21st May 2010, 12:15 PM
Sorry, but to say again, I haven't suggested that com arch is taking professional jobs, and I'm not entirely sure anyone else has either. Is it a basis for supporting the professions? I'm not entirely sure.
The reason I was annoyed is this continuing theme of 'I love my archaeology, me' and 'the archaeology comes first' - anyone who dares step out of rank is attacked by the digging martyrs brigade! I may have said 'it is just a job' and I do not find the term 'temporal contamination engineer' offensive but I also spend most of my time outside of work reading about archaeology, watching archaeology programmes on TV etc etc. When I am at work, like many others I'm sure, it often is 'just a job', otherwise how else to get through the hours of tedium involved? While it is considered a sin to suggest such things then the 'profession' is going no where. After all, archaeology is just a thing and it depends on functioning people to explain it. If those people are not functioning particularly well then the archaeology is either not explored at all or badly explored. SO the quality of the archaeology is dependant on the quality of the people. Feeling that you have to put up with poor conditions etc because 'the archaeology is what's important' is damagaing to the archaeology, which generates a bit of a paradox.
Anway, straying slightly off topic now.
The reason I was annoyed is this continuing theme of 'I love my archaeology, me' and 'the archaeology comes first' - anyone who dares step out of rank is attacked by the digging martyrs brigade! I may have said 'it is just a job' and I do not find the term 'temporal contamination engineer' offensive but I also spend most of my time outside of work reading about archaeology, watching archaeology programmes on TV etc etc. When I am at work, like many others I'm sure, it often is 'just a job', otherwise how else to get through the hours of tedium involved? While it is considered a sin to suggest such things then the 'profession' is going no where. After all, archaeology is just a thing and it depends on functioning people to explain it. If those people are not functioning particularly well then the archaeology is either not explored at all or badly explored. SO the quality of the archaeology is dependant on the quality of the people. Feeling that you have to put up with poor conditions etc because 'the archaeology is what's important' is damagaing to the archaeology, which generates a bit of a paradox.
Anway, straying slightly off topic now.