How should British Archaeology be run

[monty]

If only archaeology undergraduates knew what they were letting themselves in for........................

[david.petts]

I think a case could be made for not needing a degree to dig- indeed, lots of people came into archaeology via things like the Manpower Services Commission etc in the past and have made great diggers. The problem comes though if they want to move out of being purely an excavator- doing a decent DBA, doing post-ex, writing project designs needs (or certainly ought to need) a decent level of archaeological background knowledge. Of course, this doesn't necessarily equate to a university degree- but it is probably the best way to get a decent grounding, particularly as the whole world of evening classes etc is more or less dying a death...

The idea of some kind of advanced training dig is a nice one, but I'm still not sure it would work financially- I'll have a ponder about how it might work. One of the problems is that its quite hard to replicate the real conditions of a commercial dig in a training context- would people pay to machine watch in the rain for three days?
D

[Kel]

would people pay to machine watch in the rain for three days?

If it was an employers' requirement to have staff pass such a course, and it meant the difference between being a field archaeologist and not being a field archaeologist? Yes, I think they would. It'd certainly sort out the ones with real commitment and enthusiasm for fieldwork.

[RedEarth]

I think a case could be made for not needing a degree to dig- indeed, lots of people came into archaeology via things like the Manpower Services Commission etc in the past and have made great diggers. The problem comes though if they want to move out of being purely an excavator- doing a decent DBA, doing post-ex, writing project designs needs (or certainly ought to need) a decent level of archaeological background knowledge. Of course, this doesn't necessarily equate to a university degree- but it is probably the best way to get a decent grounding, particularly as the whole world of evening classes etc is more or less dying a death...

The idea of some kind of advanced training dig is a nice one, but I'm still not sure it would work financially- I'll have a ponder about how it might work. One of the problems is that its quite hard to replicate the real conditions of a commercial dig in a training context- would people pay to machine watch in the rain for three days?
D

University degrees are inevitably going to cover a vast amount of ground and lead students in several potential directions. I suspect that too many come out with high expectations of what they are going to do, many immediately giving up on archaeology and getting a 'proper job' once they discover that those expectations are not going to be met (probably like most other students coming out of all but the most vocational of degrees). There seems to be an implicit notion that watching a machine in the rain is somehow not how most people expect their career in archaeology to pan out and is in some way less worthwhile than, say research, but that is probably due to a lack of realistic expectations in part due to universities not really presenting all the information. We can't all be full time researchers, and even then, how many people start a 'career' in research only to discover the funding has disappeared. At least machine watching might led to an actual salary.

In short:

Would trainees/students pay to machine watch? Probably not, but perhaps they should because looked at in the right way there is lots to be learned from doing it.

Why not? Because universities are teaching them that this is a valueless occupation.

Joint training between universities and commercial companies is definitely the way to go, even just a module on commercial archaeology (which I'm sure many course now include) and a field trip to visit a local commercial site would be a start. A few placements with commercial units for those who really want to pursue it further might be one option, and longer-term joint projects would obviously be great. Don't worry about the research aspect of it though, just get them out in the field, in the rain, with an objective based on time, efficiency and not pratting about.

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]Joint training between universities and commercial companies is definitely the way to go, even just a module on [/SIZE][SIZE=3]commercial archaeology (which I'm sure many course now include) and a field trip to visit a local commercial site would be a sta . A few placements with commercial units for those who really want to pursue it further might be one option, and longer-term joint projects would obviously be great. Don't worry about the research aspect of it though, just get them out in the field, in the rain, with an objective based on time, efficiency and not pratting about.

[/SIZE]Universities with field units would say this is what they do already. This just a perpetuation of a system that thinks that it could take a bunch of unqualified manpower services placements place them on an archaeological site and easily whittle out somefinely tuned old lags. Everybodies grandma can do it, isn?t jolly old archaeology all about having your own trowel and knee pads. Its also the system where the majority of the students actually don?t see being a compertant field archaeologist as a basic necessity to their degree and nor do the universities.

[SIZE=3]The problem comes though if they want to move out of being purely an excavator- doing a decent DBA, doing post-ex, writing project designs needs (or certainly ought to need) a decent level of
archaeological backgroundknowledge. Of course, this doesn't necessarily equate to a university degree-but it is probably the best way to get a decent grounding, particularly as thewhole world of evening classes etc is more or less dying a death...

[/SIZE]

This is the crap view that you can dig without being able to do a decent DBA and probaly even to read one for the site before you do "dig" let alone be compertant to do post ex. This view is the wall followers its the directors copyright, I can dig this site with volunetters and that field archaeologists should be produced through the manpower services doing evening class so that they can compete with the 2000 or more archaeology graduates produced per year ?The only reason that this is a fair fight is that only about 10 of those graduates wanted to do field archaeology and 9 of them think that to do field archaeology their courses in mesopotania and medieval studies is good enough.

