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