While I'm not an archaeological statistician, I am an archaeological chemist (basically, I do archaeometry and archaeological conservation). I do know a few though. We do a lot of population demographics and artifact analyses that rely on a firm background in stats. For a few archaeologists, though not many, this would put them at a master's level at least in understanding, if not more. What I find really frustrating is two smart people who are discussing the same thing, are both basically right, but can't see it through the terminology. Never ever let an archaeologist and a geologist discuss stratigraphy.
Some fields lend themselves well to picking up knowledge of another field at a professional level, but a writer has to be familiar enough with the field to know which ones are plausible. Any physicist worth her salt will have a high level of familiarity and ability with math. With archaeology goes history and geology. Comp sci usually goes with some sort of engineering, but lots of them have MBAs these days.
Not that I'm saying people don't follow your list, because, well, they totally do. Thought most people who are an expert in one field won't cling to hard to #4.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-24 09:00 pm (UTC)Some fields lend themselves well to picking up knowledge of another field at a professional level, but a writer has to be familiar enough with the field to know which ones are plausible. Any physicist worth her salt will have a high level of familiarity and ability with math. With archaeology goes history and geology. Comp sci usually goes with some sort of engineering, but lots of them have MBAs these days.
Not that I'm saying people don't follow your list, because, well, they totally do. Thought most people who are an expert in one field won't cling to hard to #4.