If we dont dig it, who will?

[Dick Stout]

If we don't dig it, who will?

If We Don?t Dig It, Who Will? | Stout Standards

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Barnum, let me save you some time, and let you know what the purist archie's answer would be, to your question of:

"If we don't dig it, who will?"

They would dispute the notion of "no one digging it", to begin with. While it may seem crazy now, that if a park is 100000 acres, and an archie pit only covers 4' x 4' and takes an entire summer, yet ......... they would argue .......... that ......... perhaps 10000 yrs. from now, someone *might* do an archaeological pit, in the exact spot you just pulled that barber dime from today. And thus, you have "robbed" those future generations from "knowing about their past". (shame on you).

As for private property, well, that's a different matter. But just addressing your question, as it pertains to mundane public lands.

As for the end of your blog/link, I see the following quote:

"..... but I was checking out the Florida Public Archaeology Network and found this paragraph under number 12, “Can I Metal Detecting in Florida”….?

And it goes on to spell dire statements by the archies, claiming you "can't do this" and you "can't do that", etc... But .... doh, get the ORIGINATION of such statements: Someone asks an archie: "Can I metal detect?..." .. Well, doh, what did you expect them to say? I mean, that would be a little like asking the president of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) the following question: "Can I leave my bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get a soda?". They would screach: "NNNEEEOOOO!! The bunny will suffocate! You are guilty of animal cruelty! You can be arrested, your car confiscated, etc..." But .... doh ... what did you expect from an animal rights wacko? SO TOO do I put little stock into archie answers like that. I bet you can detect in those FL waters and no one cares less!! (just like if you leave your pet bunny in the car, no one cares less except a peta nut).

 

[olfacere]

Personally, I think, "You can't dig all of it by yourself," is one of the best arguments against the common archaeologist's disdain of detectorists. There is a certain class of human products that would be lost to us forever if someone didn't come along to dig them up. Some archaeologists want to be the only people allowed to own shovels, but those have obviously gone off the deep end. The archaeological method is a necessary thing, but it is soooooo slow. Every excavation must be prepared for months in advance, must be prepared through the state and often also through university departments, requires many people, a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of very careful digging, the gradual production of extensive documentation on every artifact and the ground itself, and that's not to mention the work to be done after the site is finished. By the time all that is complete, they've dug a 12x12 hole that's 3 feet deep. How exactly are archaeologists supposed to use this method to dig everything on Earth by themselves? Only a madman would say it's possible.

Further, I think archaeologists are jealous of metal detectorists, but not of the stuff that we find. Archaeologists grew up wanting to become archaeologists because they wanted to spend days in the sun with dirty hands. They wanted to go out on the land and spend time digging because that's what they love. Then, they grew up, got degrees, and figured out that most archaeologists spend all day keeping schedules, talking, reading, writing, and dealing with things like presentations and students. So, they're stuck inside doing paperwork and, when they look out the window, they see us out there playing in the dirt! It's not our stuff they want. It's our activity. They want to be in the dirt instead of the air conditioning and some, I believe, quietly resent us for doing what they also want to do.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

olfacere: here's how the archie would answer that: Imagine the admittedly great archaoeological information that has come from digs around the Egyptian pyramaids. But wait! 4000 yrs. ago (or whenever those were built), I'm sure someone back then .... probably would have looked at a bleak stretch of desert, or a const. zone and ........ if metal detectors had been around then, would have said the SAME EXACT THING you're saying. Ie.: that the odds of anyone digging in this exact spot in the future, is impossible. Or that they "aren't hurting anything", etc... Yet admittedly, 4000 yrs. later, someone DID INDEED come along and DID INDEED find interesting things that told the world about how past civilizations lived, etc...

So then, how do you know that your random find out in the forest, or on that beach can't indeed be an archaeological resource for future generations? Just like in the case of ancient Egypt, and things being dug there thousands of years later. And to the archie's credits, they recognize the following fact: EVEN if they DID relent, and agree, that .... odds are no one will ever dig an archie pit at such & such campground, or beach, etc... And so therefore, let's assume that they agreed with you on that point. What is the "logical" series of steps that follow from that? If all these places with "cultural heritage" verbage were suddenly to be opened up, SURE , most of those targets WOULD have "rotted till eternity". However, it's a never-ending semantics game of exactly where they'd agree that they'd "never in a million years dig", verses places that "might indeed have some future potential". I mean, do you really think that any public agency wants to get that camel's nose in the tent? Therefore, the *easy* answer for anyone tasked with answering this "pressing question", is simply to say "no detecting at all", to end any such discussion. I mean, you can hardly blame them, eh?

