Pay and Conditions

[troll]

Superbly said sir. So much so in fact that I have nothing to add:face-approve:

[BAJR]

Souped up with Carrot juice and a few beetroot shakes I can only concur. After what seems like nearly three decades to choose from (likie Kevin) I can remember a day when a digger was skilled, trained and mentored. We could take photographs, write context sheets and add to running matrix, draw a plan, set out a grid, talk to each other and read up on reports... not just site reports. WE were the beginning, but we knew the end. Specialists would show us the how and why... supervisors would keep us right and bring in reports to read... we were encouraged to communicate and offer opinion, and the office staff were our "other half" not "them upstairs".

Once... not so long ago... Oxford and Wessex came up with Framework... it was what we used to do anyway... but with cost cutting time saving job done... the dream has vanished.

IF you are a supervisor or PO... then don't bemoan the loss of skills... get on there and encourage. doa bit of study on Medieval pottery... print out a report on the type of site they are digging... get people interested again. This seems to be a universal malaise.. with bright pinpricks of light in teh darkness... so lets turn the halogens on - full power!

[troll]

Hows about this......

The responsibility for standards falls squarely at the feet of Curatorial Archaeologists in the guise of County or City (etc) Mounties. Yet not once in my career have I seen or even heard of a curator monitoring site records at the point of retrieval. As commercial pressures increase, exponentially- the standards of data retrieval and recording slide ever further into the realms of absurdity. I have said this before but here goes anyway.....
PPG16 (admittedly now superceded) uses the word "compromise" only once and in the final paragraph. Commercial archaeologists are expected to "compromise" on an almost daily basis in the field and that, comes after (or is a direct consequence) of a string of compromises made in the Project Design/Method Statement/ Tendering phase. I think what I am trying to say is this- archaeologists can do so much more for the finite resource given the time to do it. As an aside....there are still plenty of highly skilled field archaeologists out there who take a great deal of pride in their work and still maintain high standards of data retrieval and recording despite imposed time constraints. If we are to accept and champion the maxim that we are to "preserve by record", then it is my view that those records should by default be exemplary and without compromise. Simply because those records ARE our compromise and the only tangible remains of the finite resource.

Therefore, field archaeologists should be exactly that and no less. I have been lucky enough to have accepted responsibility for the management of sites and their subsequent publishing and it has to be said that once a field archaeologist understands the requirement for quality,accurate and relevent data retrieval and recording, that field archaeologist becomes far more competent in the field. As the majority of field staff are not given the opportunity to play a part in the post-excavation analysis and subsequent publication of sites, a profound grasp of field recording requirements is sadly, an uncommon currency today.

That of course does not excuse supervisory staff (of any echelon) from their duty in monitoring (if not pro-actively setting) standards of retrieval and recording in the field. On the vast majority of commercial projects, the finite resource can only ever be excavated (destroyed) once and as such, the quality of retrieval and recording is doubly of paramount importance.
So what are the causitive agents of less than professional field practise today? Commercial pressures? Inadequate University training? Inadequate in-sector training? Innefective monitoring? Or could it be that the value placed upon "preservation by record" is in itself now compromised beyond recognition?:face-huh:

[troll]

Apologies...have just realised how far I have wandered from the thrust of the thread.....

To shoe-horn myself back into this I would argue that the recent round of redundancies across the industry has had the effect of pruning some of the most experienced, skilled and motivated field archaeologists from the tree. This of course will have consequences for standards and the "mentoring" of greener staff but will also curtail any units ability to take on projects that require a ground-base of self-sufficient staff. Taking the IFA`s latest statements on job losses into account and in particular-the fact that most losses to the industry were from the "invasive field work" sector, I would hope that the recent improvements in pay and conditions would be enough to retain vital assets within the profession and further...entice them back from the comfort and fortune of managing Asda?

