anyhoo, troll hopefully back under the bridge, so back to the thread
Let's get back to first principals, before we think about *who* should teach field archaeology, let's think best about *how* it is best taught.
The basic technical processes (drawing a section; planning; taking a level) aren't terribly complicated and are pretty easily taught, but I think we can agree that these basic skills are only part of the process of becoming a proficient excavator. So much of being a good digger comes from experience (gained in a range of conditions, types of sites, types of archaeology; types of features etc) - these can only be gained by ample time on site, perhaps a minimum of six months.
Now, whether one thinks universities *should* be at the forefront of teaching field archaeology, it is very difficult to think of a way in which six months of excavation could be structured into a 3-year degree course - it would involve two months of fieldwork every year - given that most students now need to work during vacations, this would need to be fitted into term time (ie more or less a term a year). Now that sounds great - a term ever year digging! However, as we all know, digging costs money- the current level of funding for students simply couldn't fund this. There are also the inevitable boring but relevant bureaucratic issues - universities degree courses need to the conform the various benchmarks (
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/Inform...ology.aspx) - I'm not sure that a course with a 6 months field requirement within the 3 year structure would necessarily meet these criteria.
The alternative way to structure it might be to go for the industrial placement (ie four year sandwich course). In the ideal world I think is probably the best model, BUT, it relies on being able to guarantee such a placement for each student you give a place on such a course. Now in the current climate, it would be extremely difficult to do this. To put it into context, we require our students to get three weeks experience in their second year long vacation - this year, I had three cases where students had placements sorted out only to have them pulled at the last minute when, in two cases, the museum shut down due to council cuts and in once case, the commercial unit they were planning to work with went bust. Now imagine trying to ensure people can get a solid 12 month placement in such an environment. Industrial placements may work in subjects like chemistry and engineering where the commercial sector is much larger, but very difficult in the heritage sector in the current economic climate.
As I noted in an earlier post, one of the other big problems is who should actually be the trainers of fieldwork (at an individual level) - I would be the first to say, that academics are not the best people to provide field training- it should be done by people who actually spend most of their time workingin the field. Although there are departments with Field Units, they are decreasing for a range of reasons (with GUARD and ARCUS going in the last couple of years).
So, to summarise-like it or not, as it stands, it is very difficult to provide long-periods of field training within the confines of an UG degree - it is possible to introduce people to the basic concepts and skills, but to become properly proficient requires lots of experience. Placements *might* work, but are difficult to arrange. In an ideal world field training should be provided by professional field workers, but there are few of those working in HE.
I think pragmatically, partnerships between universities and commercial units might be one way forward (I was actually listening to a presentation today about a site being dug jointly by UCLAN and OA East), but I'm not sure there are enough commercial units with capacity for such collaborations to work with all existing Depts of Archaeology (although I suspect that over the next few years we may see some Departments going to the wall).
