Brian L. Fritz

ABSTRACT From a historical perspective the current role of amateur and avocational archaeology is examined, and its relative importance to the advancement of professional archaeology is highlighted.

What is an avocational archaeologist? Webster (1988:95) defines avocation as “something one does in addition to a vocation or regular work, and usually for pleasure.” Avocational archaeology is often used interchangeably with amateur archaeology. However, the term avocational typically distinguishes those amateur archaeologists whose volunteer work has reached some level of acceptance among the professional community of archaeologists. Archaeology in Pennsylvania has historically fostered a strong and rewarding relationship between amateurs and professionals. This partnership has partly been responsible for the success of Pennsylvania archaeology over the past century. Central to this success has been the role of the Avocational Archaeologist in bridging the gap between the amateur and professional archaeological communities.

From the perspective of Western Pennsylvania, the roots of avocational archaeology are intertwined with the roots of professional, or academic archaeology. The first intensive archaeological investigations began with Carnegie Museum’s interest and excavation of the Oakmont and McKees Rocks mounds from 1895 through1896. It was during these excavations that George S. Fisher of Finleyville began documenting prehistoric village sites within the Monongahela River basin of Westmoreland and Fayette Counties (Mayer-Oakes 1955:40). Fisher, working out of his own interest and pleasure, surface collected and excavated a growing list of sites. His surveys helped contradict the academic belief that Western Pennsylvania lacked any substantive prehistoric Native American presence (Means 2003:40). Fisher’s field surveys eventually gained the interest of professional archaeologists, and in 1933, Fisher earned public praise for his work on the Pollock’s Hill mound from state archaeologist Donald Cadzow (Cadzow 1933:3; Means 2003:40).

George Fisher’s story highlights the positive relationship between avocational and professional archaeology, but it also brings forth an underlying tension that often exits. Fisher excavated well over 400 Native American graves (Fisher 1930:12). By today’s standards his excavations would be considered rampant looting with questionable methods and ethics. However, when compared to methods employed by some professionally directed digs of the same era, Fisher’s and the work of other early avocationals does not seem nearly as misdirected as it first appears. Early examples can be found in both avocational and professional archaeology that show poor methodology and over zealous application of quantity over quality.

The 1930's also witnessed the blossoming of the newly established Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology (SPA). The Society formalized a bourgeoning relationship between a new discipline of professional archaeologists and the intense curiosity of many lay folk who had been romanticizing for decades about the bounty of Indian artifacts routinely collected across Pennsylvania’s fields. The influence of both avocational and professional archaeology is plainly evident in the Society’s early publications. In 1958, the Society established the Archey Award as a way to honor amateur archaeologists whose contributions exemplify the goals of the organization. The list of past Archey Award recipients is virtually a Who’s Who list of Pennsylvania’s avocational community. It is interesting to compare this list of names to the list of past Mason Award recipients which embodies those professional archaeologists honored by the Society. Fourteen of the named individuals are recipients of both awards. It is evident that avocational archaeology is for many a path leading toward successful careers as professional archaeologists.

Amateur and avocational archaeology continues to play an important role in Pennsylvania. Most activities can be grouped into three categories; information gathering, volunteer labor, and public outreach. The kind of information gathering first spearheaded by individuals like George Fisher continues to be the avocational’s legacy in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey now inventories over 20,000 archaeological sites. Most of these sites were first found and documented by amateur and avocational archaeologists. The professional side of archaeology simply does not possess the necessary resources and unfettered access to property that is needed to achieve this level of field survey.

Avocational archaeologists are intently interested in the management and outcome of the information they gather. This is well illustrated by the extent to which avocationals have historically volunteered their labor on professionally directed excavations. Carnegie Museum’s Archaeological Field Associate program best exemplifies this relationship between information sharing and volunteerism. An obvious benefit is a ready source of reasonably trained labor at little cost for the professional, and for the avocational a sense of participation in the research process. Less obvious are the insights that professionals can gain from avocationals who are particularly knowledgeable in a given region or specialty, and in return those avocationals may gain some influence in the decision-making process regarding preservation of archaeological resources. Volunteer archaeology has recently been revived as a result of budget cuts in the Commonwealth’s Archaeological Program (CAP). During the past few field seasons, CAP has utilized volunteers from the avocational community in an attempt to offset the loss of paid field crew positions on state run projects.

The growing importance of public outreach is possibly the amateur community’s most under recognized contribution to Pennsylvania Archaeology. In today’s realm of publicly financed contract archaeology, the future of archaeology cannot rely solely upon the protective pillars of historic preservation law. The public has the power and the right to withdraw those pillars and their financial support. As the TV generation gives way to the interactive multimedia generation, we must not simply treat the interested public as passive consumers. Amateur archaeology provides the most accessible means for the interested public to be active participants. Archaeological digs sponsored by SPA chapters are beacons of public outreach. The success of the Westmoreland Chapter’s Consol Site excavation, the Conjehela Chapter’s Safe Harbor Petroglyphs project, and the Ohio Valley Chapter’s Junior Archaeology program are just a few shining examples.

Although usually cited as under the supervision of a professional archaeologist, many chapter digs are in reality under the direction of a dedicated group of avocationals. This fact may be a point of contention with many professional archaeologists. Questions of proper field methods, adequate documentation, and creditable curation strategies are common concerns. These are all valid criticisms. Avocational archaeologists must work to improve the quality of amateur archaeology as much as their resources and talents will allow. In return, the professional community must be open and willing to work with the amateur community in achieving these goals.

There may be a few professional archaeologists who feel so strongly about archaeological preservation that they believe archaeological investigation should only be permitted by trained professional archaeologists, even to the extent of surface collecting. The good intent of such idealism is to protect archaeological resources for future generations. However, enacting such extreme measures would cut off the legs of Pennsylvania archaeology. The avocational archaeologist would be disenfranchised, and the historic bridge between amateur and professional would be in jeopardy. Would the information gathering that has established a database of over 20,000 archaeological sites continue to flow? Would the ranks of enthusiastic volunteer diggers shrink? Would public support for archaeology waiver without opportunities for public participation? And, without continued interaction between amateur and professional would amateur archaeology devolve into the shadows of relic collecting and trading?

I would like to close with this final thought. The difference between an avocational archaeologist and a pothunter might just be a professional archaeologist who was willing to dedicate his or her time toward fostering a sense of scientific value and responsibility in the mind of an enthusiastic amateur digger.

Brian L. Fritz 129 Merle Street Clarion, PA 16214-1839

References

Cadzow, D. A.
1933 Mr. George Fisher’s Discoveries in Western Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist. 3(3):3-5, 16-17.

Fisher, G. S.
1930 Indian Sites and Excavations in Western Pennsylvania. Bulletin of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. 1(2):12-13.

Mayer-Oakes, William J.
1955 Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley; An Introductory Archaeological Study (Anthropological Series, No. 2). Annals of Carnegie Museum 34. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh.

Means, Bernard K.
2003 Deliver Me from Mononga-Hell: Thinking Beyond the Culture History Paradigm to Examine the Temporal and Spatial Parameters of Somerset Monongahela Village Settlements. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology. 19:37-58.

Webster’s
1988 Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English. 3rd College Edition. Ed. Victoria Newfeldt. Webster’s New World Dictionaries, New York.