 
Some thoughts on the needs of Training and Support for independent archaeologistsBackground.The 1960s and 70s were a highlight for archaeology and extra mural education. Numerous societies were founded as a result of following extra-mural classes and a lot of practical work was done. Subsequently this seems to have foundered. There is little connection between extra mural departments and archaeological societies in their area, and though numerous classes are held on an introduction to archaeology, these never seem to result in the formation of new societies, or in practical work being done. Thus before we succumb to the belief that ‘more training is needed’ we must first ask the question why the present training is so ineffective, and whether we should not be concentrating on support. The HADAS experienceThere are, of course, exceptions, and the experiences of a local society - HADAS - the Hendon and District Archaeological Society may perhaps be useful. Several years ago, we wanted to carry out field-walking at Brockley Hill, an early Roman pottery production centre to the north of London. English Heritage was approached, they made us a grant of £1,000 with which we purchased the services of experts from the Museum of London, who helped us with the field walking, and showed us how to sort and process the finds. Now, several years later, the results are approaching publication. Currently we are doing a writing up process. One of the most important excavations undertaken by the society was in 1973, when Ted Sammes excavated a site next door to Hendon Parish church. Last year, Ted died, leaving us the sum of £70,000. We decided that the first call on this should be for writing up these unpublished excavations. We approached Harvey Sheldon at Birkbeck College, University of London, who has arranged for a course to write up this excavation. He has recruited a very enthusiastic tutor from the Museum of London Specialist Services - an authority on post-Roman finds, who lives locally and the course is now progressing very successfully. The next step How far is this unique? Are similar courses being run in other parts
of the country? The problem with the normal training is that is knocks the confidence of those being trained, by over-emphasising the problems and difficulties involved. The advantage of the training envisaged is that it builds on work already in progress, and shows how difficulties can be overcome. ConclusionsMy main conclusion is that the needs of local societies in training are very different to the needs of the professional/commercial archaeologist, and that it may be quite unrealistic to expect that courses devised for the needs of the professional will also be suitable for local societies. Instead, we need to devise an entirely different type of structure, concentrating on support, rather than training. N.B. Neil Faulkner, as a result of his experiences with the excavations at Sedgeford, has a number of ideas on training needs, including the production of a training manual, and a standard system of recording suitable for local societies, which the Council could then recommend.
|