SAA Task force statement for peer review

[gregszybala]

Here is your chance to comment on the Society for American Archaeology
Can Artifact Collectors and Archaeologists Find a Way to Get Along and Collaborate More?

to “define appropriate relationships among professional archaeologists, avocational archaeologists, and responsible artifact collectors in light of the SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics and legal statutes,” producing a statement for dissemination to SAA members and other archaeological stakeholders.

https://archaeologyreconciliation.wo...ct-collectors/

[Tennguy]

Hi Guys. Dr. Bonnie Pitblado in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma asked me to forward the following public announcement to Arrowheads.com and kindly ask you nice folks to post its contents in a highly visible location on the Arrowheads.com forum so a maximum number of people will be sure to see it. They are getting plenty of feedback from professional archaeologists and want to balance that out with plenty of feedback from artifact collectors, avocational archaeologists, and any other interested stakeholders. Of course, any professional archaeologist who visits the Arrowheads.com site is also welcome to submit comments. The names of all commenters are being kept confidential so everyone can feel free to say whatever they want to say. Here is the announcement she kindly asks you to post:


Call for Comments: SAA Task Force on Professional Archaeologists, Avocational Archaeologists, & Artifact Collectors

Calling everyone with a passion for archaeology—professionals, avocationals, artifact collectors, and others with an interest! The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) has appointed a task force to develop a statement specifying how various groups (like those mentioned in the first sentence) can best work together. After much discussion, the 13-member task force has developed a draft statement that we would like YOU to review. It should only take 15 minutes or so, and whatever your position in archaeology, your ideas will help the task force finalize its work for SAA. Click here for more information and to read and review the statement:

https://taskforcearchaeologistsandcollectors.wordpress.com/

Questions or trouble accessing the statement? Please e-mail bonnie.pitblado@ou.edu. Thank you!! All comments received by August 26 will be considered.

[JoshinMO]

Hi Guys. Dr. Bonnie Pitblado in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma asked me to forward the following public announcement to Arrowheads.com and kindly ask you nice folks to post its contents in a highly visible location on the Arrowheads.com forum so a maximum number of people will be sure to see it. They are getting plenty of feedback from professional archaeologists and want to balance that out with plenty of feedback from artifact collectors, avocational archaeologists, and any other interested stakeholders. Of course, any professional archaeologist who visits the Arrowheads.com site is also welcome to submit comments. The names of all commenters are being kept confidential so everyone can feel free to say whatever they want to say. Here is the announcement she kindly asks you to post:


Call for Comments: SAA Task Force on Professional Archaeologists, Avocational Archaeologists, & Artifact Collectors

Calling everyone with a passion for archaeology—professionals, avocationals, artifact collectors, and others with an interest! The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) has appointed a task force to develop a statement specifying how various groups (like those mentioned in the first sentence) can best work together. After much discussion, the 13-member task force has developed a draft statement that we would like YOU to review. It should only take 15 minutes or so, and whatever your position in archaeology, your ideas will help the task force finalize its work for SAA. Click here for more information and to read and review the statement:

https://taskforcearchaeologistsandcollectors.wordpress.com/

Questions or trouble accessing the statement? Please e-mail bonnie.pitblado@ou.edu. Thank you!! All comments received by August 26 will be considered.

When i clicked you're link my computer downloaded some stuff.

[Tennguy]

Yep. Bonnie wants you to read the statement on the downloaded item and make some comments on it in the blank space at the bottom of the total downloaded item. Then e-mail it back to her by attaching it to the e-mail message.

[JoshinMO]

OH, OK.

[skrewkase]

What I won a free tv.lol

[2ndoldman]

We are have a discussion about this on my other forum.
This was my reply to the lady who posted it.

Based on this statement Laurie I see that the "Task force" is trying to limit where we can detect.

"Building on these premises, the task force strongly recommends that professional archaeologists actively engage avocationals, including “responsible” and “responsive” collectors, in their work. Although the task force concludes that labels reinforce divisiveness, in general, we define “responsible” collectors as those who:

Obtain landowner permission to collect artifacts

Limit collecting to the ground surface or plowzone, where impacts to sites due to collecting can be more readily mitigated than when uncontrolled excavation has occurred."