[Geli]

I think as Dinosaur points out that there is certainly a lack of joined up thinking within archaeological field work. I think however, as Kevin suggests that the onus for achieving this is with those charged with the task of supervision. Again as Kevin suggests these are the people who should be leading the way by engaging with the general field staff, mentoring the inexperienced and entering into dialogue with the more experienced staff about strategies for excavation and passing on relevant information for their use. On most excavations at present this very rarely happens. Both experienced and inexperienced field staff are directed to make an intervention here and make an intervention there and are given little opportunity or time in the process to join the dots and gain any wider understanding of a site. I have also always believed that the best way to carry out excavation is by strict methodology rather than being led by unproven theory. Perhaps I am wrong in this assessment but quite often the latter rather the former seems to be to the fore on many jobs I've worked on. The net result is that the general field staff feel somewhat disenfranchised from the whole process with the obvious consequence of poor recording. I think we can all readily agree that this is something that needs to be addressed and if as Troll puts forward the Curatorial element was more proactive with regard to the primary record then there would be more incentive for the situation to be rectified.

[GnomeKing]

i dont think you have gone off thread Troll - seems spot on...

It is not always easy to carry out these Aspirations as a supervisor, without coming into conflict with Authority further up the chain...on many occasions i have had to argue for and defend 'best' practice agaisnt my own managers - conflicts which have never help with my career proggresion....

it takes conviction and bravery to cut agaist the grain, and it is a lonley, disturbing journey without a Saftey Net or Organised Support.

[Dinosaur]

Go away for a few hours work (fortified by bacon and caffeine, the old ways still work) and the thread's gone all sensible. Good news! Agree with pretty much everything above, but with one small reservation. In my experience there's unfortunately a small but fairly significant proportion of 9-5 diggers (I'm going to get a kicking for that phrase, aren't I!) who are never going to go to the effort of going beyond doing the absolute minimum to get paid and who will always let the side down. I've certainly tried over the years, luckily these days I'm senior enough I can work on the supervisors/project officers instead (with surprising success!), hopefully some of the right attitude will filter down the system. When did potwashing when rained off become too menial a task for diggers? - or am I just getting old and out of touch? Been having trouble with that recently.

I have, in fact, had my paperwork checked by a curator on site a few times, it does happen although very rarely and even then it's mainly a check that there acually is some! Interestingly, the best independent check I've been a victim of is inspections for whichever ISO certification it is for management systems - even though it's not an archaeologist doing the inspection they expect to see all of the company's workings including random site inspections, and it's a bit of a shock when they want a documented demonstration of how a random hole on site translates to paperwork/drawings etc, how they all cross-reference, and even, scarily in my case, how a resulting soil sample could then be traced back through the office paperwork and seiving operation......b****y h***!!!!! - was a bit lucky on that one and passed Made getting a degree look easy...

[BAJR]

And here we are again... with sense and sensibility returning... Though we have now veered away from the original topic, in a way it is connected. as is always the way.

The web of understanding the entire problem is like a 2-dimensional being trying to comprehend a 4-dimensional world. However, the linking of standards, inspection, respect, professionalism, training, skills, performance, best value.. etc..... are all required to operate. I know only too well the constraint that was on me as a Development Control Arch - and I was quite strict.. but site visits became a luxury rather than a norm. With even more promised cuts to Curatorial Staff, just how we can carry out and inspection of standards is beyond me. It often feels like one step forward two steps back...

Hoorah for teh New PPS
Ah... though we will cut the people who will ensure the standards are met

Huzzah for Statutory HERs
Ah.. or access to a Best of HER DVD - as all the HER officers have been merged into one centralised person for cost reasons.

Yippee.. We have a requirement for a professional specialist -
we can't agree what that is...and who should arbitrate this good taste guide to archaeology.

WE should get better pay and conditions....
but sod it - if I will do anything about it

[troll]

:face-approve:Greetings Dino........

Pot washing can be a really useful exercise for peeps to get their eye in I agree. I also feel however, that when rained off, could we not involve fieldies in post-ex analyses and walk them through the process of writing up sites? If it was my budget, I would use archaeologists (on rained off days) in such a way that the time spent enhanced their abilities. Paying archaeologists to wash pot and polish bits of broken goat doesn`t really make sound business sense to me. Good to hear that at least some inspection of records took place! It has to be said though that monitors should by rote be examining the standard of work-not just that the work actually exists! Its also well known that an office rarely "fails" an ISO as days if not weeks in advance.....all hell breaks loose to get everything in order!

[troll]

P.s....... will be pot washing and polishing bits of broken goat end of this week....grrrrrroaaaaannnnnnn.....whinge......bleat..........