I now have very serious concerns about the relationship between National Geographic and archaeological professionals.

Nat Geo, despite the well-reasoned concerns voiced by every single professional organization in this field, continues to move toward programming that glorifies the commodification of artifacts. This is a very clear and unambiguous violation of professional codes of conduct.

While National Geographic is a major corporate brand with separate divisions and/or a not-for-profit wing, creating a legal distinction between its for-profit activities vs. research activities, at this point there remains no significant distinction between National Geographic as a corporate organization and any other treasure hunting or organization.

All professional archaeological organizations must move quickly to consider this issue and consider blocking all research or sponsored by National Geographic from presentations at the annual meetings and publication in their journals, book series, and/or web-based venues.

Doing anything less at this point creates liability in the differential treatment of "edu-tainment" and other not-for-profit salvage companies. In addition, we risk diluting our "brand" in the public perception of professional archaeological research and management and these popular dig-for-money-and-glory operations.

We either hold this ethical value in professional practice, or we do not.  Nat Geo is moving past the gray area and there must be consequences.

Cheers,
Tim


On Mar 28, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Kris Oswald wrote:

> Trying to compete with shows like Diggers and every other worthless
> Reality show now on the market
> Go to eBay and search out for WW2 German, you will find pages of dug
> relics coming from overseas , Latvia and Poland
> To name a few along with total fakes reproduced and sold as original
> items. They are flooding and feeding the internet market
> As we speak .. Antique dealers that sell Cemetery military metal
> service markers as well are in the same league  ..Grave robbers!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Davis, Daniel (KYTC)
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:27 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: National Geographic show
> 
> What's happened to the folks at NatGeo? Has some kind of reality-TV
> brain-eating virus infected their staff?
> 
> Daniel B. Davis 
> Archaeologist Coordinator 
> Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 
> Division of Environmental Analysis 
> 200 Mero Street 
> Frankfort, KY 40622 
> (502) 564-7250 or (502) 782-5013
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> geoff carver
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: FW: National Geographic show
> 
> OK: someone started a petition:
> https://www.change.org/petitions/the-national-geographic-channel-the-tra
> vel-
> channel-spike-tv-stop-airing-their-digger-programs-3
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> Ouch. Does anyone else think these two statements are compatible...?
> 
> " Untold numbers of soldiers and their weapons remain buried across the
> vast landscape of World War Two's Eastern Front. Three war diggers are
> racing against time to save this history from being looted or lost."
> 
> "No period of history is left untouched. Kris has dug up Iron Age
> relics, Roman coins and lots of WW2 / Battle of Britain artifacts,
> including regimental badges. It was only through metal detecting that
> Kris became obsessed about the history that surrounds all of us."
> 
> 
> They do provide a page on their site about "Responsible Metal
> Detecting"... 
> http://natgeotv.com/za/nazi-war-diggers/responsible-metal-detecting
> but I don't see anything about professional archaeological methods, or
> where these finds will end up.
> 
> Does Latvia have unusually lax heritage protection laws...? 
> WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL                                  THE POWER OF VISION     
> 
> This email message and any attachment(s) are for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may
> be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> 
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are
> not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
> the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachment(s)
> to the original message.
> 
> This email message does not form a binding contract or contract amendment with
> the sender, unless it clearly states in writing that it is a contract or contract amendment.