I recently had a similar experience in Western Australia. I was contacted
by a local authority archaeologist who was concerned about a private
land-owner who had been excavating through the foundations of a 19th
century building located on his private property. The site was not
protected so the local authority was powerless to do anything about it. But
the guy had already got himself in the local paper and the local authority
were worried about other people digging over historical sites. Additionally
the site itself was potentially pretty important.

So we went and had a chat with the guy. It turns out he was an archaeology
enthusiast and was excavating with the best of intentions, but with no
knowledge of what he was doing. He wanted to find out what the structure
was. After discussions with the local authority archaeologist we decided
that we could do nothing, the result of which the site would be largely
destroyed by an amateur and we would learn nothing, or we could get
involved and salvage something from the process. We ended up doing the
latter. The result was that we excavated for a week, and gathered a large
amount of information about the structure. But most importantly we spent
time with the guy and his friends and managed to educate them as to why it
is important to do things properly, and we got ourselves in the local
papers spreading the same message to the community. We also used it as an
opportunity to train some students in excavation techniques. The end result
of running the dig was overwhelmingly positive for myself, the students,
the community and for the protection of heritage in that region.

My opinion is that you can take the higher moral ground and refuse to get
involved with amateurs, or you can take the pragmatic approach, accept that
people will dig with or without you, and get involved and try and get some
positive results out of it. My suggestion is that you negotiate some rules
before you get involved with this dig. If they want you to be in charge
that means they have to agree to do it your way. Insist that all excavators
need a bit of training if they are going to do things properly. Put a
couple of training "lectures" into the process that emphasise the
importance of preserving heritage rather than looting. Get them to agree
that all artefacts recovered get researched before being broken up and
handed out to people at the end. If they won't do this then don't be
involved.

Over the course of the dig the potential is that you can educate all of the
people participating as to why we do what we do, as well as getting
important salvage information. Most of them will realise that it isn't just
digging a hole, it's much harder than that, and will be less likely to go
digging on their own in future as a result. The potential good that comes
out of getting involved in this kind of thing outweighs the bad. Just make
sure you protect yourself by negotiating some ground rules first.

Hope this helps

Sean Winter

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Mills, Robin O <[log in to unmask]> 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
>