My experience has been that you're not an "Archeologist" without the MA.
It's not always fair, but the import of it is that you have to have done
peer-reviewed research. I've been doing this for a while, so I do understand
the nuances of who's really qualified. I know many excavators who are more
knowledgeable than their PI's, but investment in education counts. None of
us went into this thinking we were going to change the world; but, (the big
but), we now have obligations to the science and have to take responsibility
for what we do. Bear in mind that we all made an ethical decision with
regard to what we reveal or explicate. There are many, including folks like
Von Daniken, who could care less.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Serr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 5:48 PM
Subject: definition of an 'archaeologist' ?


> 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?