30th April 2008, 01:34 PM
Quote:quote:And the general waste of receiving guidelines in the post on Maritime Archaeology & Heritage Manangement. I'm a superviser (still a digger at heart!) and have absolutely no interest or involvement in these areas, so why bother sending them to me?
Unfortunately it is precisely this sort of attitude that prevents us from developing as a coherent heritage profession.
For all of us there are of course areas of archaeology that do not interest us, or in which we are not presently involved. Many of us still remain "a digger at heart". However a professional person should always try to make him or herself aware of developments in their own and related fields. Maritime archaeology does have relevance to terrestrial archaeology (waterlogged timber structures - a wharf perhaps?, or a structure made of 'ballast bricks'?). Heritage management is, in a sense, what we all do. The way in which your site is being excavated will have been partly determined by someone who deals with 'heritage management' somewhere along the line.
So it is important to be kept aware of how these other branches of the historic environment sector work and operate. Presumably you would like the historic environment consultant who is managing the project on behalf of the client who pays your wages to at least be aware of some of the issues involved with extracting data from archaeology on the ground? In which case it seems only fair that you have some understanding of the parameters within which they have to operate.
If you genuinely have no interest in these aspects then the polarisation of the profession between "diggers" and everyone else will only continue - to the detriment of the personal and professional development of the "digger".