What is it that makes people think Archaeologist are bad?

[Tuberale]

I was agreeing with you, Twisted One. It was not meant at all as an insult. I apologize if you viewed it as such. I believe many archies are childish: they want all potential archeological sites for themselves. Plus funding. From everyone else. Adults learn to share.

I too live on the West Coast. And while a lot of history resides less than 200 years old, some of the most interesting does not.

Your question about sites of the 1800's is also I generally agree with. I would posit that some things, say those pertaining to the assination of President Lincoln, for instance, need to be explored further. (I have an early newspaper clipping from Southern Oregon alerting people to a horsethief named John Wilkes Booth, "late of Jacksonville."

RE: underwear: TMI!

I'm not sure if you saying I have their mindset was meant as an insult, or that you think I am getting a grasp of the difference between the groups

As far as age goes, I think you are asking for a bit much when you talk about the 200 to 600 year age range. I mean depending on where you are at a lot of the history in your area might be contained in that very age range. I live on the west coast where the early settlers dated only as far back as the mid 1800's.
Of course there were earlier settlers that we know very little about. Which also lends to your suggestion. If we already know the majority of the stories from the mid 1800's to now. Then why do they need archaeological sites for those periods? As far as my area we damn near know everything that happened during that time period down to how often the average person changed their underwear.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[kuger]

I was agreeing with you, Twisted One. It was not meant at all as an insult. I apologize if you viewed it as such. I believe many archies are childish: they want all potential archeological sites for themselves. Plus funding. From everyone else. Adults learn to share.

I too live on the West Coast. And while a lot of history resides less than 200 years old, some of the most interesting does not.

Your question about sites of the 1800's is also I generally agree with. I would posit that some things, say those pertaining to the assination of President Lincoln, for instance, need to be explored further. (I have an early newspaper clipping from Southern Oregon alerting people to a horsethief named John Wilkes Booth, "late of Jacksonville."

RE: underwear: TMI!

I'm not sure if you saying I have their mindset was meant as an insult, or that you think I am getting a grasp of the difference between the groups

As far as age goes, I think you are asking for a bit much when you talk about the 200 to 600 year age range. I mean depending on where you are at a lot of the history in your area might be contained in that very age range. I live on the west coast where the early settlers dated only as far back as the mid 1800's.
Of course there were earlier settlers that we know very little about. Which also lends to your suggestion. If we already know the majority of the stories from the mid 1800's to now. Then why do they need archaeological sites for those periods? As far as my area we damn near know everything that happened during that time period down to how often the average person changed their underwear.

Well said Tuber!

 

[Twisted One]

I did not assume it was an insult, just wanted to make sure I have to agree with you on the rest. There is a place for both communities, but one doesn't want the other, and feels the we will find something they should have. I understand their concerns, but I can not see them trying to understand ours. I am sure there are some. But that seems to be how it's always going to be.

A few good ones and a few bad ones on each side, swaying the feelings of both sides.

 

[Philvis]

Not exactly on topic, but as a trained archaeologist did the recent show Diggers concern you? And where do you stand on the hobbyist? Obviously you don't have a very negative look on the hobby since you are here.

I've been an unsuccesful metal detectorist for quite some time now. $495 more in change and my Tejon is paid for, haha! I think as long as you are not digging illegally and are responsible in the way you do dig, there is nothing wrong with metal detecting. I do take issue with pot hunting, where pot hunters are plowing through graves or true archaeological sites, but digging up a button, bullet, coin, etc. is not destroying archaeological context in my opinion.

The Diggers show didn't really bother me too much as far as semantics are concerned. I stated in a different post I just wish it educated the general public a bit more as far as ethics go when it comes to metal detecting (e.g. proper plugs when digging a hole, permissions, etc.). I really think if they hit on those aspects, it would help in not painting such a negative conotation on detectorists as some people think it does. I really don't care for the 'comedic' elements of the show too much either, but that is just my personal preference. Lastly, I honestly don't think the show paints an end of the world type scenario for metal detecting that some think will happen. It's entertaining enough and will probably inspire some people to go out and buy a metal detector and give the hobby a go, but what people need to realize is that this show isn't blasting on NBC, ABC, or CBS during prime time. It's a VERY niched type of show. I don't see it lasting too long because it just isn't producing super fantastic finds people care to watch for, and if it does start doing that...that's when you will know it is scripted.

 

[Twisted One]

Thanks for your perspective. I am not fully educated on the meaning of "context" when it comes to archaeological terms, but I have a mild understanding of it. And it seems to be the biggest concern for them, as well as one of the few things that separates us.

As far as the show was concerned, I agree. I think the fact that they picked two places to hunt that are actually on the National historic site registry was their biggest mistake. Not showing the responsibilities that many hobbyist have imposed upon themselves, and follow it out of ethics would have put us in a better light. Still would not have appeased the Archaeology gods though.

 

[wreck_gal87]

Most of the archies I know are the type of people you'd like to have a beer with.

 

[diggemall]

Borrowed from Bum Luck's post in another thread:

""The effects of SB 868 have been misunderstood. This bill simply extends current law to areas in which the State currently does not have jurisdiction."

Read that statement again, until it sinks in.

We have those areas in Wisconsin. Two years ago the DNR archie decided on his own that there would be NO detecting on state controlled properties. That, because of a legal principle called the "Public Trust Doctrine". He is the officer of that Public Trust, and so prohibits metal detecting on state controlled properties.

That includes ALL waters in the state; rivers, streams, lakes, and marshes.

As well as state parks, state natural areas, state recreation areas, state forests, and probably shorelines. Here's a link to that discussion:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php?topic=215494.0


From my own earlier post on the subject:


WI has 5,633,610 acres held by the State & Federal govt.
Assuming an excavation "pit" of 1 sq yd, that translates into 27,266,672,400 potential "pits". (That's 27+ BILLION)
Even if they were capable of excavating a single pit in only two days (I know - that's too fast) and IF they were able to work 1,000 pits simultaneously and continuously, 365 days / year;
IT WOULD TAKE OVER 149,000 YEARS TO EXAMINE EVERY SQUARE YARD OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAND (never mind County, municipal, and private land) IN THIS STATE ALONE !

Sorry, only a complete and total moron would think for even a heartbeat that it all has to be "protected" for "professionals" to exhume, when such a task is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

I had nothing against archies until our state buffoon pulled this one.

Ludicrous, pure & simple.

Diggem'

 

[Frankn]

As you can see, the answer to your question is one word, "REALITY".