As an archaeologist and museum curator--as well as a member of the Society
for American Archaeology Committee on Ethics--these are topics I've spent
quite a bit of time thinking about.  I'm not at all sure I have answers, but
perhaps I can offer a different way of framing the questions.

First, the issue is not really between "professionals" and "amateurs," as
some posts seem to have suggested.  Some of the best and most significant
research has been and is still conducted by amateur archaeologists, who are
zealous in their methodological rigor and scholarly reporting, and tireless
in preserving and presenting archaeological evidence.

The distinction between collectors and archaeologists can be equally
misleading, albeit for other reasons.  It allows easy but fallacious
comparisons between museum collections and the result of collecting sui
generis, while ignoring the fundamental difference between the two
activities.  Simply stated--archaeologists don't dig to find things, they
dig to find things out.  That simple distinction has significant
implications, since most of the information conveyed by objects is derived
from context, not from the objects themselves.  Collectors focus on the
objects as possessions to be bought and sold, and along the way the stories
those objects tell about past lives--and our common human past--are
irretrievably lost.

Parallels are sometimes drawn with art, implicitly suggesting that
archaeological materials, like art objects, should likewise circulate as
both museum collections and commercial items subject to commercial trade.
From a collector's standpoint it makes perfect sense--why should museums
have all the neat things?  From the standpoint of archaeology the comparison
is arrant nonsense.  Paintings are a poor analogue--a better comparison
would be if art museums stored, conserved, studied and interpreted
paintings, while art collectors wanted only the paint itself.  I would ask
readers to carefully consider the discussion from this perspective.
Archaeologists object to the trafficking in antiquities because the
destruction of archaeological sites to obtain objects--instead of the
information we can gain from objects in context--is akin to scraping the
paint from a masterpiece because some folks have a deep appreciation for
paint chips from a Paul Klee or a Mondrian, and pay extra if it's got a
couple of different colors on it.

'nuff said.  Any opinions are mine alone, and subject to the usual caveats
applying to emails written at 2am.

AB

____________________________________

Alex W. Barker
Curator of Archaeology
Dallas Museum of Natural History
PO Box 150349 Dallas, TX 75315-0349
(214) 421-3466 ext. 244 [log in to unmask]

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).