David Haberstich wrote:
>
> Mr. Handy, thanks for sending your original response. It's easy to see
> why it aroused so much furor. Your response, in a word, was
> undiplomatic. And I'm afraid your tone was arrogant. Also, was it really
> necessary to hurl the accusatory epithet "pot hunters"? Although
> extremely mild within the universe of pejorative labels, the term, when
> applied to people in this context, obviously could arouse indignation.
> Hobbyists have feelings, just like members of other minority groups. I
> think you missed an opportunity to educate your correspondent in a
> non-judgmental way, and your suggestion that it's somehow his duty to
> bring his collection to your institution, where he can "visit" it
> anytime, demonstrates insensitivity to the very real passions of
> hobbyists and collectors (without whom many museums could never have
> even come into existence in the first place), as well as a rather
> unrealistic and contradictory attitude for a museum to take--do you
> really want to be inundated with gift offers from collectors with
> materials of undocumented provenance? I think you owe your correspondent
> an apology.
>
> --David Haberstich
I appreciate your comments, although after being called a "Commie",
"NAZI", "Hitler", etc. by some of his fellow pot hunters, I doubt that I
will now issue an apology. I have a tendency to call a spade a spade
and we do use the term Pot Hunter often and in a pejorative sense. We
simply do not like them. They have raped our plantation and civil war
sites unmercifully. Most of them do not collect, they find an sell;
perhaps to collectors but nevertheless, once gone their booty will never
be retrieved. I am not very diplomatic when it comes to that.
A cursory glance at the many responses would quickly convince you that
no amount of diplomacy would sway these folks from their belief that it
is their absolute right to take whatever they want. The following from
our colleague in Ontario states that attitude very well.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate your feedback and will probably approach
future inquiries a little more gently.
Bob Handy
The question of how best to deal with "metal detectorists" and their
activities has long been a very thorny one here in Ontario. While you
were, no doubt, right to point out that archaeologists generally take a
dim view of detectorists and their pernicious habit of stripping
potentially significant archaeological sites of their metal artefacts,
there are a number of other factors to consider and approaches which
might be taken more profitably.
In Ontario, the law requires that all forms of archaeogical survey,
exploration, and excavation may be undertaken only by qualified persons
who are in possession of a government-issued license for that purpose.
The difficulty is that metal detecting falls into a gray area inasmuch
as there is no adequate legal definition of what activities constitute
"doing" archaeology. I have always encouraged metal detector owners to
join the Ontario Archaeological Society and to volunteer their services
on licensed archaeological excavations, surveys, etc. Their assistance
would, in many instances, be gratefully received by many professional
archaeologists.
Where the metal detector owner insists that his/her activities are
harmless at worst, or benign at best, even, or especially, since all
his/her finds are donated to local museums, I find it necessary to point
out a number of things, starting with the fact that the knowing
disturbance or destruction of an archaeological site is illegal (at
least here it is). Some other points which I've found useful and which I
offer for your consideration are as follows:
1) The accurate dating and cultural interpretation of many an
archaeological site is dependent on the archaeologist having a full and
complete understanding of the artefact inventory associated with that
site. If all the metal artefacts have been removed from the site prior
to the archaeologist's excavations, a vitally important part of the
archaeological record has been destroyed. This is especially important
on early Contact-period aboriginal sites where the presence or absence
of European metal trade goods (or fragments thereof) - even a single
piece of cut copper from a trade kettle, for example - can make a
tremendous difference in the position of a given site within the local
or regional cultural chronological and developmental sequence.
2) Conversely, from the archaeologist's and the museum's point of view
(and even a collector's, as well) an artefact's scientific and material
value is inextricably linked to it's provenance. Even the most fabulous
artefact loses all it's potential to provide useful information about
the poeple who made it or used it if we have no accurate idea of where
it originated and the other kinds of artefacts, architectural features,
environmental conditions, etc., with which it was originally associated.
It is therefore imperative that all artefacts be recovered under
carefully controlled conditions and that ALL pertinent information
concerning the circumstances of its recovery be fully recorded at the
time.
3) Analysis and interpretation of archaeological collections, and their
subsequent reanalysis/reinterpretation using newly developed analytical
methods, demands that the collections be kept as complete as possible.
For that reason, (and following from 1, above)those who participate in
archaeological excavations, surveys, etc., are not permitted to keep the
artefacts they find.
4) Finally, I try to point out that a nation's history and the artefacts
that tell the story are part of its cultural patrimony and thus the
property of all of its people. The physical evidence of the nation's
historical development (the artefacts) should not be treated as the
private property of a privileged few, to be bought and sold for the
benefit of any individual. Rather, they should be celebrated as the
common cultural and intellectual property of all the people. To take the
artefacts for one's self is to deprive the rest of the people of a part
of their common history. It often proves a hard concept for some people
to grasp - especially if they have been steeped in an intellectual
tradition which celebrates the rights of private property as being close
to inviolable. I imagine that it's not nearly as big a problem
overcoming that mindset here in Canada as it might be in the USA.
I hope that you'll find this to be of some help. It's a very difficult
problem to deal with, I know. I wish you the very best of luck. Let me
know how you get on.
Regards,
Chris J.-Andersen
|
