Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
21st November 2008, 03:47 PM
Perhaps just reword the previous definitions and add one or two words:
"An Archaeologist is a person who practices the study of the past through the study of the material remains of human activity."
I do agree that to define 'archaeologist' goes beyond status or competence, that is for those who would regulate the profession. It is interesting that, if I remember rightly, in some countries you need a licence to be an archaeologist, regardless of the status of the site.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
21st November 2008, 03:50 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
"The study of the human past through the material remains of human activity".
If an art historian were to study both the works of Rembrandt and the materials with which Rembrandt created his art with a view to understanding something of Dutch society in the 17th century would that make him or her an archaeologist or an art historian?
If a potter were to research the materials and form of Iron Age ceramics with a view to making perfect copies for sale in an English Heritage gift shop would that make him or her an archaeologist or a potter?
Perhaps the distinction can be made between an 'archaeologist' (lower case) who merely needs to happily state they are pursuing archaeology and an 'Archaeologist' (upper case) who might wish to have some form of legal definition describing their straight-jacket!!
Personally I'm happy to be down there with the lower cases...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
21st November 2008, 03:53 PM
"One who practices archaeology by examining past cultures and interpreting the development of these findings following professional standards and ethics."
Or
"A person who responsibly excavates records and studies the material remains of human activity"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
21st November 2008, 03:53 PM
I would actually say that pre ce... there is no such thing as .. "an archaeologist" it being a generic name for a person who may carry out the pursuit of archaeology in different ways...
So you can be an Archaeological Surveyor or an Archaeological Illustrator OR an Archaeological Field Supervisor OR an Archaeological Manager etc ... only by by being one or more of these (and having proven ability) can you be an Archaeologist.
It's a bit like calling an engineer... I am an "Engineer" I say proudly.... build that bridge i am told... er... well, what I mean is I am a train mechanic... ... or a "Doctor" is that a GP or an Obstetrician or GEriatric or.... etc
And going back to Archaeologist... becasue you are being inclusive (which is good) although I would define the person who carries it out as a hobby as an Archaeological Amateur (though that does make it sound like you are not as good!) as opposed to an Archaeological Professional where is the line drawn... is it at 5pm... do I stop being an archaeologist? OR if I am an amatuer .. and find something... am I an archaeologist ? or only when I am on a site or lab or library? or recording a building
surely we are defined by what we do within the discipline, what we do and how we prove we can do it to a recognised standard?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
21st November 2008, 04:58 PM
How about coming up with several definitions and posting it as a poll? I think i'll need to got to the pub first (to help in the thinking process only) before I could come up with owt:face-thinks:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
21st November 2008, 05:01 PM
Easy- an individual engaged in the systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.
Definition provided courtesy of dictionary.com.
I like this because it differentiates the archaeologist from both the hobbyist antiquarian and the blue-blooded scientist, in that it is systematic (but not necessarily scientific) study.
I also like the fact that avoids the words "historic environment".
At its most basic, "professional" is defined as someone who follows an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain.
The murky bit comes into the wider meaning of "professional", as 1man has alluded to.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
21st November 2008, 05:02 PM
Apologies if my earlier post sounds a bit grandmother/egg-sucking- it's Friday and I've had a long week!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
21st November 2008, 05:28 PM
Its been a long week here too.
However, your definition would seem to exclude earthwork survey, AP's, geophysics, remote sensing, basically anything non-intrusive.
It would also seem to exclude curators, who although they may have research strategies and regional goals cannot really be said to be engaged in a systematic study.
It does not differentiate from antiquarians, many of whom were also engaged in 'systematic studies'.
I also avoid 'historic environment'. urgh.
To me, the important element is the interpretation, no matter what the data set. Interpretation which pertains to advancing the understanding of life in the past through physical evidence.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
21st November 2008, 06:07 PM
I reckon we're both singing from the same hymnsheet, Ox. I'd say that non-physical examination of physical remains (APs, geophysics plots etc) still count as archaeology. As for curators, they are setting up and policing the system through which systematic study can be undertaken, much like the lecturer who abandons his/her formal study and teaching responsibility in order to take on an academic managerial position- fewer days out in the field, more days in budget meetings.
The antiquarian vs archaeologist one is a toughie though, and probably a historical artefact to do with the move to formal academic study and dissemination in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
21st November 2008, 08:16 PM
Speaking as a 'curator', i feel i should remind the forum that without us checking the planning lists etc and requiring archaeological work to be undertaken, most contracting archaeologists would be short of something to do. The fact that we get to have an almost exclusively regional focus in our work also has much to recommend it. This is the aspect that i find most satisfying as an archaeologist compared to my experience in the field which would find me in a trench here one week and (miles away) over there the next. As for the definitions, i have no real problems. However, in current practice, conservation of archaeological remains and their management is as much part of the game as their study (and for that matter dissemination). As Karl Marx wrote 'Practice without Theory is blind, Theory without practice is sterile'.
