Never fear the axe--it awaits us all.
Actually "pothunters" (I use the term parenthetically now) publish in their
own journals. Some of the work is quite well informed if a bit on the
antiquarian side. many of them fancy themselves better identification
experts that the pros.
Meanwhile many professionally dug sites never produce meaningful research.
I don't mean this as a sanction (God help us) but rather as a way to
complicate the picture.

-----Original Message-----
From: RCL <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: clandestine digging for dough


>(I'm a student, so I may be putting my neck on a block and handing someone
>an ax, but...)
>
>A pot-hunter rips stuff out of the ground, washes the crud off it, and
>hocks it or puts it on a shelf or in a barrel to admire. An archaeologist
>painstakingly excavates a site, uses deionized water to carefully clean the
>artifacts he recovered, and curates everything in a climate-controlled
>warehouse. What's the difference? I would maintain that, at this
>point,  there is none. The difference comes later.  The archaeologist
>analyzes what he has found, carefully describes it, draws conclusions based
>on the material he's recovered and his subsequent research, and publishes
>the whole thing, publicly tossing his skeet up for others to shoot at.
>Whether his conclusions are accepted or refuted, the net result is some
>incremental increase in overall knowledge about the past. The key is the
>PUBLICation  and doing so in a forum that is accessible to as many other
>people - professionals, interested amateurs, students, curiosity seekers,
>anyone - as possible. I'm not convinced that it's possible to consider as
>"publication"  the sending of a single copy of a report to a company, a
>governmental agency, or even a university unless there is some means to get
>at least an abstract widely disseminated and to allow the report itself to
>occasionally emerge from its hidden file.
>         Yes, I realize there are funding problems to be faced, but I
>question if any project, archaeological or otherwise, has ever been really
>"properly" funded. The must-have elements are still completed. Perhaps it's
>time to consider proper publication as a must-have element?
>
>Robert C. Leavitt
>UNR Retread Student
>
>At 1/20/00 13:28 , you wrote:
>>I sure hit pay dirt this morning eh?
>>
>>(2 paragraphs clipped out)
>>
>>What does our stewardship mean to a woman who turns up a bunch of bottles
>>and creamware in her yard? Is she a renegade for keeping them in a box or
>>selling them at an antique mall? For me I feel, at the emotional level, a
>>deep discomfort if she sells them. But is that feeling tied to anything
more
>>than self preservation--again I ask is there a moral or transcendent
>>argument against these activities?
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kevin M Bartoy <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 3:06 PM
>>Subject: Re: clandestine digging or dough
>>
>>
>> >Well ... I don't think that medicine is an appropriate analogy for this
>> >situation since people actually ... at least at times ... need medicine
>> >to live. However ... people do not need archaeology to live ... and in
>> >fact ... it may be argued that they don't need the past at all.
>> >
>> >Whenever I hear that common statement along the lines of "knowing our
>> >past so that we don't repeat our mistakes" ... I am always struck by the
>> >fact that it is seldom heeded. History is little more than a chronicle
of
>> >repititious mistakes. If we truly wanted to learn from the past ...
there
>> >are many examples that could give us great insight as to our present
>> >predicament.
>> >
>> >I think what this discussion really started as was an evaluation of what
>> >the past means and perhaps what is the use, value, etc. of the past in
>> >relation to our present. I think it is rather pompous of us to think
that
>> >we operate on a "public mandate" ... especially when archaeologists
seldom
>> >involve themselves in the public sphere beyond their self-interests.
>> >
>> >Kevin.
>> >
>
>Cogito, ergo cogito sum.
>