We live in a world of tough choices: paper or plastic? eat-in or take-away? decaf or regular? (Okay, that is an easy one.) But recently I was presented with a choice most archaeologists don’t have the luxury of making: students or professionals?
Most field projects require funding and most archaeology departments need to train students in the art and science of excavation. The solution – to require undergraduates to endure 6-8 weeks of heat, boredom, and physical labour and make them pay for the privilege.
This is a good solution….in theory. Because, in theory, the students who sign up to work on field projects are archaeology majors who have completed their sophomore year (or higher) and have an interest in both the project and learning essential field techniques such as using a pick axe, hammering rebar, and drawing stratigraphy. Reality and theory often have very little in common.
Three types of students typically sign up for summer field school:
Archaeology Aficionado (AA) – You can identify AAs by their high-tech, expensive camping gear, squeaky clean boots, keen look in their eye, and their inability to follow directions of any sort because they already know everything. AAs are the ones who bandy citations about in the trench, as though you will be so impressed by their ability to recall their “Intro to Archaeology” reading list you will forgive their sloping baulk and untagged pottery bucket. They will take 3 days to excavate a ‘feature’, walk around criticising the other students’ progress rather than making any themselves, and are the most likely candidates for heat stroke and home-sickness. Unfortunately, these beasties probably do the most damage on an excavation – compromising data and breaking equipment through their arrogance and refusal to ask for or accept help.
Pit Princess (PP) – PPs arrive at the site in a cloud of perfume (attracting swarms of stinging, flying insects and JWs) with more luggage than was necessary to move the field lab. They attempt to wear flip-flops and strappy tank tops or bikinis to the field, use baby oil instead of sunblock, and don’t appear to have noticed that this is not Club Med. They are too weak to empty their buckets into the wheel barrow and too malnourished to do more than scrape ineffectually at the ground and gossip. In fact, the entire purpose of PPs appears to be to get in the way. I will admit their antics are very amusing, but PPs are hardly worth the effort. They require constant supervision, produce no results to speak of, and rarely last an entire season.
Jock Wannabe (JW) – JWs are decent, hard-working lads who can shift an amazing amount of dirt per day. Unfortunately, they are under the impression that relocating large quantities of dirt is what archaeology is all about. They drink hard at night and work through the hangover in the morning. Inevitably, they are the source of the PPs gossip and the sexual triangles which develop on an excavation make soap writers envious…..however, JWs usually adhere to the “what happens in the field stays in the field” philosophy and trade partners more readily than they do trowels. JWs will work through blisters, heat stroke, pulled muscles etc. without complaint. However, they have no subtlety. JWs will often discard artefacts with the back dirt. Forget asking them to sift for beads or debitage.
Students often do not return for a second year, and so there is little continuity or investment. Academics and field archaeologists working on the project are reduced to babysitters at worst, triage nurses at best. Scientific rigour is replaced by “the best possible given the circumstances”.
It is a reality we all live with – the need to train students and the need to fund field work.
Well funded projects, on the other hand, can afford teams of professional and, sometimes, hired labourers. The seasons are shorter and more efficient. Everyone has a job, knows how to do it, and does it with little fuss (albeit with much drinking). Professional excavations are not without their problems, but……
When presented with the option of excavating with a team of students or a team of professionals, which would you choose?