18th February 2014, 10:54 AM
Tool Wrote:So you admit at least the possibility then Kevin that the membership of the IfA may well be weighted towards those who are not out in the field having direct contact with archaeology? Leading to a situation where the IfA's view is distorted by a membership who's dealings with archaeology are more theoretical than practical?I wouldn't admit that at all. I assumed Mike T to be referring to the lowest grade of archaeological assistant on any site and not taking in to account supervisors, assistant supervisors, finds and environmental staff, project officers, site directors, surveyors, photographers etc etc.
I am sure that the majority of IfA members have some direct connection with field work. It would be a mistake to assume that those who get the wettest and dirtiest, valuable though they are, make up the only members of our profession who directly interface with the resource.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...