Amy's post is well-taken, I think.  Yes, it is still inappropriate for museum
staff to provide values in certain instances (donations), but a lot of catalogin
g
systems require the entry of some estimate.

She's quite right, too, about the reluctance (nay, rampant hostility) of
archeologists to put values on artifacts.  On the one hand, they fear fostering
the trade in artifacts (which does quite well without their participation) and
they believe the scientific value of an artifact with contextual information
takes it out of the realm of being just a piece for the shelf.

On the other hand, I believe any collection manager who does not become
actively aware of the approximate "rip-off" value of the individual and
collective material in his/her care is not being realistic.  All artifacts may b
e
equally important scientifically, but there'll be a lot more hell raised if 30
complete Pueblo pots are stolen than if 30 unknown artist's brushes are
stolen from the same storage locker.  The public will want to know why
greater security was not provided for objects that have a far greater value
on the market, and arguments that they are "equally valuable to science"
will be lame indeed!

Tom V.
--

Tom Vaughan            \_    Cultural
The Waggin' Tongue      \_    Resource
<[log in to unmask]>               \_    Management,
11795 Road 39.2                     \_    Interpretation,
Mancos, CO 81328  USA           \_    Planning, &
    (970) 533-1215                           \_    Training