On Sep 8, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Vergil E. Noble wrote:
> ......... 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.
First and foremost, I would prefer an "appeal to authority" as a first
step for a legal/regulatory definition of an archaeologist. But upon
reflection from your excellent reasoning, I would have to say that my
approach has been incorrect. Sure, we have 36CFR61 and the RPA for
definitions. The former for Federally funded or permitted and the
latter extending into the remainder by example and canons of ethics. No
problems there.
>
> 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
There we agree to disagree. I have to include those who make their
living doing legitimate archaeology, regardless of degree level. I
would also prefer not to step onto the slippery slope that we've been
down before wherein one side points out that there are Ph.D.'s without
the ability to comprehend strata, just as there are non-degree'd
diggers who can.

> --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
I think the issue is precisely what the media call them. After all, the
media write the articles and if they don't know the distinctions, they
cannot be blamed. I have taken our local paper to task for incorrectly
referring to relic hunters as archaeologists, with a resounding silence
from them. I then wrote the ombudsman and received a nice communication
back. Unfortunately, since then, no articles with the inappropriate use
of terminology have appeared so I don't know whether the correct
terminology has been spread about or not.

> --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.
We are tarred with the brush of association with the relic collectors.
We make a living off the sweat of our intellectual labors. The relic
collector makes a living buying and selling artifacts, or at least
augments income by those activities. Why then do we have an ethical
position diametrically opposed to what they do for a living? Their aim
is to legitimize their activities by association with our profession.
We don't have amateur doctors, lawyers or engineers. Jailhouse lawyer
has a degree of ironic accuracy tied to it. Medics and EMT's are
trained and certified, paralegals are also. Instead we have parasites
co-opting our profession.

>  It's our job
> to educate the public about our profession and to correct the media
> when
> they get the facts wrong.
I wonder how many of our readership would think it worthwhile to
contact the ombudsman at their local paper and offer a definition with
an explanation of the problem. That small act might just get the point
across. Especially if repeated once a year. Squeaky wheels get the
attention.

>  In my view, there's a lot of
> things that merit higher placement on the political agenda than a legal
> definition of an archaeologist.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I just checked
the Code of Virginia. There is no definition of an archaeologist and
the definition of an archaeological site is outside what we work with
daily in recording sites. There's definitely room for improvement
there.

>  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.
That will boil down to effective lobbying and making the best political
hay of the inevitable mistakes that will be made by those ignoring the
laws. After all, most of the Federal laws exist due to egregious
violations of significant archaeological sites. Hindsite steering at
it's best. If not now, the pendulum will again swing in a better
direction.

Lyle Browning