SAA Task force statement for peer review

[PaleoBon]

Hi everyone: This is Bonnie, and I'm chairing the SAA task force that you're talking about here. Some of you have written formal comments to me, and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate hearing them and sharing them with the rest of the task force. We do have two collectors on the task force, and their views have helped us tons. But every last member of the task force really wants to figure out how to improve relationships between professionals (a few of whom are elitist brats) and collectors (a few of whom cross the line to out-and-out looting that we all recognize, even if we can't easily put it into words). That leaves room for a whole lot of collaboration between the professionals who get that collectors know more about their areas than we could hope to learn in a lifetime and the collectors who get that most professionals want to reach out (or reach back) but don't really know how. I care about this issue with every fiber of my being, and I will do everything in my power to help make archaeology more inclusive (again...we used to be much better about playing nicely with others). So I guess I'm saying, please know that I and every member of the TF is participating in this effort because we believe that archaeology benefits when we all do our absolute best to reach across "borders." Politicians can't seem to manage it, but I think that our communities can. And just so you know, so far 86 professionals have responded to the statement with their input, including three past-presidents of SAA and a lot of names you'd all know. All but one of those 86 people--ONE!--favor collaboration and the thrust of the statement. And that one person, when I asked for details, admitted that he actually just does favor collaboration, and he needed to--and would--rethink and expand on the statements he made. The most common comment from the pros, though, by far? Something along the lines of "we (SAA) should have done this long ago." If you'll hang in there with us, I pledge to continue pushing for increased collaboration by my colleagues until they burn my dead body and sprinkle the ashes in the mountains and sea.

[2ndoldman]

Thank you for adding your voice to this discussion Bonnie. We as a community of artifact hunters have always preferred collaboration.
but time after time that has been a one way street and many of our favorite spots have been taken away from us after revealing the locations to those of your community. So I hope that you can understand our skepticism that this task force will accomplish anything positive for us.
One thing that bothers me is the constant reference to the "pros" being only associated with those in your community. If that reference is to the fact that they are paid, and we are not, then OK. But if it is pointed to actual professionalism in the recovery and documentation of the finds then we have a problem. Many of our members are as professional as any of the "pros" and in some cases much more professional than any of you realize.

[PaleoBon]

2ndoldman, I do understand that collectors have been burned by professionals, and that some of my colleagues have done some mind-blowingly crappy things to collectors. I was at Utah State University when the southern Utah BLM bust went down, and there was nothing about that situation that I liked, not from any vantage point. My guiding philosophy in everything I do that involves multiple parties with related but sometimes conflicted interests should maximize the number of "wins" while minimizing the number of "losses." The southern UT situation, in my view, maximized losses, to the detriment of all--including the archaeological record. Many colleagues don't agree with me, but that's my read. Oh, and when I say "pro," I am indeed referring to those who do archaeology for pay as opposed to those who don't. There are plenty of avocational archaeologists (some who collect and some who don't) who know more about how to do and interpret archaeology than a goodly segment of those who are being paid. So "pro" to me doesn't mean "someone who has inherently more knowledge." Many non-professionals have knowledge those in university, government or CRM jobs don't have and could never obtain. At the same time, those who are lucky enough to get paid to do archaeology also have knowledge only they can obtain. Here's the deal though: when I became a member of SAA, I agreed to abide by SAA's Principles of Ethics. Those ethics state explicitly that I have an ethical obligation to share what I know with the public--and there are not "strings attached" (like "except for members of the public who collect artifacts.") I take that and other ethical pledges I have made seriously, and I want my colleagues to take them seriously too. Most already do; but a vocal minority read those principles and cherry-pick the ones they want to follow, ignoring the rest. Now I'm rambling, but I want you to know where my head's at on all this.

[JoshinMO]

Hi Again Bonnie
Thank's for replying back to MY Email Yesterday even though it wasn't The proper Form filled out The way that is being requested. Asking Members here to fill out something like that to improve relations between these two sides seem's nosey and rude in MY opinion though. Long ago I heard WE are all created equal and that idea has always stayed with ME regardless of how things really are. Like if one group does this to prove something maybe WE can get along. Stipulation is what it seem's more like than a nonchalant Friendly gesture to be friendly. I think You are The right Person to lead this "Team" though if something good for both sides can result from it. Don't expect Everyone in this group to be passive though including Myself. I like Archaeology and WE wouldn't have nearly as much fact's to talk about here as WE do without it. Please take some time to look over The post's WE have been leaving here over The Year's about this subject. I don't understand the approach with a form like this to improve how WE get along. I really don't like to pick sides but I am on a side and that's just The way it is.

Allowing Amateur's and Volunteer's to join in You're sides Archaeology/Work is a great thing (if done with morals) that has kept these 2 sides moving in a positive direction along with The Artifact related show's You're side has helped create all over The Country. There has been negative situations (not hard to find if You look) coming from BOTH sides over The year's though and this new Task Force and Form being presented to US along with being told it's to improve The relation's seem's like WE are getting a Finger pointed at US to improve it as if it is Our fault and WE must take responsibility to improve The relation's yet in The past it obviously took two to have disagreement's so it just seem's like it's not a proper and Friendly way to go about it. If The Archaeological society will just concentrate on what They do and not what WE do that would be best for The Future.

