I, Beckerman, not Robot

Summary

In early October, the Register for Professional Archaeologists issued a revision to its categories for student/early career, registered Archaeologist, and registered professional archaeologist. They   found that some adjustments were necessary to close the gaps between categories and provide better clarity in how archaeologists can qualify for each category.  These revisions are fairly minor and within the scope of the effort, fairly reasonable.

That said, I believe that a more aggressive and radical approach to the categories is warranted and necessary.  Basically, we are facing a shortage of professional archaeologists to handle upcoming Section 106 work. (See Altschul and Klein 2022) This should challenge us all to take a fresh approach to minting professionals.  In wide-ranging conversations both in Pennsylvania and at the national SAA meeting, it has become clear that the two main barriers to having a larger professional pool are time and cost.  Time to check all the boxes for a BA, an MA, and 2 years of experience.  The cost should be self-evident if it requires 6 years of college and graduate school to reach the brass ring.

With all due respect to RPA and its sincere intentions to tweak the current categories, I offer a category model that tackles both progression and degree barriers.

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the RPA’s proposed Registration Categories.  I believe RPA is one of the main voices, perhaps the best-positioned voice, to articulate what is and is not a professional archaeologist.  The National Park Service has laid out Professional Qualifications for an archaeologist, but these have not been updated, despite numerous attempts over the last 40 years. In addition, the NPS Qualifications are largely responsive to National Park needs, but have been adopted by numerous agencies and organizations for want of anything better at a national level.  The Society for American Archaeology seems largely disinterested. This leaves you.

In disclosure, in the past I have argued that the profession needs licensing and still continue to do so.  Basically, we are facing a shortage of professional archaeologists to handle upcoming Section 106 work. (See Altschul and Klein 2022) Initial Federal response appears to be to reduce or eliminate professional standards to allow more individuals to lead these studies.  Our profession is left in the unenviable position to be unable to point to any consistent National standards that are the minimum. Neither is there any licensing in any state, even though similar professions like geology, have that structure in place. (Not to mention law which is an important profession but arguably has lower education/experience requirements than archaeology to be proficient). We are in the Wild West whether we acknowledge it or not.

In order to make my comments, I have restructured the tables for each skill theme moving from student/early career through archaeologist, to registered professional archaeologist.  As a single table, it makes some sense, especially for those individuals that wish to join RPA and need to know which lane they should enter.This gets to the crux of what you is being proposed and how it will be used.  And this is where I am somewhat confused.  Under the Registration FAQ, there is a differentiation between  registered professional and registered archaeologist with respect to an advanced degree, but does not otherwise differentiate between the two with regard to whether each is an archaeologist.  Yet, there is a qualitatively differentiation of a registered professional from a registered archaeologist as someone having “advanced knowledge, academics, experience, and professionalism in Archaeology.” A registered professional is better than a registered archaeologist. But under the registered archaeologist Category, an archaeologist meets RPA professional standards and requirements for registration, but hasn’t completed the advanced degree.
 
Understand this confusion has nothing to do with skill or experience. We all know individuals that can dance around so-called professionals, but don’t have the advanced degree. And I think the structure of the registered archaeologist is a tacit acknowledgement of that. However, in our current times and situation, I believe this fuzziness is not useful.  And especially without national registration or licensing, a consumer of archaeological services is left on their own to figure out whether a registered archaeologist or registered professional will do the job. In a number of state and federal agencies, the selection of NPS standards settles the issue, but both private sector and governmental jobs have minimum requirements much below NPS standards, meaning registered archaeologists and registered professionals can compete for the same positions with the same levels of responsibility and for better or worse the same pay.  In a free-market, capitalist system this is what we’d want. Choice.  But with regard to the coming staffing crisis, it also invites chaos.
 
I would invite RPA to rethink and reframe its categories, not statically, but as a progression. Someone entering RPA as a student is unlikely going to stay as a student permanently.  Someone entering as a registered archaeologist may have aspirations to a registered professional, or not.  For these individuals, the Category standards act as a list of objectives. Perhaps, you do not have the resources or life situation that gets you to the professional category in one gulp.  Registered becomes an intermediary step, a safety island that can provide income and some status while pursuing or deciding whether to pursue a professional career.
 
If we reframe these categories as a progression, how do these “skill themes,” i.e. Education, Major, Experience, etc.,  perform for someone making a progression step-wise to a professional career?
 
