Mike - sorry, are you misinterpreting my exegesis? You wrote:
>One of the great things about archaeology is that the academics involved
tend to get out of their University departments go on site and often
work alongside members of the public as equals.
>And as a result academic archaeologists have not had the same deeply
entrenched and often hostile "them and us" attitude which has been so
detrimental to some subjects. Instead my past experience has been that
many welcome the interest and enthusiasm from people from outside
academia - largely seeing it as positive - even though that occasionally
means putting up with ill-informed comment.<
I don't think this is relevant.
Please read what I actually wrote.
Why do you think I set it out in full '...isolated from the archaeological community, with no membership of or affiliation with any archaeological organisation or association, amateur, professional or academic…'? I hoped to make it clear that this 'archaeological community' extends far beyond academia - and I deliberately put 'amateur' first, hoping to avoid just your sort of reaction.
The first thing I did when I got interested in archaeology was to join the local archaeological society and go on a couple of digs - long before I realised it was a subject you could study at university. (And in the event I didn't study archaeology at university anyway. I've always been too busy to be an 'academic archaeologist' myself.)
However, I do expect some sort of commitment (like joining CBA and reading the magazines).
It's people who don't actually recognise that there is an 'archaeological community' (or assume that it's made up of a few out-of-touch academics who need lessons on glaciation or geological stratification) that I object to.