IfA to be abolished and replaced by......

[P Prentice]

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

[Wax]

but that could equally describe a child undertaking work experience, a wounded soldier doing therapy, any hobbyist dabbler who does a mere day a year, etc etc

Yes and each of those groups could describe themselves as Musicians or Artists if they undertook those activities but everyone would understand the difference between a professional and amateur in those fields. Perhaps it is the difference between professional and amatuer archaeologist that is difficult to define?

[Jack]

When is an archaeologist an archaeologist?
Proposal for career tree:

Novice/trainee (zero skill/know.edge)
/
Barrow pusher
/
Muck shifter/ditch digger
/
Apprentice digger (can do all basic tasks)
/
Journeyman digger (can do all tasks well)
/
Master digger (can do all tasks well and can interpret archaeological areas)
/
Grandmaster digger (can do all tasks well and can interpret an entire multi-phased site within its regional context)

[Marc Berger]

Yet you call them all diggers Jack. Its very similar to bajrs/ifa pay scales. There is no use of the word archaeologist, nor of professional archaeologist. Ifa claim to represent professional archaeology. I would say that a professional archaeologist was somebody who earned their living from their knowledge. Knowledge can be gained by experience but we also have well trod academic routes, recognised as standards in many Professions. This countries academic system is based on the majority of people getting access to higher education.

I have just come across these European directives on professional qualifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_pr...directives It would be interesting to know if archaeologists in other parts of Europe were qualified under these directives. When ever I have come across archaeologists in Europe they appear to work under tightly definded job descriptions and qualifications. It would make more sense in relation to the Valetta convention although I don't think that the directives are from the same European organisation.

[Marc Berger]

the ifa answer my question

http://www.discovering-archaeologists.eu...Report.pdf

[Tool]

I rather like the lack of rigidity we have here. But when it comes to definitions, where some may say I'm a digger, I say I'm an archaeologist, because that's what my employer pays me as and archaeology is what I do, although it is exclusively the dirty kind which some seem to think sullies the image of archaeology. Which is odd, because if there aren't people out in the field getting dirty, all the rest in the warm and dry aren't going to have much to do.

I do think the degree issue needs addressing. I've no problem with BA archaeology, but there does need to be an alternative, either changing some of what is taught in those degrees to reflect the current situation in British archaeology, or a new BSc. It's odd that at Masters level you have a choice as to A or Sc, but not at Bachelors.

Kevin, you've also identified why so many who work in the field have so little faith in the IfA - they do seem to like to perpetuate this view that you're only worthy if you get out the field. But having said that, it's been forever thus that those who work with their hands tend to be looked down on.

[P Prentice]

and archaeology is what I do, although it is exclusively the dirty kind which some send to think sullies the image of archaeology. Which is odd, because if there aren't people out in the field getting dirty, all the rest in the warm and dry aren't going to have much to do
I

you seem to be labouring under the enormously niave idea that archaeologists get their own hands dirty. we in fact have a very long tradition of pomposity and aloofness

[kevin wooldridge]

Kevin, you've also identified why so many who work in the field have so little faith in the IfA - they do seem to like to perpetuate this view that you're only worthy if you get out the field.

But the IfA did not create the half-arsed hierarchy that exists in UK archaeology. That was largely the invention of archaeologists as a whole, for which we all ought to take our share of the blame irrespective of ones like or dislike for the IfA....

[Sikelgaita]

But the IfA did not create the half-arsed hierarchy that exists in UK archaeology.

Is it then a product of the 'half-arsed hierachy that exists in UK archaeology'.

[pdurdin]

It's odd that at Masters level you have a choice as to A or Sc, but not at Bachelors.

Some unis offer a BSc in Archaeology. Doesn't necessarily mean the course is any more suited to preparing them for fieldwork, though!