gosh...isn't it getting better all the time.....not

[GnomeKing]

Dinosaur - what's the point in running down the IFA? - we can move forward by accepting that the IFA can not (and could not) solve all the various issues that have been talked about - that is why we need union support and active participation from everybody who wants to improve and progress from the present into the future...we also need to support the IFA so they can continue to lobby for British Archaeology Professionals at higher levels, and provide 'final say' on standards and quality...there is nothing to be gained by opening more divides...as with everything else (and said many times before) more members means more representation, in the IFA and elsewhere...

This is not a case of opposing organisations...but of harmonising them so that each can play its most effective role...JOIN THE IFA YOU BUGGER,:face-angel:, you seem to have 'been on the circuit' a while...think what you could have achieved through involvement in that time - perhaps you would be one the secret inner coven or even Grand High-FA Vizard....

[GnomeKing]

"Not everybody who is a good archaeologist is a git" - no, but good people are pushed to the limit and snap - some of their 'nicer' colleagues just haven't realised what's going on yet....people who really care PASSIONATELY about the archaeology can be driven to frustrated angry tears by the obstinate, unimaginative and poorly informed attitudes of their Managers...and its not like the pay or the 'portfolio' make up for it...

legitimate complaint and dissent from Imposed Ways of Doing Things is thus recast as simply as emotional outburst and troublemaking behaviour...over time these people become marginalised or leave. ..truly, there are some right miserable bastards and small minded gits well secured within the profession...

There are truly also a number of - shall we say 'socialy maladjusted' persons...? ...schizerpherics, alcoholics, autistics, clinically depressed, and plain worn out...the times people with these kinds of 'social problems' have been treated as Real Human Beings stand out from the small minded behaviour that (naively) I had once assumed would less common amongst an educated and eclectic profession.

'Teams' of overworked, under-respected, underpaid young (and not so young) people turn viciously on each other and savage their own...again 'character' becomes a proxy for 'competence', and the possibility of a diverse community (team/workplace) becomes limited by the prevalence of Managerial and Hysterical concepts of what a Proper Commercial Archaeologist should be.

Effective ways of working together with different abilities and backgrounds is shattered by half-arsed and half-hearted implementation of CPD and Development Plans - at present the implementation of staff assessment and CPD is an abject failure in many cases...making a mockery of the original intent, and presenting (IMO) major problems to True attempts at Effective and Acceptable means of providing universal accreditation in the future.

Worse, the systems implemented are so poor they are very visibly open to subjective and 'personal' manipulation...the presence of a large pile of appropriately labelled paperwork does indeed give the impression that a company is being progressive, employee friendly etc - but it can easily be smoke and mirrors...becuase it is at the back of many minds that personel processes are not excatly objective teh system is tacilty accpeted as flawed - this then fuels Fatalistic outlooks, which suits Authority very well, as the energy for Progress fades - it also increases base level nastiness and anti-community sentiments, as individuals realise that they can not simply rely on their archaeological results for promotion (unless they have towed the methodological/interpretational line), and must look to other forms of social wheedling to promote themselves... (footnote: academia can also suffer from social wheedler syndrome)

[Sparky]

GnomeKing,

I agree with both of your posts but your second discussion firmly underlines attitudes and issues which the IfA should be tackling. Unfortunately, due to the grades of the majority of the IfA commitee, the archaeological managerial hegenomy and its the prevailing attitudes, these problems are viewed as issues personal of dissenters, and not worth worrying about.

I suspect that the individuals on whose posts you are commenting hold senior positions and unwittingly hold these views, or wittingly...

[Tired]

"people who really care PASSIONATELY about the archaeology can be driven to frustrated angry tears by the obstinate, unimaginative and poorly informed attitudes of their Managers...and its not like the pay or the 'portfolio' make up for it"

" individuals realise that they can not simply rely on their archaeological results for promotion"

I couldn't agree more - the last job I did was the straw that broke the camels back. The project manager and project officer were more concerned with keeping the developer happy than doing right by the archaeology, supervisors made comments like "this is a business and at the end of the day we're all just here to make money, if you don't agree you should leave archaeology", inexperienced staff were promoted simply because they owned a car and were willing to always tow the company line and of course anyone who didn't like what was happening and the way the site and staff were being treated was labelled a malcontent and troublemaker - I was even issued a gag-order and got told by the project manager I wasn't allowed to voice my opinion on the project to other staff.

And of course when I left it didn't matter because there are always a steady stream of recent graduates eager to take any opportunity offered and listen to all the sh*t that comes out of these peoples mouths and take it as sage advice from experienced old hands - never stopping to realise that for the people they're taking advice from professional integrity is nothing but a dim memory (in the case of the PM clouded even more by a thermos full of spirits).

That was in December and I'm only now beginning to tentatively consider going back to digging work, (although I'm in the middle of a CELTA certificate designed to help literally run away from broken dreams and a career that I feel let me down). One things for sure though - if I do get back in the mud it won't be for anyone who expects staff to become 'self-employed'.

[Dinosaur]

Dinosaur - what's the point in running down the IFA?.

