 |
 |
One could write at length about this, but here are a few points.
1. Archaeologists who publish in the academic literature have their work reviewed by peers, and the work ends up in a public venue. So the quality of the work is evaluated prior to publication and is available for further critique after it is published. Increasingly there are opportunities to have spreadsheets/databases placed on line for anyone to access, and, if the collections are properly curated, future researchers can re-check identifications and descriptions of specimens. So for academic work, it is not a question of whether a person is "qualified" but whether the work stands up to the evaluation of others.
2. Archaeologists whose work is reported through other publications and reports are not necessarily subject to peer review, although there is no reason why this could not be implemented, and I believe that in some jurisdictions a "grey literature" report will be subject to review before it is accepted as fulfilling the requirements of a regulatory agency. There may also be requirements for specimens and databases to be placed in a repository, so that future researchers can evaluate past work.
3. What the question seems to be asking in part is if there is a way of "licencing" people claiming to be competent zooarchaeologists. Should it be deemed necessary, this responsibility clearly lies with professional archaeologists, who in some countries have moved some way to creating professional standards. As far as I know, in North America there is no professional body in archaeology that comes close to requiring of its members the same kind of standards that are seen in other professions. For example, most professional bodies require that their members take various kinds of professional development/education on a regular basis, but I think North American professional archaeologists are excluded from this requirement. There would have to be a very significant change in thinking about what "professional" means in archaeology.
4. Even if archaeology moved much closer to the requirements of typical professional organizations, defining the standards would be quite difficult. Are zooarchaeologists qualified if they can identify the taxon and element correctly? Do they need to requalify if they move to a different region with different taxa? Do they also need to be able to identify modification to specimens (e.g. cutmarks, weathering processes)? Will they be evaluated on their knowledge of quantification methods? Ability to assess age and sex?
I cannot resist telling the following anecdote about being evaluated as a professional. Many (many!) years ago I was being considered for a position as a zooarchaeologist - I won't reveal the organization. As part of the interview process I was asked to give my opinion on a few bags of faunal specimens that had been sorted and identified by another zooarchaeologist, in whom the organization presumably had some faith. I worked my way through the bags, giving my opinion about the specimens, and set a few specimens aside until I had finished with my identifications. I then asked why these specimens were in a faunal bag, and was told that they were artiodactyl long bone fragments. The interviewers were somewhat embarrassed when I pointed out that (a) the specimens were stone, not bone, (b) the fragments could be fitted together, and the resulting form had no resemblance to any element in the artiodactyl skeleton, and (c) they had four conjoining pieces of a rather nicely made polished stone tobacco pipe bowl to add to the artifact catalogue!
Jon
Jonathan Driver, PhD, RPA
Professor, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada
http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/
faculty/driver.html
President, Western Canadian Universities Marine Sciences Society
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Madrigal, Cregg <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: July 23, 2018 1:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ZOOARCH] Professional Standards/Qualifications for zooarchaeologyDoes anyone know of any professional organizations or regulatory authorities that prescribe minimum qualifications for zooarchaeologists or other archaeology specialists working in cultural resource management/heritage management? I’m wondering if there is anything like the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards in the U.S. (https://www.nps.gov/history/
local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm ), but for specialist analysis in zooarch, human osteology, and so on.I’ve seen the ICAZ professional protocols, which, like many other professional organizations, deals mainly with ethical guidelines, but does include this statement:
There are multiple pathways to becoming an archaeozoologist, some of which have no social science foundation (e.g., veterinary medicine and paleontology), and others of which emphasize the humanities and history. Training beyond the normal requirements of an entry-level degree in the biological and social sciences, especially in the archaeological sciences, is an important basis for the professional practice of archaeozoology. Archaeozoologists work in diverse settings, ranging from governmental agencies, to private consulting firms, to museums and academic settings. Each of these requires a different suite of skills and each has a different set of work parameters, expectations, and final products. (http://alexandriaarchive.org/
icaz/pdf/protocols2009.pdf )Thanks for any tips. I’m interested in the U.S.A, but welcome information from anywhere.
Cregg Madrigal
To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1= ZOOARCH&A=1
To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1= ZOOARCH&A=1
To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1