Am I understanding this correctly that the place he “looted” from was the ground? As in he found and dug up coins?
And this is so heinous an action that metal detectors are banned?
And this is so heinous an action that metal detectors are banned?
Aint gonna work!
On the one hand, the argument is that individuals collecting artifacts destroys the scientific utility of the excavation site. On the other hand, someone doing the work to find coins seems better than nobody doing that work and having them lay in the ground.
I wonder if there are more instances of this trade-off between potential good and immediate good.
The coins existing has no value except to criminals. The actual value is the total context of the site which has huge value to archeologists. Archeology is also progressing so the later something is excavated the more we learn. So just destroying stuff like this guy did robs us all of tons of data.
Trading off long term good for immediate satisfaction is pretty common. Getting the discipline to wait for the long term gain is a thing we train kids to do, with varying degrees of success. I’m a sucker for wanting the nice shiny thing right now.
Taking the coins from the ground isn't the important part, its the scientific analysis in context that provides insight into the place's history. A coin in itself doesn't tell much, a lot of the same were probably found before.
It would be better for the sites to be explored properly later on. If it was a first come, first serve kind of thing, there wouldn't be anything left for future technology.
https://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136252401/chasing-aphrodite-a...
It’s not often discussed, but much of what you can see of Greco-Roman artifacts in the permanent collections of American museums, for example, was likely to have been looted.