There's a humorous story of a guy who was detecting an east coast beach (I forget if it was fed, state, or what). It just so happened that a lady-archie just happened to be walking down that beach, on that day, and saw him. She walked up to him and "gave him the riot act" about how he shouldn't be doing that, and saying this was "pot-hunting", and that he was violating laws, etc.... The confused md'r stopped, and listened to her, trying to figure out what to say. When it became clear to him that she was an archaeologist, and she was ranting about "antiquities" verbage, the md'r cheefully alerted her that he was only finding modern stuff, angling for modern jewelry and coins (which happened to be true, at that exact time for him). He even showed her some modern coins, etc.. The lady archie was initially taken back by this answer, and for a moment, didn't know how to answer him. So she thought for a moment, and then began to upbraid him some more, telling him "Well maybe it's not an archaeological resource NOW, but in 100 yrs. from now, it will be a resource for THAT generation". True story!!

 

[olfacere]

I've personally met some archaeologists in university, so I'm familiar with their general persuasion. I believe the story you told, Tom, is quite realistic and probably true. There is another easy counter, though. If everything is going to be an archaeological resource in the future to tell us about activity in certain areas, then isn't it a bad idea to pick up surface trash, like potato chip bags? In fact, if I were in a park and I went to throw away my trash in a trash can so that it gets landfilled instead of buried right where I produced the trash, then my activities would no longer be part of the archaeological record! I suppose we had all better leave our trash wherever we happen to be at the time we produce it. We wouldn't want to deprive future generations of knowing something that never mattered even one little bit.

Further, archaeologists have done a pitiful job of unearthing artifacts in Egypt. They found plenty of stuff right next to the giant pyramid that's been impossible to miss for thousands of years, but how much have they found under the sand in the middle of nowhere? In Egypt, artifacts are only found when they are visible or next to something visible. They've found a lot of stuff, but I would bet good money that there is literally more than 1,000 times as much stuff left to be found just because most of it wasn't in the obvious spots. Come to think of it, the Egyptians used copper tools, so a detectorist may actually have a better chance of stumbling blindly onto a new site than anyone else!

To get a little closer to home, we should remind our archaeologists that metal detectors only find conductive objects. In North America, the history of modern metallurgy only goes back about 400 years (depending on how you measure; the story is different in Europe). The tribes who were here prior to mass European traffic produced only non-conductive artifacts, so a detectorist can walk right over a 1,000 year old burial ground and never even know it was there because it simply doesn't concern him when there's no metal present. So, it's our own history that we're talking about preserving in the first place and not very much of it. It's useful to separate the theory of the preservation of all history from our actual situation.

To take a page from the archaeologist's playbook, whenever you're dealing with a site of historic significance, it's a good idea to only deplete a part of the site and leave the rest intact for others (who may have better information and technology) to come along and find after you. It's true that metal detectorists don't usually do this and so I can see why one might argue against the idea that just anyone should be able to dig up a minie ball. That doesn't justify demonising us, though. I think most archaeologists operate on the assumption (even though their education tells them the exact opposite) that whatever we leave in the ground will be left for them to find. How long do they think wet, dirty metal lasts without human intervention? It occurred in nature as ore because the purified metal is too reactionary. It will turn back into ore if left in the ground long enough. Perhaps, if they were chemists or geologists, they would have a different opinion?

 

[Dick Stout]

Thanks for all the followup responses....good topic to debate. Hope you both might find the time to share your view on my blog under the comments section. The more ideas we put forth the better we all are for the effort.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

olfacere, let me start by saying I totally agree with you. I too think that those artifacts look JUST FINE on yours and my's mantle place And if the public thinks they are being deprived of "knowing about their past", they are MORE THAN WELCOME to come over to my house, and view it were it's on display in my mantle place collection trays, doh! Or they're welcome to buy some of them when I list my duplicates for sale on ebay, doh!

So when you see me post the answers the archie's would give to those questions/objections, I'm merely telling you how they approach and answer the questions.

As for your last answer, .... again, here's their logic: Let's say if you could get them to agree that there's no way in h*ck that targets out in the middle of nowhere, or on mundane beaches, or silver coins that only date to the 1950s, etc.... are ever going to be dug by archies in the future (a realistic archie might concede your example of the pyramaids in Egypt, that there's countless other targets in the desert elsewhere that a hobbyist could hunt for with no harm, that will NEVER be known or cared about, etc...) Or that the common sense of it means we should like-wise leave our trash lying about as well too, etc.... Let's just say you got an archie to agree with that. That probably wouldn't be hard. The TROUBLE is (and I'm sure you would agree), that if the govt. agrees to allow us to start hunting on spots supposedly off-limits now (take .... federal parks for instance), that you and I know FULL WELL that we'd be continually "pushing the envelope", right? I mean, for example, you and I would probably agree that *some* sacred monuments *should* be protected, right? You know, like Shiloh, the pyramaids, Bodie, Ghettysburg, etc... So let's say that even md'rs could agree on that point, that no one would argue that even those spots should turn into a free-for-all, right? Then here's what you're left with: Infinate middle ground semantics debates on exactly what is innocuous and harmless, verses that which actually truly might be dug in the future, and thus preserved.

