I have a couple of qualifications to add:

Regardless of the circumstances under which we investigate a site, we must do so with research questions and not simply because somebody is damaging the site. To do otherwise puts us at risk of devoting considerable effort and resources to no avail and, in the end, convincing the collectors of what they already know: archaeology finds neat things, but doesn't really produce any new knowledge, regardless of how carefully one digs and records. Professional archaeologists just find more and smaller things and their techniques are easily mimicked.

A site that has been damaged to the point where it has doubtful potential to answer any meaningful questions probably should be avoided. Again, if we are likely to walk away with more stuff, but no significant new insights into the past, then we haven't taught anybody anything.

In general, the discipline regards the excavation of a site for purely educational purposes as an ethically doubtful undertaking. While the concern in the past has been the conduct of university field schools on sites for which meaningful research questions have not been articulated, and appropriate methods selected to recover the data with which to answer those questions, the concern should also account for teaching amateurs.

Finally (for now, at any rate), we tend to regard archaeological resources as finite and irreplaceable. Unfortunately, we do not apply these same considerations to our time, equipment, materiel, and, most of all, funds. These too are historic resources that should be conserved; viz., used wisely. Using those resources to make a point to collectors who may well miss that point, and using large reserves of resources to teach a single collector or small group of collectors, seems unwise. Bang for the buck is certainly one criterion that should be considered before committing scarce resources to the investigation of a scarce resource.
 
 
 
James G. Gibb

Gibb Archaeological Consulting

2554 Carrollton Road

Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403

443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)

www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
 
On 06/11/12, Susan Walter<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
I agree the better action would be to go ahead, get involved (cautiously), 
and teach the correct views.

One thing that I find really catches the public's attention is when 
archaeologists get all excited over what seems to be "junk." YOU all know 
what I mean - little sherds, those seemingly insignificant bits of glass, 
etc. When they get around to dividing it up, see if you can get the 
diagnostic fragments into an assemblage, and let them know those are more 
important (to you) than that one whole bottle. Maybe the landowner would 
allow those items to go to the historical society to become a teaching 
collection for the local schools.

At any rate, good luck. And, by the way, your sensitivity to this issue is 
wonderful.

S. Walter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard W Galloway" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Ethics Question


> Robin, given the recent TV shows that show the Bad side of private
> "archaeologists" I would say that this is a perfect opritunity to teach
> not only those in the group there, but everyone that they will interact
> with down the road, the proper way to do archaeology and how to treat
> the artifacts once they are uncovered. With your guidance this could be
> a great benefit to the archaeology of the area as well as all those
> involved and the people they interact with. Like with most things, there
> is a good common ground between the "high" road and the "low" road where
> all can benefit.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On 6/11/2012 6:34 PM, Mills, Robin O wrote:
>> Dear Histarch,
>>
>> I have been approached by a local historic society that is interested in 
>> conducting an annual "dig". They want to do a real excavation, and want 
>> to save appropriate data from the site, and thus are looking for 
>> appropriate guidance on methods and what-not. Now, the site they propose 
>> digging is on private land, so the artifacts that are dug up will belong 
>> to the landowner. [Although Histarch members may come back with "Not 
>> necessarily so..." in their neck of the woods, that is the case here]. 
>> This sounds all well and good and potentially a win-win situation for all 
>> involved, except that the local society is advertising that they want to 
>> divide up the artifacts after the dig is over. The landowner keeps what 
>> he wants, the local museum would get some, and those people that excavate 
>> would get some, too. Mmm.....
>>
>> Now, the dig WILL proceed whether I or anyone else from the 
>> archaeological community is involved or not. And, legally, the landowner 
>> CAN do what he wants with 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 involved 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 from a controlled dig (they want to put me in 
>> charge), and hopefully engage and teach archaeological conservation and 
>> morals to all those involved.
>>
>> Part of me says "Run for the hills!". However, I find the latter more 
>> appealing, and potentially more rewarding for the resource in the long 
>> run, but am interested in what the Histarch community has to say on the 
>> matter before making a final decision.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Robin Mills
>> Archaeologist
>> Bureau of Land Management
>> Fairbanks District Office, Alaska
>
> -- 
> Cordially:
>
> Richard W. Galloway
> Historical Archaeologist
> "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
> Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
> Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
> Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
> Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."
> ~ Calvin Coolidge, 1872-1933, Thirtieth President of the USA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.930 / Virus Database: 2433.1.1/5062 - Release Date: 06/10/12 
23:34:00