Archaeologist here - lets chat!

[N.J.THer]

JP,
The one thing I would add about a permit system is that anyone should be able to get a permit...no restrictions but you could lose the permit if you don't follow the rules - whatever they maybe. Of course the rules should not be to restrictive. Depending on how severe the breaking of the rules was you could either be suspended for a period of time or lose the right to have a permit for life.
NJ

 

[Philvis]

You're missing the real point that was made....which is simply this, "without money there would be no official archeology." No shovel grunts, none of it. No archeologist is going to do it as a full time career for free. So once all the smoke and mirrors are removed, "it all comes down to money. PERIOD!" The growth of archeology is dependent on money. "Every aspect of the required labor and management comes down to money." A small business or enterprise requires money, a larger one requires more money. None of it could function without money. You said, "The one thing archeology is not about is money." Nothing is further from the truth. Without money/funding paying jobs in archeology don't exist. The more labor, preservation, and management required, the more money/funding needed. "It all comes down to money."

"The one thing archeology is not about is money." If this is true, then let us take all the money away and let's see what happens.

Come on bigscoop...that's about as a broad a statement/generalization one can make. EVERYTHING has a correlation with money. I'm merely stating that archaeology isn't a big business driven by money. If you want to state it is about money, then so is the public education system, religion, non-profits (they need money to survive), and so on.

 

[John Silvered]

You're missing the real point that was made....which is simply this, "without money there would be no official archeology." No shovel grunts, none of it. No archeologist is going to do it as a full time career for free. So once all the smoke and mirrors are removed, "it all comes down to money. PERIOD!" The growth of archeology is dependent on money. "Every aspect of the required labor and management comes down to money." A small business or enterprise requires money, a larger one requires more money. None of it could function without money. You said, "The one thing archeology is not about is money." Nothing is further from the truth. Without money/funding paying jobs in archeology don't exist. The more labor, preservation, and management required, the more money/funding needed. "It all comes down to money."

"The one thing archeology is not about is money." If this is true, then let us take all the money away and let's see what happens.

Truth. Everyone has expenses. Everyone wants them covered somehow, someway. Archeologists claim superiority because a college or university cuts them checks. Metal detectorists are frowned upon because they have to get someone to cut them a check.

Why doesn't Bobby Valentino of 45 North Avenue deserve the civil war belt buckle that I dug up? He paid the agreed upon amount of $$$ for it. Bobby has no right of ownership...but a university that'll "carefully" place it in a pile of other "carefully" placed buckles...in a carefully placed box...in a carefully stacked shelf in a basement does? Why?

Bobby might just appreciate the buckle 500x as much as the research assistant of fall 2012 will.

 

[John Silvered]

Come on bigscoop...that's about as a broad a statement/generalization one can make. EVERYTHING has a correlation with money. I'm merely stating that archaeology isn't a big business driven by money. If you want to state it is about money, then so is the public education system, religion, non-profits (they need money to survive), and so on.

How many metal detectorists can be considered "big business driven?"

 

[John Silvered]

I would guess that museums that charge admission are pretty big business.

But that's just a guess.

 

[Jon Phillips]

JP,
The one thing I would add about a permit system is that anyone should be able to get a permit...no restrictions but you could lose the permit if you don't follow the rules - whatever they maybe. Of course the rules should not be to restrictive. Depending on how severe the breaking of the rules was you could either be suspended for a period of time or lose the right to have a permit for life.
NJ

Absolutely!

It should also not be left up to the state archaeologists to make the call on the permit system, as they would just sink it like they did the Isolated Finds Program here in Florida. They should also not be allowed to randomly make areas "off limits" unless it is to be a state park within an agreed upon timeframe.

I think a committee should be formed, that consists of non-biased partys from both sides, amatuer historians that have no interests either way, and tourist board members, as well as manufacturers of detecting equipement (to show the financial impact of the hobby), to form the blueprint for a permit system that follows closely to Floridas fossil permit system.

I think any professional archaeologists that is opposed to a legal, revenue, and information generating permit system, should be held accountable for what they themselves have contributed to our knowledge of the past.

What new things did they learn?
What books have they produced?
What papers have they made available to the public?
Where are the items they have recovered, and how are they being conserved?

And not their "departments" or underlings...but they, themselves!


Otherwise...if my tax dollars are just paying for them to do nothing but collect a paycheck, and hinder my access to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"....I don't want to hear from them!

