ricctp6

Sorry for the rant, but the wound is open:

I'm 30 and have worked in every aspect of the industry: professional, academic, popular. My fiance is also an archaeologist. Between the two of us, we've worked in every facet of the field, both internationally and in our home country. But our work has been stolen multiple times, we can't find permanent jobs that pay us enough to live on, and we are not considered "academic enough" because we learned the trade before getting higher degrees. Now rich kids with PhDs have never set up a site, worked with a community, or even held a trowel are getting chosen for jobs over us. We both have two Masters degrees, multiple field schools, and we've been dedicated to out jobs for ten years.

It's a toxic environment much like you describe. Academic incest (nepotism too) is ruining the field. People are armchair archaeologists again, just like they were in the early 19th century. I can't trust anyone to be an ethical archaeologist anymore.

I still love the field, the work, the labwork. I met my fiance doing this job and spent wonderful years of my life abroad, digging in sand, writing publications about ceramics, and drinking with good friends. As an archaeologist, you tend to live closely with people for at least 6 weeks at a time. It's both wonderful and tiring.

But the truth is we can't live in hotel rooms on no pay without the integrity of good colleagues anymore. We can't watch amateur diggers loot historic sites, sell the artifacts to the uncaring public and then watch them become millionaires. I'm done with antiquated professors not knowing new theory and then stealing my good publication ideas. I'm done fighting tooth and nail for every grant or contract, and I'm done with the dirty tricks colleagues use to make sure they get the money over me. I'm done with the intrinsic animosity and all the efforts that thwart scientific collaboration. And I'm done giving up my life for what most people call "my hobby."

I don't think this is a disease that's only taking over archaeology. I think it applies to most disciplines that don't pull in a lot of net profit. And, I feel like I've been fighting for a long time, even if it's only been 10 years. But even that short amount of time has shown me that I am not appreciated, valued or needed in this field. So...it's the end for now.

Thanks for what you do. We need journalists. Keep up the fight ✊

Archaeology is facing a lot of the same problems you describe here. I am not as strong as you are and have to quit for both my sanity and before I go bankrupt. Good luck, friend.

It's very frustrating, and you will find that most people with PhDs do not know how to work in their field for the first couple of years. I want to say it is not their fault either. The system is broken, and I actually have great ideas on how to fix it, but with no money or support to make it happen. Part if the reason it used to work as a system was because there was enough money to go around so collaboration was encouraged. Now, everyone is just trying to compete with each other, and since it's a competition for survival essentially, things get nasty. This stifles and limits growth, creativity and progress in general.

I'm over that shit. I want education to again be a collaborative, emotionally supportive, and inspiring endeavor.

There are a lot of answers to this question. And you're right, traditionally archaeologists have been a series of rich people just looting other cultures' relics. But in the 60s and 70s (and even earlier really) there was a movement toward 'processual archaeology' which means heavily based in the scientific method. Suddenly archaeology wasnt just about finding things; large-scale inferences about a peoples could be made based on scientific evidence. It became a field of the social sciences, and the field evolved from there and became very political in good ways (including using archaeology to reinstate what had been originally taken from native peoples, etc.) This is a crazy oversimplification, but it's just showing that archaeology found relevance as a science around that time.

Amateur archaeology is called looting. Looting is when someone digs things up for the money made from selling artifacts or for the collection, without the training to make sure a site, and therefore valuable information about the people who lived amd used the site, isn't sacrificed. But once someone digs something up, that's it. We cannot know what we would if we found the artifact in situ or where it was placed all those years ago. Archaeologists do not sell or keep artifacts. They are given to whoever owns the land, but only after they have been analyzed, as well as after the soil and environment, etc. has been taken into account and a report has been written about the area. There are special codes we follow to make sure we don't hurt the artifacts too. It's very easy for them to break, and we need things to be as whole as possible so that we can assign them a date, etc.

Recently, shows like Diggers, etc. have told the public that they can get rich off of digging up and finding artifacts. This is very inaccurate, as artifacts are often not worth much, and it also means now people are ruining archaeological sites in the process. Metal detecting has ruined countless Civil War sites in the States, for example.

This is just a really brief explanation, but hope it clarified a little bit!

I just have to say that I am one of your biggest fans. I’m an archaeologist and writer, and you make theoretical physics something I can at least begin to understand (a bit). I was wondering if you could talk to us a bit about your writing process:

Do you have a routine?

Did you find that it easier to write popular novels than academic articles or vice versa?

What is the hardest part about making complicated science relatable and clear for a general audience?