4th May 2005, 10:48 AM
I think these last few posts are getting nearer to the heart of the argument. Digging holes is not the simple be all and end all of what being an archaeologist is about. There is much more going on, from understanding why you take samples and should fill in matrix boxes, right the way on to grasping the hows and whys of each site's development over time. Having this kind of knowledge and then applying it on site makes the whole digging experience much more fun too! I had to do six months post-ex when I was unable to dig through injury, and I found I was a much better digger after I'd been forced to work with the records that I'd made on site. Putting the paper record jigsaw puzzle back together off-site was equally as hard - if not more so - than it was to physically take apart on site.
Having said this, I find it a bit disturbing that those of us who do manage to move up the food chain a bit are suddenly assumed to be out of touch, uncaring and useless. Is the profession really moving along at such a pace that anyone who stops digging for four or five years becomes an old dinosaur? Or could it be that, as with any profession, career progression opens up a wider arena of responsibilities and opportunities to consider?
Having said this, I find it a bit disturbing that those of us who do manage to move up the food chain a bit are suddenly assumed to be out of touch, uncaring and useless. Is the profession really moving along at such a pace that anyone who stops digging for four or five years becomes an old dinosaur? Or could it be that, as with any profession, career progression opens up a wider arena of responsibilities and opportunities to consider?