I am surprised that this article has elicited no interest from the listserve
members (perhaps you hashed it all out at the meeting in Mobile?) The article
raises several questions, but primarily, who has determined the sites that
our "dig-guy" mucks about in as insignificant? Why do places like the Fuller
Museum seem so taken with archaeological plunder? How can the NY Times write
an article without getting the other point of view, from those in the
archaeological field?

It seems that if turn around were fair play, that I should decide, with my
art training, to be the art-girl, and take some lesser known modiglianis or
perhaps some hoppers and Parrishes and cut them up to recontextualize the
different shades of blue, they really are more fun from a painting than
getting them at the art store! Perhaps Mr. Dion can start development for
"artifact decopage," and give Martha Stewart a run for her money at K-Mart?
Perhaps we can decontextualize some rare species next, and rearrange the
anatomy of a bengal tiger to suit a new and interesting aestetic sense "a la
Mr. Dion?" What does it matter that it destroys something in the process that
is irreplaceable?

It is appalling that this kind of mucking about can be written up, condoned
and celebrated by several museums and has readers left with the idea that
this is not doing harm to archaeological sites now and potentially in the
future.

 Tonia Deetz Rock