Shouldn't it be the case that "we" (the profession, groups professing to represent said profession) consider digging a specialised skill? It seems to be the gist of recent posts this is what is being alluded to. When regarding archaeology the idea that anyone can dig is an incorrect proposition. It doesn't take long to sort the experienced from the inexperienced, and when on a commercial site, whom do you end up spending more time with?
To become a very well rounded and experienced "digger" takes years of field experience. When traversing the career ladder, do you really turn off this experience simply to fit into the currency of the particular role you find yourself in? I'd like to believe an experienced individual draws upon these skills and puts them to use in what ever role they are in. It is about time these skills are recognised by archaeology's representative bodies.
To become a very well rounded and experienced "digger" takes years of field experience. When traversing the career ladder, do you really turn off this experience simply to fit into the currency of the particular role you find yourself in? I'd like to believe an experienced individual draws upon these skills and puts them to use in what ever role they are in. It is about time these skills are recognised by archaeology's representative bodies.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.