ScubaFinder
Bronze Member
- Jul 11, 2006
- 2,220
- 530
- Detector(s) used
- AquaPulse AQ1B - AquaPulse DX-200 Magnetometer
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
Lets Discuss (like gentlemen) "The Great Divide" - Artifact Sales
Ivan Salis had a great post about two men on a mountain, one on top looking down, the other at the bottom looking up. One sees a tall mountain, the other sees a deep valley, but they are both looking at the same ground. Both are "correct" on what they see from their standpoint, but both are wrong when viewed from the others standpoint....sound like anything we discuss here much? This story is a great analogy for archaeologists and treasure hunters.
I want this to be a CIVIL thread, no name calling or finger pointing. Leave the past out of it, and lets talk about the future and how we can make it better for both sides. I believe that there are good salvors (because I am one) who want to (or already do) use archaeological best practices from the initial search to the conservation of the last artifact. I also believe there are archaeologists who have an open enough mind to see that private companies can help them more than they hurt them. The great divide as I call it stems from the sale of artifacts. The archaeological community feels that artifacts should never, ever, under any circumstances be sold to an individual collector. The Treasure hunters for the most part believe in finders, keepers. There is another group, the one I claim...known as ethical, private archaeologists as coined by Doug Pope from Amelia Research.
I believe there IS common ground...maybe I'm an idiot, but I do believe it. :-) Here are my other beliefs, and I'd like to hear yours too, whichever side of the fence you stand on.
I believe archaeological standards should be followed on EVERY excavation. And they ARE being followed on the 1715 fleet, 1733 fleet, 1622 wrecks, everything I touched in the Dominican Republic and Belize, and most private salvage projects I have read about post 1980. There are pirates, there are unethical salvors too. These folks should never be granted permission from anyone to touch any part of history, and they should be arrested and fined heavily for doing so.
I believe that EVERYTHING pulled off of a shipwreck should be viewed, studied, photographed, and cataloged by the most qualified historian, specialist, or archaeologist available.
I believe EVERY artifact that is unique should find its way to a public venue like a museum, special collection, etc.
I believe that once a representative collection of "redundant artifacts" is assembled, including study collections sent to other universities and whatever else the archaeological community NEEDS, even if it's a large pile of many thousands of coins for a display....that the rest should NOT become a fiscal liability to the state or the tax payers. Storing, preserving, and securing 500,000 coins is a costly endeavor, and not a good use of the limited funding received by the archaeological community. Furthermore, there is no argument ever given by any archaeologist that convinces me that we need that many identical coins from a given shipwreck for study, education, display, or any other venue.
By "redundant Artifacts" I of course mean things where you find more of one exact item than archaeologists could ever need. The Pipe Wreck in Monte Cristi is a great example, over 30,000 clay pipes from one wreck...do the archaeologists really need 30,000 virtually identical clay pipes to get a good understanding of pipe-making procedures? Of course they don't, so what's wrong with a private collector owning one or two? I know for a FACT that every archaeologist who's worked on the wreck has a few of them in HIS personal collection, so why can't they be in mine? To avoid any future problems, there are 5 of them in my personal collection, and in Robert Stenuit's, and Simon Spooners, and Dr. E Lee Spence's, and Peter Throckmorton's, etc. etc. etc.
I believe that once the above conditions are satisfied, the additional coins, musket balls, pottery shards, etc. should be made available for sale, provided that the proceeds go towards funding further research and excavation of other shipwrecks. Think what the state of Florida could do if they kept their incredibly complete collection of Spanish Colonial Coins and all of their other unique and wonderful artifacts...but sold a few hundred thousand of the redundant coins in the vault in Tallahassee. They would have the funding that they lack now to go out and do some exploring of their own. Currently they are stuck at their desks while we do all the work, it's not hard to understand why they spend their time trying to regulate us to death. We would too if the tables were turned!
To break my question down...every archaeologist that I know has hundreds if not thousands of artifacts in his "personal collection". So why then do these same archaeologists condemn me for allowing others to have them in their personal collection. I don't want to sell artifacts to become rich, I want to sell them to fund more research, exploration, and discovery, and conservation of MORE artifacts.
The old argument that no artifact should ever be sold no matter what just doesn't hold up in today's economy. Government funding for historical operations is vanishing, and archaeology students are going to find a very challenging job market as they come out of schools. The wrecks are not in a state of equilibrium (one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard) they are being destroyed by weather, looters, and the slow oxidation or consumption that occurs with everything laying in the ocean.
