My two cents worth and only mine:)

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.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Serr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 5:48 PM
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?
>