The Herit Age

[Marcus Brody]

Serious point though. Obviously we have the moral high ground when it comes to justifying our existence to bankers or traffic wardens, but is there a hierarchy of honourable jobs, and if so where do we factor?

Tricky one, this. There are some jobs such as nursing, teaching or farming that can clearly be considered to occupy the moral high ground, in that they're both socially useful and poorly paid. Similarly doctors, though it's less clear-cut as they can earn huge amounts, meaning that there are probably at least some practitioners who entered the profession on the basis that it'd provide them with a good living. There are other jobs such as plumbers and refuse collectors, without whom society couldn't function - I know it's a crude comparison, but if all the archaeologists in the country went on strike, it's doubtful the public would notice, but if all the binmen (bin persons?) stopped work, we'd be drowning in rubbish in a week.

But on that basis, there are probably very few jobs that could be considered essential - advertising, media, marketing, law, politics, banking, all are areas that pay considerably more than archaeology, all could be considered to be of dubious social value. The fact is that society as a whole has decided that it quite likes the idea that its archaeology and heritage is protected, and has enacted legislation through its elected representatives to ensure that this happens. The fact that an individual member of the public doesn't agree with this is ultimately neither here nor there - I'm sure we could all cite examples of areas of public spending that we don't agree with (nuclear weapons, foreign wars etc), but in a democracy, it's the view of the majority that's important. The danger would be if your correspondent's viewpoint came to be that of the majority, which is why it's important that archaeologists continue to engage with the public and tell them what we've found.