Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:28:31.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Provenience, Reinterpretation, and Persistence of an American Archaeological Derogation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gifford S. Nickerson
Gifford S. Nickerson*
Affiliation:
Rocky Mountain College, Billings, Montana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The designation pot-hunter, as used by American archaeologists, is examined with respect to both its provenience in England and its relatively recent reinterpretation in the New World. Rather than being coined in American archaeology to designate “a hunter of pots,” this appellation, with its explicit derogatory connotation, clearly has its roots in various sporting events of 16th-century England. The essence of its meaning, then, does not relate to pots or vessels, per se, but to non-scientific attitudes and behavior toward antiquities. Pot-hunter has been reinterpreted in North America to signify the archaeological vandal or spoiler and, although specific definitions of the term often lack precision, there is a remarkable consensus among North American archaeologists as to its import. The functional utility of pot-hunter, in categorizing a segment of individuals interested in antiquities, is clearly demonstrated by its tenacious persistence in North American archaeology.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , April 1963 , pp. 555 - 557
Copyright
copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Caldwell, Warren W. 1958 Pot Hunting Takes Savvy. Washington Archaeologist, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 4–5. Seattle.Google Scholar
Davis, E. Mott 1952 Pot-hunter. American Speech, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 288–9. New York.Google Scholar
Gove, Philip Babcock (Editor) 1961 Pot-hunter. Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1776. G. & C. Merriam, Springfield.Google Scholar
Hodge, F. W. 1937 Pot-hunting: A Statement of Policy. American Antiquity, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 184. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Margaret C. 1945 The Anthropology Department. Museum Leaflet, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 29–34. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
McKern, W. C. 1946 Highways for the Archaeological Collector. Journal of the Illinois State Archaeological Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 3–7. Fairbury.Google Scholar
Murray, James A. H. and Others (Editors) 1961 Pot; Pot-hunter. Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 7, pp. 1180, 1191-2. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nickerson, Gifford S. 1962 Professional, Amateur, and Pot-hunter: The Archaeological Hierarchy in the United States. Washington Archaeologist, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 8–12. Seattle.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. E. 1935 Tales That Dead Men Tell. The University of Texas Bulletin, No. 3537 (Bureau of Research in the Social Sciences Study, No. 14; Anthropological Papers, Vol. 1, No. 1). Austin.Google Scholar
Robbins, Roland Wells and Jones, Evan 1959 Hidden America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
Rowe, John Howland 1958 Archaeology as a Career. Appendix in A Guide to Archaeological Field Methods, Heizer, Robert F., Editor, pp. 151–9. National Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Setzler, Frank M. and Duncan Strong, W. 1936 Archaeology and Relief. American Antiquity, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 301–9. Menasha.Google Scholar
Tax, Sol 1951 Rich Religious Experience. Review of “Beyond the Windy Place” and “The Two Crosses of Todos Santos” by Oakes, Maude. The Saturday Review of Literature, Vol. 34, No. 49, p. 24. New York.Google Scholar
Wormington, H. M. 1949 A Proposal for Distributional Studies of Fluted and Parallel Flaked Points in North America. Plains Archaeological Conference News Letter, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 10–2. Lincoln.Google Scholar