Introduction to the Theme “Pros and Cons of
Consulting Collectors”

Private Property Rights Versus Heritage Ownership: The
Conflict between Individual and Collective Rights

Collaboration in Archaeology between Professionals and
Amateur Collectors

Avocational Archaeologists and the Designation of a World
Heritage Site

The Benefits and Burdens of Private Artifact
Collections: A Perspective from Southwestern Germany

Grave Consequences: Crossing the Line with Collectors

Pragmatic Considerations for Responsible Collectors Who
Donate Their Collections to Museums

The Present and Future of Archaeologist-Collector
Collaboration

Collectors are indeed indebted to archaeology, but we must not forget the original transaction that created the science. It was founded by inquisitive collectors, but today the discipline has become radicalized by Retentionists: those who see the entire surface of the earth as a site, context as everything, private ownership as a curse, and the picking up of a common artifact by a newly inspired mind a tragedy. They are beholden less to inquiry than to political elites, domestic who fund them, and source-nation graspers who withhold permission to study while failing miserably to protect what is already on their soil. They are disdainful of the descendants of those cultures under research whose crops, woodlands, and minerals have been exhausted, leaving few resources but the shards of their ancestors' culture. For harvesting these they are vilified and prosecuted, along with those who deliver them to safer hands. Radical archaeologists, in forgetting the origin of their science, undermine its future. They fail to appreciate that the inspiration of an ancient object held in the hand of a child can lead to a lifetime of curiosity and contribution. As collectors we must never apologize, or limit our horizons. While cooperation with science is our duty, such duty attenuates as the threat of confiscation looms. As members of a world culture that values both science and individual ownership, it is not a crime but a privilege to give safe haven to the remains of cultures whose once vibrant lands have fallen to those who destroy them out of superstition or neglect.

Well said Scott. I am in awe of your eloquent statement but also in total agreement.

Well said, Scott!

I think this has been commented on before, but I wanted to add that carefully collected and curated beads from the Bead Museum in AZ were (mostly) sent to the Mingei. But then I heard that some of the beads were sold off at yard sale prices...and I can't help but wonder if the beads would have been better off returned to individual collectors, to enjoy as well as to be "re-curated" into future exhibits and collections. Institutionalizing everything is not the only way to go...individual collectors very often have decades of expertise that is hard for institutions to duplicate with their own staff.

I and many archaeologists have nothing against people collecting beads nor do we want to take every ancient bead and lock it away in a museum vault where no one can see it. What we DO deplore is the plundering of irreplaceable archaeological sites to supply the collector market... not just beads but all classes of artifacts including seals, figurines, jewelry, glassware, ceramics, etc., etc. The turmoil in the Middle East has brought the destruction of archaeological sites and the looting of museum collections there to an all-time high, and many of these items have made it to Europe, the US, and elsewhere. In essence, if you buy looted objects, you are buying stolen property. I don’t think a collector would be very happy if someone broke into their home and ran off with several bags of rare beads. Yet that is exactly how archaeologists and persons interested in preserving their cultural heritage in Iraq, Egypt, India, Thailand, Peru, and even the US feel when their sites or museums are ravaged.

The damage is not a hole here or there but the equivalent of city blocks destroyed. I attach images of the damage done at Antinopolis, Egypt, by looters in search of small finds, such as coins and beads. The other image shows unsaleable ceramics tossed aside by the looters in their quest for valuable items. A Google search for “looting archaeological sites” will reveal thousands of items related to this topic.

How does one distinguish between looted beads and those acquired by legal means? That is just about impossible to do. So the best policy is not to buy ancient beads that are of dubious origin and only buy from reputable dealers.

Collectors have added much to our fund of bead knowledge, but most dealing with old beads have had to rely at least a little bit on information provided by the archaeological record. Without that information, there can only guesses and assumptions.

