In theory private property rights allow for legitimate property owners to sell materials found on their property - including allowing others to sell excavated material found on their property. So, should materials be recovered from those specific instances there's not much one can say about that (and personally I dont have much of an interest in collecting for the sake of a collection - I'm not much of a materialist). Trying to do the same with materials found on any other type of land (Federal, State, Indian, Park, local jurisdiction), however, is a totally different matter and should not be condoned at all. Legally it is trespassing and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; not because of some sense of archaeological self-interest, but because that material belongs to us all.

Fortunately, in Canada, artifacts and sites generally belong to the crown which helps to greatly minimise the sale of any archaeological material. As Firearch says, this material and the information they hold, belongs to us all. And of course it is the destruction of the sites and all of the contextual information associated with the artifacts that is the greatest loss.

Well, I wanted to browse through the by-laws and other interesting bits to see how the org is structured, how they handle transgressions, and the like, and especially who enforces compliance - is it self-policing like the RPA, or some outside overseer, like a federal or state agency. Unfortunately I could do no such thing without being a member, and not wanting to go through all that I left. One of the other questions I had, and have for you Joel, what happens to all the contextual data that was associated with the artifact when it was collected? Is a report generated? If so, where are those submitted, and are they available to interested parties other than members of the AACA? Of course these are questions we can and do ask of ourselves, not always with success I might add.

Richard

I too have been on the AACA site and nosed around a bit. I especially was interested in reading several of the newsletters posted there. The newsletters are an interesting mix of various views and opinions on the whole subject of the collecting and selling of artifacts. On the one hand, the group highly discourages collecting from known burial sites and "important" archaeological sites. On the other hand, some articles decry the excessive government laws pertaining to artifact collecting. Generally, the group recognizes the need to protect important sites, but if that site is located on private property and has never been investigated by archaeologists, then they view the site as being "unimportant" and fair game. Apparently all of the important sites have all been found and everything else is not important.

In one article, the writer relates the story of how a couple of local thieves had been caught with a bunch of stolen copper wire from some utility plant. The local police got a search warrant and went to the house where these two guys lived and found a lot of other stolen items. In the process of searching the house the police found over 400 prehistoric artifacts. So the police called in the local BLM archaeologist who looked over this collection and removed it from the house to further study it to determine if the artifacts may have been looted from government lands. The writer conceded the artifacts probably had been obtained from illegal looting but his complaint was that the feds had no jurisdiction to "seize" the collection as it was located in a house on private property and the BLM had no legal jurisdiction to do so. The writer then went on to say that this situation was just another example of many regarding how the feds trample on the constitutional rights of artifact collectors.

So.....I do not know what to make of the AACA. Most members seem to be in it for the money. Many members seem to think the laws protecting cultural resources are too excessive. If those laws were to ever be revoked or relaxed, their newsletter would probably start to run articles reviewing the newest and latest models of backhoes that could be used to more efficiently "collect".

As far as these guys writing reports etc. regarding the sites they collect from, I do not think that is ever done. What is promoted tho, is for collectors to document as best they can the provenience of the artifacts they collect as that will greatly enhance the retail value of that artifact. The documentation is not done to further our understanding of the past

Scott

[quote:="scottyj432"][size=12:]As far as these guys writing reports etc. regarding the sites they collect from, I do not think that is ever done. What is promoted tho, is for collectors to document as best they can the provenience of the artifacts they collect as that will greatly enhance the retail value of that artifact. The documentation is not done to further our understanding of the past

Scott

That was precisely the point of my post; not that we (as a collective) have been always the most proactive in furthering the public's understanding of the past, though I dare say far more so than the critics accuse.

Richard

Oh so very true Richard.

Scott

I am a member of the AACA. My motivation for joining was to learn more about the relics that I've found in local fields here in NY over the past years, and to see what others across the country are finding. The AACA's main stated goal is the education of collectors as to authentic artifacts, the avoiding of fakes and frauds and being ethical and law abiding in collecting or selling relics. Most of the collectors are folk's that surface hunt plowed farm fields or creek walk, and alot of them do document their finds in writing, with photo's, and also pass on info to the "professionals". Most members of the AACA are in it for the knowledge to be gained and to share their passion, not the money. Are there bad eggs in the Indian artifact collecting community??? Yes, but with the help, identification and networking of the AACA, they can be exposed in a documented way and delt with accordingly... Go ahead and join the AACA, submit your real name, e-mail addy, password, and the Admin will sign you up...It's a very civil site and maybe "collectors" and "professionals" can both gain some in-sight and knowledge from each other.

Thank you Oneshot

I suspect that the AACA is similar to this web site http://www.lahbc.org/wheretobuy.html that promotes bottle collecting in California. To me they look like a bunch of looters when you look at there photos of their 23 street dig at http://www.lahbc.org/previousdigs/23rdstreet.html

I'm surprised that they post their own photos of there actives. http://www.arinvestigations.net/training_intro-damage-assess.html!

