Unravelling the spectra of stewards and collectors

This article considers the relevance of the Society for American Archaeology's 2018 “Statement on Collaboration with Responsible and Responsive Stewards of the Past” for imported antiquities (specifically, “classical” ones—that is, from Mediterranean regions). Various practical, legal, and ethical differences between collecting imported versus domestic objects make it difficult to identify “responsive and responsible stewards” of the former. An obstacle to responsible stewardship of privately owned classical collections—and to collaboration between classical archaeologists and collectors—is the 2008 acquisition guidelines issued by the two leading professional organizations in the museum field. I argue that the best home for unprovenienced and poorly provenienced antiquities collections is in university museums, where their complicated object biographies can be fully researched, taught, and displayed.

Section: Differences Between Collecting Domestic Versus Foreign Artif...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Responsible Stewards” of Classical Antiquities?

Marlowe¹

2022

“…Much of the debate concerning the pros and cons of consulting with collectors has focused on engagement with nonarchaeologists involved in the excavation or surface collection of artifacts on private land, or with individuals who have legally purchased artifacts for their private collections (Cox 2015;Deckers 2020;Fisher et al 2015;Pitblado 2014;Pitblado and Thomas 2020;Shott and Pitblado 2015;Thomas and Pitblado 2020;Watkins 2015). Those such as Collaborators 1 and 2, who excavated artifacts from burial contexts on private property before 1990, seem to fall into a ethically grayer area.…”

Section: Responsible or Responsive Collectors?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential and Pitfalls of Collector Collaboration in Southeast Arizona

Whisenhunt

2021

In locales where much of the archaeological record has been destroyed or heavily impacted by pothunting and development, engaging with collector informants—including those who legally excavated sites on private property in the 1980s—can help fill crucial information gaps. However, such collaboration can pose ethical, and potentially legal, challenges. In this article, I outline research goals and results from a survey project in southeast Arizona's York-Duncan Valley, discuss the legal and ethical implications involved in working with former pothunters, and offer a critical evaluation of project practice. Finally, I offer a set of recommendations for those considering similar collaborations. I argue that the rejection of individuals who are knowledgeable about damaged or destroyed archaeological sites effectively silences the sites forever. Data acquired from former pothunters led to the identification and recording of 25 of 87 archaeological sites in the York-Duncan Valley. These individuals also served as interlocutors with others in the local community, helping us foster the trusted relationships necessary to promote site preservation on private property. A long-term engagement strategy that incorporates an assessment determining whether collector informants are responsible or responsive and that nurtures community involvement in preserving local archaeology offers a more productive course of action.

“…Rather, they collect for diverse reasons that are not necessarily antithetical to archaeological and even Indigenous goals and values (Foster 2016). Conflating and construing all collectors as "looters" is unproductive and fundamentally nonanthropological (Pitblado and Thomas 2020;Thomas and Pitblado 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional–Collector Collaboration

Pitblado

Rowe

Schroeder

et al. 2022

Self Cite

This article introduces the first of what will ultimately be two collections of case studies in archaeologist–responsible/responsive artifact collector collaboration. Focused on the United States, the articles in this issue of Advances in Archaeological Practice share the thoughts and experiences of archaeologists representing diverse employment sectors (compliance, agency, museum, and university), artifact collectors, and members of descendant communities. Research areas extend from California to Virginia and from Ohio to the Texas/Mexico border. The breadth of the writers' backgrounds and their focal regions reinforce the wide applicability of collaborative best practices. Every author explicitly treats two subjects: (1) the intersection of their work with the Society for American Archaeology's (SAA) recently published guidelines for ethical professional–collector collaboration, and (2) their own practical suggestions for establishing and nurturing those relationships. This introductory article provides an overview of each of the other contributions, notes how the contributions articulate with the SAA guidelines, and offers its own, mostly philosophical suggestions for prospective members of professional–collector collaborations.