Education
 
Even though you can become a registered archaeologist with a certification program or AA/AS degree, could you ever have been eligible for Student/Early Career being enrolled in those programs. It is not clear that accredited higher education institution covers an AA/AS degree or a certification program. Does the international equivalent cover certification or AA/AS degrees or just the BA or BS? It’s not clear.
 
Secondly, if you are a registered archaeologist, becoming a registered professional if you reached registered archaeologist through a certification program or AA/AS degree likely would require you to go back to college or university, a school that might or might not accept your AA/AS or certification credits.  There’s as good a chance you would regress back to Student, losing any educational training you would have received.
 
It may be suitable to set the education requirement for a registered professional at the advanced/graduate degree. Certainly, the NPS Qualifications for archaeologist requires the advanced degree. But archaeologist is the only Qualification that requires that advanced degree. All of the other NPS listed professions allow a BA/BS with experience to substitute. I’ll come back to that later.  And I will also note that a number of state and Federal agencies are dropping any degree requirements for many of their job openings.  Do not presume that archaeology will be unaffected.
 
Finally, it has become increasingly important for archaeologists working in real world situations in the US to have some background in Section 106, including Tribal consultaton, and public coordination, not to mention NEPA. Nothing in NPS standards requires any of this practical understanding of why most archaeology is done in the US or why it is so important to engage the local community and interested Tribal Nations.
 
Without being too specific, any registered archaeologist should have a minimum of 10 hours of Section 106 and NEPA training and another 10 hours of public outreach and Tribal coordination training. I think it would be hard to accept RPA’s Codes and Standards if you don’t know what they mean.
 
For a registered professional, whatever training is established for a registered professional vis a vis Section 106, NEPA, and public/Tribal coordination should be presumed.  In addition, a registered professional should also have the equivalent of a college course on historic preservation law and regulations, to include Section 106, but also NAGPRA, relevant Executive Orders, and NPS Guidance on the National Register, etc.  See Experience for additional practice.
 
Major
 
These requirements seem reasonable and thoughtful; how would they apply to the registered archaeology candidate who obtained their education through a certification program or AA/AS degree.  There are a handful of schools that offer an AA in Archaeology.  If the AA/AS must be in anthropology, archaeology, classics, etc., the skill theme should make that clear.   Otherwise, it might leave some candidates misdirected.

Experience
 
Looking at the RA standards for Experience, it would seem this is what a crew chief or field director would need at a minimum to be capable, but is this what RPA is aiming for? And the RPA standards require supervisory experience, but makes no mention of acquired practice under supervision, as in RA. Does the Experience standards presume they are additive? The other skill themes do not. My assumption is this skill theme is additive, but it should be spelled out.
 
Suggesting that being a principal investigator is how you meet this skill is a bit problematic in a progression model.  How do you become a principal investigator (PI) if being a registered professional archaeologist becomes the standard for being allowed to be a PI?  Many of us demonstrated our supervisory experience for NPS Qualifications by being crew chiefs and field directors under supervision of someone already qualified and therefore signing off on any piece of work.  Maybe my problem is with the use of the phrase “e.g., Principal Investigator or international equivalent.”  I also wonder if placing “bringing research to conclusion” belongs here or under Research Document, or whether Research Document is really what we want as a skill. Perhaps documented research ability is a better skill goal. Unless what is meant by “bringing research to conclusion” involves the logistical end of archaeology, meaning background research, field effort, cataloguing, and analysis, but not necessarily interpreting and writing up the results.
 
If these categories are a progression, then for a registered professional, it would be useful to state that this supervisory work is done under supervision of someone already a registered professional.
 
Research Document aka Demonstrated Research Ability
 
Reading between the lines on these categories in this skill theme, it appears to me that Research Document for the registered professional is a surrogate for the age-old question of demonstrated research ability, i.e. whether someone is capable to carry archaeological research to completion.  Half of the question is whether someone can think like an archaeologist? This is more realistically answered by whether they were able to navigate an advanced degree or not, which is largely drawn from the Education skill theme. The other half is physical proof in the form of a thesis, or, two technical reports. Can the person carry a specific project to completion, from what I read as drawing on actual archaeological site data.
 
For the registered archaeologist, the Demonstrated Research Ability requirements could be less, or not. A thesis-equivalent document could be an actual (BA) thesis, or it could be an extended paper. If no thesis-equivalent document, then a technical report that would contain substantive data analysis directed toward an explicit archaeological research problem.  This seems no different from the registered professional standard, with the difference being two technical reports for the professional.
 
