Allow me to clarify. Of course it was not my intention to ruffle feathers
with this call for papers (or reopen the thread for those who may be sick of
it already). My list "pothunters/collectors/amateur archaeologists" was
designed to try and cover the wide range of terms, and their attendant
implicit judgements, used to describe non-professionally trained
non-institutionally associated personally motivated hobbyist diggers. My
interest was principally in those folks who exist beyond the pale for most
professional archaeologists and yet often see themselves as being the real
protectors of the past. Throughout the original thread we see-sawed back and
forth about what to call these folks. Some in the discussion saw personally
motivated, non-institutional non-professionally trained diggers as little
more than vandals, others pointed out the important and productive
relationships between pros and enthusiasts. The bottlediggers, as witnessed
during the website guestbook discussion, clearly see themselves as amateur
archaeologists while many pros have little regard for the hobby of privy
digging. The bottlediggers in turn see "professional archaeologist" as dirty
words connoting snobbishness, elitism, and government-backed intrusion into
personal and property rights. Your concerns highlight a very important point
here--we lack recognized terminology to make meaningful and widely
supportable distinctions within the ranks of professional and
non-professional diggers. Clearly we need some better value-neutral language
to describe folks.
    The groups you mentioned like the ASV, and the thousands of great folks
who give their time, energy, and knowledge to the world at large and to help
firms and institutions dig sites were not really who I envisioned discussed
in this conference panel. The knowledge, skill, and contributions of these
amateurs/paraprofessionals is widely acknowledged, appreciated, and as far
as I can tell fairly non-controversial. Conversely the knowledge, skill, and
contributions of groups such as the many bottledigger clubs, metal detector
clubs, and publications like the North-South Trader are sore spots for many
professional archaeologists--with some exceptions of course (Chickamauga
Park for one). It was relations with this latter group that most of the
thread dealt with and what I envisioned the panel dealing with.
I hope that clears up the confusion, and I apologize for causing it.
    Also, if it will help I will post on my website my transcript of the
original Histarch discussion for anyone who wants to review the discussion
or trigger paper ideas. If anyone has any postings that I may be missing
please send them to me and I will add them in. And, if anyone objects to a
webposting of their comments in the discussion let me know off list and I
can pull your comments.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Wittkofski, J. Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SHA 2001 Pothunt panel proposal


Having been involved in Virginia archaeology for nearly 25 years, many
working directly with amateur archaeologists and artifact collectors, I take
offense to your arbitrarily grouping these non-professionally trained
avocationals with pothunters!  Pothunters are vandals who are only
interested in what they can gain either financially or personally!  This
diverse "grouping" is not only naïve but also offensive to many who have
contributed hundreds of hours of volunteer service, research, site location
information, etc., to help "professionals" protect significant data.  Many
amateurs and paraprofessionals in Virginia and other localities are better
trained, better read, and have a far-greater understanding of regional
research and cultural history than do many graduate school-trained
archaeologists.  This is evident in Virginia, where for many years the
leadership in archaeology was centered upon the membership of the
Archeological Society of Virginia (ASV).  As I am certain you are aware,
that group continues to provide perhaps the best outlet for research
publications.  Even the Society for Historical Archaeology recognized the
ASV's contributions by presenting to them a special award a few years ago
for its publications series!  Even with an ever-growing number of
professionals working in Virginia (see the membership list of the Council of
Virginia Archaeologists (COVA)), a system of statewide, regional
preservation offices associated with the Virginia SHPO, and many
institutions of higher learning, several of which including William and Mary
where I, too, received my post-graduate training, have outstanding graduate
programs.

Many amateurs/paraprofessionals have left those ranks to pursue full-time
careers in archaeology.  One would simply need to examine the voluminous
archaeological publications in Virginia or attend the Annual Meetings of the
ASV, COVA, or the Virginia Academy of Sciences to figure this out.  Where
would our field of study be without the contributions of these partners?
Further, one simply needs to look at this week's TIME magazine (April 17,
2000), page 70, for an article about the Cactus Hill site in Dinwiddie
County.  This Paleoindian and pre-Paleoindian site has been the focus of
research conducted by Joe McAvoy, a retired nuclear scientist and "amateur"
archaeologist.  Certainly, we "professionals" would like this kind of
publicity of our accomplishments and research efforts!!  I don't want to
criticize your efforts, however, it seems evident that your experience with
amateur archaeologists is limited given your statement "strategies for  work
with or conversely combating/controlling amateurs."  If you still feel that
you desire to pursue this panel discussion, please redefine the topic!
Thank you.

J. Mark Wittkofski

[The comments above are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
his employer.]

-----Original Message-----
From:   Charles Adkins [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Tuesday, April 11, 2000 7:12 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: SHA 2001 Pothunt panel proposal

Philip Levy <[log in to unmask]> on 04/11/2000 11:09:48 AM

Please respond to HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>



 To:      [log in to unmask]

 cc:      (bcc: Charles Adkins/NFO/AK/BLM/DOI)



 Subject: SHA 2001 Pothunt panel proposal




It would be nice if this would lead to a clearing house where professionals
with a job to do, and no money, could meet or
 contact amateurs, collectors, or pot hunters with time on their hands to
volunteer for a professional project.  I think everyone
could use more help on every project.  Involving volunteers with this type
of experience might help both sides of the question.




As the one who started the long lasting shape changing thread on
pothunters/collectors/amateur archaeologists, I would like to take the
discussion up a notch. I am interested in putting together a panel on the
topic for SHA 2001. Papers could look at issues in the tensions between
pros
and amateurs, strategies for work with or conversely combating/controlling
amateurs, case studies, and what ever else we can come up with. I have
already talked with some folks and there is some interest in the panel.
Anyone who would like to participate should contact me at [log in to unmask]