By this statement alone your sweet spot and the trade silver spot would have been totally off limits to you and Eric.

I am left to wonder why these people feel the need to get our input into matters like this task force.
They know damn well that our shear numbers and the equipment that we use will inevitably lead us to far more previously unknown sites than they will ever stumble upon.
Why don't they just come out to the archeological society and say We must work with these people.

This will also impact everyone of those here who dig and sift for lithics.

[Tennguy]

Hi 2ndoldman. Do you have a link to that discussion you mentioned on the other forum? Thanks!!!

[2ndoldman]

http://canadianmetaldetecting.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=217&t=50812

[Kyflintguy]

I've been mulling around this Draft since Tuesday evening. I can say for the most part I find the Draft agreeable. The issue I see is inevitably the two things that probably divide the sides the most, digging and the "commercialization of artifacts". Maybe these differences are unreconcilable? I don't know. These issues are both directly related to the SAA's code of ethics, and I understand why professionals must adhere to this code of ethics. What I don't understand is why they expect collectors to adhere to there same code of ethics in order for a collaborative relationship to exist?
I think "commercialization" of artifacts is a pretty broad statement meant to encompass any selling or buying of artifacts. So basically if i go to a flea market and pay 2 dollars for a "arrowhead" or I lose my job and sell my collection to feed my family, I'm no longer viewed as "responsible" collector and therefore I'm no longer worth collaborating with?
To me if Archaeologist want to break down barriers they must adopt the "live and let live" approach. Yes, looters and law breakers should always be pursued to the full extent of the law, but as long as you lump collectors who ocassionaly buy or sell, collectors who dig legally on private land and looters together into the same category you essentially demonize or ommit the majority of collectors, all because the collector did not adhere to the Archaeologist code of ethics.
It's true that many people only view artifacts as monetary objects, those people shouldnt be considered collectors imo.
In an older thread i agreed that collectors could benefit from more education on collecting responsibly and understanding existing laws better, Learning to document finds etc. I still believe that's true. I just think professionals need to adopt a more understanding and open approach to working with collectors.
I've also said before that I like the model professionals have addopted across the pond. The Portable Antiquities Scheme, it promotes a cooperative relationship that benefits everyone.

https://finds.org.uk/about

[Scorpion68]

I agree with most of what you say Josh. I have personally initiated interaction with professional archaeologists in an effort to identify artifacts that I have found. I answered their questions as to where I had found them and what state (surface or otherwise) the artifact was found in. I learned a lot and in one case, the archaeologist was surprised about the many different finds I had made in my hunting area. That said, the land owner granted me permission to both surface hunt and dig for artifacts on his property. He does not want state or federal archaeologists roaming over his land for fear of government confiscation or designation as protected land. I fully understand his feeling and will abide with his provisions. I don't believe there's anyway around this issue and I'm sure professional archaeologists would not be supportive of it. I intend to continue to link up with archaeologists in my area when deemed necessary and to share information, up to a point. I'm quite sure that i'm not the only collector/hunter that finds himself in this situation. In fact, this also involves caves that may be found in the local area. According to local state records, there are no caves in my immediate area. But, if I happen to find one then I would be pressed to provide it's location and assist with acquiring landowner permission. Ain't gonna happen. So often the collector/hunter finds himself in a moral dilemma, with which professional archaeologists are unsympathetic. Also as a free citizen of this great Nation, I reserve the right to choose to legally sell or buy an artifact from/for my collection. We already have laws regarding the legality of hunting/digging for artifacts and how to handle the potential removal of prehistoric remains. I think that just about covers it. We the collectors/hunters may connect with professional archaeologists as we feel we need or want to but you simply can not legislate a requirement to force the issue. It must be a voluntary effort on both parts. Nuf said. ...Chuck I read and fully support the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme initiative. They've got it right.

[Tennguy]

The landowner may fear what you said---but their is no legal way the government can do what you said.