So put yourself in their shoes. Even though admittedly probably only 1% of the real estate in federal parks might be the exact spot of something truly sacred from a historical perspective (and the rest just mundane hiking trails, campgrounds, beaches, etc...), yet it's just un-realistic to think they could/would start to try to differentiate between zones, targets, etc.... You know, like: "it's ok at the ball-diamond, beach, etc... at this park, but just keep a 50 ft. wide berth of the historic cabin on the north end of such & such park", etc... You KNOW that's an impossible task to try to police, figure out, etc...

So their easier answer is just to say "no" to any and all places you ask about, just to "keep is simple". And yes, their talking-points rehearsed answer is going to be about saving for future generations, etc.... And while you might get them to agree with your logic, they subconsciously "can't go there", because to do so, just opens up this pandoras box of endless semantics.

 

[cudamark]

I would argue that even at the so-called "sacred" sites you mentioned, what good is it to leave those artifacts in the ground? They'll just deteriorate more every year they're there and eventually get to the point where nobody will care if they're in the ground or on display. Why not have a sensible recovery plan that allows for amateurs like us to find items and turn them over to whichever agency wants them and get paid their value in the process. The item is then available for study and/or display in a museum and not rotting further in the ground. If it's all above board, everyone should be happy.

 

[olfacere]

The trouble is that fairness isn't in everybody's game plan. Obviously we can't let detectorists onto any and all land, but it's equally unreasonable to think that every breeching of the ground should be subject to the judgment call of a state archaeologist. I think what we really need is an effort to put together real maps, state by state, not disconnected lists of names and locations, where the land is protected. We can then compile that information into a national database and wiki-style add in city and county-specific information. If we were to do this, we could produce maps that clearly delineate exactly which plots of land are open and which ones are not. At least then we would all be "speaking the same language" when referring to the protected lands. The maps would have to be updated regularly, so the only entity that can do this effectively (though perhaps not efficiently) is the federal government. It sounds like a starting point to me.

 

[cudamark]

Just what we need......another government program. What happens when someone finds something juicy in "open" land? He brags about it and suddenly the feds will redesignate it as "closed". Pretty soon all good areas will be closed. I'd like to see all areas open unless an archaeological dig is underway or scheduled. I'd be happy to tell the archies what I've found and where if I'm going to get paid for it by a museum.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

cudamark, first you say:

"....Why not have a sensible recovery plan that allows for amateurs like us to find items and turn them over to whichever agency wants them and get paid their value in the process. The item is then available for study and/or display in a museum and not rotting further in the ground...."

But then you go on to say:

"Just what we need......another government program. What happens when someone finds something juicy in "open" land? He brags about it and suddenly the feds will redesignate it as "closed". Pretty soon all good areas will be closed....."

Do you realize you've just contradicted yourself? And thus answered your very own idea? The idea of "recovery plans" of metal detecting and agencies and govt. involvement? You correctly conclude that it's just so problematic, in the current govt. bureaucratic tangles, that it would never happen. And if it did, it would most certainly be AGAINST us, not FOR us.

And you too olfacere "wax romantic" about the notion of government's "allowance" or "programs" or "maps", when you say:

"... I think what we really need is an effort to put together real maps, state by state, not disconnected lists of names and locations, where the land is protected. We can then compile that information into a national database and wiki-style add in city and county-specific information. If we were to do this, we could produce maps that clearly delineate exactly which plots of land are open and which ones are not. At least then we would all be "speaking the same language" when referring to the protected lands. The maps would have to be updated regularly, so the only entity that can do this effectively .....is the federal government...." [emphasis mine]

Yet you START that very notion by casting aspursions on archaeologists by saying:

" ..... but it's equally unreasonable to think that every breeching of the ground should be subject to the judgment call of a state archaeologist....." [emphasis mine]

Did you catch your contradiction? WHO DO YOU THINK the federal government would assign the task of making those maps you are waxing romantic about? THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS you (and all of us) disdain in the same breath. Get it?

Thus, no, it's not going to happen. Both of you have images of archies and md'rs coming together in a big cuddly group hug someday. I wish it were going to be true. I wish there were neon orange signs hung at fed and state park's entrances saying "detecting allowed here, just show us what you find and we'll pay you", etc.... But no, it's not going to happen. And don't even get me started on the British system. It's not at ALL what some USA hunters think it is. They only hunt private farmers lands over there, and never on public land. Ie.: you never hear of British hunter plying the parks for silver, etc... I'm not even sure they can hunt beaches, for instance. It's just farmer's lands with permission. Because you see, they've got an entirely different background of under-the-ground wealth TO BEGIN WITH (even predating detectors). Because over there, whatever minerals and wealth is under the ground, belongs the crown to begin with. For example: If you find oil on your land here in the USA, you're RICH, right? (like the beverly hillbillies, haha). But over there, that oil would belong to the crown.

