April 16, 2006
Archaeologists versus landowners and relic-hunters.
Landowners collect hundreds of dollars from relic-hunters, leaving archaeologists aghast as the historical context is stripped away from artifacts. Should legislators side with the archaelogists?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
While I would obviously regret the loss of context for these artifacts, I think the owner of the property is entirely in the right here. if archeaologists want to obtain or keep these artifacts from being moved, then they should spend their money to convince this man not to do it, rather than holding a gun to his head (which is basically what getting the government to legislate it is).
I argued that archaeologists would be better off working with the relic hunters to maximize the data gathering, thereby making this a win-win. After all, the professionals haven't gotten around to these sites in the past 140 years or so, so why wait until the relics have all rusted away?
Verification: Rahflme - a fundraiser for my hosting service bills? That oughta buy about three seconds of hosting.....
I posted the link and some comments here
I basically argue that it's doubtful anything can be done about activities on private property without running afoul of the Constitution. Some countries have laws claiming public ownership of artifacts recovered on private property, but that probably won't happen here.
On these two comments:
So why don't the archeologists enlist the aid of the relic hunters?
and
The archeologists should make the landowners a better offer than the relic hunters if it's that important to them, frankly.
It's a dilemma. If archaeologists go around paying people for artifacts they've dug up, that would just encourage more looting. Really just increasing the market for such objects. We certainly wish we had the time, money, and manpower (not to mention storage space and time, money, and manpower to analyze everything) to dig up everything that's out there. But the problem is, we don't want to dig up everything that's out there. As I mention in the post, the safest place for most artifacts is in the ground. There's little doubt that future archaeologists will be able to derive much more information from remains than we can, and seeing as the archaeological record is a non-renewable resource, the least we disturb it now the more will be left for the future.
Feel free to search for (and comment on!) other posts at ArchaeoBlog. It's a complicated issue and several people have argue for a market-based approach. I'm undecided but tend toward skepticism at the market-based ideas.
Post a Comment