64 Alaskan Science Conference 



satisfied with only a general outline of his field work and dis- 

 coveries, an outline such as might be given to Science or the 

 Journal of American Archaeology. No genuine scientist will 

 ever object to submitting a preliminary report of this nature, 

 especially since without it the Canadian government could not 

 maintain an adequate record of archaeological work within its 

 Arctic. 



More debatable than the clause requiring the presentation 

 of a report are those dealing with the examination and dispo- 

 sition of the specimens. When first laid down this regulation 

 had in view two purposes: first, to check the peddling for sale of 

 archaeological specimens and to ensure their preservation in a 

 public institution; and, second, to retain within Canada, if pos- 

 sible, objects of exceptional scientific or historical value— or at 

 least replicas of those objects. The authorities had no intention 

 of adopting a dog-in-the-manger policy, of letting any ultrana- 

 tionalism run away with them. On the contrary, they hoped by 

 these clauses to encourage closer cooperation among Canadian 

 and foreign archaeologists, recognizing that the scientist who 

 is sponsored by a reputable institution works for the benefit of 

 every one. In interpreting the clauses, therefore, they have tried 

 to exercise tact and common sense, to follow the spirit of the 

 ordinance rather than its literal wording. My impression is that 

 they have succeeded very well, on the whole, and I think Dr. 

 Collins and others will agree with me. 



The penalties laid down for infringement of the ordinance 

 are certainly severe— a fine of up to $1000 and (or) imprison- 

 ment up to six months. As far as I am aware, these penalties 

 have never been imposed, nor has any charge of infringement 

 been actually carried to the law courts. Yet the liability to such 

 penalties has certainly been a powerful deterrent to unauthor- 

 ized excavations. One still hears, occasionally, of an ancient 

 house ruin being dug into by a casual curio hunter, nearly 

 always an Eskimo; but the wholesale destruction of archaeologi- 

 cal sites that seemed to be impending a quarter of a century ago 

 has been definitely averted. 



The history of your own Antiquities Act has shown that it is 



