Lyle,
Your initial note that prompted my posting called upon the politically
active in the profession to work toward a legal definition of an
archaeologist, codified in the Federal laws. My response was intended to
point out that such effort would be misplaced and futile. As I said, the US
Congress has no authority to do so. The reason they don't get involved with
defining qualifications for other professions is not because their
respective national organizations have already done so, as you suggest in
your rejoinder, it is because of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the
Constitution and the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. So unless we
can successfully lobby for a Consitutional amendment, there's little point
in trying to make a Federal lawmaker see the light on this point. Now
there's an idea: a Defense of Archaeology Amendment to the Constitution.
I'd be quite willing to argue that idea has more merit than an amendment
banning flag burning or prohibiting same-sex marriage, but somehow I doubt
it would get nearly as much support as some of those more zealous
proposals.
If there is any hope of progress on this front it is at the state and local
level, where commercial activities of various professions are routinely
regulated in the public interest. The important qualifier, however, is that
pesky word "commercial." In addition to performing the occasional kitchen
haircut, I have also been known to fix my own plumbing and do a little
minor wiring around the house, yet I am not a licensed plumber nor an
electrician. The state has no authority to prohibit such activity as long
as I don't offer my self-taught services for hire. For that matter, there
is nothing to stop me from acting as my own attorney in a court of law if I
were ever to get into trouble for doing such things for a fee. In fact,
many jurisdictions circulate handbooks to advise potential litigants on how
to present a case pro seand so-called "jail-house lawyers" are legend in
our legal system. Yes, it would indeed be fraud if I were to hang out a
shingle and charge anyone for such services without the proper credentials,
but that's as far as government interest goes (and most of us wouldn't want
it any other way).
The fact is that there isn't a huge archaeological enterprise in the US
that demands government regulation in the public interest outside of that
which is already regulated under Federal law through Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. So it is not very likely that much
additional regulation will ever occur except in cases of equivalent state-
or municipal-level legislation affecting public lands, public funding,
permitting, etc. (I didn't say it can't be done, or shouldn't be pursued,
but the likelihood of success is slim at best). As one who has worked in
all of the "I" states out here in the Midwest, I know of no current state
law here or elsewhere that effectively governs excavations on private
property with the exception of those laws dealing with the special case of
unmarked burials. I am familiar with some state laws and even city
ordinances that require an excavator or collector to get written permission
from private landowners, but that's hardly a major impediment to privy
digging and is consistent with general property and trespass law affecting
many other recreational activities steeped in American tradition, such as
hunting and fishing.
The larger question, and the real point of my initial posting, is whether
the approach you proposed would indeed solve the problem that we all
deplore even if it were to be accomplished. The answer to that, in my
opinon, is no. Any governmental unit could refer to the qualification
standards of the Register of Professional Archaeologists for a generally
accepted definition of what background and experience is required of a
"real" archaeologist. And, if so inclined, they could enact legislation
affirming that definition for their jurisdictions. But, again, that would
not stop a recreational privy-digger from collecting bottles on his or her
own land or from any other private property with the permission of the
landowner.
I'm sure that many trained historians get irked whenever some smalltown
librarian is called a "local historian" in the Gazette, and I'm enough of
an elitist that I get a twinge in my gut even when someone with a B.A.
calls himself an archaeologist, though he may do it every day for a
living--so you can imagine how I feel about a pothunter who does so. As we
both know, there's more to it than the technical skill of digging nice
square holes and taking pictures. But Shakespeare said that a rose by any
other name would smell as sweet, and a privy-digger does the same amount of
damage to the archaeological record whether he is a self-proclaimed
"archeologist," "amateur archaeologist," "bottle hunter," or even "looter."
The issue is not what they call themselves or what the media call
them--it's what they are doing that's the problem. Granted it is important
to clarify the public mind on the difference between a legitimate
archeological researcher and a relic collector, but we can't look to
politicians to do that for us no matter how hard we push them. It's our job
to educate the public about our profession and to correct the media when
they get the facts wrong.
