Archeology has long enjoyed popularity among the public. Such interest is an asset to the discipline, for it can generate the support integral to the profession and to the study of the archeological record. Unfortunately, the allure of archeology also has the potential to be destructive to the archeological record. When archeology is viewed as a hobby is when problems can--and do--arise. The term  amateur archeologist  has been applied to nonprofessional or untrained persons who pursue archeological work. Why our profession is thought of as one where amateurs are welcome is not entirely clear, though perhaps it is due in part due to how archeology has been romanticized through entertainment mediums. This paper addresses the current situation regarding collectors or  amateur archeologists . More specifically it focuses on the commercialization of antiquities, the problem with fake and replicate artifacts, and finally the role that the Internet now plays

Bauermeister, Ann C.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of 1999 Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New Ann C. Bauermeister Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro  Part of the Anthropology Commons Bauermeister, Ann C., "Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New" (1999). Nebraska Anthropologist. 115. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/115 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New Ann C. Bauermeister Archeology has long enjoyed popularity among the public. Such interest is an asset to the discipline, for it can generate the support integral to the profession and to the study of the archeological record. Unfortunately, the allure of archeology also has the potential to be . destructive to the archeological record. When archeology is viewed as a hobby is when problems can--and do--arise. The term "amateur archeologist" has been applied to nonprofessional or untrained persons who pursue archeological work. Why our profession is thought of as one where amateurs are welcome is not entirely clear, though perhaps it is due in part due to how archeology has been romanticized through entertainment mediums. This paper addresses the current situation regarding collectors or "amateur archeologists". More specifically it focuses on the commercialization of antiquities, the problem with fake and replicate artifacts, and finally the role that the Internet now plays. Commercialization of artifacts is not a new problem. It is however, a growing problem. Archeologists have dealt or not dealt with this issue for decades. The current state of buying and selling of artifacts, namely Native American Indian antiquities demands serious attention. For the purposes of this paper, it is important to distinguish between those items that were made with the intent to sell from those that are antiquities. Archeological resources, as defined in the Archeological Resource Protection Act (1979) are defined as: any material remains of past human life or activities which are of archaeological interest.. .these include, but are not limited to: pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures or portions of structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock carvings, intaglios, graves, human skeletal materials, or any portion or piece of any of the foregoing items. This paper is concerned with these items. The following narrative presents information related to the illegal buying and selling of artifacts. It focuses primarily on Native American Indian artifacts that fit the 69 criteria for archeological resources. Three main topics will be explored. First, what is the role of the artifact collector and what is the extent he is contributing to the destruction of the archeological record? Second, what effect, if any are fake and replicate artifacts having on the integrity of archeology? And lastly, how does the ease and access of the Internet perpetuate the commercialization of artifacts. [Dis ]Concerning Collectors As a common public resource, information from the archeological record should be shared. This should be done in ways that will not jeopardize the resource. The public has the right to access archeological information. This right has also been abused by parts of the public, in tum, causing adverse effects both to the resource and the general state of archeology. Both the need and legal basis to protect sites exist, and they exist for a reason. Damage to resources caused by nonprofessional collecting of artifacts has been recognized as one such reason. Context is key is to the integrity of any artifact. When an artifact is removed from its context, the informational value is notably diminished. Formal and standardized excavation practices employed in archaeology today rely on the concept of contextual relevance. Archaeologists are emphasizing analytical processes, reporting, and curation of recovered artifacts. These factors are integral to realizing the full potential of the archaeological record. Even at the most innocent amateur level, collectors are adversely impacting the cultural resource that yields artifacts. When an artifact