bigscoop
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,653
- Reaction score
- 9,097
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Wherever there be treasure!
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Re: Lets Discuss (like gentlemen) "The Great Divide" - Artifact Sales
My point with the above post, "Liabilities in the Dirt" was simply to bring to light that when we accept the idea that everything should be recovered and preserved then we also have to accept the fact there is a cost associated with all of it. The bottom line is that it all comes back to money in the end, and so everything has a value attached to it. If we take a piece of old pottery that has a street value of say, $10, and we store that item year after year then before long the cost of storing that item far exceeds the value of the item. Simply put, it's bad business, or more accurately, it's a business of building liabilities and increased debt. And if we're doing that with thousands upon thousands of items, then quite clearly it is extremely bad business because there isn't, and never will be, enough money to support that business logic and practice. But I also want to point out that this is the current nature of a business that thousands rely on as a source of income and that a portion of this business is also a benefit and a necessity. Archeologist could be, and should be, great educators, and the area in which they work could actually provide a source of self-supporting income and far-greater opportunity. But checks & balances never lie and the system that is currently under thumb, "can't work". I don't see how change can be avoided, especially if their is any concern or conscience regarding financial stability. Instead of continuing to throw good money at bad ivestments, why not create a better system that invest good money into good assets?
My point with the above post, "Liabilities in the Dirt" was simply to bring to light that when we accept the idea that everything should be recovered and preserved then we also have to accept the fact there is a cost associated with all of it. The bottom line is that it all comes back to money in the end, and so everything has a value attached to it. If we take a piece of old pottery that has a street value of say, $10, and we store that item year after year then before long the cost of storing that item far exceeds the value of the item. Simply put, it's bad business, or more accurately, it's a business of building liabilities and increased debt. And if we're doing that with thousands upon thousands of items, then quite clearly it is extremely bad business because there isn't, and never will be, enough money to support that business logic and practice. But I also want to point out that this is the current nature of a business that thousands rely on as a source of income and that a portion of this business is also a benefit and a necessity. Archeologist could be, and should be, great educators, and the area in which they work could actually provide a source of self-supporting income and far-greater opportunity. But checks & balances never lie and the system that is currently under thumb, "can't work". I don't see how change can be avoided, especially if their is any concern or conscience regarding financial stability. Instead of continuing to throw good money at bad ivestments, why not create a better system that invest good money into good assets?
The bottom line here is that this VAST POOL didn't, and doesn't, invest in their individual pursuits for nothing. They enjoy the research and the hunts and they want to privately own personal collections and pieces, and they want to be credited and appreciated for their discoveries, not prosecuted, just as any archeologist wants to be treated and recognized for his/her personal achievements.
But perhaps, the current situation really needs to all come down to money? Maybe that is our best approach and ally? "We"...the entire treasure hunting community, could provide a lot of revenue to help support the archeological community if we could just meet on that middle ground to discuss the possibilities. Personally, I would have no problem with paying a yearly fee in order to obtain a license/permit, nor would I have a problem with reporting all of my designated finds so the state could evaluate the item's significance....."if"......a fair and just platform for their obtaining the item could be administered, if in fact they desired to own it and felt it was worth the investment. Here's what I'm roughly envisioning:
