On Sep 3, 2004, at 9:24 AM, Ryan Gray wrote:

> You know, the Net is rife with the 'privy digger' web
> sites. Many of them have extensive how-to sections,
> which range considerably in terms of safety, ethics,
> and destructiveness. The most objectionable thing to
> me is that so many adopt the term 'urban
> archaeologists', which makes our lives as
> archaeologists more difficult.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a veritable epidemic of
newsfolk calling any blithering idiot who says so, "an archaeologist".
Relic hunt a privy in a city, presto, an urban archaeologist. Relic
hunt a pit in a rural environment, presto, an amateur archaeologist.


>  While it's technically
> legal

Why does this have to be the case? What midwestern state is it that has
statutes concerning the excavation of every recorded archaeological
site in the state and who and how they may be dug? Where did that come
from?

I would put it to the politically active in the membership that there
needs to be a legal definition of an archaeologist, codified in the
Federal laws. Privydigger Eddie can call himself an archaeologist, but
here in VA and I presume elsewhere, he cannot call himself a
hairdresser without first having met the stipulations of the
appropriate Code of Virginia. Perhaps it's time for us collectively to
aspire to at least that stature.

Could not SHA and SAA put their collective heads together to proceed
with getting some forward thinking Member of Congress to sponsor such
legislation?

Lyle Browning