28th August 2012, 12:37 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:The last few contributions illustrate the point I was (tongue in cheek) trying to make.....its not the institutions that define archaeology, but the archaeologists themselves. As Kel rightly says if archaeologists entered the profession at 35 with responsibilites, families and homes, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to offer the pittance currently paid to the majority of 35 year old archaeologists....I have a great deal of sympathy with Trowelfodder's situation as well. Don't imagine changing the IFA, the CBA or any other initials would make the the slightest difference to her career trajectory....
How does any of that make sense? Enter the profession, suitably experienced presumably, at 35! Such as small-minded definition of archaeology - not the institutions that define us but the archaeologists - unfortunately probably true and why things are as ridiculous as they are - most are only out for themselves (truly Thatcher's children it would seem) and would apparently happily prevent the next generation of archaeologists getting started to keep themselves in work. Sorry, this whole thread is making me lose the ability to write. Some of the arguments given are so arse-about-tit it's difficult to believe people are actually coming out with them.