We're Devils Just ask them.

uniface

Silver Member
Jun 4, 2009
3,216
2,895
Central Pennsylvania
Primary Interest:
Other
Posted without comment

The term looter is defined as any person who commits the act of looting for artifacts in a fieldwork context. Once again, by definition, a looter is any artifact hunter who is not a qualified professional archaeologist—or is an ordinary person operating without training in field archaeology or operating outside of supervision by a professional archaeologist.

I know the key question that is uppermost on your mind after reading those two definitions, so here it is:


Do you mean to tell me that if I am a citizen of Tennessee, I call up my friend Ned Brooks, he gives me written permission to surface hunt or dig for artifacts at an archaeological site on his land—with me in 100 percent compliance with Tennessee cultural resources law and human burial laws—and I go surface hunting or digging at Ned’s place—you professional archaeologists officially define me as a looter?


Yes. You betcha!!! That is absolutely correct!!! I have been involved in American archaeology (on and off—one way or another) for the past 48 years. That was the everyday convention among professional archaeologists, archaeology graduate students, and archaeology undergraduate students throughout my eight years in the Department of Anthropology at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). That is how the terms looting and looter were used—every day—in our formal academic discussions. They were used that way in casual archaeological discussions over a beer at a local bar on Friday nights. They were used that way over a brown bag lunch, and they were used that way in the Chevy Suburban on the long drive home from a day of archaeological fieldwork. I have never heard the terms looting or looter used any other way or by any other definition—-whatsoever—by any other archaeologist in the United States across my 48 years of experience.


I have seen a few of the discussions about this subject among artifact collectors at various on-line collector venues. I have read the comments where collectors swear up one side and down the other that they cannot possibly be defined as a looter because they never illegally hunt, dig, or swish around for artifacts on government land or under government waters. They can talk all they want to about it—talk themselves blue in the face if they like—twist it around however they like—but no matter how much they talk or twist—if they are legally surface hunting in a field or legally digging somewhere for artifacts to take home—without professional field training or supervision—the professional archaeology community in the United States officially defines them as looters.


https://contextintn.wordpress.com/2...llectors-pose-to-professional-archaeologists/
 

Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DizzyDigger

Gold Member
Dec 9, 2012
5,787
11,447
Concrete, WA
Detector(s) used
Nokta FoRs Gold, a Gold Cube, 2 Keene Sluices and Lord only knows how many pans....not to mention a load of other gear my wife still doesn't know about!
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Aside from those with snooty (vs. snotty) attitudes, I do have great
respect for the knowledge individuals gain during their education.
In their defense, I have little doubt some of them put in great effort
in earning their degree, and yes, I'd be proud too if I had done the
same.

The problem comes when they spend too much of their time around
academia, and they're constantly getting sunshine blown up their
booties by awe inspired students..then it goes to their head.

I've known many Ph.D's, mostly in the fields of physics and electrical
engineering. Can't recall one ever expressing the type of attitude we see
in the archeology fields.
 

Kray Gelder

Gold Member
Feb 24, 2017
7,013
12,578
Georgetown, SC
Detector(s) used
Fisher F75
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
THE MAMMOTH TRUMPET (March 2001)
TERRESTRIAL EVIDENCE OF A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE INPALEOINDIAN TIMES

TERRESTRIAL EVIDENCE OF A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE IN PALEOINDIAN TIMES

Knock yourself out :icon_thumleft:

Not as in nuclear bombs, but as in cosmic bombardment from a supernova. Radiation, shock wave, micro-particle bombardment, then lastly, multiple BIG comet strikes, about 12,000 BP, one over Lake Michigan, really an ice sheet miles thick. Huge hole and blast, so big, it pushed the atmosphere back, bringing outer space to the surface, flash freezing everything before the hole closed. A semi circle of ice chunks were launched into low earth ballistic trajectories hundreds of miles, only to reenter earth's atmosphere , the thousands of pieces becoming fireballs before smashing down, igniting everything. In the southeast, where hundreds of impacts are still visible today, Carolina Bays, all of these earth shaking impacts liquefied the ground, allowing for cratering by ice balls to be preserved to date. It probably mostly wiped out Native life, anywhere the bombardment fell. The idea has a lot of moving parts, and isn't settled for sure. I believe they're onto something.
 