I think if you check back a couple of pages you'll find it was Oxbeast who started that? - and judging by the following posts quite a few people hold similar views....

The idea of a poll is an excellent one, the IFA claim to represent British archaeolologists but do they?

The mantra of "JOIN THE IFA YOU BUGGER" has been used to batter diggers for the last quarter century with surprising little effect, looking at the membership figures, and if you take out all the people who joined merely to get access to the jobs service and those who joined because they were told it was a good idea but have since regretted it the figures would look even sicker.

The fact that I've "been on the circuit a while" (actually 30 years+) and never seen any point/value whatsoever in joining IFA, and have been having these 'discussions' with people including senior members of IFA (one of whom once actually admitted after a couple of beers that IFA membership is of no value to diggers whatsoever) for a similarly long time should be telling you quite a lot?

I've got nothing against a lot of what IFA do, most of the documents they produce about archaeology are extremely useful, by and large, but they've not really treated diggers well over the years - like inventing the PIFA category since they didn't want grubby people messing up the AIFA membership category? I gather digging was regarded as a 'special interest' activity for a while - errr, isn't that what most real field archaeologists spend their time doing?

Good to have sparked some proper discussion on this site, finally! Been a bit tame for the last couple of weeks since the Women's Workwear thread fizzled out.....}

[Dinosaur]

....inexperienced staff were promoted simply because they owned a car....

Errr, it's obvious from much of the above and also several previous threads that there are a worryingly large number of diggers who don't seem to have figured that to have any sort of career and rise above 'just' being a digger (although nothing wrong with sticking with that) that you HAVE TO HAVE A CAR, and, coincidentally, LEARNING TO WRITE ENGLISH might help as well, certainly far more than having a degree/MA/PhD/MIFA etc etc.

If you're going to winge about people being promoted because they've actually had enough sense to equip themselves to perform the job, maybe you should level the playing field a bit first by getting your own?

[trowelmonkey]

Ooooh, I can see this thread easily descending to a "them vs us" slagging match and that would be such a shame.:0

I have issues with "just a digger" because that strikes me as being the root problem with archaeology. What if a politician had said "they're 'just teachers, if they wanted to get ahead they should be head teachers, or even better education policy consultants,'" when they campaigned for better conditions? There'd be a hue and cry! Heads and education policy consultants undoubtedly do better with some experience of teaching, but nobody wants their kids taught by rubbish teachers. And why shouldn't teaching be fulfilling in itself? A lot of teachers have no interest in becoming the head because they'd rather teach. Nobody goes into teaching to be rich.

I strongly believe the same goes foe excavation. The site is only as good as it's been excavated. I believe that it's proper most of us to start in the field. (Have you ever seen graphics done by an illustrator who's not been in the field? I could launch into a ranty aside on this point but I won't.) There has to be a place for those who wish to pursue excavation as their specialism. This will only ever be a modest percentage of total field staff in the UK and they should be respected for what they add.

The car thing....

Dinosaur, pace, not everyone can afford a car and the cost of running it. Some of us don't have parents to fall back on an a garage to stow our tat when all else fails. Some of us aren't lucky/ attractive enough to pool our resources with someone else.

One of the real problems with archaeology is that if one is peripatetic it becomes extremely difficult to plan ahead and it is more expensive to live as one can't buy in bulk or put things away to reuse months down the line. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is difficult. A young digger is often, quite correctly, afraid not to take the next digging job for fear of dropping off the radar. It's only by building up contacts and experience that it becomes practicable to leave archaeology in order to save and train. (BTW I've always paid for my own training as I've identified gaps, othewise I couldn't teach with any degree of confidence.)

Yes, I've seen the highly inappropriate car=supervisor promotions. Thankfully, they're not the norm, because it harms the promoted just as much being catapulted into a role for which they're not yet equipped. (I am well aware that all sorts of rumours start up EVERY time ANYBODY is promoted.)

But, err, cars. It does bother me that at least one unit restricts all kinds of CPD training to drivers, thereby creating a self-feeding loop which pushes out non-drivers like a suppurating splinter when all it would take is an extra ?50 a week to get them behind the wheel. Surely, that's not too much for excavators with >5 years expereince to ask for, especially as it's a win-win outcome. Other units score having a driving license more than having useful qualified, specialisms (like lithics, bones, and graphics), several years fieldwork, and extensive grey literature combined. That's not on.

Why? Because it restricts archaeology to those who can afford to be subbed until they've become well established. Call me a lefty, but how can we create a system whereby it's not possible to work one's way up without a lot of outside help and still pretend to welcome all comers? To me, our closest industry cousins are the civils, and they have an excellent culture of developing their staff with aptitude. Why can't we borrow even a fraction of that? :face-huh:

Don't get me wrong, I love archaeology, I've been at it more more than half my life, and proper circuit diggers told me how it was going to be and still I could not be dissuaded. As it turned out, conditions are much better than then, even if they've backslid somewhat of late, but they're not good. It's true I'm physically nearing the end of my outdoor life, so there's some sadness there, but most of all I'm embarrassed to be teaching up the new lot every year and knowing that many will pack it up in a year or two angry and disillusioned.