We need archaeology to be seen as a forensic science not some lets look at churches and go ohhhoo.

[P Prentice]

come on then unit - tell us how should be run

[kevin wooldridge]

We need archaeology to be seen as a forensic science not some lets look at churches and go ohhhoo

No we don't!!

[Unitof1]

Dont worry Kev the likes of the curators and the vast majority of university parasites wont let it happen. The only way would be through demand and supply, theres absolutly not reason why a unit would need to employ somebody who might know what they are doing and the numpties have found that universities will all take them on to do an archaeology course and they realy dont need to do any digging to get the degree, well scribble on a context sheet.

I think a case could be made for not needing a degree to dig

Surveying degrees are now three or four years they used to once produce surveyers from geography courses and before that they probably were produced by the army engineers Kev, but archaeology departments think that they can get away with a few days in a BA masters course. Still if it gets you the job then that probably says more about the job. Did they fit it in with a bit of baysian statistic, geomorpology and how to do genetic sampling as well, probably got it all into a one hour lecture.

Gosh isnt digging great, you never know what you will find, it must be so exsciting not knowing.

[P Prentice]

@ unit - who trained you and how many archaeologists have you trained?

[tmsarch]

Unit of One is right - if degrees are intending to churn out 'archaeologists' (in the Unit sense of the word) then they are largely unfit for purpose. If that is their intention Unit is right again in that we could get rid of 90% of the university departments - there is clearly a supply and demand issue between the number of graduates getting archaeology degrees and the number of archaeologists needed in the profession. That of course assumes that all archaeology students want to be 'archaeologists' and this is clearly not the case.

Again I think Unit is right- a couple of weeks digging on a sanitised university research dig and a couple of hours "of baysian statistic, geomorpology and how to do genetic sampling as well" are not going to make an 'archaeologist' whatever the graduates coming out at the end may think.

It's not always easy to agree with Unit - but it is perhaps easier knowing that he will likely find a curator agreeing with him as difficult as it is for me to admit to agreeing to some of his views. }

David Petts however is also correct, in that an archaeology degree isn't presently just about producing 'archaeologists' (again in the Unit sense) and there is absolutely nothing wrong that. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with learning for learning's sake or with entrants taking an archaeology degree to learn about the past and become well rounded, educated and skilled (not necessary commercial archaeologically skilled) individuals.

Which I guess takes us back to the central question - should archaeology degrees be for producing technically skilled 'archaeologists' or people who have been educated to a standard that allows them to go on and build and hone their technical skills.

Ultimately I think Monty's comment:

If only archaeology undergraduates knew what they were letting themselves in for........................

has a lot of truth to it. Recently I've seen a number of job applications come in from graduate archaeologists who have shown no 'drive' to make themselves employable. Their application seems to suggest that they think that because they have a degree in the subject (or a closely related subject) they have not only the skills, but are "very experienced in...", are "exceptionally competent at..." or "have a thorough knowledge of...".

It seems like a long time since I took my undergraduate degree, but even then I was under no illusion that taking an archaeology degree would make me an 'archaeologist'. I was also under no illusion that I'd be able to come out of university with commercially useful practical archaeological skills unless I put some effort in myself. I knew I wanted to go into field archaeology (although I've subsequently moved into a curatorial position) and I knew that a degree wasn't enough. That's why I put the effort into getting as much practical experience as I could. I didn’t rely on the university's training dig to provide this, but went out of my way to seek 'commercial' experience.

That's why before I went to University I'd already undertaken some office and find's base voluntary work for my local archaeological contractor, gone out of my way to make contact with them and make myself known. When it came to the compulsory fieldwork element of my degree I didn't take the easy option of just sticking my name down on the notice-board list to join the university's training dig - I went out and sought a placement with a commercial company (much to my lecturers bemusement), I also went back to the local unit I'd previously volunteered with and was lucky to secure some intermittent (sometimes paid, sometimes unpaid) commercial experience in holiday periods and subsequently some paid work in the following holidays. Yes I was probably being paid a pittance and some might say I was being 'exploited', but I knew I needed to get this type of experience and I was exceptionally grateful (and perhaps a little bit lucky - but luck has to be made) to get commercial experience whilst at university. I was also very grateful to have the opportunity to work alongside some exceptional field archaeologists who recognised that I wanted to be there and wanted to learn practical skills and that they took the time to share their knowledge with me.

I hope the effort that I put in made me more employable once I'd graduated and I certainly picked up some digging work much quicker than contemporaries who'd only decided to do field archaeology to give it a go until something better came along.

What I'm trying to say - in a very rambling way - is that training isn't just about university vs commercial, but also about prospective field archaeologists showing some drive and determination to seek that training themselves. However we structure the training and whoever provides it, it needs to go beyond drip feeding. If you want to be good at any skill - and field archaeology is a skill - you need to put some effort in - as Roy Castle used to say - "dedications what you need"