OP
OP
uniface

uniface

Silver Member
Jun 4, 2009
3,216
2,895
Central Pennsylvania
Primary Interest:
Other
KG -


I was in close communication with one of the authors of that article in the months following its publication. The usual defenders of orthodox archaeological dogma claiming that this technical "i" wasn't dotted and that scientific "t" wasn't crossed were demanding even more elaborate proof of what was already proven. This required advanced isotope technology that very few labs in the world were able to perform. At this point, LL Labs, which had carried out the initial study, started "losing" the (rare and hard to obtain) artifacts from securely established horizons he was sending them to analyze (certified mail proved it had received them). When he wouldn't take the hint, it finally told him outright to stop bothering them. With the demanded "proof" impossible to obtain, the "unproven" allegation stood in the popular mind, by default.


While this was going on, claims that his findings weren't replicable were trumpeted to the heavens in the mainstream press by academics who, as it turns out, were cranking out work that would get a grad student an "F." In one case, the argument (by one of the grand poohbahs in the field) claimed that the iron sphericles F&T found concentrated in one narrow (event) horizon were always raining down out of the sky, and that NO concentration of them existed -- as his investigation had determined. Except it turned out that while F&T had specified one exact stratigraphic level (as I recall, taking one sample every millimeter), he had gone in increments of 10, missing them completely. The one forum where the whole argument, pro-and-con, played out was in The Cosmic Tusk (an astrophysics journal where scientific incompetence/dishonesty was not dealt kindly with); the debunkers came out scientifically demolished, at which point everybody trying to "debunk" it just shut up and let it sink into obscurity (out of sight = out of mind). Firestone himself got so much cancel culture heat and pressure over it he rolled over and left Topping alone. (Firestone, as I understand it, worked at the lab doing the isotope analysis, making him pretty vulnerable).


As complex as this is by itself, a trainload of additional facts and considerations exists, from different fields, all pointing to the same conclusion. Enough that, along with the original paper, it would take at least a weekend to read it attentively considering the data presented and the ways it interfaces. If you're up for it, https://www.sott.net/article/357709-of-flash-frozen-mammoths-and-cosmic-catastrophes Knock yourself out. You'll come away with a more well-rounded grasp of what's involved than those attempting to simplify, misrepresent and dispose of it.


And the heck of it is, this was not SO long ago that memories of it haven't come down to this day in Native American oral histories. (As if writing lies down made them more reliable -- LOL !) But people seem content to be oblivious. Hard to grok.
 

Last edited:

Kray Gelder

Gold Member
Feb 24, 2017
7,013
12,578
Georgetown, SC
Detector(s) used
Fisher F75
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
KG -


I was in close communication with one of the authors of that article in the months following its publication. The usual defenders of orthodox archaeological dogma claiming that this technical "i" wasn't dotted and that scientific "t" wasn't crossed were demanding even more elaborate proof of what was already proven. This required advanced isotope technology that very few labs in the world were able to perform. At this point, LL Labs, which had carried out the initial study, started "losing" the (rare and hard to obtain) artifacts from securely established horizons he was sending them to analyze (certified mail proved it had received them). When he wouldn't take the hint, it finally told him outright to stop bothering them. With the demanded "proof" impossible to obtain, the "unproven" allegation stood in the popular mind, by default.


While this was going on, claims that his findings weren't replicable were trumpeted to the heavens in the mainstream press by academics who, as it turns out, were cranking out work that would get a grad student an "F." In one case, the argument (by one of the grand poohbahs in the field) claimed that the iron sphericles F&T found concentrated in one narrow (event) horizon were always raining down out of the sky, and that NO concentration of them existed -- as his investigation had determined. Except it turned out that while F&T had specified one exact stratigraphic level (as I recall, taking one sample every millimeter), he had gone in increments of 10, missing them completely. The one forum where the whole argument, pro-and-con, played out was in The Cosmic Tusk (an astrophysics journal where scientific incompetence/dishonesty was not dealt kindly with); the debunkers came out scientifically demolished, at which point everybody trying to "debunk" it just shut up and let it sink into obscurity (out of sight = out of mind). Firestone himself got so much cancel culture heat and pressure over it he rolled over and left Topping alone. (Firestone, as I understand it, worked at the lab doing the isotope analysis, making him pretty vulnerable).


