25th March 2008, 01:28 PM
The bit I work in is mostly about considering archaeology before it is destroyed by development. It is about physically being on a site and being skilled at it. It involves a lot of hardships and uncertainties except that you can rely on being taxed. Quite often is because someone wants to build a toilet in a burial ground or a pipeline through the greenbelt. I would suggest that the site skill is massively undervalued but fully exploited by authorities who have no intension of standing outside in all weathers just one step ahead of a jcb. Its about wanting to adhere to the codes of the ifa but not when they include RAOs.
Where you and I are probably most differ is where we would place the core of the profession. I would position it at the digger level although at a more highly empowered position than it is currently. I suspect you position the core in the management somewhere so
Vanity of vanity all is vanity
Where you and I are probably most differ is where we would place the core of the profession. I would position it at the digger level although at a more highly empowered position than it is currently. I suspect you position the core in the management somewhere so
Quote:quote: your archaeology is about people and their enjoyment of itis archaeology as entertainment, the charity trusts have archaeology as education. You are welcome to take such a view and exploit diggers as volunteers who need training as you do but how does this translate in the briefs under which commercial archaeologists compete and from that into pensions. I dont think is a big joke but then I am not on a final salary pension and have just taken savings that I put into an isa last year to pay my tax.
Vanity of vanity all is vanity