[chase]

Thank you Bonnie!, This is a door and a step to bridge the gap. It is a up hill climb and will take time to build the trust. The fact you are making an effort and taking the initiative to bring this to the forum is a step in the right direction. The lines of communication is crucial for a collaboration of information being shared and not stifled, hidden by mistrust. This would be a great platform for both sides to speak up and voice concerns.
Please stay attuned to this thread to what collectors and avocational archaeologists are saying and there concerns.
Thanks
Regards Chase

[PaleoBon]

It's my absolute pleasure, Chase, and I'm so thankful that you reached out to me and gave me a chance to meet you and your community of collectors here. I will always be honest in my posts. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has about the statement itself or about anything archaeology-related that I might know. I can't promise my answers will please all the people all the time--the opposite, of course. However, that also goes for my relationships with other archaeologists--most of them, and I mean the vast majority, seem to be fully in support of what I am doing with the task force, but at least a couple of others (and I always hear stuff like this through the grapevine, rather than in messages directly to me) remain opposed to collaboration. But the writing is on the wall. Collaboration, not isolation, is the best path forward, and we all need to fight to make it happen as often as possible.

[gregszybala]

So you invited Bonnie here? Well done Chase and thank you Bonnie for taking the leap into an artifact forum knowing full well what some may feel about Pro's.
I initiated this thread in good faith after receiving the email from the SAA, reading all and seeing it as an attempt to reach out and collaborate. Many of us have been burned and have animosity for the Pro's, most of us have not. We have much to share and gain from each other if we can find trust. I for one hope this open communication helps this happen.

[PaleoBon]

Thanks for the warm welcome, gregszybala. Fortunately, as a chickie-poo (my husband's nickname for me) in the world of Paleoindian archaeology, I've had to develop skin thicker than a mammoth, so I never fear wading into conversation about any topic. I've worked closely with easily over 100 collectors in various states (and interacted informally with thousands), and the experiences were/are enriching in so many ways. Some are now my dearest friends, others people I don't often see, but am delighted to run into at a stone-age fair or the like. I believe in the innate goodness of most people, and I try really hard not to generalize about groups. I bet that I'd really dig the vast majority of the members of your blog, and I hope I can get to know some of them (make that "more of them").

[2ndoldman]

Bonnie I think that the poor attitudes is not only an Americas (North, south and Central) thing but one that is prevalent around the world.
With the exception of the unfortunate statement re metal detectorists I found this recent article a very nice read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/25/secret-life-archaeologist-soil-sandwiches-sexism-sites

[PaleoBon]

Good morning, 2ndoldman. I love and relate to the piece you directed me to. I've not seen it before, but it seemed on target. I think that the poor-attitude state-of-affairs is a shame (and you're right, not restricted to any particular place). But I also think it's a minority--often a loud one, granted--but a minority nonetheless. I really enjoy most of my archaeology colleagues (even if there are a few with views I think are counterproductive at best). Ditto my collector colleagues, my students, and for that matter, my fellow baseball parents. As long as well-meaning people are willing to reach out , even at the risk of making themselves vulnerable to insults and ridicule, I think they can find middle ground. I like talking with you very much! Have a great day.

[chase]

Bonnie, one thing that may help once approved and amended on the 26th would be a list of professionals by region that are on board with this new collaboration. A place/person that the collector can speak with. This would help with a blind stab in the dark as to who will bridge the gap.
You made reference to the SAF(Stone Age Fair) which a collaboration has been going on for many many years. I am sure you have spoken with those professionals that are at the core of interaction among the collectors.

[sailorjoe]

A great suggestion Chase.

[PaleoBon]

I agree with sailorjoe, that is a great idea. I can't recall if I mentioned this or not, but SAA asked the task force for two things. The statement we're circulating now is one of them. The other is a list of action items that we think would help most effectively and efficiently advance the sort of productive collaboration the statement tries to outline. Yours is a concrete, relatively easy to accomplish "action item." Heck, about 100 archaeologists from all over the US and Canada have already provided feedback indicating they support the statement--I'd just have to contact them and ask them to serve as point-people...presumably all or almost all would be willing, because they care enough about the issue to have weighed in to begin with). We (the task force members) are also going to run a forum at the next annual meeting of the SAA, which is this spring in Vancouver. We plan to use that venue to recruit participants to follow through on our suggested actions. In short, there are ways to get this done. If you or anyone else who reads this post has ideas for "next steps," please let me know. If anyone wants to talk to me or offer thoughts/suggestions one-on-one, my email is bonnie.pitblado@ou.edu.

[chase]

One thing on the forum of this site we run into on an ongoing basis is those that are not educated and post rocks, such as effigy's and the likes. To put it to you this way a filter may serve to weed out those that defend their rocks before getting to the respective members that would be better severed looking at true artifacts. Something you as a group may want to look at and have a control point before any e-mail or contact information is exchanged.

[chase]

We have the opportunity to make suggestions and recommendations but our window is short with a deadline of the 26th of August. Even if you don't see this working or getting traction, please state the reasons why. We can make a difference and be apart of a collaboration that could change how the collector is viewed.

[PaleoBon]

Yes, please do weigh in! Don't worry about writing on the sheet itself; an e-mail will do the trick. Several folks from the forum have contacted me, and their feedback has been incredibly valuable. More is even better!