Introduction
When you picture an archaeologist, you probably imagine professionals in field gear, carefully unearthing relics of ancient civilizations. But here’s something that might surprise you: passionate avocational archaeologists—enthusiasts without formal training—have played a vital role in some of the most significant archaeological discoveries in the U.S. One key example is Poverty Point, a UNESCO World Heritage site in Louisiana.
Without the efforts of these amateur archaeologists, we might not know as much about Poverty Point today. In fact, their work was instrumental in gaining the site’s prestigious UNESCO designation. In this article, we’ll explore how avocational archaeologists contributed to the discovery and documentation of Poverty Point, as well as the Jaketown and Claiborne sites, all while facing challenges from an increasingly professionalized field.
The Role of Avocational Archaeologists in the Discovery of Poverty Point
Before archaeologists with PhDs were meticulously cataloging ancient artifacts, it was explorers, adventurers, and avocational archaeologists who made the first strides in discovering sites like Poverty Point. One of the earliest descriptions of this remarkable site came from Samuel Lockett in the 1870s. Lockett’s initial survey was followed up by none other than Clarence B. Moore, an avocational archaeologist whose detailed maps and illustrations in 1913 were pivotal in documenting Poverty Point’s massive earthworks and mounds.
Fast forward to the 1950s and 60s, when avocational archaeologists like Clarence Webb and Carl Alexander were still on the front lines of discovering Poverty Point’s treasures. Webb, a pediatrician by day and an archaeologist by passion, dedicated countless hours to the study of Poverty Point. His collaboration with professional archaeologists such as James Ford and Jon Gibson helped shape the modern understanding of the site. By the 1970s, Webb had documented over 100,000 artifacts from 40 Poverty Point sites—a staggering contribution to the field.
Similarly, Carl Alexander, with his access to local farms around the 400-acre Poverty Point site, was able to surface collect thousands of artifacts. His meticulous documentation of where each artifact was found across Poverty Point’s earthworks allowed professionals to form new hypotheses about the site’s socioeconomic structure. His collection became a central part of modern archaeological interpretations of Poverty Point, helping secure its place in history as a unique example of ancient monumentality in North America.
Clarence Webb and Carl Alexander: The Unsung Heroes of Poverty Point
Let’s dive a little deeper into the contributions of Clarence Webb and Carl Alexander—two names that any Poverty Point researcher owes a debt of gratitude.
Clarence Webb may have been a pediatrician by profession, but he was an archaeologist at heart. His passion for Poverty Point began in 1936 when he connected with James Ford during the Belcher Mound excavations in Louisiana. This partnership marked the beginning of decades of collaboration, with Webb’s artifact collections forming the backbone of many key studies of Poverty Point. In fact, his 100,000 artifact catalog became the basis for the two-volume work Poverty Point Culture and the American Formative, co-authored with Ford and Sherwood Gagliano in 1970-71.
But Webb wasn’t the only avocational archaeologist making waves. Carl Alexander, though less known than Webb, played a crucial role in documenting Poverty Point’s surface artifacts. Thanks to his strong relationships with local farmers, Alexander was able to collect artifacts from across the site’s ridges—a task that would be nearly impossible today due to modern preservation concerns. The care he took in recording the exact locations of these artifacts (down to the specific earthwork ridges) provided invaluable data for professional archaeologists. Jon Gibson even based his entire dissertation on Alexander’s collection, further emphasizing how pivotal his work was to understanding the social systems of Poverty Point.
Today, all of Alexander’s surface collections—more than 100,000 artifacts—are housed in the Poverty Point curation facility in Epps, Louisiana. This unparalleled trove of artifacts continues to inform research on the site’s socioeconomic organization and trade networks. Webb and Alexander’s contributions are still being felt in the field today.
From Avocational Efforts to UNESCO World Heritage Status
Poverty Point’s World Heritage designation in 2014 wasn’t the result of a single discovery or excavation—it was the culmination of decades of work by both professional and avocational archaeologists. In fact, without the careful documentation and artifact collections of avocational archaeologists like Webb and Alexander, the case for World Heritage status would have been far weaker.
Robert Connolly, in his paper “Avocational Archaeologists and the Designation of a World Heritage Site,” highlights just how important the contributions of these amateur archaeologists were. He argues that their surface collections provided critical data that professionals could never have gathered on their own. Connolly even goes so far as to say that without these collections, the interpretation of Poverty Point’s socioeconomic structure—the very foundation of its UNESCO designation—would be dramatically limited.
In short, Poverty Point might not have achieved its World Heritage status if not for the tireless work of avocational archaeologists. Their passion for discovery helped bring this ancient site to the world stage.
