Archaeology Magazine - April 1976 - 60

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position
of the Archaeological Institute of America. All our readers are invited
to submit letters, which should be typed , double-spaced and
addressed to the editor, Archaeology, 260 West Broadway, New
York, NY 10013. We reserve the right to edit and retain any material
submitted to this section.

The Amateur in Archaeology
As Directorof the Arkansas
ArchaeologicalSurveyand as one who
has had a hand in developingthe
ArkansasCertificationProgramfor
Amateurs,I wouldliketo replyto the
letterby Ms.Pollakin the January 1976
issue. Ms.Pollak,commentingon an
articleby RichardWertime
(Archaeology 28 [1975]220-227)which
described the Arkansasprogram,
suggests that the Arkansasprogramis
trainingtechnicians,that this is not
necessary,that such technicianswill
furtherdamage an alreadyendangered
resourcebase, that there is an
abundanceof collegetrainedstudentsto
do the necessary research,and that
"amateurs"shouldrestricttheiractivities
to the importantareas of site locationand
reporting.I feel these pointsof view,
whichI am sure Ms.Pollakis not alone in
holding,warrantcomment.
It is true that in mostinstancesthe
Arkansasprogramwillbe training
technicians(inthe best sense of that
term),but theywillbe some of the better
trainedtechniciansin the historyof
archaeology.The programwillnot train
themto be anthropologists,neitherwillit
trainthemto be theoreticians.Butyou
don't need to be able to understandthe
relationshipbetweenarchaeological
HIGHLIGHTS

theoryand linguistictheoryto be able to
developan adequate research design, to
execute superlativefieldresearch in
archaeology,orto capably interpretthe
results.Anyonewhofullycompletesthe
Arkansasprogramstillmaynot qualifyas
an anthropologist,but he should be able
to handle archaeologicalresearch
design and fieldapplicationsand
subsequent interpretationson a level
withalmostany formallytrainedM.A.
Don'tmisunderstandme. Havingjust
been involvedin helpingdraw up a code
of ethics and research standards for
professionalarchaeologists,I wouldbe
one of the last to contendthat anyone,
muchless everyone,shouldrush out and
start to dig. Butto go to the opposite
extremeand contendthat only
individualswithformaldegrees can
contributemeaningfullyto archaeology
wouldbe to me equallyridiculous.
Archaeologyneeds capable technicians
just as does any complexprofession.
InArkansas,people have the
opportunityto obtain moreextensiveand
more intensivetrainingin field
archaeologythan in any college or
universityaffiliatedprogramwithwhichI
am acquainted.Equallyimportantthey
have an opportunityto developan
awarenessof their limitations.Such
individualsare less likelyto assault the
resourcebase in an impropermanner

of the July

issue

of

ARCHAEOLOGY
A special issue devoted to Historical Archaeology
in the United States in honor of the Bicentennial
TRASH PITS AND NATURAL RIGHTS: Excavations
at the Narbonne House in Salem, Massachusetts
by Geoffrey P. Moran
THAT OTHER REVOLUTION
by Charles C. DiPeso
THE PUZZLE OF WASHINGTON'S FORT NECESSITY
by J. C. Harrington

132

than almostanyoneI know.
Therewillneverbe enoughcollege or
universitytrainedarchaeologistsor
students in trainingto do whatneeds to
be done. Unlessthe professionenlists
the intelligenthelp of a concernedpublic
and helps trainsome of this public in
howto help providethe necessary data,
we willindeed have to sit by and watch
the data bank be robbed because then
the "robbers"willfar outnumberthe
informedcitizenrywhichmightbe in a
positionto preventit.
To implythat amateursmustrestrict
theircontributionto reportingsites is an
insultto the public's intelligenceand a
longoutdatedreversionto professional
elitism.PersonallyI am willingto assume
that archaeologistswithPh.D.'shave a
varyingdegree of intelligenceand
competenceand that this applies also to
the rest of the public.Withadequate and
appropriatetrainingand motivation
nearlyall of us can performcompetently
withinour capabilitiesand, ifwe are
adequatelytrainedand appropriately
motivated,we can also recognizethe
limitationsof those capabilities.The
Arkansasprogramis designed to enable
the maximumnumberof people to attain
those maximumcapabilitiesand
recognizetheir limitations(ifany).It is
true that not all of us (Ph.D.or otherwise)
are capable of recognizingour own
limitations.Butto use that occasional
individuallapse as an excuse fornot
providingeach individualwithan
opportunityto contributeto archaeology
to the maximumdegree possiblewhen,
as mostof us agree (thoughevidentlynot
Ms.Pollak),we need all the intelligent
help we can get, wouldbe, to us in
Arkansas,the heightof shortsightedness.
In Arkansas,amateurs,experienced
personneland professionallytrained
personnelworkcloselytogetheras an
integratedteam. TheArkansasprogram
is designed to provideeveryonewithan
opportunityto contributemeaningfullyto
archaeologyin whateverarea and to
whateverdegree they mightwantand be
able. Arkansas,and all archaeology,is
gainingthereby.To me that is aimingas
high as is possible.
Charles R. McGimseyiii
ArkansasArcheologicalSurvey
Archaeology Magazine - April 1976

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - April 1976
