Presumably if there was a reply the IFA would say that they have done a lot to distance themselves from field archaeology over the last twenty years such as taking the word Field out of the IFA name for example. They would probably like other suggestions of what else they could do to stop this recurrent confusion that they have anything to do with field archaeology. It seems to me that it is the word archaeology that keeps bringing this problem up and presumably the IFA would prefer something Historic Environment like. The Institute for Historic Environment Workers – IFHEW. Unfortunately after the last name change they appear to want to keep the acronym IFA which leaves us with the tricky problem of finding a replacement for archaeology that also begins with A. Could I suggest you send your suggestions on a postcard to the IFA…Institue for....
Poll: IFA good or bad? This poll is closed. |
|||
I think IFA has contributed loads to field archaeology | 27 | 13.57% | |
I think IFA has no relevance to field archaeology | 24 | 12.06% | |
I think IFA has done some good for field archaeology, but can do better | 72 | 36.18% | |
I'm unsure | 12 | 6.03% | |
I think IFA is more concerned with making money, and looking after its own | 64 | 32.16% | |
Total | 199 vote(s) | 100% |
* You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
Thread Rating:
'What has IFA ever done for us...?'
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
'What has IFA ever done for us...?' - by Jack - 20th April 2010, 11:35 AM
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)