Good Point Ron --

That's wye I think Historical Archs. should come out of history-based
programs, not out of prehistoric-oriented anthro depts.

As you say, anyone can dig a hole, but putting the results of that effort
into an historic/ interpretive framework that allows you to not only
evaluate what you found, but to also integrate and show the
importance/value of your findings within the broader historical record, is
where historical training shows it value.  That requires deep reading, and
a knowledge of the historical record and how history (historiography) has
been looked at over time. That does not come from the shallow understanding
that arises from the typical reading a few isolated publications related to
one's next project area.

History is, after all, the study of people, and the consequences of the
decisions and actions they take, and why they took them.  Material culture,
buried or above ground, as well as the documentary record are the building
blocks from which history, the results of human activities and actions, is
deciphered and constructed.    It does you no good to find an artifact, or
make nice tables of artifact types,  from a site illustrating the Stamp Act
if you don't know what the Stamp Act was or its meaning within contemporary
events.  To do that is little better than pot hunting.

Carl Barna
Lakewood, CO



                      Carol Serr
                      <[log in to unmask]>         To:       [log in to unmask]
                      Sent by:                 cc:
                      HISTORICAL               Subject:  Re: "letters" - when working for state and federal
                      ARCHAEOLOGY               agencies
                      <[log in to unmask]
                      >


                      08/28/2003 12:37
                      PM
                      Please respond to
                      HISTORICAL
                      ARCHAEOLOGY






Exactly Ron.  Caltrans (CAs DOT) reguires a BA of ALL field crew, not just
the person in charge, but any grunt digging a hole.     I understand the
desire (need) for people to be educated in the field of archy...but in most
Anthro programs...well in my limited experience...archaeology wasnt
emphasized much...so how does a BA in Anthro prepare someone to dig a hole
anyway? (and interpret what they find, etc.)  And to be RPA certified...one
must have written a Masters thesis...so...that leaves me out.  I could have
been grandfathered in...back in the "old days"...IF I had written reports
back then...but I was still a field grunt.  So...I just have many yrs of
experience...and "only" a BA.

Apparently such degree regulations arent as tight in other parts of the US.
???

At 12:53 PM 8/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
      I think Carol's point is that it is hard to develop credibility when
      the National Park Service and all federal agencies do not accept a BA
      as sufficient academic training to quality a person to perform the
      lowest level of field work on contract jobs. This academic screen
      relegates some really fine practitioners to behind the scenes jobs,
      and, as someone pointed out, can put really abysmal MA and PhD rank
      folks in charge of complicated jobs. Back when I worked in local
      government, my agency required SOPA (now RPA) certification and even
      allowed some people without those letters to work in the field. While
      this can be admirable, some truly talented people are left in the
      dust. Those who simply do not let that kind of discrimination hold
      them back will and excel with publications, awards, public awareness
      programs, and leave a rather remarkable legacy. As Ned said, the
      proof is in the eating of the pudding.

      Ron May
      Legacy 106, Inc.