Anne Brundle says:
>The quality of post-ex and archiving varies enormously; for good
>pratice I would commend Headland Archaeology and AOC Scotland,
>among several others. But across Britain there are still fieldworkers
>who take a tremendously professional approach to excavating and to
>publishing, but who seem to have a blind spot with post-ex and
>archiving. Is there a problem with training, or is there an image issue
>with work perceived as dull?
I think it must be both - training and the work being perceived as dull.
I can only assume that in the universities there is little attention paid to
the actual procedures of finds processing. On the one hand you could say OK
this is not an academic subject, but on the other - well yes, but it should
be impressed upon budding archaeologists that there is little point in the
careful excavation and recording if you don't look after
your finds. Fair enough that it should be left to on-site training, but it
seems everyone wants to be out on site digging holes and playing with the
EDM or whatever other sexy
technology is being used - to many diggers pot washing seems to be
considered as punishment duty, or an opportunity to skive.
This is short sighted as it is the people who have shown an interest in, and
a responsible attitude to, finds processing who often get the extra work
after the dig finishes!
Finds might not be your bag but to be a well rounded archaeologist you
should properly appreciate the part they play it telling the story of a
site. They are also at the public interest 'interface' - as it were - which
I think most people agree is important.
end of thoughts for now