Sarmizegetusa, Roman Capital of the Dacian Provinces

Roman Imperial Urban Excavation

2014 Evaluation

 

 

 

Pre-Arrival:

 

Did the project staff provide you with enough information beforehand to organize your packing for and travel to the project?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          0          2          5          Average: 94%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Was the pickup arrangement made prior to the project adequately seen to by project staff?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          0          2          5          Average: 94%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Housing:

 

Were the living accommodations provided by the project adequate for your needs?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          1          3          3          Average: 86%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Comments:

 

  • The bathroom flooded a lot, which is beyond your control and I don’t really care, but sometimes there was no water or whatever.

  • The living accommodations were more than adequate.

 

Food:

 

Were the meals provided by the project adequate for your needs?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          0          2          5          Average: 94%

Evaluation participation: 9/13 (69% of participants)

 

Comments:

  • Food was delicious- more variety at breakfast would be great though!

  • The staff at Zalmoxe were incredible.  More than adequate.

 

General Logistics:

 

Did you encounter any problems with the accommodations, food or travel?

  • No, everything was great

  • No

  • No

  • Wifi not consistent, showers not working properly, water shutting off.

  • No, everything went smoothly.

 

Was the project staff able to address your concerns to your satisfaction?

  • Yes, totally

  • Yes

  • Yes

 

Lectures:

 

Were the formal lectures presented informative and useful?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          1          3          3          Average: 86%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Were the formal lectures presented interesting and engaging?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          2          3          2          Average: 80%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Comments:

  • Lots of good information.   For first time students maybe include more on the basic organization/methodology/theory of excavation.

  • Future considerations - a lecture on theory and another separate concerning excavation techniques and methodology.

  • All lectures were excellent and informative.

  • Lectures by Kaleigh and Alec were good.

 

Excavation and Survey:

 

Were the instructions provided by the project staff in the field clear and helpful?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          4          2          1          Average: 71%

Evaluation participation: 9/13 (69% of participants) 

 

Did the project staff offer you a thorough theoretical understanding of the methods being employed?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          2          2          3          Average: 83%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Did your participation in the project offer new understandings of archaeological field methods?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          1          3          3          Average: 86%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Comments:

 

  • ArchaeoTek staff was helpful.  Appreciate their insight into what was happening when there were uncertainties with the other staff/participants.  It was confusing, however, to constantly be told different orders by different staff (Romanians, British, etc.).

  • Was frustrating at times when given conflicting/unclear/contradictory instructions by multiple supervisors.  Improvement in clarity be appreciated greatly.

  • ArchaeoTek staff was helpful and informative and any faults in their directive was due to higher organizational issues with several Romanian supervisors or poor communication from them to ArchaeoTek staff.  Addition of British and other “bosses” was confusing for students.

  • Instructions could have been clearer at some points. Was often told to do multiple things by different people with different instructions.

 

 

General:

 

Was the project staff able to adequately answer all of your questions?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          0          3          4          Average: 91%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Were your interactions with the Romanian and British staff informative and helpful?

 

                      Poor    1          2          3          4          5          Excellent

Evaluation:               0          0          4          2          1          Average: 71%

Evaluation participation: 7/7 (100% of participants)

 

Comments:

  • There was a lack of communication and organization in some of the higher up staff which resulted in a lot of confusion and misinformation. Understandable on a project with so many individual entities, but would recommend that trying to outline a more established chain of command might be beneficial.

  • The Romanian staff was not very clear about their objectives and how to accomplish them. The British staff seemed clueless.

 

Overall Comments:

 

Please provide us with your thoughts on what you found most rewarding about your archaeological experience on the project:

 

  • The amount of work completed was very impressive - the finished product was extremely satisfactory.

  • Collaboration of several nations on a single project. Contribution to work on a site such as Sarmizegetusa.

  • It was a cool site with a lot of interesting finds; personally, I got to excavate a couple of great finds, but I could appreciate all the good things the group uncovered.

  • I have never dug this complex a site before.  It was very rewarding to actually see the stratigraphy and learn how to read it.

  • It was interesting and insightful to work on a project with such varied participation.  I was able to learn a lot more about archaeological thought/process outside of my previous experience.

 

Other comments?

 

  • Thank you for the opportunity.

  • Amazing site. I will come back.

  • I had a great time. :)

  • Overall a great experience; I’m glad to have been able to work on this project.

WHAT'S UP?
LAST EVENT

NEW PROJECTS

 

  • The outstanding success of our 2018 and 2019 GPR projects, the Applied Field Geophysics Workshop - GPR Applications, prompted us to buy a second GPR unit with a different central frequency and a different configuration. As a result, our participants will have the unique opportunity to get fully proficient on a 250MHz GPR system, in a cart configuration, as well as 500MHz system, in a rough terrain configuration.

  • Furthermore, participants who are committed to expand their field skill set can register to our new Geophysics Exploration and Field Excavation program. It is a 4 week program, combining the GPR Applications Workshop (5 days) and  Roman Villa Excavation (3 weeks). Participants save $200 over the combined costs of the individual programs.

2020

New for our 2020 season: our Applied Field Geophysics Workshop-GPR Applications will allow the comparative professional training on the core GPR systems and configurations used in near surface investigations: 250MHz and 500MHz transducers, in respectively cart and rough terrain configurations. Our program is open to all disciplines, focusing on GPR theory, methods, techniques and applications.

 

As a result of overwhelming positive response and further request from our participants, we are offering the possibility to combine all sessions of our the GPR Applications Workshop with both field sessions of our Roman Villa Excavation as a stand alone program, allowing to save $200 on the combined fees. Our two research/training case study sites have been carefully chosen to combine increasing complexity of ancient, historical and modern features. These sites provide an unparalleled access to a diverse set of features and conditions.  We address urban and proto-urban settlement construction, complex anthropogenic stratigraphic relationships, variation in soil structure and conditions, wide range of materials and their use/reuse, unmapped ancient and modern utilities, potential graves, modern and ancient civil works projects (including the remains of roads, aqueducts, and wells), changes in hydrogeological environment caused by modern human intervention, and all as-yet undiscovered features. The highest quality for the best price on any GPR courses available anywhere!!!

CONTACT US
  • Facebook App Icon

© 2001/2011 - 2021 ArchaeoTek - Canada