As complex as this is by itself, a trainload of additional facts and considerations exists, from different fields, all pointing to the same conclusion. Enough that, along with the original paper, it would take at least a weekend to read it attentively considering the data presented and the ways it interfaces. If you're up for it, https://www.sott.net/article/357709-of-flash-frozen-mammoths-and-cosmic-catastrophes Knock yourself out. You'll come away with a more well-rounded grasp of what's involved than those attempting to simplify, misrepresent and dispose of it.


And the heck of it is, this was not SO long ago that memories of it haven't come down to this day in Native American oral histories. (As if writing lies down made them more reliable -- LOL !) But people seem content to be oblivious. Hard to grok.

I bought a couple of books a few years ago, Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes, Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith, and a brief work, Killer Comet ( What the Carolina Bays Tell Us ), Antonio Zamora. The reason? I've got Carolina Bays everywhere, here. Within miles. I was curious, and didn't believe the standard explanation for them.

Very enlightening, a complex sequence of events, rationally explained. THE OLD GUARD will have to pass, before this mass of evidence can be brought forward and accepted by academia. Replication of "carolina bays" has been done successfully in the lab, with impacts into wet soil. The results, including why the original sedimentary layers in the bays seem undisturbed, was demonstrated repeatedly. Their "Bays" ended up exactly as the real ones. Like you said, this concept cannot be summarized in a paragraph. I thought it all comes together nicely.
 

IMAUDIGGER

Silver Member
Mar 16, 2016
3,400
5,194
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Not as in nuclear bombs, but as in cosmic bombardment from a supernova. Radiation, shock wave, micro-particle bombardment, then lastly, multiple BIG comet strikes, about 12,000 BP, one over Lake Michigan, really an ice sheet miles thick. Huge hole and blast, so big, it pushed the atmosphere back, bringing outer space to the surface, flash freezing everything before the hole closed. A semi circle of ice chunks were launched into low earth ballistic trajectories hundreds of miles, only to reenter earth's atmosphere , the thousands of pieces becoming fireballs before smashing down, igniting everything. In the southeast, where hundreds of impacts are still visible today, Carolina Bays, all of these earth shaking impacts liquefied the ground, allowing for cratering by ice balls to be preserved to date. It probably mostly wiped out Native life, anywhere the bombardment fell. The idea has a lot of moving parts, and isn't settled for sure. I believe they're onto something.

That’s a fascinating description.
 

Tnmountains

Super Moderator
Staff member
Jan 27, 2009
18,701
11,665
South East Tennessee on Ga, Ala line
🥇 Banner finds
1
Detector(s) used
Tesoro Conquistador freq shift
Fisher F75
Garrett AT-Pro
Garet carrot
Neodymium magnets
5' Probe
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I may have forgotten the correct terminology Uni but was in not nano diamonds. It has been a few years of thinking of that. There is a line of them here around 12,000 + years ago and seems I have some artifacts that are marked with them.
Back to the subject take Bob Overstreet. The guy that publishes the books. My uncle worked with him for years and we all hunted the same area. He and Archie Lecroy ( lecroy bifurcate)used to hunt together and they turned islands into what looked like a bombing zone.I went out with Archies grand daughter once( lol) Anyway a friend of mine bought Overstreets house. I tried to get in touch with him in New York about 10 years ago when a lot of focus was on the snapped base kirk. What we were seeing on some of those well made blades was that the snap or break was actually knapped. Never knew if it was intentional or just done after the accidental break. My point being is people get all uppity when they are making a lot of money on a subject and ignore us with lesser pedigrees.
Keep hunting!
 

scotto

Bronze Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,778
257
My first M/D find
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 250
The archaeologist’s name is Tracy Brown.
He himself attempted to establish a more harmonious relationship on both arrowheads dot com and arrowheadology. I don’t know if he was thrown off ‘ology, or just left. On arrowheads dot com, I liked the guy, and I believed him. In other words, what he wrote above is something he did not himself believe. But, several senior members of the site simply did not trust him

On Arrowheadology he was known as "Charles Lonewolf." He was there to "spy" on hobbyists, and there was evidence of that in a blog he was writing. I brought snippets of that blog to the forum and posted them there to show what a sleaze he is.

