10th March 2005, 02:40 PM
I've just been reading the most recent edition of British Archaeology (issue 81) and I noticed that there is a 1/4 page about Paul Everill's survey on diggers. Can someone explain to me why it was given such a small space? Why didn't it have the same coverage as one of the larger articles?? This is an extremely important issue yet I feel that although we discuss it on forums such as BAJR, in the wider media world, it is almost taboo.
The small article ended with the line: 'Not all is bad. "Nothing comes close to the camaraderie", said one digger'. That might be so, but I think decent pay, decent working conditions and the recognition of archaeology as a profession would go a long way. To end the 'article' in such a way almost seemed to negate what the rest of it was trying to say i.e archaeology is in trouble. I feel that for such a popular magazine, and by that I mean one that is available to the general public through WHSmith etc, this topic should have been given a bigger space so that people can realise that being an archaeologist isn't all that Time Team and others make it out to be.
What does everyone else think?
Ash
(who's feeling extremely frustrated at the moment)
The small article ended with the line: 'Not all is bad. "Nothing comes close to the camaraderie", said one digger'. That might be so, but I think decent pay, decent working conditions and the recognition of archaeology as a profession would go a long way. To end the 'article' in such a way almost seemed to negate what the rest of it was trying to say i.e archaeology is in trouble. I feel that for such a popular magazine, and by that I mean one that is available to the general public through WHSmith etc, this topic should have been given a bigger space so that people can realise that being an archaeologist isn't all that Time Team and others make it out to be.
What does everyone else think?
Ash
(who's feeling extremely frustrated at the moment)
