Collectors of all shades consider us to be hypocritical because we are
trying to keep things for our enjoyment and stop anyone else getting
those things.  Where the problem appears to lie is that they do not
understand that their activities mean total restriction on the access to
those things (either because they are kept in their shed or are sold to
the highest bidder who then keeps them hidden) nor that their collection
of the material destroys irreplaceable information from the context.  I
have had a lot of arguments over the years with metal detectorists and
collectors about the difference between what they do and what I do, and
it never gets anywhere.  They always profess surprise that I cannot sell
or otherwise financially benefit from artefacts that I find, and refuse
to accept that storage in museums and publication in journals etc means
that there is wide access to the material that I find.  They also change
the subject when the issue about loss of information is raised.
However, confrontation is not the best solution, because they do have
useful information and many work exceptionally well with archaeologists
when they choose to participate in proper research projects.

Iain 

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anna
Lunn
Sent: 23 July 2009 15:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NY Times article

In the case of archaeologists being denigrated, perhaps bottle
collectors
and other amateurs are reacting toward the generally negative attitude
that
many professional archaeologists have for them. Many collectors honestly
do
not see us as doing anything different from what they are doing. They
don't
see the reports and the hours spent in labs analyzing artifacts and
writing
results. All they see is strangers coming in and taking what, in some
cases,
they feel "belongs" to them because they live in the area and have a
sense
of ownership toward certain sites. They don't understand what we are
contributing to historical records. And they may not care regardless.
Let's
face it, history isn't exactly seen as a top priority for most people.

Anna Lunn

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:09 AM, geoff carver <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Not what I meant by "example": I meant it more in the Orwellian sense
of
> Gore simultaneously being labeled both "intellectual" &
"anti-intellectual"
> as being an example of the nature of the current American "political"
> discourse that makes communication with Americans very difficult:
"liberal"
> is "left," "conservative" is "middle," Obama is simultaneously a
> "socialist," a "communist," a "liberal" and a "fascist," etc. (vs.
"war is
> peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength").
> Having just come back from a cycling trip along the Danube (lots of
Baroque
> & Rococo churches, monasteries, cathedrals, etc.), I would also
question
> whether "redistribution of wealth" was ever a "function of religion,"
nor
> how that relates to global warming. As I understand it, the "religion"
label
> is being used as a form of revenge by those were angered by the
rejection of
> "intelligent design" from school curricula because it was deemed
"religion"
> instead of "science." So this also seems like an example of
> anti-intellectualism, but not in the sense that you seem to intend.
> But to try to steer this back to questions of professionalism before
Anita
> loses patience with us, why does it generally seem acceptable for
amateur
> bottle-collectors & grave-robbers to go around looting stuff &
denigrate
> "professional archaeologists" & other members of the elite (hey: the
> so-called "scientists" don't know anything about evolution and/or
> global-warming, they're just out-of-touch members of some intellectual
elite
> trying to indoctrinate us all with their sick secular socialist
fantasies),
> while no one ever seems to suggest that hobbyists could start flying
747s,
> or do some brain surgery in their spare time?
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> I used Gore as an example.  He is intellectual enough to understand
that in
> general, society is anti-intellectual and easily steered.  He's a
> politician...not an expert on global warming.  And, the function of
religion
> (if I remember correctly) is to establish social mores or control,
explain
> the unexplainable, and redistribute wealth.  Within this context,
global
> warming as religion fits nicely in an anti-intellectual society.
Global
> warming could just as easily have been championed by Madonna or Bono,
or
> Hannah Montana for that matter.  At this point, if anyone could
> scientifically prove global warming as natural they would probably be
> ostracized.  He has an advantage because he will probably be dead and
gone
> before the next Ice Age:)
>