Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Hardly a challenging job, requesting HER data, re-typing the list and calling it a DBA, digging's much more demanding }
- have seen
far too many of those from some of these 'consultancies', rest of us then have to pick up the pieces
!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
Dinosaur Wrote:digging's much more demanding }
-
Physically yes, otherwise no it isn't. The consultancy job is a lot more involved than just requesting HER data and regurgitating it.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
isnt it a "no archaeology required job".
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Mike.T. Wrote:Physically yes, otherwise no it isn't. The consultancy job is a lot more involved than just requesting HER data and regurgitating it.
Eerm, you might want to tell that to some of the outfits (mostly environmental consultancies from the ones I've seen) churning out some of DBAs I've seen then - they're just lists of HER data. One of my colleagues spends much of his time explaining to utilities companies that, yes, the HER dot may be on the other side of the field boundary from where they're planning to lay that pipeline they've re-routed by a few metres based on their cheapo DBA, but actually the complex archaeological site is 500m across...makes you weep :face-crying:
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Actually quite good indeed. It was discussed before hand... you have to move away from the lowest rate = digging job and that the bottom rung is always a field archaeology post. Looking at the requirements, the opportunity and the progression, you can see this is actually quite a post. this is a starter post. you are going to be (at the junior level) exactly that. the basic level , where you will be beginning at the bottom of this career stream. So no worries there. it is one of many "bottom rung jobs"
Vulpes suggests the term Junior is demeaning... that is up for debate.
I never liked terms like site assistant either... is that because I am being snobby as it sounds like shop assistant?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Dinosaur Wrote:Eerm, you might want to tell that to some of the outfits (mostly environmental consultancies from the ones I've seen) churning out some of DBAs I've seen then - they're just lists of HER data. One of my colleagues spends much of his time explaining to utilities companies that, yes, the HER dot may be on the other side of the field boundary from where they're planning to lay that pipeline they've re-routed by a few metres based on their cheapo DBA, but actually the complex archaeological site is 500m across...makes you weep :face-crying:
You appear to be missing the difference between a job that isn't challenging, and a challenging job being done badly. They aren't the same thing, and a DBA done well easily as challenging, difficult and, dare I say it, exhausting, as any aspect of field work. Unless of course that field work is also being done badly, and lazily.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
But there is no connection between a DBa and any aspect of field work. That's the problem. Your on a salary. You are clueless. Are you?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
A good DBA informs the project design for the field work. A bad DBA is a waste of time and effort. I am with Dinosaur, too often they are a regurgitation of the HER without the knowledge and understanding of what the information in the HER indicates about the below ground archaeological potential. And Dino is right far too many people, archaeologists included, presume the dot on the map is the extent of the archaeology when if they actually read the full HER description they would get a much better grasp of the potential site. Producing a good DBA is a much an archaeological skill as any field work.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
BAJR Wrote: I never liked terms like site assistant either... is that because I am being snobby as it sounds like shop assistant?
I agree, it should be permanently binned. Not only is the term ''site assistant'' demeaning its also an inaccurate job title. If you're working on site then you're not really assisting anyone, working as part of a team ( usually ), but that's different. You're doing all the digging, interpretation and recording yourself. The term ''field archaeologist'' is a far more accurate job description.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
Quote:The term ''field archaeologist'' is a far more accurate job description.
Totally agree. Could be insisted on. It has to be asked why it isn't used by more diggers? I would suggest that if you were self employed that you would insist that that is term used.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
