Not to belabor this issue, and apologies if it is becoming tedious, but I'm
just catching up with some of the recent discussion.

If it seems that we can't clearly agree among ourselves on what "defines" a
professional archaeologist, as is evident from this discussion, you can
imagine the difficulty in finding a universally ageed upon standard that
could be enforced by law if it were somehow put to a vote of all practicing
archeologists. Wherever you draw the line, someone would doubtless fall
below it and feel ill-used by the injustice of that decision, but
regulation of any profession does require lines to be drawn on the basis of
some combination of training and experience. I tend to agree with Ron May
that US regulations ought to make some allowances for reasonable
equivalencies of specialized experience in lieu of an advanced degree, just
as Federal hiring practices do, but under such conditions could even a B.A.
requirement be waived?  I know plenty of avocational archaeologists with
more practical field experience than I who never took a day of college.
Would they qualify? If a son or daughter of an archeologist, who learned
excavation technique at the knee of that parent, is hired into the family
firm, though he or she never had any formal book-learning, is that person
an "archeologist" or perhaps something else?

Equivalencies are indeed permissible in Federal government hiring
practices, but there is also considerable stratification in the
government's archeology job series. One can be hired with little or no
background as an Archeological Aid (no final "e" in Fed-speak), as an
Archeological Technician with the equivalent of a B.A. or better, and as an
Archeologist with the equivalent of an M.A. or better. Further, within
those gross classifications there are differences in pay grade between what
may be considered "entry-level" and "full-performance" positions that
reflect degrees of scope, complexity, and controls. The point being that
not all people hired to do archeology in the government are called
"archeologists." Further, many agencies, especially the National Park
Service, have long promoted a so-called "professionalization" program for
staffing of all job series, meaning that incumbent employees are encouraged
to get the landmark degrees for their positions and new hires almost always
have the academic degree already in hand. Those who would substitute
specialized experience will still qualify for the hiring certificate from
which new employees are chosen, but rarely do they actually get the job in
today's hiring climate if there are other qualified individuals available
who have the degree. So the trend within goverment is away from
equivalencies, for all practical purposes, and it seems doubtful that
external regulation will move in the opposite direction toward
equivalencies.

Perhaps we can at least all agree that there is a significant difference
between simply "doing" archeology and "being" an archeologist. Where that
line should be drawn is debatable, wide and grey, unless you want to work
under a US government contract or permit. Then the lines are narrow, dark,
and not easily moved, else they wouldn't be called standards.