Bill,
 
You raise an interesting and unfortunate point of ethics and archaeology.
We face similar issues in underwater work, where often the only means of
censure against treasure hunters is "black-balling" them from publications
in journals and exclusion from museum display. Still, the controversy
between camps is fueled with ammuntion like treasure hunters acheiving much
more public exposure through popular publications and commercial displays.
The list is of course familiar with this tired argument.
 
The real question, as I see it, in such bitter exclusionist tactics is why
perpetuate the cycle of data-loss? We have found that even the most looted
sites can benefit from refocused archaeological attention-- we can't simply
write off sites because they have been previously looted. Can similar
issues be raised about publishing appropriate analyses of spurious
collections?
 
I hazzard to suggest that we, the community of professional archaeology,
are the ones who loose the most by such policies. I don't think this has to
be about sanctioning private collecting or treasure hunting, but instead
about maximizing the potential for learning. Is it ethical to turn a blind
eye to potentially informative artifacts because they haven't been
'appropriately excavated?'
 
I am curious to see what others think. I feel that communication is the
greatest priority in our field, but am personally opposed to treasure
hunting. A difficult issue, 'eh?
 
Oh, yes, Roberta... I suggest you look into the PTT grant for publication
of a monograph, etc. The deadline is fast approaching.
 
David Johnson.
 
 
At 01:30 PM 11/30/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Roberta Charpentier wrote on 11/30/97: "The story behind the collector is
>almost as fascinating as the artifacts."
>
>Does the collector have detailed documentation on the provenience, that
>is, site, exact location in the site, stratigraphy, and association with
>other artifacts? If the collection was not documented scientifically then
>it is of virtually no scientific value and is just a bunch of junk better
>suited for the trash dump. Hence, there would be no point in writing
>about it or seeking funding.
>
>If the items were excavated illegally, the museum has an ethical
>obligation not to accept the items for curation or display. It would be a
>further breach of ethics to publish a booklet on the material.
>
>I do not know if this is the situation here, but it is a common one
>facing small (and large) museums.
>
>Bill Adams
>