In a message dated 9/8/2004 6:19:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> As far as I know the legal definition of "archaeologist" is spelled out in
> the Secretary of the Interior's standards as a person with an M.A. in
> Archaeology or closely related field.  I personally feel that anyone working
> in archaeology that can rise beyond the technician level, comprehend,
> develop, and implement adequate research designs with the objective of
> answering relevant questions, and manipulate contextual data into something
> meaningful is probably an archaeologist or stands a good chance of being
> mistaken for one:):):)
>
> Dan Allen
> Center for Historic Preservation at MTSU
> and
> Cumberland Research Group, Inc.
>

Ah, but that only applies within National Park Service realms.  While some
other agencies tag onto that definition, there is no clout, no requirement to
meet those regulations, even if you work for Fish and Wildlife, BOR, BLM, USFS,
COE, GSA, and any other myriad of agencies.  I work daily with may agency
archaeologists (who review my work and pass judgement on it, I will add) who have
BA degrees only.

While I agree with Vergil that all of the work put in to attain an advanced
degree does, at times, make one feel that such a person should be accorded a
little more prestige in some way, others often only see it as "More S---" and
"Piled higher and Deeper".

Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah