11-01-2002, 06:53 PM
No, I did not say that. IMO it is just better to have a large private collection that is viewable than thousand small individual pieces scattered throughout the world and not bein or only partially viewable.<br>
The large majority of artifacts derive not from occasional findings and were not previously other's people's "junk" and "trash". They are stolen from archaeological sites. During that process usually the arceological context is destroyed by destroying the stratigraphic evidence.<br>
If museums are selling their "II.-class objects" it is their own decision. I do not think that that is a smart idea to pump up the museum's financial status, but it is common in some areas. A museum is not only a place that is there to show people the objects it has, but to preserve the artifacts as well. We cannot decide today which artifacts might become precious in future, as we do not know what archaeological methods there will be developed in future. Maybe some of the items that seem "worthless" today are vital evidence in 150 years. If the museums start selling them today.... well just think it for yourself to an end.<br>
From this thought derive those large magazines Daniel Peterson is claiming about. But in fact everybody usually can go there and work on the material if he has some sort of academic degree. If people do not have such, it is quite understandable that they are not allowed to work with these objects, as weird theories or ideas would fall back onto those who would have let these people do the work. So anyone who wants to do such work should go to a evening-school or internet university or similar to get his MA, then he would be able to do this work. Caius, your arguments regarding the origin of artifacts are what you usually get to hear from collectors. I guess they are common because they relieve a bad consciousness. Believe me, I have been on a lot of excavation sites and excavations that were utterly destroyed by people walking around with a metal detector and a pick-axe & shovel during the night calling themselves "hobby archaeologists". With the time you start to hate these people, really. A counter method used meanwhile is to throw hundred of thousands of bottle caps onto the areas. That works. <p></p><i></i>
The large majority of artifacts derive not from occasional findings and were not previously other's people's "junk" and "trash". They are stolen from archaeological sites. During that process usually the arceological context is destroyed by destroying the stratigraphic evidence.<br>
If museums are selling their "II.-class objects" it is their own decision. I do not think that that is a smart idea to pump up the museum's financial status, but it is common in some areas. A museum is not only a place that is there to show people the objects it has, but to preserve the artifacts as well. We cannot decide today which artifacts might become precious in future, as we do not know what archaeological methods there will be developed in future. Maybe some of the items that seem "worthless" today are vital evidence in 150 years. If the museums start selling them today.... well just think it for yourself to an end.<br>
From this thought derive those large magazines Daniel Peterson is claiming about. But in fact everybody usually can go there and work on the material if he has some sort of academic degree. If people do not have such, it is quite understandable that they are not allowed to work with these objects, as weird theories or ideas would fall back onto those who would have let these people do the work. So anyone who wants to do such work should go to a evening-school or internet university or similar to get his MA, then he would be able to do this work. Caius, your arguments regarding the origin of artifacts are what you usually get to hear from collectors. I guess they are common because they relieve a bad consciousness. Believe me, I have been on a lot of excavation sites and excavations that were utterly destroyed by people walking around with a metal detector and a pick-axe & shovel during the night calling themselves "hobby archaeologists". With the time you start to hate these people, really. A counter method used meanwhile is to throw hundred of thousands of bottle caps onto the areas. That works. <p></p><i></i>
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
