Interview scorecard template

Archaeologist interview scorecard

Evaluate Archaeologist candidates across 4 weighted areas: method and rigour, real casework, interpretation and judgement, and reporting and testimony. Method and rigour leads at 35%, so test excavation and recording standards: stratigraphic method, context recording, sampling strategy, and finds handling. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently. Record evidence before choosing each rating.

See AI scoring
science investigationarchaeologyexcavationfieldworkheritage
TL;DR
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate rigorous stratigraphic and recording practice, with clear awareness of what each method can and cannot resolve. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate names specific sites and seasons with clear personal scope and what the excavation yielded. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Method and rigour

35% weight

Test excavation and recording standards: stratigraphic method, context recording, sampling strategy, and finds handling.

Evidence to listen for

  • Follows and can justify an established methodology
  • Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
  • Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
  • Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.

3
Satisfactory

Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.

4
Very Good

Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.

5
Excellent

Rigorous stratigraphic and recording practice, with clear awareness of what each method can and cannot resolve.

02
Evaluation factor

Real casework

25% weight

Look for named sites and seasons they worked, with their own role and what the site produced.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
  • States their own role and what they personally handled
  • Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
  • Knows what happened to the work afterwards

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.

5
Excellent

Names specific sites and seasons with clear personal scope and what the excavation yielded.

03
Evaluation factor

Interpretation and judgement

25% weight

Check whether they separate what the material evidence supports from interpretation, especially on thin or disturbed contexts.

Evidence to listen for

  • Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
  • States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
  • Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
  • Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.

2
Needs Improvement

Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.

5
Excellent

Separates material evidence from interpretation and states confidence, including on disturbed contexts.

04
Evaluation factor

Reporting and testimony

15% weight

Assess site reports, publication, and dealing with developers, heritage bodies, or planning authorities.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
  • Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
  • Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
  • Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.

2
Needs Improvement

Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.

4
Very Good

Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.

5
Excellent

Clear site reporting plus real experience with developers, heritage bodies, or planning authorities.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Archaeologist

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Do you have experience with field work, and which excavation and recording systems have you worked under?

  2. 02

    Are you experienced in handling and preserving archaeological artifacts, both on site and post-excavation?

  3. 03

    Are you familiar with archaeological classification systems, and which typologies or fabric series do you actually use?

  4. 04

    Do you have experience with GIS and other mapping software, and what did you produce with it?

  5. 05

    Which specific cultures, civilizations or periods do you have the most experience studying?

See the complete Archaeologist question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards