: single context is the best system for urban so stop half-sectioning that pit...but its what I think about the issue behind the issue.
Anyway, point 1 is health and safety awareness, and point 2 is knowing that just cos you are going to do a masters in libyan mesolithic monkey rocks doesn't mean you haven't just f****d up digging that context!