what is an archaeologist?

[P Prentice]

we all know what we think archaeology is but what do we think an archaeologist is? who qualifies, who should be disqualified; are diggers archaeologists, are curators? how many months/years under the belt count, or do we have to have published our results before we can don the mantle?

loveHeritage

[the invisible man]

I'd say anyone who studies or practices archaeology. All of your your examples are. However, in context one might have to clarify the exact status or role. An analogy might be that I used to be a footballer. In fact I played 5 a side once a week, and can barely kick a ball in the right direction etc etc but nevertheless was playing football, albeit unlikely to attract the attention of the England management.

[P Prentice]

its clarification i am seeking - so did you at any point use the term footballer to define yourself?

loveHeritage

[Marcus Brody]

It's a question of context (no pun intended). In the invisible man's example, if the question asked was 'what sports do you play', the answer 'I'm a footballer' would be reasonable. If the question was 'What do you do for a living', this answer would be less applicable (based on his own description of his talents!). On that basis, I'd happily agree with the definition of an archaeologist being anyone who studies or practises archaeology with the same caveats. Many labels may apply to an individual - I'd consider that an enthusiastic member of a local society is entitled to say 'I'm an archaeologist', as that's their hobby and interest, while someone working for a commercial contractor can answer 'Yes' to the question 'Are you an archaeologist?' as that's their job. The society member may also be a lawyer or something in their professional life, while the archaeological contractor may be a champion ballroom dancer in his or her spare time. I don't think it's a black and white definition. That doesn't necessarily mean that the local society member could undertake a complex excavation on a commercial development site (though it's entirely possible that they'd have the experience and knowledge), but I don't see any need to say that you're only allowed to call yourself an archaeologist if that's your profession.

And of course, as we all know, Unit of 1 is the only 'real' archaeologist on here anyway!:face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

......do we have to have published our results before we can don the mantle?

...that's me out then, I'm always down as 'forthcoming' or 'in prep'.... :face-crying:

....or alternatively, phew, saved from being pigeonholed! }

[Odinn]

The OED writes:

archaeologist, n.
Pronunciation: /ɑːkiːˈɒlədʒɪst/
A professed student of arch?ology.

1824 T. F. Dibdin Libr. Compan. 330 English historical arch?ologists.
1880 W. B. Dawkins Early Man in Brit. i. 2 The arch?ologists have raised the study of antiquities to the rank of a science.

archaeologist, n.
Second edition, 1989; online version March 2011. <http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/10283>; accessed 07 April 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1885.

Make of that what you will. If you want a working definition of a professional archaeologist, I would think that it is someone that studies or has studied the past by working with, studying and analysing the rubbish and physical remains left behind by people in the past, or something like that. This would include diggers, supervisors, managers and even archaeological consultants. I'm not sure about curators in some respects. Those that have worked in the field definitely are, but those that have come into curatorial work through Heritage Management degrees and not done any fieldwork or analysis of fieldwork don't seem to fit the title of archaeologist, unless they are studying the archaeology in their spare time. That may be too divisive though and it might be better to think in terms of heritage anyway, rather than just archaeology because it brings more bodies into the fold and thus creates a larger power bloc. Still need more coffee to be less cranky and more coherent, but I hope that helps.

[Sith]

That may be too divisive though and it might be better to think in terms of heritage anyway, rather than just archaeology because it brings more bodies into the fold and thus creates a larger power bloc.

That's certainly the view now taken by the Institute for Archaeologists.

[BAJR]

I have often argued that there is actually no such thing as an archaeologist... as by definition, when you look at the vast range of things we do, we are better described as ... for example. an archaeological SURVEYOR or an archaeological FIELDWORKER or an archaeological PROJECT MANAGER or an archaeological ILLUSTRATOR etc.. we then all call ourselves archaeologist for short, but in reality are are different in profession as a Newspaper editor and an architect.

Defining who we are is actually a short hand for who we are.

loveHeritage

[Betts_Fan]

I have to agree with BAJR here... it's a shorthand for where we work/what we do but the full titles give us a better idea of what everyone does in the industry.

[Jack]

A bit like saying I'm a scientist