Could the technical report be a Phase I survey that identified an archaeological site? Could the two technical reports required for the professional standard be two Phase I reports?  This is not clear, but I don’t see any reason why definitionally, they couldn’t. And for that reason, I don’t necessarily agree with these standards, at least for the professional category.  For the registered category, I am not sure, but if RPA is representing the registered archaeologist as a professional without an advanced degree, I would say one Phase I archaeological survey report with a site would be insufficient as well. It really comes down to what skill set a registered archaeologist needs to demonstrate to RPA and to the public. And for that, I am unclear.
 
Sponsor
 
I think it is reasonable to have at least one reference from someone in the profession.  For the Student/Early Career, I think the emphasis should be on character, so a reference from the head of the program in which the student is enrolled, or in the case of an early career, a reference from someone familiar with their work in a supervisory capacity as either an RA, RPA, or someone meeting NPS Qualification would be sufficient.
 
For the registered archaeologist, I would drop the requirement that one of the references be from an RA or RPA member.  Seems cliquish, and it is not required at all in the registered professional category.  Someone familiar with their work and someone familiar with their character should be sufficient. Again, a professor from their degree program, and someone who has supervised them either as an RA, RPA or someone meeting NPS Qualifications (per the 2-year supervised experience skill theme).
 
I would absolutely require the same references for registered professional, unless the candidate was already an RPA member as a registered archaeologist. (Is that why none is required in the text?)
 
Other

Mostly OK as written, but I would put additional training in Section 106 and Tribal Consultation here.  In addition, I do think it appropriate to include a national exam, which should normalize the ways people come to be a registered archaeologist or registered professional.
 

Are These Categories Adequate to Meet the Profession’s Needs Going Forward?

If we are concerned with trying to build an alternate pathway for a professional archaeologist that does not require 4 years of college, plus a master’s degree, plus two years of experience, then the answer is no.  Until we manage to develop a way for students and workers to advance stepwise in the profession without requiring only the traditional pathway, we won’t be able to succeed.  Cost and time, and cost more than time, will limit our pool of potentially good archaeologists to only those with means and patience, and means more than patience.

Rethinking the Roles of the Registration Categories

Looking at the categories of registered archaeologist and registered professional, I have in mind the progression in most union trades, from apprentice to journeyman to master. Apprentice maps fairly well on to Student/Early Career.  Is it possible to imagine the categories of registered archaeologist and registered professional to be comparable to that of journeyman and master?  Both journeyman and master have definite roles.  Each requires education and experience and an exam.  Some working as a master has greater autonomy, often supervises journeymen, and can perform higher levels of planning and design.  To the degree that archaeology is a trade or practice, this model is reasonably applicable.

Since the majority of the need for RPA certified archaeologists comes from the private sector and government, I would propose a bifurcation of registered archaeologist versus registered professional along a scale of complexity of the archaeological research. A registered archaeologist could conduct background research, a Phase I survey, identify archaeological sites, process artifacts, analyze the results with respect to whether there is an archaeological site present or not and make a preliminary determination of whether the site would be eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the national register.  They would complete the necessary report or paperwork and sign off on it. They could supervise crew in both field and lab and supervise background research.  Under this scheme, most of the archaeological work conducted in the United States under Section 106 could be completed by registered archaeologists

Student/Early Career
 
I would revise the skill themes as follows for a Student or Early Career candidate (see Revised Table):
 
Track 1 or 2
Education and major: Currently enrolled in or having graduated from within the last two years in an accredited higher educational institution (community college, college, or university)  Anthropology, Archaeology, Classics, or another germane discipline with a specialization in archaeology from an accredited institution
 
Track 3
Education and major: A High School Diploma plus 60 hours of additional instruction/training* in archaeology, anthropology, classics, or other germane discipline with a specialization in archaeology, including culture history, method and theory. Introductory RPA-designated instruction.
 
For all Tracks
Experience: non required.
Demonstrated Research Ability: non required.
Sponsor: Two references, one of which may be from a professor familiar with the candidate’s work.
Other: Accept Register’s Code and Standards and Grievance Procedures

Registered Archaeologist

I would revise the skill themes as follows for a registered archaeologist

Track 1

• Education and Major: undergraduate degree (BA or BS) in Anthropology, Archaeology, Classics, or another germane discipline with a specialization in archaeology from an accredited institution.  Specializations, such as zooarchaeology, geoarchaeology, human osteology, and similar specializations are accepted as long as education and academic research included a focus on archaeology research topics.