I know there are many realistic archaeologists who fight a rear-guard action against the Retentionists' militancy. This was the theme of the journal TASART linked to, and similar views get published in related fields. But I don't agree that the burden of proof is on the seller to assure buyers that antiquities are "fair trade" or that buyers should avoid any class of things just because there is no such assurance. In the marketplace as it exists, and likely always will exist, sellers in these source countries have to be secretive even when selling things that have long been above ground, such as family heirlooms created by known ancestors and passed down. There are always corrupt officials who will seek to confiscate or demand bribes, and they could care less about digging or national treasures. No dealer in the west can get a straight answer out of the chain of supply, and the more the archaeologists and source-country politicians turn up the heat, the less the information flows. There is no such thing as a "reputable" dealer who knows the provenance of every object, unless they handle only high-end things traced through centuries of auctions, but somewhere in time behind this, there is a pit in the ground anyway. Archaeologists have to cooperate with corrupt regimes because they are the ones who grant permits to dig. What they don't have to do, but do anyway, is promote the permanent warehousing of common objects, which eventually come to ruin through neglect or are sold out the back door. A sensible policy would be to catalog what is excavated and sell duplicative items through a network of dealers, with certificates, which would generate funds for protection of sites and future excavation, depress the market prices for looted items, and provide buyers with surely genuine articles. Not one source country does this. As far as thefts from museums, yes, that is a crime, and specific stolen objects should be sought by customs in collector countries, but that is not the same as placing blanket restrictions on importers of mostly common things, who can not possibly get real information from sources. The ideas that middle-eastern museums have been widely looted or that artifacts of any source provide a significant funding for terrorism have been debunked, but they are always raised by apologists for the the warmongering nations (US, UK foremost) who are responsible for the unrest in the first place. Telling collectors to avoid things because they "might" have come from a "site" is unrealistic. Rather, better tell the archaeologists to use their lobbying and pulpits not against collectors, but against warmongering and corruption, and in favor of sensible engagement of the marketplace and turning cultural pride in source countries toward vastly better funded identification and protection of significant sites.

Karlis' picture reminded me of the 30 foot high mounds of debris with millions of pottery shards that were formed when many of the sites in Egypt were excavated. The small tour groups I was with spent hours at the sites, and several of us would wander in the mounds and root around for interesting shards. Occasionally an intact handle, or a piece with writing, or even intact faience glaze would be found. The oldest debris was on the top of the piles, having been dug out last. Naturally all these "discards" were illegal to take out of Egypt. But, the Egyptologist who accompanied the tours would jokingly refer to Egypt as the "land of a billion pottery pieces".
But to follow on to Scott's idea - I think the Egyptians could make a pretty penny if they mounted shards on small plaques and sold them to tourists. And absolutely nothing of historical value would be lost - in case something significant would be found, the pieces released for sale could be reviewed by an archaeologist.
In a much more recent example, I purchased a small plaque with a piece of the Berlin Wall when I was in Berlin shortly after it was mostly torn down. I also picked up a few pieces of debris while I was there, watching various entrepreneurs hack into the remaining structure with chisels. A sufficient portion of the wall was preserved for posterity, so did I contribute to the looting of an historic site?
Back to beads, though- I just can't see how buying an Islamic era bead that was found in the debris washed down from an ancient burial site in West Africa and collected by a local, then sold to a buyer in a souk, is a problem. Yes the exact provenance has been lost but can these poor countries afford to preserve large areas of their country as "no dig" zones? Here in the US we still have ongoing issues with letting our own Native Americans control their ancestral sites, which theoretically should not be an issue of finances, but it is. Expecting the less developed world to do "better" is really expecting a lot!

I'm not the best one to consult on the details, but coin people often refer to Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme as a model that could be followed by other countries. I recall reading that Denmark or another Scandinavian country adopted something similar. The bones of it are that antiquities and coins found (usually by metal detectorists) regardless of property ownership must be presented to the British Museum, which studies them, often publishing the hoard, has first option to buy anything the Museum needs at market value, and the rest stay with the finder (or property owner?). This way if the owner chooses to market the items, they can refer to a published hoard, which increases the value to the buyer. This is probably cleaner even than allowing a museum or antiquities bureau to oversee marketing, which would only provide opportunities for corruption in most source countries. Shipwreck items are often mass marketed with custom boxes, informative inserts, certificates of authenticity - often the (coins) being sold can be had from existing stocks in better grade and cheaper prices, but they are selling the sizzle, more than the corroded metal in a fancy box. Yes, I've seen the same in Mexico, acres where there are more shards than stones on the ground.