I know that archaeology must by it's very nature produce too many diggers, many of whom will entirely leave the heritage field. That doesn't bother me, in fact, I think it could be good to have people in other sectors who understand what we do and how we do it. So, why aren't we treating them better as people, so that when they decide to go, it'll be with fond memories?

[GnomeKing]

"If you're going to winge about people being promoted because they've actually had enough sense to equip themselves to perform the job, maybe you should level the playing field a bit first by getting your own"

i think the implication was that some people had not equipped themselves with sufficient knowledge and experience....

it is "essential" to own a car much of modern life - this can not be a good thing,... and non-drivers can face more general inconvenience - however people also make descions (even ethical/moral ones) not to own or depend on cars...this is a Social Reality that should not be ignored (even in commercial archaeology...) - rural communities and workers can clearly face greater dififculties with public transport, which would seem to be problem in need of a solution (, rather than, eg, a given condition of Nature.)

Every archaeological site will need transport and drivers - but there is no necessity for the ability to drive to be had by everybody, or even anybody in particular...for practicality and H&S more driving duties should not fall on single individuals, and the lack any driver at all could make site work impossible...

BUT driving HAS been used as an Arbitrary Measure for recruitment/promotion/redundancey, precisley because companies have been unale/unwiling to make sensible use of other discriminators, regardless of need for drivers...i posted on this previously somewhere....driving becomes a coverted perk amongst teams (a bit of extra pay, vehicle at weekends, Aura of Fonzy etc),.. which further reinforces the association with recruitment/promotion/redundancy, regardless of actual need/demand...

Mobility and ability to get to excavations/offices is clearly important...but this is not - and should not - be assessed by possession of a car...

Lets level the playing field by making sure we all know the limits of our own competences and range of abilities, shall we?

Do archaeologists really think so little of academic backgrounds/institutions that Nice Handwriting and ability to drive a car is valued more?

small rural practices may find personal transport necessary, but unstable job markets, and unpredictable places of employment have also been the cause of much need to travel...

(Dino', you clearly have not worked/lived in London, where you car is your biggest Obstacle...incidentaly when i did, worked with foriegn field archs with MA/Phd's but whoes English was not great - they got mocked for this ("look what he wrote here, it isn't even a sentence..how can I put this in an archieve" ), especially by people who failed to understand the meaning of certain Key Scientific Terms and the 'universal' language of archaeological Methodology - they were in fact much better archaeologists/scientists, and far more sensitive to the Actual Data than the 'propa Landan ar'eolajists' with the cheek to criticise them)

[Dinosaur]

Ooooh, seem to have stirred something here}

'Just a digger' wasn't meant to be derogatory (thought I'd said that?), merely a statement that many diggers are quite happy where they are and have no aspirations tp progress up the career ladder ('what career ladder' I hear you all cry!). I still regard myself as 'just a digger' although unfortunately my management seem to think I'm more of an asset playing on a keyboard in the office rather than smacking things with a mattock which is what I'd much rather be doing.

Dig in London? Are you insane?

The hard fact of life for units who have to operate in areas wider than 10 miles across and not served by the Tube is that, if you want to move up the 'career ladder', your first jobs as a supervisor/PO are going to be little watching briefs etc, and that ain't gonna work out if you can't get yourself and some tools to where the jobs are.....

From a strictly commercial view (and however much everyone including myself is horrified by the concept, that's the world we're living in), it costs a b****y fortune having to (a) decipher the illiterate fantasy garbage that gets written on a lot of context sheets, and (b) having to turn resulting reports into language suitable for issue - I spend large amounts of my time stuck in the office effectively 'ghost-writing' for other people rather than going out digging and recording stuff properly in the first place. People who can produce intelligent, concise and legible site records and similarly intelligent, concise and readable reports the first time 'round are, I'm afraid, always going to score more highly with employers (especially if they also own a car), as long as there's some level of archaeological competence somewhere in the mix.

There was quite a lot said on one of the other threads a couple of weeks back about 'just diggers' being given a chance to rise up to the heady world of supervising - clearly when they are given a chance they're just gonna get given a kicking by the likes of 'Tired'....bit of jealousy there? Wonder what they had that he didn't..... (apart from a car) :face-huh:

[Tired]

Is there a specific reason for what seem to be personal attacks Dinosaur?

"when they are given a chance they're just gonna get given a kicking by the likes of 'Tired'....bit of jealousy there? Wonder what they had that he didn't..... (apart from a car)"

- I dont know where you draw the conclusion that people who get promoted are going to get grief from 'the likes' of me, I have no problem with diggers getting promoted, as long as they have the knowledge and skills to deserve that promotion. In the case of the project I was on there were MANY more qualified staff who were passed up simply because they didnt have their own personal vehicle - pointless distinction given all staff were being provided with transport anyway. As for your implication that my complaint against the company is purely sour grapes, thats complete sh*t. Yes, I had more experience and competence than the individual with the car, but there were at least a half-dozen other people in the same position and all of them were far more experienced than me. I'm not whinging because things didnt go my way - I'm criticising a system where convenience and pragmatism are king and nothing else matters.