By: Tracy Brown

Tracy Brown — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:59:45 +0000

Well, if you are going to hang this guy, you might as well hang W.E. Myer and G.P. Thruston right beside him. All of them had their roots in 19th century antiquarianism and the Chicago Field School did not happen until much later. All sorts of arguments could probably be lodged on this issue. I tend to view the Chicago Field School as the true beginning of professional archaeology in the eastern United States. Everything before that I tend to view as some form of 19th century antiquarianism (some more evolved than others), even if it happened in the early 20th century. If one insists on drawing a line in the sand, that is where I would draw mine. If Barnes was acting as a Field Assistant for T.M.N. Lewis, he may have stepped over the line into being a professional archaeologist during the Norris Basin Project. I guess the question I would ask Mark Williams is:

“Do you really think it is fair to rag that hard on a man just for being a product of his own time, and how log after his death does he have to pay for that crime?”

By: Brian Blake

Brian Blake — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:38:46 +0000

Don’t see how digging a trench on his own time, that is, unsponsored by an institution, to uncover Indian artifacts makes Barnes a “looter.” What law did he break? All archeological finds are discovered this way. Knowledge is advanced, which is the point. The artifacts that end up in nonprofit display cases are also removed from their sites without the original owners’ permission, which would be hard to come by since they’ve been dead for thousands of years.

Comments on: Artifact looter, or artifact collector?

By: Tracy Brown

By: Brian Blake