Nice job Kevin! We missed you at the SHA.
I particularly like your point about the motivation of pothunters. Many of
my experience profess an almost spiritual or mystical connection to the
objects and the people who used them. The money is a big part of the game
but not the whole point. Maybe one of the reason for the unproductive
discussion between "us" and "them" (oh, those binary oppositions sure come
in handy) is that we have underestimated the reverence underlying the whole
pothunting world. After all, thousands of civil war site visitors--and it is
the Civil War world that has the most active pothunters--are not purchasing
some dumb minnie ball or horse buckle to resell it at a higher price. they
want a connection to an event, an ancestor, a mythical simpler time. What
would Tony Horowitz have to say about his? And where do we sit in that goal?

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin M. Bartoy <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: clandestine digging or dough


>Phil-
>
>You bring up ... as always ... an interesting point that I have been
>troubled with as of late as well.
>
>Let me pose a suicidal premise ... the Public does not need archaeology but
>archaeologists sure as hell need the Public.
>
>I don't think that we fully recognize the depth of that statement. If we
>look to arguments against pothunting or arguments for public outreach ...
>they are bolstered by the belief that archaeology has an intrinisic worth.
>The more and more that I have thought about it ... and the more and more
>that I think about the "uses and abuses of history" (to steal a nice phrase
>from Nietzsche) ... the less and less I am persuaded by arguments that
>stress the worth, merit, glory, etc. of archaeology. Archaeology ... in
>large part ... remains an antiquated pursuit that has little to offer the
>present ...
>
>But ... perhaps ... I speak incorrectly. Perhaps ... archaeology does have
>much to offer ... and it is the archaeologists who have little to offer the
>present.
>
>In a recent issue of Historical Archaeology ... Randall McGuire and Mark
>Walker (I believe) discussed the class aspirations and self-interest that
>dominate archaeological discourse ... in the academic world and beyond.
>These are issues that few of us would like to face. These issues strike out
>not only at archaeology but at the entire academic system. How many
>individuals seek degrees for the sake of knowledge and in the pursuance of
>their duty to society? How many more seek their degrees to "get a job,"
>"enhance their prestige," "achieve that middle to upper class status that
>accompanies the letters that we place at the end of our names"?
>
>
>Although this might be a bit of digression from the initial topic ... I
>think that the points are directly related.
>
>Why should archaeological resources be given special consideration? Is the
>preservation of these resources merely a cry of self-preservation?
>
>I believe that until we are willing to face up to our social duty and moral
>responsibility as intellectuals ... we should not speak so high-handedly
>against pothunters. Pothunters are not solely motivated by monetary gain
>... although many are. There is a reason for pothunting that we have failed
>to grasp ... and I think that we have failed to grasp it because the
>problem is not "out there" ... the problem is within our ranks.
>
>Kevin.
>
>
>At 11:14 AM 1/20/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>I know a guy who bought a pipe. It was not a big deal--one of the 18th c.
>>type that are common on sites and can be found in any antique mall. The
>>seller told him it was dug somewhere in the 1950s. It had been in
>>circulation for some time and this guy, an honest and respectable fellow
who
>>likes to collect old stuff could not really see why his archaeologist
>>friends winced at his story.
>>
>>I explained that any sale of objects fuels the further sale of objects
which
>>in turn threatens all sites by creating a financial incentive to loot them
>>and rob them of their contributive potential. I think we all agree with
that
>>simple position. I offered to take the guy to any number of nice Civil War
>>sites nearby that have been torn apart by pothunters to demonstrate the
>>damage. Furthermore I heard that the UN is getting interested in
>>international laws restricting the trade in objects--others are concerned
>>too.
>>
>>The chat with this guy brought some issues back up for me. The fact is
that
>>we don't control the world. Park sites obviously have their own enforced
>>rules, but farmers' fields do not. In America property rights are a very
>>powerful force and it is hard to mount a truly transcendent argument
against
>>legal pothunting. So often our arguments against pothunting sound like a
>>territory squabble and we are caught in a contradiction--we want people to
>>respect and take interest in the material past, but we also want to
control
>>or deny their access to it for their own uses and appreciation. Pothunters
>>in their writings point out that there are countless thousands of
artifacts
>>packed away in archaeological warehouses that will never see the light of
>>day. They see this as meanspirited elitist hoarding. Obviously, this view
>>stems from a narrow and uninformed view of archaeology, but we still have
to
>>engage with critiques like these. Is there a powerful antipothuntng
argument
>>that is better than the one I outlined in the second paragraph? I know
that
>>there are lots of strong feelings here, but I would be interested if
anyone
>>has mounted a persuasive and effective argument against pothunting that
>>pothunters can recognize.
>>
>>Phil Levy
>>
>