is stripped of its provenience it loses most of its value as an interpretive tool to understanding the past. Even when amateur collectors do pay attention to location, often times their collections and information concerning those collections become displaced and the materials become merely objects. David Kuhn, a self-identified amateur Ohio archeologist and proponent for collecting, recently had this to say on the matter. "One way in which amateurs participate in the study of archaeology is through the acquisition, ownership and transfer of prehistoric artifacts and other material from one person to another. What better way to document the provenience and authenticity of an artifact than to have it publicly displayed and described on an auction card" (Kuhn 1999:53). This attitude is opposed by most professional archaeologists. In fact, the rift between amateurs and professionals has grown considerably over the last twenty years, making attempts to work together more difficult (Richner, 1999 personal communication). The loss of information is only exacerbated when money is introduced. As the worth of artifact collections is being recognized, more collections are being sold. With each exchange lies the potential for loss or disregard of information. The market for artifacts also has the potential to encourage collecting and even to promote looting (Harrington 1991). It should be noted that not all collectors do so with the intent to disrupt the archeological record or to profit from artifacts, in fact many are not aware that what they are doing may be inappropriate. Unfortunately, many collectors are very serious collectors, and artifacts to them mean money. American Indian Art Magazine recently reported: Old Barn Auction continues its impressive series of prehistoric sales featuring the collection of the late Colonel Raymond C. Vietzen, Elyria, Ohio. The fifth session on May 15 fetched $215,248 and the sixth session on July 10 made $235,367, bringing the Vietzen current total to $1,777,652 ( 1999:20). In a recent response to this dilemma, the Society for American Archaeology has included in its Principles of Archaeological Ethics, Principle No.3: Commercialization. Part of the principle states: "The commercialization of archaeological objects-their use as commodities to be exploited for personal enjoyment of profit-results in the destruction of archaeological sites and of contextual information that IS essential to understanding the archaeological record" (Lynott 1997:592). The archeological record, as noted in these principles, "is irreplaceable" (ibid.). Though just one component of the archeological record, artifacts are visible, tangible objects, which makes them obtainable. According to the Archeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979: No person may sell, purchase, exchange, transport, receive, or offer to sell, purchase, or exchange any archeological resource if such resource was excavated or removed from public lands or Indian lands in violation of unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, 70 alteration, or defacement of archeological resources or in violation of any provision, rule, regulation, ordinance, or permit in effect under any other provision of Federal law. The law was set into effect on October 31, 1979. Twenty years later, its necessity remains. ARPA does not apply to artifacts collected prior to date of its inception, nor does it apply to artifacts legally obtained from private property. The mixing of collections via commercialization, however, raises the likelihood for illegally obtained artifacts to become lost in the shuffle. Commercialization of artifacts or archeological resources has been and continues to be a serious threat to the archeological record. Monies involved increase with time, as does the seriousness of the business. The buying and selling of artifacts as "simple" as projectile points have made collecting as well as artifacts accessible to everyone. This commercialization is important because it has the potential to destroy the very base of the archeological record. Further, as Richner has stated, "the homogenization of collections has bastardized any potential research value of such" (1999 personal communication). On the SUbject of Fakes Raymond Vietzen noted, "The blame is not with the faker alone but greed and ignorance provide the market and enormous profits. Fakes today are so good it is frightening to see what modem man can do" (1980:37). Flintknapping has become a relatively common hobby, though the production of fraudulent artifacts has been going on for a long time (Smith 1963:123). Not all replicated artifacts are intended to be fraudulent; in fact legitimate lithic experiments have provided archaeologists with a considerable amount of information on the technology (Crabtree 1982; Callahan 1979). These experiments have also 71 provided, as Romain points out, " a technical database for the illicit manufacture of fraudulent artifacts" (1980:42). Fakes are often very difficult to detect, for the amateur and professional alike. This presents a twofold problem to the archeological record. First, the demand for stone artifacts on the market is likely to result in an increase in manufacture of fakes and replicates. Second, more false sites are being created during the manufacture of fakes and replicates; even when care is taken. As noted earlier, the market for stone artifacts is great. Original artifacts typically drive a higher price than do modem replicas. Whittaker and Stafford report that, "many knappers sell points to dealers, and many points pass through several hands on the way to collections. There are thus many opportunities for points to acquire false pedigrees, and be scuffed up, stained, patinated, or otherwise "antiqued" for a more authentic look" (1999:209). Therefore, while not all replicates are produced with intent to deceive, many still find their way to a false authentic status. Further, the authors note, "We used to believe that large numbers of fakes would so debase the market for antiquities that it would reduce the mining of sites for artifacts. We no longer believe this; the market for both seems bottomless" (ibid. 208). Estimates from Whittaker and Stafford's research indicate that as many as 1.5 million points are being produced per year and the amount of related waste would total 375 tons (ibid.21l). It is not only the waste that is creating a problem, but the impact is being shown at raw material source sites as well. Many current material sources were in fact prehistoric sources. When modem knappers remove material, or test on site, the source becomes contaminated. The author was recently exposed to a contaminated site. Fortunately, residents of the property happened to mention that they had a relative who liked to knap. Over a very short period of time (just several years) the flakes he had produced found their way subsurface. Upon recovering the flakes, the archaeologists at the site were able to determine their inauthenticity. Had the residents not mentioned this, or had it been just one year later, it is quite possible that the flakes (made of local material) would have been thought to be genuine; thus altering site interpretation. The Internet Kuhn states, "Many times, the transfer of ownership of an artifact is from one individual to another, through barter or sale, and can be accomplished through personal contact or by publication through advertising. Many advertising sources are currently being used, including the Internet" (1999:53). Perhaps one of the most alarming trends in artifact commercialization is the incorporation of the Internet. This feature is making the buying and selling of artifacts much more accessible to everyone. Further, there is virtually no policing of what is being exchanged through this form of advertisement (the exception is E-bay). Hundreds of internet sites exist where one can quickly and easily point to the artifact of choice and have it delivered to their door. Sellers must also be finding this mechanism of sale quite lucrative. In an unsystematic approach, the author conducted research on the Internet to assess the state of buying and selling artifacts on the Internet. The majority of sites did not provide much, if any, information regarding the original context of the artifacts. Moreover, only one of the sites made mention of the illegality of buying or selling artifacts collected from Federal or Indian lands. The potential for Interstate trafficking appears great. To test this, again unsystematically, the author wrote to one of the site's proprietors in an attempt to gage just how unregulated the operation is. The questioned as posed and the response are as follows: Question: I have what may be a stupid question, but I am fairly new to this hobby. I've been surfing the net looking at Indian artifact sites and noticed that sometimes the location from where the arrowhead was found is listed and sometimes it is not. I have a small collection of arrowheads and have been toying with the idea of selling them. Unfortunately, I do not know where all of them came from originally. Will this have an effect on what prices they may draw? Reply: It depends on the piece. Provenance and history make things sell faster. Some pieces are so much in demand that it doesn't make a lot of difference. Also a lot of folks make up the history as they go on. I would never do that, if I don't know that is what I will say ... (Ron) This clearly indicates the level at which these sites are operating. This was this first and only site the author wrote to and the response indicates that artifacts are simply being exploited as commodities. It was only further indicated by phrases such as "buy now and receive ten percent off' and "Points, just in time for Christmas!" Conclusion According to Murphy et aI., "commodification is the process through which objects of archeological value are transformed through market activities into commodities with monetary value and transferred from public ownership to private" (1995:39). The problems addressed in this paper attest to the fact that this is indeed a dilemma. The role of collectors, the influx of fraudulent artifacts, and the Internet as a trading network are current issues that archaeologists will have to confront. Given the situation, they need to take a proactive stance against the commercialization of artifacts. 