At 04:36 PM 9/8/2004 -0500, V Noble wrote:

>I'm sure that many trained historians get irked whenever some smalltown
>librarian is called a "local historian" in the Gazette, and I'm enough of
>an elitist that I get a twinge in my gut even when someone with a B.A.
>calls himself an archaeologist, though he may do it every day for a
>living--

I'll admit my ignorance....just wondered....what 'makes' someone an
archaeologist?  Only a Ph.D. degree?  or an M.A.? Only being a member of RPA?
A 'lowly' person with only a B.A. and 25+ yrs of experience (in the field
and lab; report author, etc.) would NOT be one?  Is it defined some where?

I remember in field school (Ozette, WA) back in the 70s...some of us
attended the international Wet Site Conference being held in Neah Bay, WA
that year.  When the speaker (at that time) asked "how many of you [in the
audience] are archaeologists?", the classmate next to me raised her
hand.  I leaned over and whispered "you aren't an archaeologist"...since I
consider us merely students...still.  She got bent out of shape with
me.  (I guess) she considered herself one since she had done archy
fieldwork. ??

We get "kids" straight out of college with their "shiney" B.A.s in
anthro...who come to work for us with very little experience, yet my boss
is gracious enough (but I don't agree with him doing this) to get them
business cards with the term Archaeologist listed as their title.  I am
officially an Associate Archaeologist (/Lab Director) on my business
card...and we have Senior Archys ("above" me).  Some how the term
'associate' makes it (me) seem less than an 'archaeologist'....or is it
just my weird perception. ?

I know many of my relatives think that all these years I've "worked with
archaeologists"....but I consider myself one....and why shouldn't I?