One of the thorniest ethical issues in archaeology today has to do with the repercussions of rampant looting over the past several hundred years. Artifacts without provenience--that is, ones that we cannot say for sure were recovered from an archaeological site under scientific excavation--are, almost without exception, the result of looting. Many scholars and publications, particularly the prestigious American Schools of Oriental Research and the Archaeological Institute of America, have developed codes of ethics that include suggesting that using artifacts lacking provenience in a research report is tantamount to supporting the looting.
However, one vociferous opponent to this stance has been Herschel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), who has taken a great deal of criticism over the years for accepting advertisements for the sale of such artifacts within his pages, and has long been a supporter of antiquities dealers.
As reported in the May 2nd New York Times story "Must Looted Objects Be Ignored?", the BAR website is hosting a 'Statement of Concern' authored by archaeologist Lawrence Stager, and signed by 100 scholars from around the world, asking whether the ban on the use of unprovenienced artifacts should be lifted. They argue that much of the history of the Near East would be shut to us if we cannot use these unprovenienced items, including the "Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Codices, the recently reported Gospel of Judas, [and] the Wadi Daliyeh papyri".
I can't pretend to know what the answer is. The fact of the matter is that looting--particularly in the war torn and most ancient country of Iraq--has increased over the years regardless of the ban. The information within these items is clearly of importance to understanding the history of many parts of the world, and the reality might be to accept the use of these materials. But oh! what a first step on a slippery slope this is.
However, one vociferous opponent to this stance has been Herschel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), who has taken a great deal of criticism over the years for accepting advertisements for the sale of such artifacts within his pages, and has long been a supporter of antiquities dealers.
As reported in the May 2nd New York Times story "Must Looted Objects Be Ignored?", the BAR website is hosting a 'Statement of Concern' authored by archaeologist Lawrence Stager, and signed by 100 scholars from around the world, asking whether the ban on the use of unprovenienced artifacts should be lifted. They argue that much of the history of the Near East would be shut to us if we cannot use these unprovenienced items, including the "Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Codices, the recently reported Gospel of Judas, [and] the Wadi Daliyeh papyri".
I can't pretend to know what the answer is. The fact of the matter is that looting--particularly in the war torn and most ancient country of Iraq--has increased over the years regardless of the ban. The information within these items is clearly of importance to understanding the history of many parts of the world, and the reality might be to accept the use of these materials. But oh! what a first step on a slippery slope this is.
- Must Looted Relics Be Ignored?", Hugh Eakin in the New York Times, 02 May 2006
- Publication of Unprovenienced Artifacts, Lawrence E. Stager, Biblical Archaeology Review
- Response to the 'Statement of Concern', from Jane Waldbaum of the Archaeological Institute of America
- The American Schools of Oriental Research Policy on the Preservation of Archaeological Resources
- David Beard posted the original note about the article.
- Must Looted Relics be Ignored?, Timothy Jones in remote central
- The Stager Petition in the News, Jim West in Petro's Baptist Church
Comments
Do archaeologists really say “provenience”? Geologists never do; instead they say “provenance.” My dictionary has both words.
As a matter of fact, most American archaeologists say ‘provenience’, while most UK archaeologists say ‘provenance’, at least that’s my impression. Think I’ll run a poll to find out, though!