I am pretty much opposed to the buying and selling of artifacts. Simply because assigning a monetary value to an artifact perpetuates the desire to obtain artifacts and increase the looting of sites. I also do not condone the uncontrolled excavation of sites. Collectors (primarily surface collectors) on the other hand I have mixed feelings about, mostly because, taken as a whole they are a mixed bag. I have met some very dedicated collectors that have a real interest in the past and are really just amateur archeologists. These types of collectors document where they find artifacts, do research, and essentially curate them. A lot of these folks are involved with local archeological societies or clubs and make their collections accessible to just about anyone. Then there is the other extreme, collectors that are in it for the money, that come on your site in the middle of the night and dig out your profiles, trespass on private property, and have little regard for the "real" value of artifacts and archeological sites. Then there is a mix of both in between the two.

It is hard to condemn the first group, because other than lacking a "formal" education in archeology they do the same things we do. Often times they know more about sites and artifacts than we do and their interest in the subject is honorable. Many of these people are landowners that have great pride in the history of their property and the artifacts they collect. I have spent some time photographing collections at peoples' houses and it has been interesting, and as I said earlier is a mixed bag of folks.

One argument I hear from collectors (bottle collectors mostly) is "Why should all the archeologists or museums get to keep all this stuff?" There are lots of high minded academic answers you can give to that question, but in the back of your mind you know those bifaces and points you just found on survey are all going to sit in some box at the state curation facility where no one will ever look at them again. As an archeologist I do frown upon collecting, but it is a gray area that I often find myself uncertain about.

One thing I will add though...as archeologists I think we need to build bridges between collectors, avocational archs, and professionals. The Texas Archeological Society is very good in this regard. The more we snub our noses at collectors, the less dialogue we can have with them, and thus the less we can educate them about archeology. There is also a lot we can learn from collectors like site locations, site contents, and site integrity. Add to that the research some of these people do. I certainly have used eBay in the past as a jumping point to identifying historic age artifacts.

Very point on Prisoner, Thanks you for your thoughts. GMeier, Big difference in bottle collecting/privy digging and picking up surface/creek finds...The AACA home page link is at the top of the page...Kudos to the Texas Archeological Society for reaching out and opening a dialog so both groups can learn more(BTW Lewis Smith, a surface and creek arrowhead/relic hunter, is the ram-rod behind surface artifact collecting bills in Texas set up so both professionals and 'part-timers" benifit)...

My concern in all of this is "How do we tell the difference?" Can you really know, while looking at a collection in someone's home or at a show, which of those artifacts were obtained "legitimately" (and I use quotes here because what is really legitimate?) and which were obtained illegally? I suppose you would need to know the person and their methods. It's a catch-22 because, like many of you have said here and in other threads, collectors can be a useful source for information. However, looters are often destroying sites that have never been explored, not normally saving them from bulldozers (kudos to you jerry 8-)).

And where are the original owners of these artifacts in this conversation? What ownership rights should Native Americans be given? Surely they deserve a piece of the action (if not all of the action!) as many of the artifacts were talking about here came from Native American heritage sites (even if it is currently someone else's private property).

There is a rock and gem show here in my town every year and a group of knappers always sets up and give knapping demonstrations. These people are extremely talented and the points they produce are as good as any I have ever found in the field or seen in a museum.

They also sell them too.

Scott

[quote:="scalpcreek"]So...i guess my point is that buying and selling doesn't create value...the value is there already. At least that is the way this collector (of many things besides artifacts) sees the collector market. Wax seals have value, gingham buttons have value, etc. Collectors will collect "things" be it stamps, coins, buttons, oil lamps, etc.

So the internet stock bubble of 1999, the housing bubble of 2006, and the current oil bubble are in no way related to people creating value through buying and selling?


See http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/051788433X for additional references to similar behavior (editorial review: "Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action? Why do financially sensible people jump lemming-like into hare-brained speculative frenzies--only to jump broker-like out of windows when their fantasies dissolve? We may think that the Great Crash of 1929, junk bonds of the '80s, and over-valued high-tech stocks of the '90s are peculiarly 20th century aberrations, but Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds. These are extraordinarily illuminating,and, unfortunately, entertaining tales of chicanery, greed and naivete. Essential reading for any student of human nature or the transmission of ideas.

In fact, cases such as Tulipomania in 1624--when Tulip bulbs traded at a higher price than gold--suggest the existence of what I would dub "Mackay's Law of Mass Action:" when it comes to the effect of social behavior on the intelligence of individuals, 1+1 is often less than 2, and sometimes considerably less than 0.").

