A Code of Practice for running field and other practical training courses.
John Collis

Archaeology is a very practical subject, and we all rely on the provision of practical training, mainly excavation and survey, but increasingly also laboratory work.  This training is made available not only to students but also to members of the general public, and as a means of increasing the skills of professional archaeologists.  As a profession we should obviously be aiming for the highest possible standards, but the experience of those attending such courses is not always happy, especially if participants are expected to pay sometimes considerable amounts of money for the experience.  One common complaint is that students are merely treated as ‘trowel fodder’ to provide labour for the research interests of the director, with minimal provision made for training;  staff may have limited experience or be plain incompetent, or simply not have thought through the problems which may occur (how to deal with accidents, providing the right level of training, etc.).

At the 2000 meeting of the EAA a group of us got together to lay down some guidelines on how we think practical training courses should be run, calling on the experience of people who had run numerous courses at university and other levels not only in Europe but also in America.  Our hope is that people running practical training schemes will find the advice useful, and that they will adopt the standards and advertise their intention to adhere to the Code of Practice.  This in turn will give participants a guaranteed level of standards (and mechanisms to complain if they are not met!).  These ideas were published in the EAA Newsletter and also as an appendix in my book Digging up the Past, but were never formally adopted by the EAA.  We are now going through that process;  they have been agreed by the EAA Executive Board, and will be put before the Annual General Business Meeting in Lyon in September.  Preliminary to that there will be an opportunity to have another look at the document at the annual meeting of the Training and Education Committee of the EAA which will be holding its annual business meeting and round table as part of the conference.  So we would welcome any thoughts or suggestions on how we might improve the code.  I also remind everyone that our committee meeting and Round Table is open to everyone attending the meeting, and also if you want to join our group, simply send your email address to John Collis (j.r.collis@sheffield.ac.uk).

Code of Practice for Fieldwork Training

Practical training should only be undertaken by those competent to provide the particular training offered (e.g. field survey, excavation, geophysics, laboratory expertise).  Where possible they should have recognised professional documentation of their competence.

Documentation provided to participants and potential participants should state clearly:
1) Who are the competent people running the project and their professional and training qualifications;
2) What specific training will be on offer (e.g. field walking, excavation, finds processing, drawing, etc.), and to what level (where this can be defined, e.g. under the Institute of Archaeologists proposed levels of competence);
3) The date of the site and its nature.
4) Which categories of student or volunteer are being catered for.  This can vary from people for whom the project is a working holiday with an educational aim, school children wondering whether to study archaeology at university, students fulfilling requirements for the courses, or young professionals seeking professional training.  All these groups have very different needs.
5) What kinds of students or volunteer are being catered for (e.g. the level of previous experience, those with disabilities, age restrictions, etc.).
6) The way in which teaching will be carried out, preferably with a defined programme (e.g. lectures, on-site training, site documentation, mentoring by competent workers, etc.).
7) Ratios of competent staff to students;
8) A statement of the methods to be used, where possible with specific reference to manuals and text books;
9) A guide on the length of the course.
10) Clear advice on living conditions, personal insurance, hazards, equipment to be provided, etc.

The project must be fully insured for accidents, professional indemnity, etc.  It should maintain legal standards of Health and Safety, e.g. in working conditions, protective clothing, first aid training, provision of first aid kits.  Every member of the team should know what to do in an emergency, e.g. telephone numbers of medical services, where to find the local doctor or hospital.

Field projects should conform to the legal requirements of the country in which they are carried out (e.g. for permits, legal access to land, deposition of finds and archives, publication, etc.).  This will also normally involve carrying out an official ‘Risk Assessment’.

There should be concern for the local social and political environment in which work is being carried out (e.g. students should not be seen to have privileged access to historical sites from which local people are excluded).  It is the responsibility of the participant to enquire what are the working languages for the course, and ensure that they have sufficient command to participate fully.

Given the limited nature of the archaeological resource, due concern should be given to its preservation, and it should not be destroyed merely to provide training.  Preferably sites which are threatened or where there are pressing research interests should be chosen rather than unthreatened sites.

Sites should be chosen which are suitable for the level of training being given, e.g. beginners should not start on complex and difficult deeply stratified sites.

Students should not be exploited.  Training excavations should not be used merely as a way of financing research;  equally they should not be used as a means of undermining professional activities, e.g. by offering cut-price rescue excavations where these should be properly funded under state and European planning legislation.

Any certificates given out should be endorsed by a recognised institution, e.g. a university, museum, professional body, etc.

Participants should be asked for feedback on their experiences, and proper consideration be taken of complaints and suggestions.  Where possible these should be passed on to the relevant institution overseeing the standards.

Any participants should be informed where they can make formal complaints if they are dissatisfied with their training and treatment (e.g. the professional institute, university, etc.).