Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:43:20.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A model graduate training programme in public archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Brent R. Weisman and
Nancy Marie White
Brent R. Weisman
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, SOC 107, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa FL 33620–8100, USA, bweisman@chuma1.cas.usf.edu, nwhite@chuma1.as.usf.edu
Nancy Marie White
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, SOC 107, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa FL 33620–8100, USA, bweisman@chuma1.cas.usf.edu, nwhite@chuma1.as.usf.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As cultural resource management (CRM) in the United States struggles through another period of introspection, one need for improvement consistently identified is in the area of graduate training of future practitioners of CRM archaeology (Fagan 1996; Green & Doershuk 1998; Schuldenrein 1998; Messenger et al. 1999). To what extent training in the practicalities of the field needs to be embodied in curricular coursework, the relative role of research versus applied emphases in the graduate programme, the most appropriate terminal degree for CRM practice, and the very specifics of what constitutes adequate preparation for the diverse and dynamic challenges that constitute contemporary archaeology in the United States, all provide points for the emerging discussion between professionals operating in the field and those in academia who design programmes (e.g. Society for American Archaeology 1995).

Keywords

universitiesUSApost-graduate trainingpublic archaeology

Information

Type
Special section: Archaeology in education
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 283 , March 2000, pp. 203 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Deming, J. 1993. Competition and cooperation in archaeological consulting, Practicing Anthropology 15(1): 6–8.Google Scholar
Fagan, B.M 1996. The arrogant archaeologist, in Vitelli, K.D. (ed.), Archaeological ethics: 238–43. Walnut Creek (CA): Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Green, W. & Doershuk, J.F.. 1998. Cultural Resource Management and American archaeology, Journal of Archaeological Research 6(2): 121–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, J.H. Jr (ed.). 1997. Presenting archaeology to the public. Walnut Creek (CA): Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Leone, M.P. & Potter, P.B. Jr. 1992. Legitimation and the classification of archaeological sites, American Antiquity 57’(1): 137–45.Google Scholar
Lipe, W.D. 1974. A conservation model for American archaeology, Kiva 39: 213–45.Google Scholar
Lipe, W.D. 1996. In defense of digging: Archaeological preservation as a means, not an end, CRM 19(7): 23–7.Google Scholar
Messenger, P.E., Blanton, D. Brimsek, T. Broadbent, N. Cressey, P. De Grummond, N. Ehrenhard, J. Krass, D. Mc’Gimsey, III & White, N.. 1999. Teaching archaeology in the 21st century: thoughts on posgraduate eduaction/professional development, SAA Bulletin 17(2): 13–14.Google Scholar
Potter, P.B. Jr. 1997. The archaeological site as an interpretive environment, in Jameson, (ed.): 35–44.Google Scholar
Potter, P.B. Jr. 1994. Public archaeology in Annapolis: a critical approach to history in Maryland’s ancient city. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Potter, P.B. Jr & Charbot, N.J.. 1997. Locating truths on archaeological sites, in Jameson, (ed.): 45–53.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1994. Towards a cognitive archaeology, in Renfrew, C. & Zubrow, E.B.W. (ed.), The ancient mind: 3–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P.. 1991. Archaeology. Theories, methods, and practice. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Schuldenrein, J. 1998. Changing career paths and the training of professional archaeologists: Observations from the Barnard College Forum, Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 16(3): 26–9.Google Scholar
Schuldenrein, J. 1995. The care and feeding of archaeologists: a plea for pragmatic training in the 21st century, Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 13(3): 22–4.Google Scholar
Smith, L. 1994. Heritage management as postprocessual archaeology?, Antiquity 68: 300–309.Google Scholar
Society For American Archaeology. 1995. Save the Past for the Future II. Report of the Working Conference. Breckenridge, Colorado, September 1994. Washington (DC): SAA.Google Scholar
Welch, J.M. 1993. From archaeology field crew to business administration, Practicing Anthropology 15(1): 9–11.Google Scholar
White, N.M. In press. Teaching archaeologists to teach public archaeology, in Smardz, K. & Smith, S. (ed.), The archaeology education handbook: sharing the past with kids. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
White, N.M. & Weisman, B.R.. 1995. Graduate education in public archaeology at the University of South Florida. Paper presented at the 1995 Chacmool Conference, ‘Public or Perish’, Calgary, Canada.Google Scholar
White, N.M. & Williams, J.R.. 1994. Public archaeology in Florida, USA: A review and case study, in Stone, P. & Molyneaux, B. (ed.), The presented past: 82–94. London: Routledge.Google Scholar