You asked what it was I lost "by having to undergo the rigors of obtaining
a Ph.D. or in buying into the canons of ethics of the RPA." I'm not at all
sure what you meant by that, but I suppose one thing that I have lost in 30
years of doing archaeology (and just plain living) is my idealism. I've
been fairly active in "archaeo-politics" over the last 20 years, including
a stint as SHA president, and I've found that political acumen is necessary
to inform political action, and one's ideals are best tempered by a strong
dose of reality. Maybe my way of thinking on this point could be viewed as
"getting in the way" of those who want to see meaningful change in public
policy (if anyone really listened to me), but I would much rather see our
profession's limited human energy and financial resources spent where they
can be more effective and do the most good. In my view, there's a lot of
things that merit higher placement on the political agenda than a legal
definition of an archaeologist. Right now I think that holding onto the
meager gains we have already struggled to achieve should be a top priority
for all cultural resource professionals, lest the existing historic
preservation system we might hope to extend be dismantled before our eyes.
ven
"Lyle E.
Browning" To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask] cc: (bcc: Vergil Noble/MWAC/NPS)
ET> Subject: Re: privy diggers
Sent by:
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
09/07/04 11:59 PM
AST
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
On Sep 7, 2004, at 9:48 AM, Vergil E. Noble wrote:
>
>
> Such matters are correctly left to state and local
> governments, which also set licensing standards for all other
> professions
> that require such definitions (including my barber). You won't find
> Federal
> law setting qualification standards for doctors, lawyers, civil
> engineers,
> or anyone else except in the context of work done with government
> authorization.
And the reason you don't see that is because the AMA sets national
standards for docs, as does the ABA for lawyers, ASCE for Civil
Engineers, etc. Professional Engineers with the cachet of having the PE
appended to their names have all passed a national competency test. I
should imagine that there's not much difference among the various
states who do license hairdressers though.
>
> For some reason people always point to the licensing of hairdressers
> as a
> good argument for licensing archeologists. I suppose that may reflect a
> feeling that cutting hair is unskilled labor, which I don't think is
> necessarily true. Many have as much training and experience in their
> own
> endeavor as we do. It's just a different job. Of course, despite
> having a
> licensed hairdresser available, one may still cut a friend or family
> members hair in the privacy of one's own kitchen. There's no law
> against
> that, and licensing standards don't apply.
And that's supposed to be a rationale for doing nothing? I dare say
that hair cutting involves a vastly less involved set of skills than
does archaeology and I have yet to read theoretical papers on
hairdressing, attend conferences on the history of hair cutting, read
books on the splendors of ancient hair cutting, etc.
>
> The public can readily see the consequences of poor workmanship when it
> comes to haircuts.
As they certainly can and have for poor workmanship in archaeology. BUT
THAT MISSES THE POINT THAT PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES DOCTORS, LAWYERS
AND ENGINEERS BUT WHO AREN'T ARE COMMITTING FRAUD. Unscrupulous folk
tar our profession by associating themselves with legitimate
practitioners. That is not right.
> Certainly there are very serious consequences when a
> doctor, lawyer, or engineer is incompetent--people die. Until the
> general
> public shares our view of the consequences of bad archeology, it is not
> likely that we will make substantial progress with legislators on
> licensing.
Can you say failure to communicate? I have talked with literally
thousands of people who want more archaeology done and who have signed
petitions for the same. What's lacking is appropriate leadership.
Perhaps brought on by the very same folks who decry any sort of
regulation as infringing upon their precious intellectual liberties.
Pray tell what did you lose by having to undergo the rigors of
obtaining a Ph.D. or in buying into the canons of ethics of the RPA?
> And even if licensing were to happen by some miracle, it would
> never have an effect on an individual digging for recreation on private
> property with the permission of the landowner.
It already exists in this country. If I remember correctly, one of the
"I" states in the upper midwest already has legislation on the books
that govern excavations on private property. That might well be a model
for the rest of us. Just now, in VA, we're grappling with a group that
has already and is about to again loot a Civil War site and have folks
pay for the "privilege". Buckles, buttons and other items from the
ground have not come from burials, similar groups have protested. I
would ask how an identification that a soldier was represented by the
bones was made from an otherwise naked skeleton. With appropriate
legislation, this sort of thing could be stopped. It would not be
allowed were it whichever state in the Midwest already has controls.
> In some countries all
> cultural resources are essentially treated as public property, but the
> primacy of private property will never be compromised in the US.
There was a statement in the Roman Army that basically went "The ones
saying it cannot be done should not be in the way of those doing it."
If we as a group cannot push either for Federal or State legislation to
extend beyond narrow limits to encompass something as simple as a legal
definition, then we deserve what we see happening. If it won't work
with this particular set of politicians, start the process and have it
ready for a more amenable set. Otherwise we seem to be more of an
unherdable bunch of cats rather than practicing for the good of our
profession.
Lyle Browning
|
