12th February 2007, 10:50 AM
Interesting results, so far.
Out of interest, why do the majority not join? Is it lack of interest in the local archaeology, or is it a financial decision (can't afford the subs)?[?]
One of the fundamental inspirations for me getting into archaeology was the local landscape (I was fortunate to grow up in a part of the country with prehistoric and later monuments all over the place, so the past was very visible - huge standing stones next to the bus-shelter sort of thing), and I have maintained a strong bond with the history of my local area ever since. I also maintain an interest for professional reasons in the area in which I now work.
If people are moving around a lot, does this divorce them from local issues and engender more of an 'objective technician' approach to digging? Is this better than building up a detailed local expertise, which can identify and investigate local variations in the archaeological record, or does the latter approach lead to parochialism?
Out of interest, why do the majority not join? Is it lack of interest in the local archaeology, or is it a financial decision (can't afford the subs)?[?]
One of the fundamental inspirations for me getting into archaeology was the local landscape (I was fortunate to grow up in a part of the country with prehistoric and later monuments all over the place, so the past was very visible - huge standing stones next to the bus-shelter sort of thing), and I have maintained a strong bond with the history of my local area ever since. I also maintain an interest for professional reasons in the area in which I now work.
If people are moving around a lot, does this divorce them from local issues and engender more of an 'objective technician' approach to digging? Is this better than building up a detailed local expertise, which can identify and investigate local variations in the archaeological record, or does the latter approach lead to parochialism?