kevin wooldridge Wrote:...but English Heritage is not just about archaeology. Designation is not just about archaeology either...I don't see that this guy is any less qualified for his job than any of the myriad of professionals working for EH. Or am I missing something here?
Nope, I think were on the same page. Some of the top jobs go to people with experience in the field. With large organizations that can mean a very diverse range of people. For example I would hope EH accounts was run by someone with an accounting degree. EH survey division is run my a surveyor, etc. In the case of designation there are quite a few people who could undertake such a position as it is not just about archaeology.
Though when you look at the very top of some organizations you get some odd choices e.g. most ministers, either Scotland, England, etc. or even other countries equivalents secretary of the interior in the US etc. you kind of do a double look like and how/why is this person in charge? At times you see these in the lower levels as well. Nothing against these people, plenty of them do great jobs and plenty of people with the right background do horrible piss poor jobs.
My observation is that as the higher up you go in many of the large heritage bodies the less likely you will be to find archaeologists who have worked as a digger. Some of this has to do with the nature of the job, broader remit and different demands the higher up you go, but I think some of it has to do with other reasons outside of experience. Personal observation after tracking jobs in archaeology and heritage for the last few years, nothing more.
Edit- I should also say that this is not an archaeology or heritage sector specific event. In lots of different disciplines you find fewer people at the top who never worked at the bottom. Just a way of life