I have been following this debate about what makes an archaeologist and the
earlier remarks about archaeologists pretending to be historians. I guess my
gripe comes from the opposite side to the historians.

I am an historical archaeologist.

I read archaeology, history, geography and anthropology to get my degree. My
honours thesis drew heavily on  primary historical research to understand &
recreate the conditions of a shipwreck so I could model artifact patterning.
My Ph.D research involves extensive primary historical research on early
colonial settlement in WA. Yet my skills and experience as a historical
researcher are consistently overlooked in the CRM environment in which I
work.

A case in point arrived in my post yesterday. The town which is the subject
of my Ph.D research is being assessed for permanent entry on our state
Register of Historic Places.  The Heritage Council paid an historian to
assess the place, who came straight to me as the acknowledged expert on the
place (note the Heritage Council did not ask the acknowledged expert to do
the assessment).

When  I read the assessment yesterday I noticed that although the historian
has acknowledged that she has lifted the physical assessment straight from
one of my reports she did not acknowledge that she had done the same for the
documentary section (even to the footnotes).  The pillaged report was only
mentioned in the bibliography at the end of the assessment.

So when is an historian an historian? At what point does an historical
archaeologist qualify as both? I could easily have done the same honours and
Ph.D. research in the history department without connecting it to the
archaeology and received good degrees.

And  before someone gripes, yes I share my research with historians, which
is one of the reasons the historian knew exactly where to go. And to
forestall another point, yes our Heritage Council also knew of my research,
I have written several reports on Cossack for them including the ones used.

Gaye
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sewell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, 10 September 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Question Archaeologist in the USDA Forest Service


> Smoke's point about his professor's advice on what's required to get a job
> in archaeology was still valid ten years ago, when it was echoed to me by
my
> archaeology professor at Oakland Univeristy in Michigan. I'm not sure he
was
> aware that temporary field technician positions existed, and I sure as
heck
> didn't, since he was essentially my sole source for advice on archaeology
at
> the time. I will say that the management experience I gained in the
> non-archaeology jobs I held down between recieving my BA and MS has come
in
> pretty handy as a professional archaeologist, though.
>
> As far as what makes an archaeologist, it seems to me that it will never
be
> a black and white definition. To me, performing the work using a rigorous
> methodology and making a point to communicate the results of your findings
> to your colleagues on a somewhat regular basis is more important than what
> sorts of intitials follow your name.
>
> cheers,
> Andrew R. Sewell, MS, RPA
> Principal Investigator
> Historic/Industrial Archaeology
> Hardlines Design Company
> 4608 Indianola Avenue
> Columbus, Ohio 43214
> (614)-784-8733
> fax: (614)-784-9336
> www.hardlinesdesign.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Michael Pfeiffer
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question Archaeologist in the USDA Forest Service
>
>
> Again, to the point of "What is an archaeologist"?  As an undergraduate at
> the Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, from Sept. 72 to Dec. 75, I was told by
> both my first and second advisors (Warren Caldwell and Dale Henning), that
> I would not be able to get a permanent job in the field of archaeology
> without a Master's Degree.  It is hard to consider yourself a professional
> archaeologist if that is not what you do for a living.  So the concept of
> needing a minimum of a Master's Degree has been around a long time.