Bob Shuyler-  Is the schism between these specialized clubs so serious
that they can't combine to support a single "outreach program?" As you
may know the Society for American Archaeology has a Council of
Affiliated Societies which one would assume would be more effective if
it integrated both SAA and SHA leadership. The Archaeological Institute
of America is structured around developing and supporting local
societies.  Is there any cross organizational interest in the leadership
of societies to build a coalition to support state and local
archeological organizations?  I ask these questions wishing they weren't
rhetorical.
        The SAA and the SHA were able to get together to support ROPA to
establish a sharper boundary between professional and avocational
status.  The fact that national standards were set based on academic
criteria without grandfathering or a provision for local standards
disenfranchised an unknown number of us. I question whether the national
organizations can now get together to re-integrate we avocationals into
a common archeological conservation fellowship either independently
(SHA, SAA) or as a coalition as with ROPA.
        My own experience as a long term supporter of "community" archeological
societies is that engaging many "professionals [those that make money
doing archeological research]" in local avocational societies is tough
and usually ungratifying work.  Furthermore the leadership of some of
the local societies that I have been active in is often very suspicious
of both professionals and outsiders regardless of profession.  After
seven years of effort some of us managed to merge our local
Archaeological Society with our local Historical Society.  Neither
Society is active in the Statewide Historical Society or the Statewide
Archaeological Association.  Few of the salaried archeologists or
historians in my community are active in local or statewide
archaeological associations.  Of course these same 'professionals' are
largely not members of the SAA, the SHA or the AIA either.  They simply
do not see any relationship between their membership in any of these
organizations (national, regional or local, professional or avocational)
relating to their practice as archeologists. I may sound bitter about
this, because I am, but now that ROPA has succeeded in excluding some of
us practitioners who support the resource conservation objectives from
its ranks, I will await leadership from my "professional" betters to
organize we "avocationalists" wandering in the wilderness.
        I remain a member of SAA, SHA, AIA, AAA and a number of local and
Statewide archeological organizations and will continue to support the
efforts of the leadership of these organizations to direct more
resources to public participation as the only effective means of
archaeological resource conservation.  To paraphrase former US Senator
Tip O'Neill 'All archaeology is local.' -Mark
Mark Henderson
Ely, Nevada


Robert L. Schuyler wrote:

> Ned Heite is correct.
>
> First, the Society for Industrial Archaeology is a wonderful group
> with an outstanding journal, newsletter and annual meetings. Some
> one (Patrick Martin crowd?) please put up the SIA membership information on
> this list (second time).
>
> Equally important is our relationship to state, provincial (Canada)
> and local archaeological societies. Some time ago I tried to suggest
> to SHA that we need an SHA "Committee on Local Archaeological Societies".
> This would be separate from our current Intersocietal
> Relations Committee (under LuAnn DeCunzo), which is quite busy with
> ties to national groups, and this other committee does not currently exist
> in any form. There should be a Chair and then a large committee with active
> members of SHA who are also an active members of local societies (e.g.
> Archaeological Society of Virginia, Archaeological Society of British
> Columbia, Albuquerque Archaeological Society, Pacific Coast Archaeological
> Society, the TAS, Archaeological Society of New Jersey, etc. etc. etc.)
> until we had all of North America covered. One rep (a different person) for
> each local organization.
>
>         The purpose of this SHA Committee would be to build strong
> ties between the SHA (and historical archaeology) and our colleagues
> in the avocational community. More and more members of these groups
> are getting interested in our field or their society is excavating
> a historic site as their group project. The SHA rep to each group
> (who would also be that group's rep to the SHA) can do many things
> to create or strengthen mutual ties involving our respective news
> letters, meetings and activities. I have several ideas along these
> lines.
>
>         These realtionships would also be a potential membership
> growth area for the SHA. However, there are some serious problems
> in that potential. Most members of state and othe local groups are
> not lawyers, doctors or business leaders (although some of all
> these groups belong) but rather working people. It is unlikely they
> can afford $75 for an SHA membership. Keep in mind that their local
> membership is usually $20 to $40 for which they sometimes get a lot
> - e.g. the Texas Archaeological Society (newsletter, journal [monograph]
> and ability to work in the field). SHA needs to do
> something to help our avocational colleagues join our society.
> We should, in my opinion, not follow the SAA system [If I have that
> right] and only offer the SHA Newsletter. Perhaps we could subsidize
> avocational memberships (but call them local archaeological society
> memberships) open only to those who are not earning a full or part
> time living at archaeology (and are not students). Could SHA offer
> the same deal it currently offers to student members? The finances
> would have to be worked out and examined closely. But $75 would
> prevent most local members from joining and it would be much better
> to have some subsidized system that would give these new members of
> the SHA full standing (voting membership, newsletter AND journal).
>
>         Now! If you have read all this! I will take this concept
> shortly to the SHA leadership (or perhaps this memo will already
> do that) but I do not want to Chair an "SHA Committee on State,
> Provincial and Local Archaeological Societies." Is there some one
> out there, an ACTIVE member of the SHA, who would be interested in
> putting in the fairly large amount of work into such a chairship?
> If so, it would not be hard, I think, to then find one SHA rep for
> each local group in North America. What do you SHA members (and
> leaders) think?
>
>         This is an important issue and has yet to be gotten off
> the ground inside the SHA.
>
>                                     Bob  Schuyler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 08:37 AM 12/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> Mary Beaudry responded:
>>
>>
>>>> Carl and Bob
>>>>
>>>> Re the formation of SHA and its relationship to SAA.  As one who was there
>>>> I can put the reason in four words:  A lack of respect.
>>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>> Then and now.
>>>
>>> MCB
>>
>>
>> Seems that we have this "lack of respect" problem in other areas, too.  For
>> years, the Society for Industrial Archaeology has been running a
>> first-class shop, but vast numbers of "other" archaeologists persist in
>> looking down their noses at the whole discipline, to the point of
>> dismissing industrial resources as unworthy of study.
>>
>> Then there are the statistics Bob Schuyler quoted about cross-membership.
>> We should be really distressed at the small number of SHA people who are
>> members of provincial, state, and local societies.  It's the local
>> societies that feed our profession its political support, its incoming
>> student population, and the demand for our services. Yet the local and
>> state socieites (in our area at least) are dwindling, and the professionals
>> attend only when they are on the program.
>>
>> It's about time this fragmentation between subdisciplines, between amateur
>> and professional, and between regions, should stop.  The incoming
>> administration will be hostile to the social sciences, and a lot of us will
>> be out on the street very soon, mark my words. Talk about "lack of
>> respect," we ain't seen nothin' yet.
>>
>> Ned Heite  ([log in to unmask])
>> *********************************************************
>> *   You can think of a compost pile as a home made      *
>> *   energy mine, trapping sunlight in a carbon sink.    *
>> *********************************************************
>>
>>
>
> Robert L. Schuyler
> University of Pennsylvania Museum
> 33rd & Spruce Streets
> Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324
>
> Tel: (215) 898-6965
> Fax: (215) 898-0657
> [log in to unmask]