Scan barcode
A review by librarianonparade
Finders Keepers: A Tale of Archaeological Plunder and Obsession by Craig Childs
3.0
This book is essentially one long personal rumination on the ethics of archaeology, of artefact preservation and collection, the role of museum curators, archaeologists, dealers and collectors in both preserving and destroying the archaeological record, depending on which side of the ethical fence you fall on. It's an interesting moral dilemma, one I'm not sure I've fully come to a conclusion on, even at the end of this book.
Childs argues that in removing artefacts from their locations we are losing something, that despite the preservation of the object itself, we lose the context, the geographical link between object and land, that in making the decision to remove it, to study it and save it for posterity, we are stamping our own brand of ownership on it, indulging in the human need to collect. He effectively argues that we should leave things where we find them, that not everything needs to be studied and logged and stored.
It's not an argument I'm entirely sure I agree with. If taken to its logical conclusion, we would know nothing of our history, and progress would either be paralysed by the necessity of preserving relics intact so as not to disturb them at all or the artefacts would be utterly destroyed with no attempt to understand them or their history. To a certain extent it's a very sentimental view of history, that somehow simply being old lends these objects a certain sacredness, an inviolability. Their original viewers would almost certainly not have held such a view, although they also probably wouldn't have understood our interest to begin with.
On the flip side, this urge to collect has led to a massive black market trade in illicit artefacts and valuable historical sites being utterly destroyed by looters and diggers intent only on finding things of value to sell. Childs definitely feels that in such a circumstance, archaeological digs are the lesser of two evils and that if anyone must remove relics and artefacts he would rather it was archaeologists with the intent to study and understand and preserve, than looters intend only on a quick buck and collectors motivated by the urge to possess. The author's ambivalent position comes across very strongly in this book, and one feels that his heart is urging him to leave things alone, to see, appreciate and move on, whilst his head understands the need to study and preserve.
Personally, I think the advancement of human knowledge is more important than leaving items as they are. Yes, it might be wonderful to think of historical sites preserved in situ, as they were intended to be seen, that we 'look but don't touch', that we let nature take its course. But I feel that's a fanciful view of the world that has no grounding in reality. It seems humans either value these items too much and covet them or we value them not at all and destroy them. Either way, leaving them alone seems to me simply a recipe for the worst of both worlds - no advancement of knowledge and understanding and no preservation either.
Childs argues that in removing artefacts from their locations we are losing something, that despite the preservation of the object itself, we lose the context, the geographical link between object and land, that in making the decision to remove it, to study it and save it for posterity, we are stamping our own brand of ownership on it, indulging in the human need to collect. He effectively argues that we should leave things where we find them, that not everything needs to be studied and logged and stored.
It's not an argument I'm entirely sure I agree with. If taken to its logical conclusion, we would know nothing of our history, and progress would either be paralysed by the necessity of preserving relics intact so as not to disturb them at all or the artefacts would be utterly destroyed with no attempt to understand them or their history. To a certain extent it's a very sentimental view of history, that somehow simply being old lends these objects a certain sacredness, an inviolability. Their original viewers would almost certainly not have held such a view, although they also probably wouldn't have understood our interest to begin with.
On the flip side, this urge to collect has led to a massive black market trade in illicit artefacts and valuable historical sites being utterly destroyed by looters and diggers intent only on finding things of value to sell. Childs definitely feels that in such a circumstance, archaeological digs are the lesser of two evils and that if anyone must remove relics and artefacts he would rather it was archaeologists with the intent to study and understand and preserve, than looters intend only on a quick buck and collectors motivated by the urge to possess. The author's ambivalent position comes across very strongly in this book, and one feels that his heart is urging him to leave things alone, to see, appreciate and move on, whilst his head understands the need to study and preserve.
Personally, I think the advancement of human knowledge is more important than leaving items as they are. Yes, it might be wonderful to think of historical sites preserved in situ, as they were intended to be seen, that we 'look but don't touch', that we let nature take its course. But I feel that's a fanciful view of the world that has no grounding in reality. It seems humans either value these items too much and covet them or we value them not at all and destroy them. Either way, leaving them alone seems to me simply a recipe for the worst of both worlds - no advancement of knowledge and understanding and no preservation either.