If one is interested in cultural property issues, one quickly notices that the archaeological blogosphere is full of highly moralistic denunciations of those who collect unproveanced artifacts, including those as common as coins.
One suspects this only carries over from the official pronouncements of archaeological groups like the Archaeological Institute of America. See http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10352
The AIA's website suggests that most of its ethical pronouncements relate to the perceived evils of the antiquities trade, and, indeed, they go so far as to suggest AIA members should inform the authorities about suspected illegal exports and imports of archaeological material. (In my opinion, this stricture may unfortunately be taken by some to authorize "witch hunts" for illicit antiquities.)
Archaeological groups are free to write their own ethical rules, but when those rules largely focus on the activities of others, outsiders are also entitled to wonder some about it.
In particular, why not more emphasis on requiring AIA members to:
"Seek to ensure that the exploration of archaeological sites be conducted according to the highest standards under the direct supervision of qualified personnel, and that the results of such research be made public."
Certainly, proper publication and conservation of archaeological artifacts is an important, but seemingly underemphasized issue, at least when it comes to the archaeological blogosphere. It is perhaps easier to criticize others outside of one's discipline, but if it is all about preserving the world's culture, isn't it also important for the archaeological community to monitor whether its own house is in order too?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Peter,
Do you have some evidence suggesting that AIA members are particularly bad at applying high standards to their work or that they do not publicize the results of this work?
If you do, let's hear it.
(Not that this has any bearing on the cultural property issue of the collecting of unprovenanced objects.)
John- For example, coin finds are rarely published let alone made easily accessible to the public. Take Morgantina, in Sicily, for example. There was a book about coin finds, but it dates from 1989, with the finds listed being even older. One would hope over time a lot of this stuff could be made available on the Internet, but it hasn't yet.
The anti-collector archeological bloggers are fascinated by the recording of stratification. They are disappointed at the loss when looters dig without recording object position. I've never studied archaeology formally but Wikipedia suggests excavations are recorded using a "Harris matrix". I would imagine x,y,z coordinates could also be kept for objects.
I've been unsuccessful finding a "Harris matrix" or x,y,z coin coordinates for *any* coin hoards. It has been suggested that the information is kept in excavator's notebooks but not published.
If this is true it seems dangerous... data that isn't "backed up" through publishing or having copies sent to multiple archives is in danger of being lost through fires and floods. Is it true stratigraphic information is not preserved? (I would love to be mistaken!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratification_(archeology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_matrix
Ed- Also, I have heard that if archeologists don't sieve the earth the excavate, they will miss most of the coins, and if they do sieve, frequently the coins are so small they fall through anyway. It is my understanding they don't use metal detectors either, so they miss alot to begin with.
Best,
Peter Tompa
Peter and Ed,
Rather than speculate about what might happen on a dig, why not try going on one? There are plenty that take volunteers. Or maybe try asking a practicing archaeologist how these things work. I'm sure many will be happy to answer.
Ed, try reading some excavation reports. You'll find all sorts of information about the specific location of finds. And, yes, you are mistaken. Italy, for example, requires info on all finds be reported to the archaeological superintendency.
It would be nice if lots of things were on the internet. Google has of course scanned the 1989 tome on the Morgantina coins, but getting all the data digitized and available isn't easy or cheap.
BTW, Peter, interesting that you should pick Morgantina as your example. Looting at the site has been widely noted. Without Prof. Bell and the decades of excavation there, we wouldn't have any idea where those looted objects came from. Just this month in fact, Looting Matters had a post on this topic: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/02/morgantina-antiquities-set-for-return.html
John- A lot of my information has come from archaeologists, albeit not the ones who blog negatively about collectors. (No, I won't name them publicly-- why put them through the grief they would certainly receive from some of the bloggers.)
As to Prof. Bell, since he has been at the forefront of arguing for restrictions on collectors (including coin collectors) doesn't he have a special obligation that he publishes such material in a timely fashion?
I understand it takes some effort to publish-- even on the internet--but shouldn't that come first before new digs each year? Why not a rule, no new digging until one finishes publishing what one has? That certainly should speed up the process.
Best,
Peter Tompa
http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/news/newsDetails/kress-funds-coin-project-at-corinth/
"Kress Funds Coin Project at Corinth"
This would qualify as one of those examples of academics publishing their work. And one of those things you said wouldn't happen without collectors.
For some reason, it is not coming up. Even if so, bravo, but we need far more, particularly from archaeologists who claim collectors must be restricted to encourage archaeological study.
Best,
Peter Tompa
For some reason, it is not coming up. Even if so, bravo, but we need far more, particularly from archaeologists who claim collectors must be restricted to encourage archaeological study.
Best,
Peter Tompa
Post a Comment