Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Sikelgaita Wrote:What is the cause? The absolute worship of archaeology above all else and if your life is not dedicated to archaeology then you are not worthy. In my opinion this 'Dig to Live Live to Dig' view has been a major factor in maintaining low pay and the exploitation of archaeologists. It is a job not a religion.
I fear you are wasting your time with this line of response when it comes to Jack.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Jack Wrote:Sometimes less is more. :face-stir:
Does that explanation work when a client complains about the speed of progress on site?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Jack Wrote:The cause, of course, is to save as much archaeology as possible before it is destroyed by plough or 360. Otherwise why do archaeology? Surely if someone isn't interested in archaeology they'd be better off working at a bank or in IT?
Is it still the 1970s where you are?
Is the other half to that sentence 'and if they aren't interested in archaeology they are clearly some sort of sub-human scum'?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
RedEarth Wrote:Is it still the 1970s where you are?
Apologies, I fear some of my antiquity may have been leaking in his direction again.... }
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Dinosaur Wrote:Apologies, I fear some of my antiquity may have been leaking in his direction again.... }
You should probably see a doctor about that.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
so we all have different skill sets and we all have more to learn whoopee. but most of us did not start as trainees so why are we so happy sit by and watch the vested interests prop up the market with trainees rather than up the pay and conditions to levels which will enable actual adults (you know with familie/mortgages/aspirations beyond a packet of fags, a few pints and atheritus) to stay in the industry? personally i have no objection at all to the growing trend of employing capable and keen europeans but do you think we need to maintain career places for graduates of british archaeology?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
Jack Wrote:The cause, of course, is to save as much archaeology as possible before it is destroyed by plough or 360. Otherwise why do archaeology?
Because it pays the bills. Because I get to meet great people. Because it is not working in a bank or IT. An interest in archaeology falls way down the list of motivating factors.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
Dinosaur Wrote:Part of the job of a good supervisor is to let trusted diggers just follow their noses, sometimes with spectacular results? In one extreme case for a fortnight, but the resulting ditch (which elsewhere had been massively under-excavated) was well worth the wait :face-approve:
I (and other people I've talked to) have noticed a distinct decline over the last decade or so in the ability of diggers to find proper edges etc, presumably because they're not allowed to have a play and learn how to it properly themselves any more - you can give them a few pointers but at the end of the day it's one of those skills you have to acquire by experience :face-thinks:
On my first day on site I was taught by an old hand to constantly 'question' what I was digging. I did question it and experience taught me that this advice was the truth. In turn this is one of the first things I tell the trainees I am now teaching how to dig.
Why are diggers not allowed to 'have a play' anymore? Is it just commercial time pressures or inexperienced supervisors, or that person management skills are considered less important than academic ones when it comes to promotion. Encouraging a new digger to be confident in their work is in my opinion as important as any technical knowledge... 'don't be afraid, you are not going to hurt the archaeology'....but then again I do see those who hold archaeology up on a pedestal may be mortified by this view.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
30th June 2014, 09:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 30th June 2014, 09:36 PM by Wax.)
A trainee is someone who receives structured training with set aims and objectives that are measured. If that is not provided they are cheap labour. Being thrown in at the deep end to sink or swim is not training. If companies are not providing training why the hell are they complaining about the quality of the staff they recruite?
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
Having a 'real interest' in the archaeology has become an increasing burden to me, and questioning things has certainly caused me no end of trouble
i dont think BigBadCompanies actually care about the 'quality' of the staff -it just leads to more archaeology found, more information recovered, and buggers up a consultants estimates for post-ex costings....
Is it me? the rise of teh "trainee"