72 References Cited American Indian Art Magazine 1999 Winter Issue Callahan, E. 1996 Crabtree, D.E. 1982 Harrington, P.M. The Basics of Biface Knapping in the eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual For Flintknapper and Lithic Analysts. Reprinted from Archaeology of Eastern North America 7, 1979. Piltdown Production, Lynchburg, VA An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum of. Natural History. No. 28. 1991 The Looting of Arkansas. Archaeology, May/June, pp. 22-30. Kuhn,D.W. 1999 Lynott, MJ. Does the Purchase and Sale of Artifacts Benefit the Study of Archaeology? Ohio Archaeologist 49( 1): 53. 1998 Ethical Principals and Archaeological Practice: Development of and Ethics Policy. American Antiquity 62(4): 589-599. Murphy, L.E., M.e. Beaudry, R.E. Adams, and J.A Brown 1995 Commercialization: Beyond the Law of Above It? Ethics and the Selling of the Archaeological Record. Ethics ill American Archaeology. Richner, Jeffrey 1999 Romain, W.F. 1980 Smith, AG. 1963 Personal Communication; Archeologist, Midwest Archeological Center, NPS, Lincoln, NE. Fraudulent Artifacts and Criminal Liability. Ohio Archaeologist 62(3): 42. Fake Relics of the 1880's or Grandpaw Wasn't So Smart Either! Ohio Archaeologist 15(4): 123-125. Whittaker, J.e., and M. Stafford 2000 Replicas, Fakes and Arts: The Twentieth Century Stone Age and its Effects on Archaeology, American Antiquity 64(2): 203-214. Vietzen, R.e. 1980 Fakes. Ohio Archaeologist 30(4): 37-39. 73 

Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of 
1999 
Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New 
Ann C. Bauermeister 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro 
 Part of the Anthropology Commons 
Bauermeister, Ann C., "Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New" (1999). Nebraska 
Anthropologist. 115. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/115 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by 
an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New 
Ann C. Bauermeister 
Archeology has long enjoyed popularity among the public. Such interest is an asset to the 
discipline, for it can generate the support integral to the profession and to the study of the 
archeological record. Unfortunately, the allure of archeology also has the potential to be . 
destructive to the archeological record. When archeology is viewed as a hobby is when problems 
can--and do--arise. The term "amateur archeologist" has been applied to nonprofessional or 
untrained persons who pursue archeological work. Why our profession is thought of as one 
where amateurs are welcome is not entirely clear, though perhaps it is due in part due to how 
archeology has been romanticized through entertainment mediums. This paper addresses the 
current situation regarding collectors or "amateur archeologists". More specifically it focuses 
on the commercialization of antiquities, the problem with fake and replicate artifacts, and finally 
the role that the Internet now plays. 
Commercialization of artifacts is not a 
new problem. It is however, a growing 
problem. Archeologists have dealt or not 
dealt with this issue for decades. The 
current state of buying and selling of 
artifacts, namely Native American Indian 
antiquities demands serious attention. For 
the purposes of this paper, it is important to 
distinguish between those items that were 
made with the intent to sell from those that 
are antiquities. Archeological resources, as 
defined in the Archeological Resource 
Protection Act (1979) are defined as: any 
material remains of past human life or 
activities which are of archaeological 
interest.. .these include, but are not limited 
to: pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, 
weapon projectiles, tools, structures or 
portions of structures, pit houses, rock 
paintings, rock carvings, intaglios, graves, 
human skeletal materials, or any portion or 
piece of any of the foregoing items. 
This paper is concerned with these 
items. The following narrative presents 
information related to the illegal buying and 
selling of artifacts. It focuses primarily on 
Native American Indian artifacts that fit the 
69 
criteria for archeological resources. Three 
main topics will be explored. First, what is 
the role of the artifact collector and what is 
the extent he is contributing to the 
destruction of the archeological record? 
Second, what effect, if any are fake and 
replicate artifacts having on the integrity of 
archeology? And lastly, how does the ease 
and access of the Internet perpetuate the 
commercialization of artifacts. 
[Dis ]Concerning Collectors 
As a common public resource, 
information from the archeological record 
should be shared. This should be done in 
ways that will not jeopardize the resource. 
The public has the right to access 
archeological information. This right has 
also been abused by parts of the public, in 
tum, causing adverse effects both to the 
resource and the general state of archeology. 
