Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
28th April 2005, 06:13 PM
ambition
? noun 1 a strong desire to do or achieve something. 2 desire for success, wealth, or fame.
Clearly I was using the 2nd OED definition of the word! Then again this depends on how you would define 'success' or indeed 'achieve something'.... Either way it's mostly harmless.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
28th April 2005, 06:32 PM
well, I love digging and miss it intensely now I'm stuck in an office never seeing the sun. I even miss it when its blowing a gale outside and snowing. I have progressed from site assistant to the job I am now doing, but that job is a specialism rather than a straight move up to supervisor, which I wouldn't be happy doing for many more years, if at all.
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
28th April 2005, 07:19 PM
There are of course those who choose not to supervise for a number of good reasons. Not least of which is the concept that archaeology should not be operating within a commercial environment in the first place and many choose not to formalise their involvement beyond doing their jobs. For my part, I`m not willing to supervise within a commercial environment unless I have written the project design, the method statement and the risk assessment myself. Been too many occasions where I have had to wade through the problems caused by incompetent muppets that are seen as somehow-higher up the food chain.My point is a simple one-a field archaeologist is exactly that.A specialist in their own right.
As for boss man who thinks "if not a supervisor by now then something wrong with him/her" quite frankly-f*ck him in the ear. He should be cleaning toilets.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
28th April 2005, 07:39 PM
Strewth, an idealist!! Smash the cistern etc. So you're not willing to supervise but you are willing to dig.... Hmmm... Some protest that is. I'm quite happy to supervise when one or other of my colleagues has written the necessary project design and certainly wouldn't characterise them as 'incompetent muppets'. Every Project Design, Report etc. that leaves my place of work is double-checked and signed out so big mistakes shouldn't happen. But hey, no-ones perfect, and it's very easy to criticise people who are willing to accept responsibility when you yourself aren't.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
28th April 2005, 10:14 PM
The essence of the issue is clear-working as a field archaeologist (aka site assistant) is a specialism in its own right. It takes years to learn the basics and if we`re honest-the learning never stops. Coal-face archaeology is where it`s at! I have absolutely no intention of doing anything else.
On a personal note-Vulpes, enough mate. Bajr and the Digger, as forums and places to contribute, can`t be beaten. It`s only fair that we stick to the issues on the table and avoid the deterioration towards personal jibes.Please feel free to indulge in pubescent ego-tennis by e-mailing me off-site.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
28th April 2005, 10:48 PM
If the archaeological record is the priceless resource that we believe it is then is should be excavated by the best people we can find. If it is not dug right and recorded correctly at the time then everything else that follows will be a waste of time. So all respect to those in the trenches. A senior digger should be on 20k for 10-15 worth of experience. How much added value have you found from working with such people?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
28th April 2005, 11:06 PM
Could`nt have put it better myself Early! The competative tendering system exposes the finite resource to the filth of "cheapest-wins" mentality. To say the very least, the most important link in the chain is at the point of trowel. In the current (last 20 years) environment, the archaeological record has been skewed (screwed?) by competative tendering and the deafening complacency of the IFA. I have often wondered how we will explain this to the public in the future. The current system seems to view site assistants as a profit margin and smelly labour. It also seems to expect field archaeologists to move upwards and away from the coal face before they are accepted as equals in the industry. This is unacceptable, short-sighted and offensive. We all make our contributions to archaeology in different ways, many diggers have chosen to remain at the sharp end after careers in consultancy, curation or other specialisms. We`re not cannon fodder.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
28th April 2005, 11:52 PM
the company that i work for have recently given out a letter saying that no one will be offered any promotion unless they are mifa or above. and this to diggers!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
29th April 2005, 01:33 AM
Would love to see a copy of this letter as it is unfortunately against the law.. can you send to me?
BAJR
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
29th April 2005, 09:10 AM
Not to sure that bashing on about how hard done by Site Assistants are compared to Supervisors/ Projects Officers is particularly useful. I unreservedly agree with troll that field work is a specialism but most supervisors/ PO's also have to work at the 'coal face' given time/ money constraints on most projects. I also agree with Vulpes that to get a project done somebody needs to accept responsability, deal with clients and DC's on site etc. It really should be remembered that without site assistants it is impossible to dig a site, but with nobody looking at the bigger picture it is chaos (I know, early on in my career a supervisor of mine would drop us off on site - bugger off somewhere else for the day then pick us up at the end of the day. Unfortunately this came back to bite me in the bum as I had to work the mess up into some form of report a number of years later!!). In general it dosen't matter if you want to stay a site assistant or climb the heady hights, surely it up to what you feel most comfortable doing? Mind you those project managers........}
