Archeology vs. Relic Hunting

[beavis]

My close friend is an archeologist and cringes at the approach we relic hunters take to objects. He wants me to slowly brush the soil away, even if the object may be 12 inches deep, because you never know what might be there. I do carefully clean away the soil if an item seems fragile, hanging halfway in the hole, etc. Does anyone else here have problems like this & what do you do?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[wildrider]

Alot of the places that I hunt have been plowed and or had modernism tossed into the mix.

Archies whole point "so they say" is to see how the people lived. I think the opportunity is there, if they get into an undisturbed place.

They can do a three month study on a landowners property and be cussing you across the fence for ruining it for them. Didn't they get enough info from the camp they've been studying. How is it going to be different on the other side of the fence? Sometimes, I think they are just greedy.

Most digs are funded by different organizations and they are hired to do the work. Yet we are messing a spot up that they would never be hunting in the first place, because they won't do it for free.

I know some archies and get along with them. They realize they or no one else will ever get to that site for investigation. But, they sure won't talk about any sites they know either. Top secret, ya know.

I think they they are special because they can do a study and get a grant for it. I think I can do the same thing and not get grant money for it.

Ranting, hyperventilating......cough cough

LOL

Burt

 

[slowreaper]

Long long ago and far far away, I used to have the right to collect for a museum or two. Granted a lot of the stuff came from looters that I was able to find and confiscate from, but some of it came from sites. Most of which was done after documented and mapped. Don't get me wrong I photographed and measured everything prior to removal, that I collected.

I was rather proud of my possition and had a high oppinion of myself and what I did. Then it hit me..... The only real difference in what I did and what so many others did is I had a piece of paper that said I could.

Now, it really doesn't matter to me all that much!

There are prestine sites that no one will see and only a couple pieces will make it into a museum that some people will see. History isn't lost when stuff is taken, the greater injustice is that a couple people decide that some stuff will never been seen so as to save it for all of us... WTH does that mean? Is man so full of themselves that the junk of days gone by and controlled by a few eletists is of the importance they want us to believe.

Open the whole field back up and let them work for it just like the rest of us, might get some of them off their back sides and take some wind out of their sails.

Brad

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Trouble with archeologists is they strip-mine a site to assure they have every cloth remnant or soil impression and pottery shard in the surrounding strata.

I surgically remove only the coins or better preserved metallic objects (lead & nickel or better in conductivity) in only the top foot of soil, leaving the older (deeper) and more fragile (and disintegrating) iron, wood or bone relics for them. ;-)

 

[Noodle]

Have you ever noticed how a dentist can make your day by pointing out to you that if you don't floss twice a day, you're ruining your health? Or the doctor wants to know if you smoked a cigarette when you were 15 so he can blame your declining health on that? People who are trained and work at something the way they were trained just think that way. It's their primary function in life. Archies are good folks (ask their mothers) who grew up wanting to dig up things out of the ground, with or without a MD. Then they went to school and were told to NEVER stick a shovel in the ground. Dig with a camel-hair brush so as not to disturb anything valuable. So they all went home and threw their shovels away and bought lots of brushes. Now, when they see the "uneducated" MDers out there, they cringe. We don't have brushes, or a grant, just a desire to see what's under the next layer. I think, though, that we're smart enough to know that there probably isn't anything "down there" that is historically significant. Have you ever found anything historically significant? I haven't. Don't expect to. Even on the battlefields the archies say they can unearth everything, plot it off, and tell who won the battle. Bull! Which side did THAT bullet belong to? History tells us who won the battle. And most of the bodies were cleaned up after the skirmishes, or scattered by animals. They want a real live scenario to come to life, but to my way of thinking all they're going to find is "they had a fire pit here and put their tent up over there." This is valuable in a historical setting, such as old Indian grounds, villages, etc., that are thousands of years old. But to my way of thinking, besides an arrowhead or two, everything I will ever find will be less than 150 years old. Yes, archies are special and I appreciate them for their knowledge. They just can't get past their education to come up to our level of just having fun. We're not destroying history; just admiring a piece or two of it now and then. JMHO -Noodle

 

[warsawdaddy]

The archies are just not old enough!For Heaven sake,most people my age already know how people lived from 1800 on in this country from our own ancestors.My g'mother raised me and her mother,my g'g'mother lived with us and she was born in 1861.We had and used things that belonged to her folks.IT HASN'T BEEN THAT LONG AGO! Archaeology,per Webster,is the study of life styles of people long ago in ANCIENT times.Webster says the ancient times are before the MIDDLE AGES! Not things belonging to my g'g'gfather!But ,I guess,they don't know the difference between antique and relic.A car over 25yrs old is considered an antique.And,yes,I think we have helped thier cause by using the term 'relic' so loosely.We as a group,should have came up with a better term for our CW and Rev War items.But when it was developing,there wasn't a problem with archies.But since they can never find much in this new country,they jumped right on us.I'll quit,this is too long now,the longer it goes,the more my blood boils.Sorry.

 

[El Cooter]

Its like Chevy and Ford! Which one is better. My analogy. Cooter

 

[lucky1777]

I have a good friend who is an Archy. He has dug with me and given me pointers on how to clean and preserve and identify relics. He has never condemned me or others who detect. His view is that without us a lot of relics would remain lost forever. There are some good ones out there and I would recommend trying to talk with one and get to know them as a person and not a threat. They can be a great asset to you.

 

[warsawdaddy]

Sorry,Lucky,but an individual here and there does not ,in my mind,forgive the lobbying at the state and federal levels the archies are doing to put all the MD'rs on the shelf.Look nationwide at the places that have been put off-limits to us already.

 

[lucky1777]

Sorry,Lucky,but an individual here and there does not ,in my mind,forgive the lobbying at the state and federal levels the archies are doing to put all the MD'rs on the shelf.Look nationwide at the places that have been put off-limits to us already.

Just my point on trying to get to know some of them. We will never be able to out lobby them, so it might help us out if we try to befriend a few. They can teach us a lot if we just learn to listen and not try to compete with them.

 

[334dave]

well i am so new i dont think i should have an onion about this

but i do ...
arcy's and those that make KeeP out leases :P =
one in the same...

 

[treasurejack]

I would say that anything that has never been found or studied before should belong to the archies, i.e., "things still unidentified or largely uncertain." Beyond that, I think they waste a lot of grant money studying a lot of the same things, also waste a lot of our tax dollars in the process. I wish there was a happy medium between our two groups, perhaps then we would all see some real progress being made.

 

[swingman]

DON'T GET ME STARTED!

Yes, 'archies' can be a help, as long as they don't get political. Too often they paint detectorists as 'looters', but then take our help when they need our MD expertise for something.
Most of 'history' is buried deeper than the depth a typical detector can go. And in some sites (like farmfields), that history has already been disturbed by many plowings. This blows holes in their usual complaint, that we're ruining/stealing 'history'.
AND - 99% of that history will rot in the ground anyway. Most archies have a small backlog of sites they wish to 'dig'. They may not get to them in 100 years. So if we find/preserve/display (and in a few cases donate) artifacts, at least someone gets to see some real historical stuff. That means a lot more to the average person, than a 'reconstruction' of life after a dig. Who ever reads those reports, if they're ever finished? I know of archie basements filled with stuff from 'digs', that will never be catalogued or see the light of day.
So there!