Editorial

By Carver, Martin | Antiquity, March 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Editorial


Carver, Martin, Antiquity


The Theoretical Archaeology Group 2004 had its conference in Glasgow where 450 delegates were treated to the legendary hospitality of that city. One innovation of "Tartan TAG" was a ceilidh in which theorists were put through an exceptionally well-organised sequence of Highland dances rich in the metaphors of courting and rejection. Another was a plenary session in which all who attended were issued with a laser gadget with which to vote. Propositions put by speakers could be tested instantly by democratic mandate; we just pointed our widgets at little sensors in the roof and pressed one of buttons 1-6, according to our likes. As a warm up, we rejoiced to learn that we were almost exactly 50 per cent of each sex, 42 per cent were from the UK and 38 per cent of us had PhDs. I would have liked this social analysis of the audience to have penetrated still deeper: how many of us still believed in processualism? How many of us actually liked theory, or thought it might be vaguely good for us, like losing weight? How many of us had children and pets, and of course compliant partners or nannies allowing us to attend a three-day conference so preposterously close to the New Year holiday? But the organisers' minds were set on more exigent matters: the archaeology degree, the archaeological work-place and the relationship between the two. We were quickly shown that democracy is a capricious instrument, the electorate being quite happy to vote for impossible or contradictory contentions, and if necessary to lob random "dissident" votes into the mix.

For all that, we agreed with Meg Conkey that the archaeology degree was matchless in its combination of arts and sciences, with Bill Hanson that it should be undertaken for its own sake and did not have to be useful to anyone, and with Matthew Johnson that the student, not the government or any prospective employer, was "the primary stakeholder". 90 per cent of us thought a degree should include ethics, and 77 per cent that it should include more compulsory practical training, while a gratifying 70 per cent reckoned that this practical training should encompass survey, buildings and artefact studies as well as digging. However on the question of how much training was necessary to make a professional, the house divided on party lines, in this case by age, employment and background. While 94 per cent of students thought that a degree in archaeology should qualify you for a career in commercial field work, obviously nobody else did: the lecturers thought the answer was an MA (which they were trying to sell) and the contract archaeologists thought that the best training was done on the job--although they were not offering it.

Kenny Aitchison of IFA offered a ray of light in which vocational apprenticeships could be combined with full-time education. Naturally there will be much to talk about here, since the archaeology profession embraces a much broader constituency than either the University or the Field Contract sector. Everyone was happy to agree that the sectors had grown unacceptably far apart, John Walker announcing that he proposed to "shoot the duck of autonomy". It was pointed out from the floor that the investment that students have to make in a first degree, or an MA or more significantly in a PhD, offered no comparable financial returns to an employee. Thus the commercial sector was hardly in a position to demand any particular level of training--since it would neither pay for it nor reward it. Once pay was mentioned the discussion deteriorated rapidly, and took on the sepia tinge of a 1980s "Rescue" meeting. Yannis Hamilakis reminded us that we were being manipulated by power factions and should demand a total political makeover, and Colin Renfrew, winding up, played the wistful card of priestly vocation: low pay was a concomitant of a pleasurable craft.

From a ledge above this old impasse, I wonder if I might be permitted an attempt to shoot the duck of poverty with the cross-bow of pricing.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Editorial
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?