Archaeology Magazine - October 1974 - 37

is happening in Oregon may be of genWh.,
eral interest. Two years ago, Charles R. McGimsey III published Public Archaeology (New York
1972), a book which several members of the
Oregon Archaeological Society read. Many of
us had already begun to recognize that the archaeological community within the state was
not adequately organized, and McGimsey's
ideas inspired us to act. It was the beginning
of an effort that has had some useful results.
The Oregon Archaeological Society (OAS)
was organized in 1951 with roughly thirty members; since then its total membership has
grown to 650. Whereas the society started
mainly as a group of interested collectors, it
has evolved into a group more intent on preserving the past than on collecting artifacts. In
1960 the OAS began annual excavations, at
which only inchoate attempts were made at
disciplined stratigraphy. Subsequently, the society enlisted professional supervision, and it
has now matured to the point where this year
it assisted in the excavations of the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. As is probably
the case with most such societies the OAS
comprises people from all walks of life and
with many different personal kinds of interest
in archaeology.
Two years ago a Legislative Committee was
formed, and not without opposition from some
of the members. This committee consisted entirely of interested citizens, only one of whom,
an attorney, had any particular knowledge of
the legislative process. One of the committee's
first tasks was to establish the aims of the legislative program it intended to sponsor. It
drafted a statement of goals, which had five
points: (1) to encourage the preservation of
Oregon's archaeological sites not threatened
by destruction; (2) to salvage and preserve information and material from endangered sites;
(3) to increase public awareness and interest
in archaeology in Oregon; (4) to cooperate with
and assist professional archaeologists by offering individual expertise not otherwise available to them; and (5) to encourage amateur participation in any state program of archaeological research.
Next, the committee determined its priorities.
The first was to gain expertise in federal and
Oregon laws pertaining to archaeological matters; the second, to draft a sound and feasible
law for the state; the third, to organize a lobby
that could go into operation any time an archaeological site might be threatened. The
committee has achieved the first of these objectives; the second is presently being pursued,
and the third has yet to be fulfilled.
Early in our endeavors, we decided that the
initial legislative draft should be the work entirely of the OAS, except for the input of
Charles H. Hibbs, a professional archaeologist
with the National Parks Service at the Fort
Vancouver site. We began with a thorough
study of McGimsey's book, which became our
principal guideline and which is mandatory
reading for anyone interested in these matters.

We also attended a workshop on environmental
legislation being presented by a local law
school. We became more familiar with pertinent
Oregon law- of which there is very little- and
the state's traditional governmental habits and
procedures; we then consulted with a number
of other states that have adequate laws or good
drafts. After eighteen months of hard work, we
succeeded in producing the initial draft we had
envisioned. In the main, our proposal seeks to
fill in the vacuum which exists in Oregon law;
it recommends the passage of antiquities legislation such as exists in other states, the creation of the position of State Archaeologist and
a regulatory body to oversee the state's archaeology, and finally the initiation of a good
educational and research program.
When the initial draft was written, we began
to consult members of our own society as well
as professional archaeologists, museums, historians, Indian groups and other amateur archaeological groups within the state. Once
these groups have gone over the draft, we plan
to consult state government agencies and
many of the major businesses that might be
affected by the passage of such a law. We need
as much constructive criticism and feedback
as we can get. Our final draft will have to reflect a broad cross sectipn of interests, for only
by getting widespread backing and support can
we have any reasonable hope of seeing our
draft enacted as law.
There remains, in addition, the no doubt
formidable proposition of persuading the state
legislature that new laws are needed. If we
have laid our groundwork well, we should have
a chance of success.
How active are the amateur archaeological
groups in other states? This I do not know; but
it is my understanding that many such groups
are significant local forces, and I hope that
they, like the Oregon Archaeological Society,
will take the lead in promoting needed legislative change. It is a job that needs to be done
- and it is a job that can be done. To the amateur archaeologist it presents an especially inviting challenge, for it affords him the chance
to make a genuine contribution to the welfare
of the nation, to its future- and to himself.
"The past belongs to the future, but only the
present can preserve it." The challenge, let it
be clear, demands a vigorous response.
For Further Reading: Thomas M. Newman,
"The Crisis in Oregon Archaeology," Tebiwa 14
(1971) 1-3; University of Missouri, Stewards of
the Past (Columbia, Missouri, 1970).
T. DANIELPLETSCH, a physician at the Permanente Clinic in Portland, Oregon, received
his B.A. and M.D. degrees from Stanford University in 1953 and 1956. Interested in archaeology for the past ten years, he served as
president of the Oregon Archaeological Society and is at the present time chairman of its
Legislative Committee.

261

Archaeology Magazine - October 1974

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - October 1974