The Jaketown Site: A Case Study in Collaboration
The story of avocational archaeology at Poverty Point doesn’t end with Webb and Alexander. In the late 1990s, Robert Connolly, who was then the station archaeologist at Poverty Point, gave a series of talks in Belzoni, Mississippi, near another important Poverty Point site: Jaketown.
Jaketown is one of the largest Poverty Point culture sites, yet much of what we know about it comes from local collectors. After Connolly’s talks, local avocational archaeologists began comparing their collections with the patterns Connolly had described from Poverty Point. These collectors had amassed a wealth of artifacts from Jaketown, and their insights into the spatial distribution of artifacts mirrored those found at Poverty Point.
In this instance, we see avocational archaeologists working in concert with professionals, providing crucial local knowledge that helped further understanding of the broader Poverty Point culture. Their contributions to the museum in Belzoni, which now holds many of their donated artifacts, ensures that this knowledge will be preserved for future generations.
Claiborne: Another Success Story in Avocational Archaeology
The Claiborne site in Hancock County, Mississippi, offers yet another example of how avocational archaeologists have stepped in where professionals couldn’t. In the 1960s, Jerry Pankow and members of the Mississippi Archaeological Association conducted detailed excavations at Claiborne in advance of construction projects that threatened to destroy the site. These avocational archaeologists meticulously recorded stratigraphy and artifact distribution across 5×5-foot excavation units, providing critical data on the Poverty Point culture’s material evolution over time.
When Connolly met Pankow in the early 2000s, he was impressed by the quality of the excavation records and the artifacts Pankow had collected. Pankow had even self-published a detailed report on his findings, which was later expanded and made available online. His work at Claiborne not only preserved an important piece of Poverty Point’s legacy, but also provided a model for how avocational archaeologists can contribute to the field.
The Divide Between Professionals and Amateurs: A Growing Problem
Despite the incredible contributions of avocational archaeologists like Webb, Alexander, and Pankow, the divide between professionals and amateurs has grown wider over the past 50 years. As the field of archaeology has become more professionalized, many in the discipline have become dismissive of avocational efforts.
Connolly reflects on this trend, noting that today, someone like Clarence Webb might not even be allowed on an archaeological site, regardless of the knowledge and experience they might bring. Instead, avocational archaeologists are often relegated to tasks like screening dirt or cataloging artifacts—roles that, while important, don’t take full advantage of their skills and passion.
But this attitude is short-sighted. Avocational archaeologists often have deep local knowledge, strong community ties, and a passion for preserving the past. As Connolly points out, the discipline of archaeology relies on public support—support that can be fostered by engaging with avocational archaeologists.
The Future of Collaboration: Lessons from Poverty Point
The success stories from Poverty Point, Jaketown, and Claiborne show us what’s possible when professionals and amateurs work together. Avocational archaeologists have proven time and again that they can make meaningful contributions to the field—if they’re given the opportunity.
It’s time for professional archaeologists to rethink their approach to collaboration. By engaging with avocational archaeologists, they can tap into a wealth of local knowledge and passion. More importantly, they can build the grassroots support needed to protect archaeological sites from looting, commercialization, and neglect.
As Connolly puts it, “If you cannot explain to the public why they should be funding this site museum and excavations, then you might as well go home.” Archaeology, after all, is a public discipline. By embracing avocational archaeologists, professionals can ensure that the field remains relevant, accessible, and, most importantly, ethical.
Conclusion: Poverty Point as a Beacon of Hope for Collaboration
The story of Poverty Point shows us what can be achieved when professionals and avocational archaeologists work together. Whether you’re a seasoned archaeologist or an enthusiastic hobbyist, we all share the same goal: to uncover, protect, and learn from the past.
Without the tireless efforts of avocational archaeologists like Clarence Webb, Carl Alexander, and Jerry Pankow, we wouldn’t know nearly as much about Poverty Point, Jaketown, or Claiborne. Their passion and dedication remind us that archaeology isn’t just a profession—it’s a shared love of history that crosses all boundaries.
References
Connolly, Robert P.
1997. Annual Report: Station Archaeology Program at the Poverty Point State Commemorative Area. Manuscript on file, Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge.
Connolly, Robert P.
2012. Scratching the Surface: The Role of Surface Collections in Solving the “Mystery” of Poverty Point. Louisiana Archaeology, 35:79–115.
Ford, J. A., and C. H. Webb
1956. Poverty Point, a Late Archaic Site in Louisiana. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, New York 46(1).
Gibson, Jon L.
1973. Social Systems at Poverty Point, an Analysis of Intersite and Intrasite Variability. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.