Departments of Anthropology and Archaeology throughout the world are struggling to provide students with the right kind of training. This is often predicated on the kinds of careers available to newly minted archaeologists. Decades earlier, the standard career paths were museum curators, and university and college professors. More recently, careers in Cultural Resource Management have emerged, along with opportunities to work with First Nations and Inuit communities on archaeology and traditional land use projects. As heritage legislation kicks in due to development in provinces like Alberta, Government archaeologists are also needed to manage and protect cultural resources through permitting, etc. Parks Canada has also increased its focus on visitor experience, employing archaeologists to raise awareness of the cultural heritage resources present in the National Park System. But have university programs kept up with these changes, or do they continue to reflect the more traditional career paths from decades ago?
The subject of this week's blog, then is to ask you some basic questions about your training. Do you feel you are being trained in:
1. Stewardship?
2. Preservation of the archaeological record?
3. Advocacy for the archaeological record?
4. Promoting the understanding and support for preservation of heritage sites/resources?
5. Use of cultural resources for public benefit?
Do you think training in these areas would be useful to you, or would you rather see course focus more on technical skills such as lithic analysis, remote sensing, zooarchaeology, ancient DNA, etc? What kind of career path do you see yourself pursuing in archaeology? If you decide to embark upon another career, what benefit do you see your archaeology degree as having (if any)?
To some degree I feel that University programs have not kept up with these changes. If you aren't aware of the opportunities out there for an archaeologist and what kind of courses might be beneficial, it can be quite easy to end up with a "history" degree of sorts. The emphasis needs to be on technical and practical courses that will lead into these other types of career paths.
ReplyDeleteThe University of Calgary does address some of these concerns with the technical courses available and also the field school. Personally I believe the field school program prepares us to work with the public, perform field analysis, and has a large preservation component as well.
I do feel now in my fourth year that I am being trained in the basic questions asked above. Prior to this point I would have had a different response, simply because of a lack of real technical courses or those dealing with theory etc.
For training to be most successful a balance of both technical skills and concepts of preservation etc. Technical skills are definitely beneficial for those looking to embark upon those particular career paths, but knowledge of public archaeology, advocacy, and preservation are important for those choosing that direction.
First, it is important to note that a lot of variance can occur between the classes and the instructors that teach them, which makes it hard to evaluate the department as a whole.
ReplyDeleteBut I believe that in these subjects there is a significant amount of the subjects you ask about in the classes if you pay attention. Unfortunately, I feel that it may not be as emphasised as much as it could or should. In many aspects much more emphasis is put on the technological aspects of archaeology than its uses or consequences in society.I don't believe that these technical aspects are not important, in fact I recognize that they can be the major component of the job. However, I think that both sides should be considered together. One of the few courses I felt did this was the field school, which I agree with Kaelyn, does provide most aspects of the job when put in practical use--including the consequences in the public by removing the study from the classroom.
I am nearing the end of my degree, and do feel sufficient in these aspects that you ask, but I know I could definitely benefit from having more emphasis put on the archaeological record and its relationship outside of the technical.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has had a great interest in Museum Archaeology, I have personally found that many field archaeologist have not taken this area of archaeology very seriously. Educators and practicing archaeologists alike tend to focus more on digging, and less on the long term care of materials. Many materials from CRM companies end up stockpiled in boxes to never be used or seen again. I see this as a waste not only space and money, but a waste of educational material. Unless funds from these companies are allocated to long term stewardship plans, then the keeping of these artifacts is no better than hoarding. I have personally found that many archaeologist have a negative attitude towards the care of archaeological collections, maybe because it may not be as excited and glamorous as digging in the field, but unless something is done, these collections are a massive waste.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these collections should be cared for much as libraries are, and properly CATALOGUED (electronically) and ACCESSIBLE to students and researchers willing and wanting to use them. Very little funding is allotted to the development or updating of these facilities, and many haven't been taught the importance and responsibility of caring for archaeological collections. I hope that one day universities will offer care of archaeological collections, because the life of an artifact does not end after it is removed from the ground.
I am all for the technological/practical side of learning about archaeology. At some level from an excavator to a researcher to a curator....you need to know what you are looking at. Having said that, the theoretical side is necessary to put it all in context. So far, I have found that the basics of what I have learned pops up in other classes, so there is repetition, but once you have passed through those first two weeks...you get to the nitty gritty.
ReplyDeletePublic archaeology is of interest to me. How many of you have heard this: "You're taking archaeology, that's amazing!...Do you spend much time in Drumheller?" Are departments having these problems because of a general lack of awareness with the general public? We have a vast and archaeologically rich country. Will it become basically dormant because of a lack of money and skilled professionals to process artifacts and contexts? Only time will tell.
