8th August 2007, 12:27 PM
Hi All
Being called an archaeologist is a different matter now that the title has legal implications. Since the Treasure Act 1996 archaeologists are not normally eligible for payment when they discover artefacts covered by the Act. This implies that an "archaeologist" is a recognised title and one definable under law. It is my opinion that an archaeologist has to have an appropriate Job Description which describes their duties as being associated with archaeological remains/data. This would also cover HER Officers etc and Finds specialists. Therefore you really have to be employed, or normally be employed as an archaeologist (i.e. if your "between jobs"). People who have volunteered on excavations cannot be an archaeologist any more than a metal detectorist who has detected spoil heaps etc for archaeological units. It gets a bit more difficult when thinking of students studying archaeology but in general students are not considered to be part of a profession but they are often eligible for associate membership (or affiliate in the IFA). If someone is an "archaeologist" by virtue of volunteering on a site then any metal dectorist who has done this would no longer be eligible for reward under the Treasure Act which appears to be nonsense and it is very likely that a coroner has alraedy passed legal precident on this matter by rewarding a metal detectorist finder who has volunteered on excavations from time to time.
The problem implied by hostys comment is people who set themselves up as self-employed archaeologists without appropriate qualifications or experience but we are not the only profession to suffer this, the building trade and garages are famous for their cowboy element.
Bring on that Charted Status!
Steven
Being called an archaeologist is a different matter now that the title has legal implications. Since the Treasure Act 1996 archaeologists are not normally eligible for payment when they discover artefacts covered by the Act. This implies that an "archaeologist" is a recognised title and one definable under law. It is my opinion that an archaeologist has to have an appropriate Job Description which describes their duties as being associated with archaeological remains/data. This would also cover HER Officers etc and Finds specialists. Therefore you really have to be employed, or normally be employed as an archaeologist (i.e. if your "between jobs"). People who have volunteered on excavations cannot be an archaeologist any more than a metal detectorist who has detected spoil heaps etc for archaeological units. It gets a bit more difficult when thinking of students studying archaeology but in general students are not considered to be part of a profession but they are often eligible for associate membership (or affiliate in the IFA). If someone is an "archaeologist" by virtue of volunteering on a site then any metal dectorist who has done this would no longer be eligible for reward under the Treasure Act which appears to be nonsense and it is very likely that a coroner has alraedy passed legal precident on this matter by rewarding a metal detectorist finder who has volunteered on excavations from time to time.
The problem implied by hostys comment is people who set themselves up as self-employed archaeologists without appropriate qualifications or experience but we are not the only profession to suffer this, the building trade and garages are famous for their cowboy element.
Bring on that Charted Status!
Steven