concerned- my response on the issues, per feedback

Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:39:21 EDT

--part1_f.135a91e8.2819c559_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

James Landrum says:

None of us have the same level or range of experience with illicit or illegal 
artifact hunter activity

True.  Personally, I began my archeological career as a teenaged pothunter, 
turned pro and went through a period in which I thought pothunters should be 
drawn and quartered, and gradually mellowed on the subject -- particularly 
when, about 15 years ago, I had occasion to do a study of "pothunter" 
behavior and psychology, and got a better handle on what motivates people who 
dig stuff up, sell it, etc. etc.  Let me recommend, James, that you take a 
look at one of my favorite collector magazines, Indian Artifacts Magazine, on 
the web at www.indian-artifacts.net.  It'll probably horrify you, but I find 
a lot of interesting food for thought in it.

Let's be clear about one thing, though.  Artifact collecting isn't "illicit 
or illegal" unless it's done contrary to law.  Unless Texas State law says 
something different from what I understand it says, or unless the property 
owner hasn't given consent for the event, the event you find so horrifying 
isn't illicit or illegal.  As for whether it violates the spirit and intent 
of this Federal law or that, well, your interpretation is as good as mine, 
but I don't think either one of us would get far in court without some actual 
legal language to back us up.

There's a lot of private collecting of artifacts that goes on around the 
country.  Should we be horrified by this?  Well, what if somebody collects 
right in front of a bulldozer that's going to wipe out the site?  What's 
horrific then, the collector or the bulldozer?  What if the collector 
collects only from plowed fields?  Only on eroded lakeshores?  Digs but never 
touches burials?  Digs but never sells?  There are lots and lots of different 
kinds of collectors, motivated by lots of different things -- not the least 
being an honest interest in the past and a distaste for letting neat old 
stuff get destroyed.  Being uniformly horrified by them all isn't going to do 
anybody much good; working constructively with those who can be worked with 
-- as many ACRAnyms certainly do -- is a more useful reaction.

Tom King

--part1_f.135a91e8.2819c559_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>James Landrum says:
 
 None of us have the same level or range of experience with illicit or illegal 
 artifact hunter activity
 
 True. &nbsp;Personally, I began my archeological career as a teenaged pothunter, 
 turned pro and went through a period in which I thought pothunters should be 
 drawn and quartered, and gradually mellowed on the subject -- particularly 
 when, about 15 years ago, I had occasion to do a study of "pothunter" 
 behavior and psychology, and got a better handle on what motivates people who 
 dig stuff up, sell it, etc. etc. &nbsp;Let me recommend, James, that you take a 
 look at one of my favorite collector magazines, Indian Artifacts Magazine, on 
 the web at www.indian-artifacts.net. &nbsp;It'll probably horrify you, but I find 
 a lot of interesting food for thought in it.
 
 Let's be clear about one thing, though. &nbsp;Artifact collecting isn't "illicit 
 or illegal" unless it's done contrary to law. &nbsp;Unless Texas State law says 
 something different from what I understand it says, or unless the property 
 owner hasn't given consent for the event, the event you find so horrifying 
 isn't illicit or illegal. &nbsp;As for whether it violates the spirit and intent 
 of this Federal law or that, well, your interpretation is as good as mine, 
 but I don't think either one of us would get far in court without some actual 
 legal language to back us up.
 
 There's a lot of private collecting of artifacts that goes on around the 
 country. &nbsp;Should we be horrified by this? &nbsp;Well, what if somebody collects 
 right in front of a bulldozer that's going to wipe out the site? &nbsp;What's 
 horrific then, the collector or the bulldozer? &nbsp;What if the collector 
 collects only from plowed fields? &nbsp;Only on eroded lakeshores? &nbsp;Digs but never 
 touches burials? &nbsp;Digs but never sells? &nbsp;There are lots and lots of different 
 kinds of collectors, motivated by lots of different things -- not the least 
 being an honest interest in the past and a distaste for letting neat old 
 stuff get destroyed. &nbsp;Being uniformly horrified by them all isn't going to do 
 anybody much good; working constructively with those who can be worked with 
 -- as many ACRAnyms certainly do -- is a more useful reaction.
 
 Tom King</HTML>

--part1_f.135a91e8.2819c559_boundary--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription to the Internet mailing list, ACRA-L is not membership in 
the American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA).  The views 
expressed on ACRA-L are those of the authors of each post and do not 
necessarily reflect the views of ACRA.

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, get a LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS, receive the 
DIGEST form, and check your OPTIONS, etc. Please visit our website at
http://www.acra-crm.org/acra-l.html

To search the ACRA-L ARCHIVES please visit our website or this website
http://lists.nonprofit.net/listproc/archives/acra-l/

Report problems to Thomas R. Wheaton <tomwheaton@newsouthassoc.com>