Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
16th August 2006, 06:05 PM
So if a volenteer can do a job better then a 'trained professional' should the volenteer get the job over said 'trained individual' so then they are not volenteers. Would that be a solution and thus limiting the work of 'trained professionals'.
Or would it be better to have volenteers that are not paid led by professionals.
Also how many volenteers are there? Many of the volenteers work locally or are students trying to gain experience, or from the ones I have me retired folks with an intrest, and most volenteers volenteer in the summer months when they are on breaks, I dont hear of people going 'you know what I think I will quit my job and go work for free on an archaeological site'.
As I have said volenteers have there role to play and if some are good enough to work on site so be it, they wont cost anyone jobs as they do not cost any money so do not draw on company funds.
Just out of curiosity has anyone lost out to a volenteer or know of anybody that has ot would be interesting to know.
May god go with you in all the dark places you must walk.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
16th August 2006, 10:23 PM
I note with interest the CBA job advert for a Community Conservation Officer currently up on BAJR Jobs.
'The CBA's Community Conservation Officer will develop a new outreach role, supporting and expanding our network of knowledgeable volunteers across England and the wide-ranging activities and expertise of CBA Regional Groups'
Got to be a good thing and perhaps helpful in acknowledging and co-ordinating the role of genuine archaeological volunteers.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
22nd August 2006, 11:17 AM
Having just read through this topic, I seem to be on the side of those who believe that commercial archaeology should not be routinely using volunteers. This is particularly the case if an unscrupulous unit is charging their client for experienced archaeologists, and filling the site with volunteers.
Recent graduates/students trying to break into the profession should not have to be forced into slave labour to gain their digging experience. On commercial jobs where time and money is tight, they will invariably be pushed to one side and given menial tasks anyway. Units should have a trainee position available on a lower wage and endeavour to train them properly. It is an investment in the long run, you train up a new member of staff at a trainee wage, then take them on at a proper salary when they have shown themselves to be suitably qualified.
They are however, a species of volunteer who do not want to be paid. People from the local community who commendably have an interest in their local heritage want to get involved. It is somewhat churlish of a group of archies to turn up in a town they have never visited before, dig up all their dead Romans, eat all the cake and leg it, while maintaining an air of superiority over the locals whose history they are digging up. Archaeology still falls somewhere between two stools; a professional commercial venture and a hobby. As such, wherever possible the local community should be involved in the process. Open days are by far the best way to do this, and offer great publicity for the developer. However, on larger projects, there may be time to take on a few volunteers. They often have a great repository of local knowledge, which you would never find in the SMR, and it makes you look clever when you nick it and put it in your report.
The issue of volunteer led-digs being carried out by local history groups is yet another matter. Like commercial units, the groups i have worked with differ massively in ability/knowledge/dedication/organisation etc. I have been on some great sites with local history groups, who have realised their limitations and employed a 'professional' to lead their excavations. Such jobs give you the rare opportunity to work with enthusiastic people, and to do a proper job. You often get good cake too.
