I don't know how bad the situation in States but in Britain there is a major
problem re artefact expertise. The museum profession is gradually turning
all curators into managers and increasingly labels subject specialsts as
dangerous dinosaurs to be made redundant at the next re-organisation. Finds
are generally not sexy in academia and finds work is often low paid in CRM
work and seen as low status work; plus you are often given impossible time
limits to do anything meaningful. Most artefact specialists in British
archaeology are now free-lance (there may be some rich free-lances but I
haven't paid tax for 10 years) and aging. My wife recently went to a meeting
about the lack of object expertise in museums but the main response was to
expect academics and others to provide the expertise to museums for nothing-
fat chance. In Britain any academic who does anything which doesn't benefit
the next research rating is going to get roasted by their boss and CRM
people have to eat and put money into that over lean pension fund. And who
is going to specialise in finds and make your career prospects even worse
than in arcaheology generally.

paul courtney
Leicester
UK

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Serr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: What is an archaeologist?


> That's my problem with hiring someone based only on their degree.  It
> seems
> most universities arent teaching students any practical skills to use in
> the CRM world of archy (where most of them will get their first job upon
> graduating).  They still teach field school excavation digging with
> trowels...i.e., S L O W paced.  This doesnt exactly prepare graduates for
> real CRM excavation....nor all the other skills required...as Iain
> mentions.  There should be a 'trade school' type of course work...to
> produce better prepared CRM workers.  But even then...at least with
> prehistoric materials...no 2 archys seem to 'see' things alike.  But more
> historic artifact labs would be great!
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> At 02:40 PM 9/18/2004 +1000, Iain Stuart wrote:
>
>>However the real issue is what is taught. My experience is that the
>>teaching is orientated to the students progressing to higher degrees
>>rather than the majority of students who will go on to work either in
>>Government or in CRM. There is little attempt to teach professional
>>practice or other relevant skills (such as report writing). Requirements
>>for field work experience are minimal and often orientated around
>>supplying slaves for University digs rather than making sure students have
>>experience in a broad a set of skills (eg learning to take photos, section
>>drawing, field walking, site recording).