Both the need and legal basis to protect sites 
exist, and they exist for a reason. Damage 
to resources caused by nonprofessional 
collecting of artifacts has been recognized as 
one such reason. Context is key is to the 
integrity of any artifact. When an artifact is 
removed from its context, the informational 
value is notably diminished. Formal and 
standardized excavation practices employed 
in archaeology today rely on the concept of 
contextual relevance. Archaeologists are 
emphasizing analytical processes, reporting, 
and curation of recovered artifacts. These 
factors are integral to realizing the full 
potential of the archaeological record. 
Even at the most innocent amateur 
level, collectors are adversely impacting the 
cultural resource that yields artifacts. When 
an artifact is stripped of its provenience it 
loses most of its value as an interpretive tool 
to understanding the past. Even when 
amateur collectors do pay attention to 
location, often times their collections and 
information concerning those collections 
become displaced and the materials become 
merely objects. David Kuhn, a self-
identified amateur Ohio archeologist and 
proponent for collecting, recently had this to 
say on the matter. "One way in which 
amateurs participate in the study of 
archaeology is through the acquisition, 
ownership and transfer of prehistoric 
artifacts and other material from one person 
to another. What better way to document 
the provenience and authenticity of an 
artifact than to have it publicly displayed 
and described on an auction card" (Kuhn 
1999:53). This attitude is opposed by most 
professional archaeologists. In fact, the rift 
between amateurs and professionals has 
grown considerably over the last twenty 
years, making attempts to work together 
more difficult (Richner, 1999 personal 
communication). 
The loss of information is only 
exacerbated when money is introduced. As 
the worth of artifact collections is being 
recognized, more collections are being sold. 
With each exchange lies the potential for 
loss or disregard of information. The market 
for artifacts also has the potential to 
encourage collecting and even to promote 
looting (Harrington 1991). It should be 
noted that not all collectors do so with the 
intent to disrupt the archeological record or 
to profit from artifacts, in fact many are not 
aware that what they are doing may be 
inappropriate. Unfortunately, many 
collectors are very serious collectors, and 
artifacts to them mean money. American 
Indian Art Magazine recently reported: 
Old Barn Auction continues its 
impressive series of prehistoric 
sales featuring the collection of the 
late Colonel Raymond C. Vietzen, 
Elyria, Ohio. The fifth session on 
May 15 fetched $215,248 and the 
sixth session on July 10 made 
$235,367, bringing the Vietzen 
current total to $1,777,652 
( 1999:20). 
In a recent response to this dilemma, 
the Society for American Archaeology has 
included in its Principles of Archaeological 
Ethics, Principle No.3: Commercialization. 
Part of the principle states: 
"The commercialization of 
archaeological objects-their use as 
commodities to be exploited for 
personal enjoyment of profit-
results in the destruction of 
archaeological sites and of 
contextual information that IS 
essential to understanding the 
archaeological record" (Lynott 
1997:592). 
The archeological record, as noted in 
these principles, "is irreplaceable" (ibid.). 
Though just one component of the 
archeological record, artifacts are visible, 
tangible objects, which makes them 
obtainable. According to the Archeological 
Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979: 
No person may sell, purchase, 
exchange, transport, receive, or 
offer to sell, purchase, or exchange 
any archeological resource if such 
resource was excavated or removed 
from public lands or Indian lands in 
violation of unauthorized 
excavation, removal, damage, 
70 
alteration, or defacement of 
archeological resources or in 
violation of any provision, rule, 
regulation, ordinance, or permit in 
effect under any other provision of 
Federal law. 
The law was set into effect on October 
31, 1979. Twenty years later, its necessity 
remains. ARPA does not apply to artifacts 
collected prior to date of its inception, nor 
does it apply to artifacts legally obtained 
from private property. The mixing of 
collections via commercialization, however, 
raises the likelihood for illegally obtained 
artifacts to become lost in the shuffle. 