As much as we all agree that their premises of "saving for future generations" is silly (they'll never dig all the targets), yet from their perspective, they simply can't let the camel's nose in the tent (if you could get them to see your logic, for instance). Because you and they know full well, that if you "start down that road", it will just become an endless battle of semantics, boundries, policing, etc... So for pete's sake, you know what the easy solution is for them, right? Much easier to say "no detecting". Just like in a speed limit of 55: Going 56 might be "just as safe", and "harm no one". Or provided your steering is very good, etc... So you could go try to argue to increase the speed limit "just for you and your friends", and your rationale may be perfectly logical (56 may be just as safe, etc...), but you KNOW that they HAVE to start with some across-the-board standard, and can't go into endless debates of semantics, allowances, etc... (even if your data is true, it just won't happen). Same thing for md'ing I'm afraid.

Let's just be thankful this nonsense is almost exclusively at the fed and state's levels (and rarely and county and city levels, and never at private levels). And be thankful that it's not enforced at innocuous places like most all beaches, in the middle of nowhere, etc... We all KNOW that the "intent" is to preserve obvious sacred historic monuments. So just steer clear of them, and steer clear of the archies.

 

[Dick Stout]

And archaeologist has posted a couple of comments to my post if you care to read them. Maybe you might share some of your above comments with her.....?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

And archaeologist has posted a couple of comments to my post if you care to read them. Maybe you might share some of your above comments with her.....?

ok barnum. I'm running out the door right now to church, but will try to get to it later today. Some archies are cool, (not "purists"), while others are purists. Even if some individual archies are cool and friendly with md'rs, yet ......... on a state or nationwide "policy" (ie.: laws to be considered), even the cool ones will eventually subconsciously see that they realistically have to set the bar high, and will by virtue of their chosen field (ie.: "preserving history"), have to decide against the concept of any private individuals digging up historical things. Even if they acknowledge there's articles no one will ever get to in remote deserts and beaches, yet realistically, they "can't start down that path", even if they are ..... themselves ... "cool" and not purists.

 

[olfacere]

I'm not sure that squabbling haphazardly forever is the correct approach either. Have you given up hope that anyone will ever work together to resolve conflicts?

 

[cudamark]

My point was that since it's currently illegal to dig anything "old" or historically valuable according to the antiquity laws, and since we and others ignore that law for the most part, the hope is that the MD community and archie community will realize it's in both their best interests to have laws on the books that make sense. If the archies are truly interested in preserving history and the context in which items are found, they need to be pragmatic and accept our contribution to that end without animosity. If MD'ers are not condemned as poachers, grave robbers, or greedy profiteers, they would be more forthcoming with their finds to enrich the archies studies. If they remain dedicated to keeping the status quo, they will have less to find and many otherwise great finds by others will remain hidden and unappreciated. If you found a treasure chest filled with gold, silver, and jewels, would you broadcast that fact? Not me.....not under the current laws. Now if the law was that I could keep what I found if it wasn't going to be on display in a museum or used for some other historically important reason and get paid it's value, I would be happy to declare to the world what I found. Now you may think it's pie in the sky that the archies would ever agree to such a thing but that doesn't mean we can't hope for that and at least make the offer. It's their loss, and to a certain degree ours, if they don't accept.

 

[BigChief14]

I prefer to ignore the law and go do what I please on the National Forrest.

Game Wardens patrol looking for poachers, etc., but I have NEVER seen a US Ranger in my area: and I'm out there at least once or twice a week.

I still live in a Free part of our great country where if you're not causing a nuisance, no one sticks their nose in your business.

 

[Rawhide]

There is more than enough protection for Americas resources right now. I do see a problem with Govt control on anything and everything. While I see home after home of people living in poverty, just down the street is a fenced in parking lot of row after row of new vehicles which Im told there is only person for every 10 vehicles in there that works there. I believe the Govt has lost touch with the people. There is plenty of rules already, and I don't see a problem with them. The difference between you, and a archy is very clear and simple. A archy is a grave robber, and that is something I will never do. I do take offense in things that my tax dollars pay for and Im not allowed in. Wild fire, floods, and drought destroy more that some guy with a ,metal detector ever will. So on one side we have the grave robbing govt, and the other, the taxpayer who is not getting his dollars worth. I do spend as much time as I can with the local archys, the ones that will talk to me. I just watched the university put mobile trailers up on a lake bed close to one of my stomping grounds. You can bet access will be shut off soon. This will be a fun one to watch, lots of folks using that area.