22nd February 2014, 01:04 PM
Just thought of another one:
There is a slightly patronising stance from the IfA that seems to say that those in the field, because they get their hands dirty, don't understand archaeology in the round as well as those who work in the more academic areas. This is despite the the fact that many out in the field are themselves well educated and read, and have the additional advantage of seeing how the theory and the reality tie together (or not as is often the case). The professional progression is geared towards 'advancing' away from this area, which to my mind is a mistake. The value of having good, knowledgeable and experienced people proving/disproving the theory is invaluable.
There is a slightly patronising stance from the IfA that seems to say that those in the field, because they get their hands dirty, don't understand archaeology in the round as well as those who work in the more academic areas. This is despite the the fact that many out in the field are themselves well educated and read, and have the additional advantage of seeing how the theory and the reality tie together (or not as is often the case). The professional progression is geared towards 'advancing' away from this area, which to my mind is a mistake. The value of having good, knowledgeable and experienced people proving/disproving the theory is invaluable.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.