Commercialization of artifacts or 
archeological resources has been and 
continues to be a serious threat to the 
archeological record. Monies involved 
increase with time, as does the seriousness 
of the business. The buying and selling of 
artifacts as "simple" as projectile points 
have made collecting as well as artifacts 
accessible to everyone. This 
commercialization is important because it 
has the potential to destroy the very base of 
the archeological record. Further, as 
Richner has stated, "the homogenization of 
collections has bastardized any potential 
research value of such" (1999 personal 
communication). 
On the SUbject of Fakes 
Raymond Vietzen noted, "The blame 
is not with the faker alone but greed and 
ignorance provide the market and enormous 
profits. Fakes today are so good it is 
frightening to see what modem man can do" 
(1980:37). Flintknapping has become a 
relatively common hobby, though the 
production of fraudulent artifacts has been 
going on for a long time (Smith 1963:123). 
Not all replicated artifacts are intended to be 
fraudulent; in fact legitimate lithic 
experiments have provided archaeologists 
with a considerable amount of information 
on the technology (Crabtree 1982; Callahan 
1979). These experiments have also 
71 
provided, as Romain points out, " a 
technical database for the illicit manufacture 
of fraudulent artifacts" (1980:42). Fakes are 
often very difficult to detect, for the amateur 
and professional alike. This presents a 
twofold problem to the archeological record. 
First, the demand for stone artifacts on the 
market is likely to result in an increase in 
manufacture of fakes and replicates. 
Second, more false sites are being created 
during the manufacture of fakes and 
replicates; even when care is taken. 
As noted earlier, the market for stone 
artifacts is great. Original artifacts typically 
drive a higher price than do modem replicas. 
Whittaker and Stafford report that, "many 
knappers sell points to dealers, and many 
points pass through several hands on the 
way to collections. There are thus many 
opportunities for points to acquire false 
pedigrees, and be scuffed up, stained, 
patinated, or otherwise "antiqued" for a 
more authentic look" (1999:209). 
Therefore, while not all replicates are 
produced with intent to deceive, many still 
find their way to a false authentic status. 
Further, the authors note, "We used to 
believe that large numbers of fakes would so 
debase the market for antiquities that it 
would reduce the mining of sites for 
artifacts. We no longer believe this; the 
market for both seems bottomless" (ibid. 
208). 
Estimates from Whittaker and 
Stafford's research indicate that as many as 
1.5 million points are being produced per 
year and the amount of related waste would 
total 375 tons (ibid.21l). It is not only the 
waste that is creating a problem, but the 
impact is being shown at raw material 
source sites as well. Many current material 
sources were in fact prehistoric sources. 
When modem knappers remove material, or 
test on site, the source becomes 
contaminated. 
The author was recently exposed to a 
contaminated site. Fortunately, residents of 
the property happened to mention that they 
had a relative who liked to knap. Over a 
very short period of time (just several years) 
the flakes he had produced found their way 
subsurface. Upon recovering the flakes, the 
archaeologists at the site were able to 
determine their inauthenticity. Had the 
residents not mentioned this, or had it been 
just one year later, it is quite possible that 
the flakes (made of local material) would 
have been thought to be genuine; thus 
altering site interpretation. 
The Internet 
Kuhn states, "Many times, the 
transfer of ownership of an artifact is from 
one individual to another, through barter or 
sale, and can be accomplished through 
personal contact or by publication through 
advertising. Many advertising sources are 
currently being used, including the Internet" 
(1999:53). Perhaps one of the most alarming 
trends in artifact commercialization is the 
incorporation of the Internet. This feature is 
making the buying and selling of artifacts 
much more accessible to everyone. Further, 
there is virtually no policing of what is being 
exchanged through this form of 
advertisement (the exception is E-bay). 
Hundreds of internet sites exist where one 
can quickly and easily point to the artifact of 
choice and have it delivered to their door. 
Sellers must also be finding this mechanism 
of sale quite lucrative. 
