Bill

I agree with your assessment of the feelings of non professional collectors.
And yes I use collector's books, they are often all that is available, and I
have been known to seek their help with identification. My experience with
collectors is that they are genuinely interested and are definitely not bad
guys. If we can get our concerns across to them they can become an ardent
part of the conservation movement.

Part of what the maritime people in Australia have done is recognise and
help change the negative part of these feelings (usually towards us) and
channel the good (their interest in the artifacts). They did this by trying
to incorporate the diving clubs into what they were doing. Where feasible
including them in field work, definitely including them in the task of
locating and drawings wrecks and talking, talking, talking, publishing,
publishing, publishing to get across the idea of WHY archaeologists worry
about people disturbing sites. Of course it helped that they had the law on
their side, old wrecks are protected, other historical sites are not unless
they are on a restricted state icon list.

I am trying, in a small way, to follow their example in historical
archaeology in Western Australia. Only I haven't got to the bottle
collectors yet. I am still working on the bureaucracy. Government
departments, local government, town planners, architects and other heritage
professionals. Most of whom started out with the idea that historical
heritage in Western Australia didn't need archaeology only architects. That
is slowly changing but it is frightening how much conservation work goes
ahead without any archaeological input let alone major capital works
programs. Official disturbance is on a much grander scale then collecting
activities.

However, I do think that subverting the enemy (whether they are collectors
or government officials) into supporters is the key. It is easier when the
law is on your side but not impossible if it is not. The majority of people
collect because they are interested, they have a connection. What we need to
do is expand on that in a way that helps them see that what they are doing
is in fact hurting that connection. Hopefully they will then turn around and
defend sites rather than dig them up.

I live in hope

Gaye


-----Original Message-----
From: LOCKHART BILL <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2000 4:22
Subject: Re: clandistine digging for dought


        I apologize for entering this thread after the action is finished,
but I think a few things still need to be addressed.
        First, I am in the camp that believes that collectors (whether they
are called "pothunters" or other names) often have a great deal of
information to offer we "professionals."  I have, in fact, obtained a
great deal of information from bottle collectors in El Paso, Texas,
and southern New Mexico.  Until the last two decades, much of the
information on glass artifacts came from collectors' literature (some
of which is excellent [e.g. Toulouse] and some of which is terrible),
and many current reports reguarly use collectors' information.  Those
of us who regularly deal with glass artifacts are in the process of
assessing the quality of collectors' literature.
        Most colletors consider their hobby to be just that--a hobby.  They
also feel that their right to buy, sell, and dig (pardon the
expression) bottles is completely legitimate.  When I discuss
archaeological concerns about "pothunting" or non-academic excavation
and collection, they voice concerns that they feel are completely
legitimate.  One of the most common of these is:  if these sites are
so important to you, why don't you do something with them?  If you
just leave them alone, why can't we have them?  My arguaments in
favor of preservation do not seem convincing to many of them.
        Other offer to change their methods.  One (who came to see me in my
office) asked if I could teach him proper excavation methods.  He
said it sounded like fun, and he would like to help.  Another (a
retired dentist) is incensed that we are trying to "take away his
hobby."  My point is that many of these collectors are solid,
reasonable citizens who do *not* see themselves as bad guys or
"pothunters."  In fact, they see us as impediments to their perfectly
legitimate hobby.  I think we need to be aware of the wide range of
people we consider when we discuss non-professional
collectors/diggers/pothunters/sellers.
        One last point:  I think we need to look at reality when approaching
the problems in people who deal in antiquities.  To suggest that
buying a single artifact (or several hundred of them) is going to
affect the antiquities market is unrealistic.  I have talked to
dozens of collectors, read the bottle collectors' magazines, attended
the only fairly local convention, and checked out what is happening
at eBay.  The infrastructure is solidly in place.  Short of the
enacting of new laws, no amount of our participation (or lack
thereof) is going to significantly affect the sales of artifacts.
Rather than attack the collectors' system, we should carefully
deliniate non-professionals into categories based on legalities.
        At best, maybe we can form some sort of cooperation between
professionals and non-professionals.  No one will hear you when you
yell at him/her.  But, perhaps, he or she may be interested in what
you say if you speak softly.  Like most people, we are very good at
seeing our side of the story without carefully listening to the
concerns of the other side.

Bill Lockhart
[log in to unmask]