Robin, 

In the 1970s I worked for the State of Florida Division of Archives in their Underwater Archaeology Program.  They had a program that was somewhat intended to head off the rampant looting of shipwrecks by treasurehunters.  Basically they entered into a contract with a treasurehunter to excavate a known treasure shipwreck which the state would theoretically pay them to excavate.  Obviously the state couldn't afford to do that, so they agreed that the treasure hunter would get 75% of what was found, and the state 25%.  There were a whole range of care and precision in their excavation skills.  Since the treasure hunter was interested in the gold, silver, and etc. they encouraged the recovery of all the other "junk" to be used as trading stock in the later division.  The treasurehunter agreed to have a state agent on board their excavation boat (me and others) who did the initial recording of all artifacts and took them into possession to be sent to the state lab in Tallahassee for further prossessing, recording etc.  It was a bit of a deal with the devil, but it allowed for the collection of data that would otherwise be stolen or destroyed.  What did the treasurehunter get out of this you may ask?  The process provided provenience and authentication of the artifacts which increased their value which brought them more profit (many of the outfits were highly financed by investors looking to be attached to this sort of adventure).  What did the state get out it?  They got the locational and contextual data.  They got an incredible collection of "other junk" artifacts that as we all know often provide much more interesting detail of life aboard ship, the times, trade networks, etc and not just a monetary gain.  But as a biproduct they also got one of the largest and most comprehensive numismatic collections of Spanish coinage, and it is available for research.  The final division of artifacts was always a bit of horsetrading trying to get to an equitable split, but at least the state was given the opportunity to record and analyze what was recovered.  (BTW some of the treasure hunters rewarded their excavators with their first coin depending on how much work time they put in). 

As I said, it was a bit of a deal with the devil but it made the best of a truely bad situation.  Ironically, it seems that when you  transfer such a situation to a terrestrial environment, where artifacts are being looted from state owned lands, there would be no consideration for such deal making.  Unfortunately with underwater cultural resources there seems to be a certain attitude of out of sight out of mind.  Mind you, I certainly don't advocate this being done on a regular basis, but I think you have been given, as others have said, a teachable moment, an opportunity to explain why archeaolgists do what they do and an opportunity to salvage the data that may be destroyed without the advantage of archaeological methodolgy.  Furthermore, often at the end of the day when presented with the piles of non-diagnostic glass, metal, stone, pottery, etc, many people end up thinking that maybe they don't want any of those bits of "junk".  As others said, make sure that the ground rules are well established, especially about your role and how much authority you have, how much time you have to analyze the artifact before they get split up, how much is the landowner willing to help finance the operation, etc.  I would also heartily agree that some sort of research design should be worked up to guide the excavations, rather than willy-nilly digging whereever felt good.  

BTW: the experience working with treasurehunters early on in my career helped to deeply establish proper archaeological ethics in my mind and what direction I wanted to go with it.  

Good luck


Harding Polk II
[log in to unmask]




-----Original Message-----
From: Mills, Robin O <[log in to unmask]>
To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 6:34 pm
Subject: Ethics Question


Dear Histarch,
I have been approached by a local historic society that is interested in 
onducting an annual "dig". They want to do a real excavation, and want to save 
ppropriate data from the site, and thus are looking for appropriate guidance on 
ethods and what-not. Now, the site they propose digging is on private land, so 
he artifacts that are dug up will belong to the landowner. [Although Histarch 
embers may come back with "Not necessarily so..." in their neck of the woods, 
hat is the case here].  This sounds all well and good and potentially a win-win 
ituation for all involved, except that the local society is advertising that 
hey want to divide up the artifacts after the dig is over. The landowner keeps 
hat he wants, the local museum would get some, and those people that excavate 
ould get some, too.  Mmm.....
Now, the dig WILL proceed whether I or anyone else from the archaeological 
ommunity is involved or not. And, legally, the landowner CAN do what he wants 
ith the artifacts; keep, give away, put in museum, whatever.
I think you all see the dilemma: I could take the high horse and not want to be 
nvolved because of the ownership issue (i.e., as Dr. Jones so famously said, 
It belongs in a museum!").  Or, I can see the potential to salvage information 
rom a controlled dig (they want to put me in charge), and hopefully engage and 
each archaeological conservation and morals to all those involved.
Part of me says "Run for the hills!".  However, I find the latter more 
ppealing, and potentially more rewarding for the resource in the long run, but 
m interested in what the Histarch community has to say on the matter before 
aking a final decision.
Best,
Robin Mills
rchaeologist
ureau of Land Management
airbanks District Office, Alaska