I think we have to draw a distinction between people who simply have bad
work habits and people who lack training in basic field technique. Most
people who know what they are doing can be sped up by an effective
supervisor, either by pointing out and correcting minor inefficiencies or
simply by laying down some firm ground rules of behavior the first day.
Most supervisors dealing with the time constraints of CRM work, however,
have no desire to lose valuable time conducting remedial on-the-job
training for those who don't arrive with the ability to do the job from day
one.
The problem is that training is so variable among field schools that you
can never tell what a person "knows" after one such experience. Too often
the training consists of learning a specific set of closely related tasks
(dig, screen, bag) and not the full range of skills typically needed on an
excavation project. They will usually require close and constant
supervision if picked up for a CRM project, and that's a luxury most of us
can't afford--especially on small projects. Often I have asked an employee
to perform a basic task, like draw a profile, only to be told that "only
the graduate assistants were allowed to do that on my field school."
Field school instructors should have more time to spend giving students
broader experience, but even the well-intentioned are often constrained by
the academic calendar and their own self-imposed goals of data gathering.
Some field schools are less than five weeks, and one can't gain much
experience under those conditions even with the best instructor. It's also
true that most field schools are run on a shoe-string with old equipment,
so that students may receive no hands-on instruction with modern electronic
gear that might be available in the corporate world.
It may seem contradictory, but the other thing that I think should be
taught besides basic technique is that there may be more than one correct
way to dig a site. Retraining someone fixed on a particular way of doing
things can be much more difficult than working with someone with no prior
experience and no preconceived notions. That level of awareness, of course,
usually only comes to those who have worked in multiple contexts and can't
be expected of students fresh from their first and only field school. It
wouldn't hurt, though, if their instructors occasionally said, "This is my
way of doing things for this particular project, but it's not the only
way."
Ron May
<[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
> cc: (bcc: Vergil Noble/MWAC/NPS)
Sent by: Subject: Possibly Spam: Re: What is an archaeologist?
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
09/21/04 01:36 PM
AST
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
Carl,
Digging at a field school means you can laugh, have fun, run over to see
another student's discoveries, debate from one pit to another, stop and
talk
theory, take as many potty breaks as you need, stop at the water cooler to
chat,
hang out at the lab, and take leisurely notes. Nothing threatens a field
school
archaeology site because it will be there for the next semester. Digging on
a
contract job with heavy deadlines and the bulldozer roaring in the
background
means digging very precisely, fast, and earning every penny of your hourly
rate doing just what you were hired to do. Potty breaks are swift and
purposeful.
People bring canteens to their pits, and lunch periods are precise with
people back slaving on their units one minute after the work bell rings.
The CRM
pit boss rates people on how many levels the dig, precision of their work,
accuracy of their notes, and attention to detail in the maximum time
professionally
possible. This is the difference, as I see it. Not long after a CRM crew
walks off the site, bulldozers will rip it out of existence and the only
epitaph
will be the field notes, maps, and collections.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
|