Thinking about it a bit more, I was being reactive. I want to underscore what I think was Karlis's main point - that knowledge is the important thing in life and in culture, more so than the things that convey it. It is sobering to think that the humblest penny in our pocket, the tiniest bead on a necklace will outlive us - we are but temporary custodians. My own feeling is that when we become custodians of something old, valuable, unusual, we have a moral duty first to protect it, but also - and increasingly with the magnitude of these qualities - to display and inform. In this way we inspire and encourage others to value these objects, to learn, and perhaps discover new truths. An old bead on a necklace (or given to a child) can start a conversation, plant a seed. And who is it that discovers what factoids we may know and pass on? The archaeologist. It is those who dig for knowledge, not for sustenance or profit, who create what is eternally valuable: knowledge. Agreed fully, these are the heroes in our story.

The worst loss when sites are excavated without respect or care is that everything we could learn from the site, and the artifacts that come from it, is lost forever.

There was a major First Nation site discovered in Keene NH, as the new middle school was being constructed near a swamp. FORTUNATELY, archeologists were called in immediately, and were able to retrieve both the artifacts, and the information the site revealed, in a methodic and professional way.

I was only able to attend one presentation on the process before we moved to California. I was amazed at the wealth of data acquired: Detailed maps of shelter, workspaces, even locations of sleeping quarters, that provided much insight into the occupants, the nature of their camp (temporary winter quarters), proof of non-locally available materials (stone, etc.) gathered or traded from far way....

These organized "digs" are the only opportunity we will ever have to see into the distant past, to learn about these people through their tools and tool-making techniques, their camp sites, their social structures. Every looted site is a window that can never be opened again.

Never been to NH, but have heard of Keane re. quirky political things that have occurred likely since your departure. One "notable" neo-resident recently got his 15 minutes over Charlottesville. Anyway: Sounds to me like things were done right here. Not only was history preserved, expanded, but Keane residents had a graphic explanation of why their HS was delayed, learned something about their past, perhaps gained a new respect for its earlier inhabitants. Perhaps an exhibit on the settlement at a local museum or historical society? When local history is taught at that school, window-gazers will snap to the words, "beneath our very feet!" Some speculative questions: Were there more artifacts dug up, measured, photographed, logged, than can usefully be displayed? What became of them? If visitors to the presentations, to a museum, were offered the chance to buy them informatively packaged, would they sell? Could the funds thus raised contribute significantly to funding future digs? Would the benefits of the original excavation be magnified, echoed for a longer time, a wider reach than otherwise? Are people who are exposed to presentations and museum displays more likely to call a college or state archaeology dept. when they find things farming, hiking, metal-detecting? More likely to take up archaeology themselves? More likely to support funding of digs? Would owning a provenanced artifact have similar effects?

The major problem with selling beads and other artifacts legally recovered from archaeological sites by archaeologists or other trained individuals pretty much worldwide is that it is against archaeology's ethics principles to sell, buy, trade, or barter items from archaeological contexts. Archaeologists are also prohibited from assigning commercial value to artifacts except in circumstances where valuation is required for the purposes of appraisal and insurance or when valuation is used to discourage site vandalism.

I know it sounds silly if a site has yielded 500,000 near-identical beads that none can be sold to help fund digs and museums and satisfy collector's cravings. But that just isn't permitted. Many years ago a small museum in the UK neatly packaged and sold some of the large hoard of identical brass nails from a Roman site to do exactly that but that is now definitely frowned on. Anal retention? No, just our attempt to keep the trade in archaeological materials at a minimum and also preserve a collection's integrity.