22nd February 2014, 04:54 PM
Tool Wrote: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 advexists antage 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 don't think that exists in the constitution of the IfA, although I will accept that there are patronising asses in archaeology just like in any other job. I don't know how it is possible to legislate against it. The IfA have for many years accepted field skills as well as academic qualification counting towards its grading. All corporate grades are based on levels of responsibility which can be personal as well as corporate. If you are paraphrasing the Groucho Marx idiom 'I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member' that is fair enough, but by implication you are suggesting that all 3000 archaeologists who are members of the IfA are arrogant and patronising. That is untrue and if you were to meet many of the pro-IfA folk who post to this forum, I think you would accept that.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...