 

[lookindown]

Come on bigscoop...that's about as a broad a statement/generalization one can make. EVERYTHING has a correlation with money. I'm merely stating that archaeology isn't a big business driven by money. If you want to state it is about money, then so is the public education system, religion, non-profits (they need money to survive), and so on.

Everything does not have a correlation with money...a lot of people detect for the history...archies do it for the money.

 

[Philvis]

Everything does not have a correlation with money...a lot of people detect for the history...archies do it for the money.

What money The average archaeologist makes $11-15 an hour. Site supervisors/managers may make $30-40k a year depending on the company. Seriously, I don't think y'all really realize how little archaeologists make. I have no agenda either way, but I will call a spade a spade and one thing I know for a fact is that the vast majority of archaeologists make very little. I'll be happy to send you copies of my W-2's when I was doing archaeology. I have a MA in Archaeology from one of the top schools in the world and I never broke $11.50 an hour and it wasn't even full time. There may have been money in archaeology in its infancy when it was more like collecting, but nowadays, there is no money in archaeology.

I will without hesitation state there are plenty of elitist archaeologists out there. They honestly do feel that metal detectorists are destroying the past by removing artifacts from the ground without proper scientific method. Do I feel that way? 99% of the time, no. Does that mean all archaeologists are like that? Of course not. Metal detectorists got a bad name in the archaeological community stemming from the 70's and 80's when there were many 'rogue' detectorists out there who would go anywhere and dig up anything, leaving craters to be discovered the next day. This included national battlefields and private lands. I know it was just a fraction of a percent of metal detectorists, but as many on here stereotype all archaeologists, the same is done with metal detectorists. I'm unlike most in my community because I don't have an issue with most metal detecting. As I've stated on this site a million times already, the only issue I have is the same ones that most people have...illegal hunting on battlefields, parks, etc. If someone gives you permission to search their land, have at it. If you find something great, even better. Only a fraction of a percent of potential sites are ever excavated because there are not enought archaeologist, nor is there enough money to do the excavations. I definitely think it is great that some people have collections of items they have dug up over the years. I would rather something be appreciated than tucked away in a basement in a Banker's Box most likely never to be seen.

I don't want to continue blabbing away, but that is my two cents.

 

[jeff of pa]

$11-15 an hour ? I'd feel rich & own a 3030

Call me up, I'll search Gettysburg's Battlefields for the privilege to dig, handle
& have photos of my finds

 

[CaptEsteban]

I have met many archaeologists in my life & none are paid well, so it isn't about money !! They have little job security as well. All it takes are some budget cuts , by the state or university, a poor economy , & they are not working the next year , & have to move to find another job.

 

[Hot zone]

I have met many archaeologists in my life & none are paid well, so it isn't about money !! They have little job security as well. All it takes are some budget cuts , by the state or university, a poor economy , & they are not working the next year , & have to move to find another job.

Would explain some bitterness, when a hobbiest is having fun doing what he should be paid for.

 

[deepskyal]

If you say 'Not every site is historically significant", who then is making that determination? Are we to call up someone when we find a site, have them come out and survey it, and then make a determination on whether we can hunt it or not?

I question why Pithole, Pa. is off limits to metal detecting. Yes, the town was significant in the fact is was once a bustling oil boom town, one of the first in the area. The state does a fine job of mowing the grass around the very clear outlines of house foundations, but a very large sign states clearly No metal detecting permitted.
What could possibly be so precious in the ground of what was once a typical boomtown that would be historically significant in it's context? It was a town, just like any other mid 1800's town, except when the wells dried up, the people moved on.
Somebody, somewhere made a determination that this was a historically significant site and should be protected against metal detectorists. If the state makes this kind of determination for a typical town, what's to stop them from designating every ghost town in the state as historically significant?

I personally do not want to take a chance of having some place closed off by someone in the state's archeology department because they feel it's historically important and want to save it from plunder, only to leave it disappear further into oblivion.
There are dozens of ghost towns around the state and I'm sure under the guidelines written in the Archeology Act, every one of them could be closed to detecting.
Most of these ghost towns are lost to the growth of forests and it's us amatures that take the time to locate them, document them and find a few relics for our time. We deal with the elements, the ticks and animals, the poison ivy, whatever hazzards are around and I don't think we really want to trust anyone with the authority to close a site with the knowledge of it's existance.

