Issue no 50, December 1999

LETTERS

First religion

From Mr Chris Wood

Sir: I found Mike Parker Pearson's article about the transition from ancestors to gods as the focus for religion (`From ancestor cult to divine religion', June) very interesting. His interpretation of figurines as representations of ancestors is reasonable - more so than the traditional `Mother Goddess' interpretation.

However, the subsequent development of statues of deified rulers perhaps reflects the growth of large-scale kingdoms and empires, with urban bases, rather than a change in ideas per se. It is quite possible that societies had a concept of deities before they made images of them. Indeed, we know that the Iron Age `Celts' gave a degree of personification to their gods but avoided images. Images of these gods only evolved under Roman occupation.

Great figures have no doubt been deified throughout human history. This habit is alive and well today, with figures like Elvis Presley and Diana, Princess of Wales elevated to the status of demigods. It is, however, not so much the actual hero or heroine who is revered, as what they stood for. It is highly likely that a number of gods and goddesses recorded from the pre-Christian era began in this way; and the lives and legends of historical figures are frequently appended to or absorbed into these divine hero patterns.

The deification of heroes and leaders in all probability goes back far longer than the first Bronze Age statues. The real process happens in the mind and storytelling, not the sculptor's art. Some of the pre-Bronze Age skulls and figurines may even have represented divine archetypes as embodied in a particular ancestor's life or personality.

Dr Parker Pearson writes: `Deity religions - the conception of supernatural forces in human form - first arose with the development of early complex states . . . There is no convincing evidence for deity religion anywhere before this date.' One might add that there is no convincing evidence for deity religion not existing before then.

Indeed, his definition of deity is decidedly eccentric. A human image is a conception of deity; it is not that deity itself. We also have to recognise that humans do not always make their gods in their own image.

Yours faithfully,
CHRIS WOOD
Norwich
20 September

WWII air photos

Career matters

Sir: Simon Denison's summary of the report Profiling the Profession (`Want to be an archaeologist? Read this', October) was excellent, apart from a lack of comment on the title of the survey itself.

Surely `Profiling the Vocation' would be more appropriate? The organisations which currently make up the contracting side of British archaeology are dominated by Trusts and Units which were spawned in the 1970s when a form of public archaeology existed. The idea of running a business to make a profit is an alien concept to many of these organisations.

This attitude seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Many archaeologists who are training today will inherit outmoded business structures whose raison d'être no longer exists.

Until archaeologists come to terms with the world they have lost, they will be unable to develop into mature businesses whichcanreward hard work and innovation in the way real professions are able to.

Yours sincerely,
JONATHAN HUNN
Archaeological Services & Consultancy
Berkhamsted
21 October

From the Editor of The Digger

Sir: Profiling the Profession claims to be an accurate representation of archaeological conditions in early 1998. At that time I was working as a site assistant.

The nature of work at the lowest end of the spectrum is one of constant short-termism - people drop in and out. I'm surprised that you believe the average contract is 10 months. From where I'm standing, the average `excavator' can expect six weeks at most, with one week rolling contracts often the norm.

You say there are 4,425 archaeologists across the country, yet how accurate can this figure be? Few manage to stay constantly in work as diggers, opting for non-archaeological work when times get hard, or end up on the dole - something which happens quite often. How did the survey hope to reach those people? The survey's author, Kenneth Aitchison, admits the survey probably missed archaeologists at the bottom end of the pay scale.

You state that pay is `not good' and provide the median salary of £17,079. Much as I would like to agree with the philosopher Thoreau on this one, whom you quote, I personally would kill for that wage. I love archaeology, and have given a good few years of my life to the cause; I know many who have given much more, often unrecognised and still soldiering on. Many have just given up, jacking in their lot for a better life as `wage-slaves' in graduate jobs. There does come a point after having slogged through another year when you can't carry on: you reach late 20s/early 30s, and think: `this is never going to change, I'm off'. A sea-change is desperately needed to stop the constant loss of skilled workers from the archaeological world.

£10,094 is not enough to be paying your staff - the most basic chippie on a construction site will earn that, and then some with bonuses. There is no scope for any kind of life on this wage, no credit, no stability, no fulfilment.

You quote Thoreau as saying that the `richest person' is not the one with the greatest accumulation of goods, but the one with the greatest amount of `free time' - time spent in activities one would gladly undertake unpaid. I am living 397 miles from home, travelling one and a half hours to work every day and living in a squat because I cannot afford to pay rent. In the evening, I read, I eat, then sleep. Two hours in 24? Fulfilled? I look forward to the time when archaeology `can be lucrative' and I become a county archaeologist. But it's not going to happen, is it?

The Editor, The Digger
Abingdon
1 November

Return to the British Archaeology homepage

Return to the CBA homepage

© Council for British Archaeology, 1999