Predictions for 2016...

[P Prentice]

I agree Hosty I said self assessors. The level descriptions don't confound me at all. I could make up lots of more levels if you want. All I am saying is go along as employed but sign up to self assessment. You get to write down that you are an archaeologist even at trainee level and there is as little or as much maths as you like. I am not even sure that you have to tell your employer that your are on self assessment. It should be part of the skills passport.

quite useful for moonlighting to

[Marc Berger]

It's more to do with the compounding of words which is a stupid German thing. What are the grammatical rules that are being inflicted. Self employed. English tends to want to follow a path, first things first, garden path, Self, I, why does it need to be stated? Employed suggests an employer. Self employed is a bit back to front if back to front can be a bit. Was self an employer first who employed self. Shouldn't it be Employed self? And really shouldn't it be "Self". With the answer to the question employment status? either employed or self? What we need is a referendum or rather another election to give a manate to the remainders who manage to stay in.

[Dinosaur]

the standard is and always has been the one you can get away with

Disagree with that entirely [sorry it took 5 months for me to notice that, been busy] - the standard is the one you can be bothered to work to, within whatever pathetic budget has been arranged etc. Just because the spec. has been fulfilled doesn't have to be the end, e.g. that paper that has my name somewhere on the front of it in Britannia 46 is entirely down to me spending 10 years of my own time prodding people to get something done with a really interesting group of material that EH wasn't prepared to fund research on at the time off the Aggregate Levy. And I've noticed a few units seem to do/publish odd bits of research that don't seem to have any obvious external funding. I've got a couple of groups of finds material from a 'dead' project out there with university researchers right now (one as part of an ecological/historical study, more conservation than archaeology but still interesting, the other since a post-grad needed experience doing recording/catalogue and I had a bunch of material needing same), and I'm currently writing a couple of papers on other stuff.

Suppose its the difference between 9-5 and being interested in archaeology?

[P Prentice]

Suppose its the difference between 9-5 and being interested in archaeology?

or the difference between a hobbyist and having a life?

[Dinosaur]

I've noticed standards (which I think was what was being discussed) tend to be a lot better where people have actually read/viewed anything about archaeology since they left college, and that sadly mostly occurs in 'own time' (even e.g. watching Time Team). Have encountered some frighteningly ignorant (in terms of archaeology) staff over the years, including project officers, who's entire knowledge of the job seems to stem entirely from reading an excavation manual. Could explain the standard of some grey lit reports

How do you keep up yourself?

[Dinosaur]

...and talking of standards, how is there a job on the jobs page for a Supervisor who, with only 6 months experience needed, is apparently competent to "undertake fieldwork projects". No wonder standards are slipping! !

[P Prentice]

tis true, a frightening number of those with jobs in archaeology do not really know anything about archaeology, but then i dont think you do until you have to publish something in a proper peer reviewed journal. for me thats when you become an archaeologist.
keep up? cant really - there is too much crap to wade through. look out for decent synthesis and new approaches but we really ought to sort out what is worth doing and abandon most of what we are currently generating as it does not add anything useful

[Dinosaur]

Luckily I seem to have passed the 'peer-reviewed journal' crap hurdle years ago (some of the 'anonymous' reviewer comments are sometimes a bit odd, but take them or leave them). I like doing stuff from original sources, some of the academic stuff is awfully 3rd hand - especially when they keep repeating the same wrong references etc - had a beauty recently where someone had lifted a reference from one of Jackie McKinley's papers, itself referencing an endnote in something, but had gone to the wrong endnote and quoted a bit of Latin which didn't say at all what they thought it did, from the wrong classical text. Always best to check the original :face-approve:

Personally I always try to add something to what's already known, that's what background and discussion sections are for. Always summarise existing published syntheses but add extra examples from grey lit/local knowledge where applicable, that way we can keep the accumulated rolling total knowledge bundled-up for the next proper synthesis. Anyway, always cool to use new examples, makes it look like you actually did some work for the money

[Alastair]

tis true, a frightening number of those with jobs in archaeology do not really know anything about archaeology, but then i dont think you do until you have to publish something in a proper peer reviewed journal. for me thats when you become an archaeologist.

:0 How's the view from that ivory tower?

[P Prentice]

well i could say that it was a long, hard climb and that i can still see my dirty footprints and bloody knuckle smears, or i could say that, actually, i built it myself upon the corpses of long forgotten colleagues, but i guess you will have to see for yourself