The only real issue that might arise would be whether digging intentionally or accidentally disturbs human burials during the digging. If the landowner does it by accident while plowing--or doing other normal farm activities---no problem---although the law says he "should" report the discovery. If an artifact collector accidentally or intentionally encounters a human burial on the same farm while digging for artifacts---instant Class E Felony if you get caught---and if you try to hide it by throwing the bones down an embankment into a creek or some other such thing---even more laws kick in---like the laws that deal with "abuse of a corpse." That is the way they enforce it. The people at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology set it up that way to discourage people from doing even legal digging on private property. The chances of accidentally encountering a human burial while digging on a really nice, intact archaeological site in Tennessee are---well---pretty doggone high.

I see that you are in Byrdstown. I like Pickett County. Monticello, Kentucky just up the road is the only place I ever saw the back ends of frozen food trucks cut from the truck chassis to serve as extra bedrooms on houses---saw several of them---never seen that anywhere else in my 63 years. I am over in Oak Ridge.

[Scorpion68]

Tennguy - Ever hear of Eminent Domain. The govt, and an Archaeological Department at a university could constitute a government body, has the authority to initiate eminent domain to protect or preserve an archaeological site. This action is spelled out in a publication #1617 authored by the Office of Archaeology and Historical Preservation. You can find it at www.historycolorado.org titled Strategies for Protecting Archaeological Sites on Private Land. An official Archaeological organization can institute proceedings for eminent domain or they can get court order restrictions on land use which would, in essence, remove the land from the landowners use. However this would be an extreme and last resort action. Didn't mean to divert the discussion of the SAA. ...Chuck

[TSUMS]

I was out looking in one of my spots and the artifact task force came out of nowhere... I was dodging bullets left and right..I barely made it out with my life..

[TSUMS]

[JoshinMO]

Emailed Bonnie. Hope this can turn into something positive!

[Kyflintguy]

OK I just reread the SAA statement again, and I would like to retract some of my earlier comments as I feel I have a more clarified understanding of the Statements goals and language.
As I said before I find the statement agreeable for the most part and I think it is a step in the right direction towards mending relationships with Collectors.

However in regards to a point that was made by Bruce, I think the statement should be clarified in regards to detectorist and there should be meaningful steps taken to improve relations with detectorist. The link I provided to the PAS wich is ran by the British Museum shows a good model of how beneficial a cooperative relationship between collectors and detectorist can be.

Now for me to clear up some of my earlier concerns wich I have found were addressed within the SAA Task Force Statement itself.

Quoting myself
"as long as you lump collectors who ocassionaly buy or sell, collectors who dig legally on private land and looters together into the same category you essentially demonize or ommit the majority of collectors, all because the collector did not adhere to the Archaeologist code of ethics. "

I also commented...

"What I don't understand is why they expect collectors to adhere to there same code of ethics "

SAA TF Statement says...

"Professionals can neither force nor should they expect collectors to follow the ethical principles to which professionals subscribe. However, professionals would do well to recognize that when they treat avocationals and collectors with respect and a spirit of non-condescending education, many collectors will voluntarily uphold most or all of the ethical principles professionals do."

Fair enough for me...

I commented...

"So basically if i go to a flea market and pay 2 dollars for a "arrowhead" or I lose my job and sell my collection to feed my family, I'm no longer viewed as "responsible" collector and therefore I'm no longer worth collaborating with? "

SAA TF Statement says...

"Archaeologists should not immediately dismiss prospective collector-collaborators because they at some point violated what we define today as basic standards for responsible collecting. "

SAA TF Statement also says...

"Collaboration among professionals, avocationals and collectors will often involve compromise. There is no perfect professional, no perfect avocational, and no perfect collector. However, imperfect people can collaborate in good faith to improve care for and understanding of the archaeological record in its entirety."

It looks to me like they're trying lol...