[quote:="scalpcreek"][quote:="prisoner"]I am pretty much opposed to the buying and selling of artifacts. Simply because assigning a monetary value to an artifact perpetuates the desire to obtain artifacts and increase the looting of sites. ........




Since this thread kind of popped back to the top...I was reading Mr. Prisoner's post again, and since he (Mr. Prisoner) is I believe living in Texas as I am...wanted to address his point above. I kind of disagree with that argument on the basis that everything, has some value...from a load of dirt, to a bucket of chert, to a broken Perdiz point, to an old master oil painting. So...i guess my point is that buying and selling doesn't create value...the value is there already. At least that is the way this collector (of many things besides artifacts) sees the collector market. Wax seals have value, gingham buttons have value, etc. Collectors will collect "things" be it stamps, coins, buttons, oil lamps, etc.

I was actually very careful to use the term "monetary value". Of course artifacts have a value beyond money, why else would anyone be interested in archeology. I guess what I was driving at, and something I didn't clarify, is that I see buyers and sellers of artifacts as the bad guys and interested collectors as the not so bad guys. Interested collectors that are not the digging types, get involved with archeological societies, record where they found stuff, and make their collections available to the public are not bad so much as just outside of the loop of archeology. So intrinsically they are not bad, but by their actions there is damage to sites and lost information.

When you assign a monetary value to artifacts you bring in a whole other realm of looter. These are the bad guys, the trespassers, the diggers, the potholers, the graverobbers. These are the guys that come out to our site and dig out our unit profiles (we arrested that guy), that have no regard for the archeological record and therefore dig through preserved strata discarding the worthless "trash" along the way. How many people do you think walked away from the Belton artifact show with a thought about hunting artifacts for money? How many of those people will view looting as a means to gaining money rather than as a means to enjoy the past?

Looters are like poachers, except instead of driving our wildlife to exinction, they are driving our cultural resources to extinction. Now I accept a lot of gray area in the matter of collecting and I would not equate picking a point off the surface with gunning down a bald eagle. I tried to make that distinction in my previous post.

So intrinsically they are not bad, but by their actions there is damage to sites and lost information.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement across the board. If artifacts are being eroded out of a creek alluvium and left alone, they will simply be swept downstream, with all context lost. If the artifacts are recovered soon after they're exposed then fairly decent context can be recorded. For example, with one more good rain all context would have lost for this artifact:




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20103.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20104.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20105.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20106.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20107.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20108.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20109.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/in%20situ%20110.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Recovered In Situ- Strat Shot- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site87.jpg

Strat Shot- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site86.jpg

Strat Shot- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201386.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Dorsal View- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201387.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Ventral View- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201388.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Profile 1- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201389.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Profile 2- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201390.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Distal View/ Cross Section- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201391.jpg

PreClovis Biface Fragment- Proximal View/ Cross Section- 3.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/afw266.jpg

Dorsal Surface Highlighted




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/afw267.jpg

Ventral Surface Highlighted




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/afw269.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/afw270.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/afw271.jpg


Material is thermally altered Brushy Creek Black Chert.

[quote:="DesertRat"]I agree with prisoner's statement. I choose to avoid the judgement calls ethics-wise. It gets pretty convoluted and vague listening to someone's rationalizations, including mine. That's why I put those sherds (old post) back in the road. I can appreciate a well-trained avocational archaeologist. You don't have to be pulling a paycheck to get my respect. "Interested collectors" are a mixed bag. I know I can't change that scene so I just opt out.

Bob

Can I ask a personal question here:

For you pros that have seen my artifacts posts, do you consider me a looter, collector or avocational type? I don't buy or sell artifacts. I do have what could be called a huge collection, though I like to see it as a large assemblage with provenience. I don't dig. However, I'm not involved with any arch groups.

[quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]So intrinsically they are not bad, but by their actions there is damage to sites and lost information.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement across the board. If artifacts are being eroded out of a creek alluvium and left alone, they will simply be swept downstream, with all context lost. If the artifacts are recovered soon after they're exposed then fairly decent context can be recorded. For example, with one more good rain all context would have lost for this artifact:

The artifacts would be lost to either human or natural factors. I've bolded part of your text because this is the difference. Lost to human factors means that point just goes in grandpa's cigar box. Recording is different. Collectors that are not recording, or doing poor recording, are doing a disservice to the resource and it is often just as useful as the artifact washing downstream. However, Charlie you seem to do a good job recording as far as I can tell without knowing you and to answer your later post I would consider you an avocational archeologist.

[quote:="scalpcreek"]your statement that the interested collectors were outside the loop of archaeology...I really think is meant kindly. Being "outside the loop" I assume means not being a "professional archaeologist", degreed or otherwise. Or at least an active member of some archy society. Never the less it comes of verbally as a minor slap to myself and others like me.

