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]