By selling a few of the artifacts that we don't need for study, we can save thousands more artifacts that we do need. Someone kindly explain to me the problem with that.
Ivan Salis had a great post about two men on a mountain, one on top looking down, the other at the bottom looking up. One sees a tall mountain, the other sees a deep valley, but they are both looking at the same ground. Both are "correct" on what they see from their standpoint, but both are wrong when viewed from the others standpoint....sound like anything we discuss here much? This story is a great analogy for archaeologists and treasure hunters.
I want this to be a CIVIL thread, no name calling or finger pointing. Leave the past out of it, and lets talk about the future and how we can make it better for both sides. I believe that there are good salvors (because I am one) who want to (or already do) use archaeological best practices from the initial search to the conservation of the last artifact. I also believe there are archaeologists who have an open enough mind to see that private companies can help them more than they hurt them. The great divide as I call it stems from the sale of artifacts. The archaeological community feels that artifacts should never, ever, under any circumstances be sold to an individual collector. The Treasure hunters for the most part believe in finders, keepers. There is another group, the one I claim...known as ethical, private archaeologists as coined by Doug Pope from Amelia Research.
I believe there IS common ground...maybe I'm an idiot, but I do believe it. :-) Here are my other beliefs, and I'd like to hear yours too, whichever side of the fence you stand on.
I believe archaeological standards should be followed on EVERY excavation. And they ARE being followed on the 1715 fleet, 1733 fleet, 1622 wrecks, everything I touched in the Dominican Republic and Belize, and most private salvage projects I have read about post 1980. There are pirates, there are unethical salvors too. These folks should never be granted permission from anyone to touch any part of history, and they should be arrested and fined heavily for doing so.
I believe that EVERYTHING pulled off of a shipwreck should be viewed, studied, photographed, and cataloged by the most qualified historian, specialist, or archaeologist available.
I believe EVERY artifact that is unique should find its way to a public venue like a museum, special collection, etc.
I believe that once a representative collection of "redundant artifacts" is assembled, including study collections sent to other universities and whatever else the archaeological community NEEDS, even if it's a large pile of many thousands of coins for a display....that the rest should NOT become a fiscal liability to the state or the tax payers. Storing, preserving, and securing 500,000 coins is a costly endeavor, and not a good use of the limited funding received by the archaeological community. Furthermore, there is no argument ever given by any archaeologist that convinces me that we need that many identical coins from a given shipwreck for study, education, display, or any other venue.
By "redundant Artifacts" I of course mean things where you find more of one exact item than archaeologists could ever need. The Pipe Wreck in Monte Cristi is a great example, over 30,000 clay pipes from one wreck...do the archaeologists really need 30,000 virtually identical clay pipes to get a good understanding of pipe-making procedures? Of course they don't, so what's wrong with a private collector owning one or two? I know for a FACT that every archaeologist who's worked on the wreck has a few of them in HIS personal collection, so why can't they be in mine? To avoid any future problems, there are 5 of them in my personal collection, and in Robert Stenuit's, and Simon Spooners, and Dr. E Lee Spence's, and Peter Throckmorton's, etc. etc. etc.
I believe that once the above conditions are satisfied, the additional coins, musket balls, pottery shards, etc. should be made available for sale, provided that the proceeds go towards funding further research and excavation of other shipwrecks. Think what the state of Florida could do if they kept their incredibly complete collection of Spanish Colonial Coins and all of their other unique and wonderful artifacts...but sold a few hundred thousand of the redundant coins in the vault in Tallahassee. They would have the funding that they lack now to go out and do some exploring of their own. Currently they are stuck at their desks while we do all the work, it's not hard to understand why they spend their time trying to regulate us to death. We would too if the tables were turned!
To break my question down...every archaeologist that I know has hundreds if not thousands of artifacts in his "personal collection". So why then do these same archaeologists condemn me for allowing others to have them in their personal collection. I don't want to sell artifacts to become rich, I want to sell them to fund more research, exploration, and discovery, and conservation of MORE artifacts.
The old argument that no artifact should ever be sold no matter what just doesn't hold up in today's economy. Government funding for historical operations is vanishing, and archaeology students are going to find a very challenging job market as they come out of schools. The wrecks are not in a state of equilibrium (one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard) they are being destroyed by weather, looters, and the slow oxidation or consumption that occurs with everything laying in the ocean.
By selling a few of the artifacts that we don't need for study, we can save thousands more artifacts that we do need. Someone kindly explain to me the problem with that.