By outside of the loop I mean not making their collections or research part of the archeological world, be it academia, CRM, or avocational. Numerous amateurs publish papers, present at conferences, get actively involved with professionals, and make their collections available. With academic archeology and CRM we count on our colleagues to publish their findings, report on their projects, and make their results accessible. I can go to a library and find this information, call them on the phone, or head to the state curation facility. So I don't limit "the loop" to professionals only.

[quote:="scalpcreek"]okay, let me rephrase my earlier statement:

..I was reading Mr. Prisoner's post again, and since he (Mr. Prisoner) is I believe living in Texas as I am...wanted to address his point above. I kind of disagree with that argument on the basis that everything, has some monetary value...from a load of dirt, to a bucket of chert, to a broken Perdiz point, to an old master oil painting. So...i guess my point is that buying and selling doesn't create monetary value...the monetary value is there already. At least that is the way this collector (of many things besides artifacts) sees the collector market. Wax seals have monetary value, gingham buttons have value, etc. Collectors will collect "things" be it stamps, coins, buttons, oil lamps, etc.

I agree the monetary value is there already, since there is an inherent value to an artifact. What I am getting at is that buying and selling creates a market for artifacts. This attracts an element of people that are only in it for the money which increases the looting of sites.

[quote:="prisoner"][quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]So intrinsically they are not bad, but by their actions there is damage to sites and lost information.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement across the board. If artifacts are being eroded out of a creek alluvium and left alone, they will simply be swept downstream, with all context lost. If the artifacts are recovered soon after they're exposed then fairly decent context can be recorded. For example, with one more good rain all context would have lost for this artifact:

The artifacts would be lost to either human or natural factors. I've bolded part of your text because this is the difference. Lost to human factors means that point just goes in grandpa's cigar box. Recording is different. Collectors that are not recording, or doing poor recording, are doing a disservice to the resource and it is often just as useful as the artifact washing downstream. However, Charlie you seem to do a good job recording as far as I can tell without knowing you and to answer your later post I would consider you an avocational archeologist.

Thanks for the feedback. I try to record within several meters accuracy. The only way I can see getting better accuracy is having someone help me establish some more accurate datums (is that what you call them?). If GPS's were more accurate, that would be perfect for a guy like me. Perhaps in the future they will become more accurate. :? I've been steadily recording the local site and finds in the TexSite program you referred me to. Thanks for that.

Jerry,
I am a collector! (They say confession is good for the soul.) I have a box full of stuff that I have picked up off of the surface and feel there is value, not because of what they are, but, because I found them. I wouldn't give a plug nickle for a point that someone else has found, because it would mean nothing to me. By the way, is there a plug nickel collectors society? :lol:

My point is, most collectors don't care about the shows, the prices, or anything other than the hunt. It is a challenge to seek out sites and succeed. I have notified the appropriate people whenever I think I have found something significant. However, most of my finds were turned up by a bulldozer or dumped from a truck as fill.

The demonization of all collectors seems to be what some of the pros do but it seems to me the pros are just as much a mixed bag as the amateurs. We can't stereotype.

Had a couple glasses of wine, so I don't know if I made much since.

Troy

Use whatever term you want, but value, any value, is merely a projection of a cultural construction; nothing has value, intrinsic or otherwise, until you imbue it with value.

Fossils. Neat. 8-)

I've yet to run across any chert in the local area that has visible fossils.

[quote:="scalpcreek"]Charlie for a closer look at those fossils, look at this thread:
http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3698

Nice images of the fossils, Jerry.

Have you been able to identify them?

Those are awesome and very unique! Thanks for sharing the photos!

Had a chat with Tony Baker today. He forwarded me a rough of an article he's about to post on his website:

Each time one finds an arrowhead and tosses it into a
cigar box without recording the pertinent information,
one is cutting Mona Lisa’s head from her canvas. It is
easy for one to say; I will record the find tomorrow
when I have more time. But, soon tomorrow becomes
next week, which becomes next year, and so forth.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/DearArrowheadHunter.pdf

It is too bad that the survey will only include PaleoAmerican points, as there are so many others out there. Perhaps...someday all points found will be included in the survey.

That would be ideal.

Charlie, all I know is everyone I have read says Kay county chert is full of Fusilinid fossils.....so I guess that is what they are....definitely very interesting, and unusual.

Indeed.

Some of the oldest dated life has come from chert.

Thanks for sharing.

Nice photos of fossils.

Scalpcreek, I guess you've seen this?



http://www.originsnet.org/hndsclpgallery/pages/i)westofts.htm

Feliks wrote a paper about the symmetry and placement noting that it had been "framed".

Possibly a tenuous link, but these are from Fontmaure (MAT), the first two are jasper.