So maybe I was somewhat harsh in my previous post. I still do not agree that they have any business trying to tell a citizen of the public what he or she should not do with there collection. It's basically like this, they cannot separate unlawfully sold or obtained artifacts therefore ANY buying/selling/trading should be condemned and those persons deemed irresponsible. Thats simply not the case. I saw on another state Archaeological site tonight were it read in response to buying selling that collectors should never buy/sell/trade there collections but rather donate to an institution or university or pass them on to a family member so the Provenance could be kept!?! So somehow there logic was that if money trades hands the Provenance is lost? That simply isn't true either. It's just my opinion but legally obtaining or liquidating a collection does not constitute a irresponsible collector. We all know for the most part that you couldn't really pay us any amount of money for our personal finds, thats how I am. Yes sometimes there comes times in our lives when we make the difficult decision to part with our beloved collections but that is a personal financial decision that no one has the right to make for us. And when another collector decides to part with there collection and I feel like I can carry on the appropriate stewardship of those artifacts why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? That doesn't make me a contributor to looting, just means I have a hands on interest in artifacts.
Looting will always be looting, it will never cease and would only thrive in the scenario where artifacts were made illegal to buy or sell. Bad people will always exist, Archaeologist must use there own judgement to differentiate those people from interested collectors and stop treating collector ocassionaly buy, sell or trade as irresponsible. That in itself is enough to turn would be collaborative collectors into uncooperative private collectors. There is more information stood to be lost from a bad relationship with collectors than looted sites themselves. It's worth the compromise of disregarding a collectors buying/selling tendencies to establish a cooperative relationship.

[Tennguy]

KYflintguy. I have another thought here on what happens toward the end of a collector's life---or after they die with heirs---with regard to their total collection. This is a hard one even in the professional community. We are rapidly running out of space to curate even the collections that accumulate over time via professional archaeology. CRM contract work is the largest single factor in this because most American archaeology revolves around that these days. It goes on year-round all over the nation and has been feeding into curation facilities for decades. On college campuses, anthropology is pretty much always in the College of Liberal Arts, which is not known for being a big research-based money producer for the overall institution. One has to wonder how long university administrations will want to foot the bill for larger and larger barns to curate collections. My feeling is that it will one day come up against a steel wall---and then what do professional archaeologists do with the continuously incoming train of new CRM collections that need to be curated. Some facilities are already bursting at the seams or very near it. I doubt seriously that government agencies, universities, and museums would be able to handle a coming wave of donated private collections. If they ever do, I suspect it will be limited to just a few collections that have been very carefully and meticulously curated (i.e., every artifact has a catalog number and that number is cross-referenced to a separate piece of paper or computer file that has exacting provenience information and copious notes). Those are few and far between. So, the question that comes out of all this is:

"Will professional archaeologists be upset with elderly collectors---or their heirs---selling their collections when there is no museum, university, or other curation facility that wants them via donation?"

I have no idea what the answer to that question is, but I do know that if the collection is at home and the state wants to sell the home to help payoff the Medicaid money it fed to the patient at the nursing home---well---something has to happen to that huge collection of artifacts at home. I think Medicaid can legally take the home---but not it contents. So---do you set the artifacts out in the yard to get rained and snowed on---or do you sell them? I would like to know what my professional archaeology colleagues think about that issue and how they would deal with it philosophically and practically?" Personally, I have no idea what their thoughts would be on that.

[Ron Kelley]

Speaking of the great USA: The people of this great nation are grossly over regulated. Before the professionals can expect cooperation there must be TRUST: You ain't got it and you don't deserve it. I'm not going to engage in a discussion with a group of people who are attempting to restrict my actions with further regulation. PERIOD

[skrewkase]

Well said Ron.im not going to go pick up that tv either.

[PaleoBon]

How about engaging with one person who is an archaeologist and has no interest in advocating for legislation that would restrict anyone's actions, but cares a lot about finding ways that people who love the past can talk to each other? I start all my relationships with a default position of trust; if someone screws me over, they lose that trust. But you haven't screwed me over, Ron, and I haven't screwed you over, so maybe we can talk.

[Ron Kelley]

What part of that did you not understand?
Every winter I trap dumb animals. Before I can tan their hides I have to convince them that they will love my trap set.