Silver Simon and XLT'er: I notice that in each of your attempts to get your local historic societies to include you in detecting to "locate historic relics" or "donate time if they ever need a detectorist", that you did-so as an outsider. Ie.: just someone coming in chatting at the museum and so forth. And yes, they will be cordial, impressed with your knowledge of history, and so forth. But still, you're doing this as an outsider.
If I'm understanding each of you, you're not actually working there, volunteering time, etc... Oh sure, perhaps you pay your dues to be on a mailing list, and have a card-in-your-wallet, but are you actually there putting in time manning the museum? Are you actually helping to archive?
All the things you say they stymied you about, could have gone very differently if you were actually "one of them" (so to speak).
I have gotten to hunt in a VERY SACRED historic spot, simply by virtue of being a tour-guide leader at a certain 1770's site here in CA. (and found 2 reales, buttons, etc...) And trust me, if I'd merely gone in and asked (as it appears you did), I too would have gotten a big fat "no". But being "on the inside", ...... you can feel out the right timing, and feel out the right wording, and get better results.
XLTer, you're right: most archies will clam up if they know you're an md'r. They're not going to tell you sites with good potential for md'ing. What did you expect? There's a few cool archies I know of. But the rest are diametrically opposed to md'ing. If I run into any of those "purist" types, I do not tell them I'm an md'r. I will work my angle as a historian/museum worker, and ask the questions I need. Oddly, you can ask much more sensitive questions (about exact locations of things, etc...) as a museum worker, and it will not phase them to ask themselves "why is this guy asking such specific questions about the exact location of a stage stop?" They'll just assume it's because you "work at the museum"! doh