Track 2

• Education and Major: AA/AS degree plus 250 hours of additional instruction/training in archaeology, anthropology, classics, or other germane discipline with a specialization in archaeology, including culture history, method and theory. (250 hours must include 60 hours in introductory RPA-designated instruction.) (250 hours is based on the assumption of 14 hours per college credit equivalent, or about 6 college courses.)

Track 3

• Education and Major: Student/Early Career RPA membership, plus 340 hours of additional instruction/training in archaeology, anthropology, classics, or other germane discipline with a specialization in archaeology, including culture history, method and theory. (340 hours is based on the assumption of 14 hours per college credit equivalent, or about 8 college courses.)

For all Tracks

• Experience: Two years of supervised experience within the archaeological field, of which 6 months must be in the lab, plus one year of supervisory experience both under a registered professional or NPS Qualified archaeologist
• Demonstrated Research Ability: Three technical reports written by the candidate which have identified archaeological sites, or two technical reports plus an authored chapter in another technical report and which have identified archaeological sites.
• Sponsor: (If not already RPA Student/Early Career) Two references, one of which may be from a professor familiar with the candidate’s work.
• Other: Accept Register’s Code and Standards and Grievance Procedures. 20 hours of combined training in Section 106 and public/Tribal coordination.  An exam covering the materials from the additional instruction/training

Registered Professional

I would revise the skill themes as follows for a registered professional, understanding that registered professionals can conduct all the work of a registered archaeologist, plus conduct work on Phase II and III projects, as well as prepare research designs, synthesize regional or thematic research and supervise and mentor registered archaeologists and students.

Track 1

• Education and major: Advanced/graduate degree (MA, MS, or PhD) or international equivalent (e.g., UK Level 7 or Bachelor Honors)In addition, a registered professional should also have the equivalent of a college course on historic preservation law and regulations, to include Section 106, but also NAGPRA, relevant Executive Orders, and NPS Guidance on the National Register, etc.
• Demonstrated Research Ability: Thesis or dissertation addressing an explicit archaeological research problem. Archaeological sites must have been identified during the analysis.

Track 2

• Education and major: RPA registered archaeologist, plus 1,100 hours of additional instruction/training in advanced archaeological topics, including culture history, method, and theory. RPA-approved university or continuing education courses as well as RPA-sponsored courses can be applied. RPA will provide a “faculty advisor” to registered archaeologists seeking to become a registered professional. (1,100 hours is based on the assumption of a graduate school 3 credit hour course taking about 135 hours of class and independent time. 1,100 hours would equate to roughly 8 courses).
• Demonstrated Research Ability: registered archaeologist, plus demonstrated ability to carry research to completion by a contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American archaeology

For all Tracks

• Experience: Two years of supervised experience within the archaeological field, of which 6 months must be in the lab, and 6 months in field excavation at a Phase II or Phase III site, plus two years of supervisory experience of which 1 year is in the field excavation at a Phase II or Phase III site, all under a registered professional or NPS Qualified archaeologist.
• Sponsor: (If not already a registered archaeologist) Two references, one of which may be from a professor familiar with the candidate’s work.
• Other: (If not already a registered archaeologist) Accept Register’s Code and Standards and Grievance Procedures. 20 hours of combined training in Section 106 and public/Tribal coordination.  The registered archaeologist exam covering the materials from the additional instruction/training

There are two large unknowns in my reformulated categories. First, I have put a marker for a great deal of additional training and instruction, much of which needs to be established and provided through the RPA. Some of this can be done in a webinar environment, much as remote college classes currently provide.  Some will likely need to be in person, especially some of the laboratory classes or field soil classes.  It’s a big ask, but if RPA wants to be the main arbiter of who is and is not an archaeologist, it will need to step up and develop, then offer this instruction.  Lastly, RPA will need to develop and probably administer a test of learned skills.

The other large ask is in mentoring and advising Track 2 and 3 registered archaeologists to registered professionals if they do not go to graduate school.  It is one thing to set up a list of training/courses/instruction that Track 2 and 3 registered professional candidates need to take. It’s another to ensure that those that aspire to this category can reasonably get there.  I have no idea of how many candidates there will be, but each one should get a “faculty advisor” to assist them. This should be from a pool of RPA archaeologists that are already supervising their field work and their supervisory activities.  I do not have a plan on how to set this up. All I know is that if there isn’t this component, Track 2 and 3 candidates won’t get there.

This is an ambitious program, but one that I believe could dig us out of the current labor crisis.  It seems that RPA would be the only national organization that could envision or implement such a program.  It’s worth a try.