In an unsystematic approach, the 
author conducted research on the Internet to 
assess the state of buying and selling 
artifacts on the Internet. The majority of 
sites did not provide much, if any, 
information regarding the original context of 
the artifacts. Moreover, only one of the sites 
made mention of the illegality of buying or 
selling artifacts collected from Federal or 
Indian lands. The potential for Interstate 
trafficking appears great. To test this, again 
unsystematically, the author wrote to one of 
the site's proprietors in an attempt to gage 
just how unregulated the operation is. The 
questioned as posed and the response are as 
follows: 
Question: 
I have what may be a stupid 
question, but I am fairly new to this 
hobby. I've been surfing the net 
looking at Indian artifact sites and 
noticed that sometimes the location 
from where the arrowhead was 
found is listed and sometimes it is 
not. I have a small collection of 
arrowheads and have been toying 
with the idea of selling them. 
Unfortunately, I do not know where 
all of them came from originally. 
Will this have an effect on what 
prices they may draw? 
Reply: 
It depends on the piece. 
Provenance and history make things 
sell faster. Some pieces are so much 
in demand that it doesn't make a lot 
of difference. Also a lot of folks 
make up the history as they go on. I 
would never do that, if I don't know 
that is what I will say ... (Ron) 
This clearly indicates the level at 
which these sites are operating. This was 
this first and only site the author wrote to 
and the response indicates that artifacts are 
simply being exploited as commodities. It 
was only further indicated by phrases such 
as "buy now and receive ten percent off' 
and "Points, just in time for Christmas!" 
Conclusion 
According to Murphy et aI., 
"commodification is the process through 
which objects of archeological value are 
transformed through market activities into 
commodities with monetary value and 
transferred from public ownership to 
private" (1995:39). The problems addressed 
in this paper attest to the fact that this is 
indeed a dilemma. The role of collectors, 
the influx of fraudulent artifacts, and the 
Internet as a trading network are current 
issues that archaeologists will have to 
confront. Given the situation, they need to 
take a proactive stance against the 
commercialization of artifacts. 
72 
References Cited 
American Indian Art Magazine 
1999 Winter Issue 
Callahan, E. 
1996 
Crabtree, D.E. 
1982 
Harrington, P.M. 
The Basics of Biface Knapping in the eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual For 
Flintknapper and Lithic Analysts. Reprinted from Archaeology of Eastern North 
America 7, 1979. Piltdown Production, Lynchburg, VA 
An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum of. Natural 
History. No. 28. 
1991 The Looting of Arkansas. Archaeology, May/June, pp. 22-30. 
Kuhn,D.W. 
1999 
Lynott, MJ. 
Does the Purchase and Sale of Artifacts Benefit the Study of Archaeology? Ohio 
Archaeologist 49( 1): 53. 
1998 Ethical Principals and Archaeological Practice: Development of and Ethics Policy. 
American Antiquity 62(4): 589-599. 
Murphy, L.E., M.e. Beaudry, R.E. Adams, and J.A Brown 
1995 Commercialization: Beyond the Law of Above It? Ethics and the Selling of the 
Archaeological Record. Ethics ill American Archaeology. 
Richner, Jeffrey 
1999 
Romain, W.F. 
1980 
Smith, AG. 
1963 
Personal Communication; Archeologist, Midwest Archeological Center, NPS, Lincoln, 
NE. 
Fraudulent Artifacts and Criminal Liability. Ohio Archaeologist 62(3): 42. 
Fake Relics of the 1880's or Grandpaw Wasn't So Smart Either! Ohio Archaeologist 
15(4): 123-125. 
Whittaker, J.e., and M. Stafford 
2000 Replicas, Fakes and Arts: The Twentieth Century Stone Age and its Effects on 
Archaeology, American Antiquity 64(2): 203-214. 
Vietzen, R.e. 
1980 Fakes. Ohio Archaeologist 30(4): 37-39. 
73 


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&amp;context=nebanthro

Commercialization in Archaeology: Problems, Old and New

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries