In all seriousness...this original query came to us as a query from a
European colleague, and to agree with Dr. Schuyler, it is an interesting
one. Tom Wheaton's response could certainly raise a few heated volleys in
return, but I wonder if we can discuss, dispassionately, the history,
present and future of contract archaeology without fighting all the old
boring fights. That is: processual versus post, academics versus pros
versus amateurs, theorists versus methodologists, field techs versus
egghead academics, government agency archaeologists versus
private-firm archaeologists versus academy archaeologists, etc.
 
Clearly archaeology has benefitted very greatly from the "golden age" of
CRM (which, I really believe, is quickly passing). Perhaps we are too
close, too much involved in it. But a historical perspective would be
helpful. We certainly have become fragmented. The professionalization of
archaeology--the very things which lent success to many private firms
(and, I would add, Tom, many business-wise university-based research
centers) has also exacted a very great toll. We now have lots of people
earning their livings as very competent archaeologists (by the standards
of professionalism), but I wonder how much we are truly adding to
knowledge and to public discourse as a result. History might help us
understand our role and chart our future more wisely. Or not.
 
Dan Mouer
Virginia Commonwealth University
[log in to unmask]
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dmouer/homepage.htm