If the Archeology Act would be rewritten so as not to exclude common historical finds, allow for the amature to profit if they so choose, then I think we could reach some common accord. But as you say not every site is historically significant, the Act still supercedes your common sense approach. My animosity lies with the Act, with who determines what and how the government intervenes in discoveries.

As I said earlier, when a state can survey an area, find Indian pottery shards and tools, then determine nothing is worth saving so they can build a bridge cheaper than if they had to go around an important site, then the whole historic significant thing is a farce and an ultimate display of hypocrosy.

Al

 

[Hot zone]

Most politicians have had college. In the good old boys society, the archaeologist with college is rewarded while the general public is not. I have seen this in the workplace with promotions going to the most inept with a degree, while the guy with hands on experience intuitively arrives at the right solution (usually the opposite) in any given situation. I was always amaised that statistics could be made to prove anything the Data Cop desired.

Common sense cannot be taught in school, it actually gets in the way of it! (hot zone)

I would propose that as a course of study, archeologist students are assigned to record all the finds of average metal detectorests. Thus getting to do what they insists need to be done and get a ratio of junk to significant finds. Afterall a day in the field far outweighs a day in the classroom. What will the numbers mean? 98% of statistics are made up!(unknown author) Des McHale said this about statistics: "The average human has one breast and one testical."

 

[Jason in Enid]

What money The average archaeologist makes $11-15 an hour. Site supervisors/managers may make $30-40k a year depending on the company. Seriously, I don't think y'all really realize how little archaeologists make.

THEY ARE STILL GETTING PAID!!! I would make WAY more money if I spent my detecting time working at McDonalds. I detect "for free" because I enjoy it. If I should be lucky enough to find something very valuable, I have the right to sell it if I want.

Call me, I'll detect all day long, every day for $10 an hour!

 

[N.J.THer]

I have no problem with them being paid. I don't think there is any point to that argument. If there is someone getting paid to do anything then there is someone out there willing to pay them for that service. Archaeology just happens to be their choosen profession. That is like saying professional atheletes should not be paid because there are people out there doing it for free just because they enjoy it. You have a grip about being paid it should be with all the people on welfare that choose not to try to get off. I actually just heard someone on unemployment admit they did not want a job because they would stop getting paid by unemplyment. Pure laziness...

The purpose of this thread was to come up with a hypothetical compromise that maybe someday we could all work towards. Who know if that will ever happen?? Other then a small handful of people on this thread, everyone is complaining about how thing currently are which is not helping anyone. If you don't like the way things are then come up with a solution. If your solution is a good one then try to convince the archaeological community that this is the way things should be done. If both sides just sit around complaining about the other then we will never get anywhere. In an acceptable solution there will be benefits to each side...if one side will not benefit then they would never agree to it.

I know most of you don't like how things are right now. What can be done to fix it? Is going to a system like they have in Europe where finds are reported to a local representative for cataloging acceptable? If the local museum wants your relic they have to pay you the fair market value?

Deepskyal, brings up a good point. How do we determine if a site or item is "historically significant"? Is this done by a joint panel? If so is this panel paid? If they are where does the money come from? That might be where a permit fee comes into place. I don't know but instead of complaining think about it.

NJ

 

[Jason in Enid]

NJ, professional athletes don't try to ban others from playing the sport, professional archies do.

 

[lookindown]

They dont want us doing what they get paid to do...there is no other way to say it.

 

[N.J.THer]

NJ, professional athletes don't try to ban others from playing the sport, professional archies do.

Jason,
You have never snuck into Giant stadium to play a pick up game... They really don't like it when your on their site.

I hear you but I just don't think the gripping about the way things are currently is helping the matter. If any archaeologists, even just one, is interesting in discussing alternatives I think we should try and if not then don't complain about the way things are.

I do get the problems and I guess I was never one to just complain...I like taking action even if it gets me no where...at least I feel I tried.

NJ

 

[lookindown]

He came on here talking about the horrible detecting shows, said he would be honest and then wouldnt even answer the first question.

 

[Jason in Enid]

My point was in reference to the fact that several here have stated that money has nothing to do with archeology. I was making the point that they are getting paid, even if they aren't getting huge sums of taxpayer dollars, they are still getting them. Without our dollars, there would be ZERO archeologists.

I agree that it's very disingenuous to say you want to help and refuse to even give your name. I think he came here to generate discussion without being blacklisted by his "cronies."