21st October 2008, 12:01 PM
I am in the same category as your friend. I suspect Hal is as well, although I cannot speak for him. But I am still happy to be a 'field archaeologist'; happier still to be part of the broader church of 'archaeologists'.
However Unitof1 is being too narrow in his definitions. There are many 'field' archaeologists who do not use a trowel - people out in all weathers doing geophysics, environmental sampling, landscape survey and so-on. There are also many archaeologists who make equally valuable contributions to the study of past societies without using a trowel.
As Hosty says - the point is to inclusive, not exclusive.
However Unitof1 is being too narrow in his definitions. There are many 'field' archaeologists who do not use a trowel - people out in all weathers doing geophysics, environmental sampling, landscape survey and so-on. There are also many archaeologists who make equally valuable contributions to the study of past societies without using a trowel.
As Hosty says - the point is to inclusive, not exclusive.