It's his ilk that will ultimately be responsible for doing the most damage to his profession. Archaeologists get to work by grants they are given, and on land they are given permission to dig. Many of their grants were generously donated by kids that had grown up collecting with their dads as a hobby.

But the kids growing up today are taught that most of these "pros" like Brown are nothing but elitists and selfish nutcases, and that they are the enemy.

Do you think when those kids are grown up that they will want to offer any grants to the "pros?" Nope.

Tracy Brown is a great example of "just because you get a college degree, it doesn't mean you have any intelligence."
 

Charl

Silver Member
Jan 19, 2012
3,053
4,679
Rhode Island
Primary Interest:
Relic Hunting
On Arrowheadology he was known as "Charles Lonewolf." He was there to "spy" on hobbyists, and there was evidence of that in a blog he was writing. I brought snippets of that blog to the forum and posted them there to show what a sleaze he is.

It's his ilk that will ultimately be responsible for doing the most damage to his profession. Archaeologists get to work by grants they are given, and on land they are given permission to dig. Many of their grants were generously donated by kids that had grown up collecting with their dads as a hobby.

But the kids growing up today are taught that most of these "pros" like Brown are nothing but elitists and selfish nutcases, and that they are the enemy.

Do you think when those kids are grown up that they will want to offer any grants to the "pros?" Nope.

Tracy Brown is a great example of "just because you get a college degree, it doesn't mean you have any intelligence."

On arrowheads dot com, we were all well aware of his blog. He linked to it, invited comments to it. And we had one member who lived near him, and knew him well. And that member, one of our mods, spoke highly of him. At any rate, we’ll just agree to disagree regarding our opinions of his motives. It’s been too long ago now for me to recreate what I learned at the time regarding his efforts. I don’t share your opinion, but some of my fellow mods did feel as you do, at the time. I communicated with Brown, and have a different opinion. But, **** happens, and there simply was too much built in distrust. His efforts were DOA...

Well, I’ll add this personal observation. The anger he eventually expressed toward one of our mods in particular was precisely(IMHO) because his efforts were sincere, and he grew very frustrated when he hit a wall, and he felt he was treated poorly without good reason. Having communicated with him extensively, in private, at that time, I agreed with him. He was not trying to screw over collectors at all. I have associated with many professional archaeologists. I fully understand the tensions involved. I have had things said to me that I could have allowed to go up my butt sideways if I decided being angry was where I wanted to go. But, I have always felt a certain conflict personally. I fully agree with archaeologists that the information about the past, that can be extracted via a dig using professional standards, esp. with the many disciplines now involved in extracting data and info from a dig, is in fact of far greater value than the artifacts recovered from a dig.

Brown told it like it is. That is precisely how many, but, by no means all, archaeologists feel about collectors. As noted, I have run into that attitude. But I communicated extensively with Brown. He knows how the pros feel, and uni’s quote at the start of this thread simply states what he knows to be true. But, his efforts at rapprochement were sincere, and sometimes he exaggerates the differences between amateur(he started out as a collector) and pro, precisely because of the frustrations he experienced. That’s my take on Brown. He was not a bad guy at all, just bit off more than he could reasonably expect to accomplish. As I stated, his effort was DOA. The distrust is just far too deep. I am fortunate in getting to know Mike Gramly, who shares with us without equivocation, without reserve. But I have also experienced being looked down upon, even though I feel I agree with the pros that information trumps artifacts.
 

Last edited:
OP
OP
uniface

uniface

Silver Member
Jun 4, 2009
3,216
2,895
Central Pennsylvania
Primary Interest:
Other
uni’s quote at the start of this thread simply states what he knows to be true.

I.e.,

They can talk all they want to about it—talk themselves blue in the face if they like—twist it around however they like—but no matter how much they talk or twist—if they are legally surface hunting in a field or legally digging somewhere for artifacts to take home—without professional field training or supervision—the professional archaeology community in the United States officially defines them as looters.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Top