It seems to me that the real problem with
treasure hunting originates from the monetization
(if that is the correct word) of antiquities.
That is, the only thing that makes treasure hunting
interesting is the money. Someone cited the example
of Denmark, where treasure hunters were combing the spoil
piles for stuff the "real" archaeologists had missed. In
most countries, the antiquities laws are money-driven, just
as our marine salvage "antiquities" arrangements ultimately
seem to hinge on the money value of antiquities recovered.
I remember my shock and dismay a few years ago, when a
VERY PROMINENT marine archaeologist stated that the Titanic
project was REAL ARCHAEOLOGY because it was SCHOLARSHIP, but
the salvage of the Central America was not archaeology
because the Central America was "just" a treasure ship.
Just happens that I many years ago wrote an article about the
wreck, and I knew better, but that prominent figure in the field
was there, on national radio, right here in the U S of A, making
the false distinction between the Central America and the Titanic
on the basis of money value alone.
In most countries, people who find antiquities buried in the
ground must surrender them, in return for the money value. This
attitude imbedded in the law makes a marketplace even for the
output of real archaeology, and national antiquities agencies end
up in money-grubbing little exchanges of trinkets, rather than
evaluations of patrimony. The psychological effect of monetary
incentives, anywhere in the antiquity realm, is to degrade, debase,
and endanger the archaeological resource.
 
BTW, Anita, this angry old fart was 56 yesterday, so
there goes your average.