Steve and All,
On this Educational Requirements debate:
 
I generally agree with most all the comments thus far.  Another one of
those issues that is impossible to legislate.  Being a "good" field
archaeologist is so subjective, that I fear it leads to a good deal of
paranoia in our discipline.  I feel like I am a pretty good archaeologist,
and I hope I think about what I excavate in a compelling manner, and
hopefully present it in ways that are useful to others and make a
difference in their lives.  But there are probably people out there who
think I am an incompetent boob.
 
I worked in the field for 7 or 8 years before deciding to go back to school
for my Ph. D.  I did not go back to improve my job opportunities, or to
raise my salary, but simply because I really wanted to immerse myself in
the discpline to improve myself as a thinker.  No doubt about it--the only
way to possibly become a good field archaeologist is to dig and dig and dig
somemore with people who can help the young pups learn the ropes.  (And we
have all encountered people who just "don't get it" no matter how much they
dig!)  I learned so much by being in the field so long.  Yet, I believe my
experience in academia has had a major impact on my abilities.  Before
going back in the classroom, I did try to keep up with the archaeological
literature, and I accumulated a huge stack of books that I knew I should
read.  But I didn't get through very many of them.  Maybe it is just my
undisciplined nature, but I had to be forced to read all that anthro theory
by placing myself in the classroom.  Durkheim, Geertz, Levi-Strauss,
Sahlins, Bourdieu, Giddens, Derrida, Gramsci, Foucault, Habermas, etc.,
etc.--the list is endless and comes from anthro, sociology, archaeology,
philosophy, literary theory, etc.  Much of the material was tough for me to
get through, and having an opportunity to discuss and explore those ideas
with teachers and my peers was the only reason I survived.  It has made me
a better archaeologist, although if I were to try to pinpoint exactly what
skills are improved, I would have difficulty articulating it.  Maybe I feel
like I can be an "idea" person now--someone who develops theories and ideas
through the practice of archaeology.  Previously I didn't feel I possessed
the tools to be an "idea" person.  (Maybe I am just fooling myself--I guess
time will tell.)
 
But the path to becoming an "idea" person is different for everyone.
Steve, it sounds like you are much more disciplined than me.  More power to
you!  The "thinking" parts of archaeology are just as subjective as field
skills and not limited to only those willing to prostrate themselves in
grad school.  I am one of those folks who needed to be prodded to develop
ideas and I needed guidance in that process too.  I still do.  Perhaps I
have revealed too much about my foibles, but unfortunately I really think
that Eric Deetz's cynical comment is true:  "Go back to school or you will
always be working for someone who did."  Amen, brother.
 
Garrett
 
 
 
 
You know there is that old Jim Deetz quote that he is an archaeologist
because it is the funnest thing he can think of doing with his pants on.
 
To be one of those archaeologists who is the "total package" and can do it
all well is pretty rare.  Heck, I love archaeology because it is a social
experience, and doing good archaeology--whether it is CRM or long-term
research--is a team effort.  And I have learned from a range of people,
from the wisened field veteran who can sniff out sites in a trackless
forest, to the theory-driven archaeologist who is up on the latest
literature.
 
Seems to me Steve that you are
To add my two cents.  I worked in the field for seven or eight years before
going back to school for my Ph.D. in anthro.
 
 
At 07:46 AM 4/28/98 -0700, you wrote:
>All,
>   The general theme I am getting on my post is that non-degreed people
>are fine for shovel work in the field, as long as they leave all the
>"important" theory work for the Ivory-Towered degreed people.  Now don't
>get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for the amount of time and effort
>it takes to get your graduate degrees.  And I have even met a few PhD's
>that I respect (Dan, you are in this category).  But to say that the
>theory and other "thinking" parts of archaeology are beyond someone
>without a degree is ludicrous.  I personally know someone with a third
>grade education who has worked many years in archaeology, and can tell
>you more about Native American culture and lifeways than anyone alive.
>And though I personally find most theorists pedantic, I still know the
>theories.  As to artifacts, I can not only tell you what something is, I
>can tell you where, when, and by whom it was made, and how they lived and
>worked (OK, maybe not all artifacts, but I am pretty good with ceramics.)
>I have spent countless hours outside of work, reading and studying
>everything archaeological I could get my hands on (Ask some of my
>co-workers, I am always borrowing their books if I don't have them).
>Seems this is alot like studying for a degree.
>   Oh, by the way, I have co-authored reports, and written several
>artifact and site studies.  So my point being (other than to fluff out my
>feathers and toot my own horn, makes me feel better) if that something
>needs to be done to make it easier for the non-degree holding
>knowledgable person eligible to be an employed digger, not just another
>site volunteer (which I have had to do in order to learn sometimes).
>   Please don't anybody take this as any type of flame or personal
>attack.
>
>Steve Boxley
>The Virginia Foundation for Archaeological Research
>[log in to unmask]
>
>