I am reminded of the late George Quimby's story about striking up a
conversation with a neighboring passenger on an airplane, when the neighbor
asked George what he did for a living, and George replied that he was an
archaeologist.  "That's great," said the neighbor, "I'm an amateur
archaeologist."  George then asked the man what he did, and he said he was a
gynecologist.  "What a coincidence," said George, "I'm an amateur
gynecologist."

For professions that are licensed by states (physicians, lawyers,
hairdressers, fortune tellers, and the like) there are codified educational,
experiential, and other requirements that one must meet if she is to be
called a doctor, lawyer, or whatever--making a clear distinction between the
professional and others.  Archaeologists are not so licensed by any state
(so far as I know), so anyone can legally call himself an archaeologist.
The same is true for historians, poets, astronomers, among many others.

Because a person has an MD degree and a license to practice medicine does
not guarantee that she will not misdiagnose your ailment or screw up a
surgical operation.  I know from personal experience that many experienced
nurses are more competent to perform some medical procedures than the
doctors they assist, even though the nurses are not permitted to perform the
procedures.  The same is true of many persons who have acquired experience
and competence, not by formal education, but by working on archaeological
field or lab crews, and who sometimes are more competent than the PhD or MA
archaeologists for whom they work.  The difference is that doctors must be
licensed by law in order to practice medicine and call themselves doctors,
while anyone can legally call itself an archaeologist.

On another matter, it is Chic (not Chick) Sale.  Am I the only one on this
listserv who remembers Chic's movies ca. 1930?

ebj




-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Carol
Serr
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 5:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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?