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]