I think courses such as zooarchaeology, lithics, DNA, and fieldschool are those "extra" courses which permit students to be able to recognize and work with archaeological data not only on paper, but in real life situations. I heard in Arky 341 that Richard MacNeish actually decided to help create out UofC Arky department because he had become disillusioned with many students who simply did not know how to work at sites. Hence, from what I know at least, he thought students needed to be appropriately trained in universities (fieldwork) so that they could be knowledgable and know how to behave at arhcaeological sites. With this in mind, I think that the courses provided by UofC are a good mix of theory, and "physical" arky. Even though, I wouldn't know because I've never been to any other universities.
ReplyDeleteI think that a degree composed of both technical/practical courses and the conservation and information courses would be most beneficial as a whole. It would help archaeologists realize the importance of conserving sites, but it would also give them the information needed to analyse what they find.
ReplyDeleteI think that we could take a page from the school system in the U.K. and look at providing a more focused array of classes that a person may wish to study. For example: the York Archaeological Trust is an active site in conjunction with the government, city and university to discover the roots of the city since it has been occupied for more than 3000 years. The students get the opportunity to work intensively on the sites as well as in the museum, labs and with the public actually learning what it will be like when they are practicing. Field experience is a requirement for the degree along with the technique and cultural studies.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to say if I will be well trained by the time I graduate with a bachelor’s degree. Since I will not be able to hold a permit unless I have a master’s degree I can only assume that the four years spent doing my undergraduate work is not enough. I think that the archaeology department could do well mixing with the Museum and Heritage studies department since they are the ones that seem to deal with the aftercare of artifacts. The museum department also deals with public and the many issues that come with that. It would seem that the field of archaeology is becoming so broad that it may have to branch of into separate schools of thought.
Personally, I feel like there may be a lack of technical courses, but that may just be based on this year's selection.
ReplyDeleteI believe a balanced approach to both of these areas of study are important. I feel as if I'm pretty informed about preservation and advocacy of the archaeological record, but I must admit that this is most likely thanks to my museum and heritage studies classes than my archaeology classes. In fact, I had never considered this before, but preservation after excavation is very rarely mentioned in archaeology classes I've taken.
Perhaps there should a specific course dedicated to this feild of study.
I agree with what people are saying about the lack of context on preservation and conservation of the archaeology record in the archaeology courses we are taking. I'll be honest, I was in a 500-level class and I still asked if the University of Calgary field school that was in Fish Creek had to get a permit to dig up the artifacts there. I think the reason I asked this question was because I saw an individual in the part of Fish Creek that is behind my house, using a metal detector and digging with a shovel right in the park. A security guard on a bike touring the area didn't say anything to him about what he was doing. But yeah back to my point, I think the department just assumes that if you are in archaeology you are familiar with the laws of preservation at any site and park.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind taking a few lectures if Chacmool decided to give them on site/artifact preservation. I learned a lot about site preservation from the Fort Cluny field school but I still think there is so much more to learn. As for the technical courses being taught at the UofC, I think my only complaint is that I think out of the main technical courses, Zooarky, Lithics, Ceramics and Osteology, only osteology was offered this year.
In order to make up for this I've been volunteering in Labs and the Profs are always there to teach and introduce you to new things which I think is unique to this department and I'm really grateful for their expertise. I’ve been in engineering, science, astrophysics, mathematic labs and history lectures but I’ve found the Professors in the Archaeology Department more open to debates and demonstrations and answering “stupid” questions than any other department at the UofC. I hope Chacmool offers a course this year on flint knapping and Photography. All in all, preservation and conservation are important topics and I would be all for taking a course about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that it depends on what field of archaeology you want to go into. If you learn more technically then courses that are more technical are perfect. However if you are more focused on culture resource management then you are going to take more courses towards what you are interested. The archaeology courses at the U of C I think are fairly balanced and you are able to take courses that go more towards what you want to do in the future. Hopefully through the courses that we are offered at the U of C this will allow us to become archaeologists that have an increased understanding of the numerous topics that we learn here.
ReplyDeleteIn archaeology and the media last semester (winter 2011), one of our group projects involved considering the standards of practices and goals of archaeology as outline on the Canadian archaeological association and other similar associations. This was the first time I'd ever looked through something like this, and I'm nearing the end of my degree. I found it really interesting because in reality archaeologists have a responsibility to the world they're digging in as they uncover the past, and I don't think is emphasized in many classes in the department of archaeology at the U of C. I think an introduction to these different aspects of archaeology would be a good idea in arky201, since as an introductory class it'll provide information on the less-considered aspects of archaeological practice in today's world to those who plan on pursuing it and those who don't. Either way, more people are informed about the responsibilities of archaeologists today and the importance of relaying the discipline to the public.
ReplyDelete