archies are ok

[jrwill56]

archie's are ok

their has been some discussion lately about archaeologist not wanting metal detectionist finding artifacts.the reason for this is that some very important sites can be lost or destroyed.some say many of these sites are not known,and are out there for the finding,this is true.but we need these sites for futher research.but we can compromise.we as Md's.almost never go below the plow line 12".as i did when i found many artifacts from the early 18th century,all less than 12" deep.i reported them to the nearest archaeology dept.took them to them,and found them to be very considerate,i told them about the site , invited them out ,and they came.
they said the the site is a very important home site,dating to around 1720's.they surveyed the site ,using (gpr) and found the cellar.they want to come back and do a complete dig in the future.i found the archaeologist,and the grad students all very nice and understanding.the said they wanted to catalogue the finds ,and let the students study them.they also said they would return them to me soon.i have received some already.
so if you find a important site report it .it is not as bad as people say.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rusted_Iron]

Re: archie's are ok

Just found this post... good post. I think most archie's are indeed OK. It is really just a minority of them whose primary motivation is sour grapes / envy / greed.

I know of a couple detectorists who help out archaeologists. I think several people on Tnet are also archies who like to MD.

The main thing we should ALL do as detectorists is keep good records, take good photos, and don't let the info get separated from the finds. Nothing burns up an archie more than having historical artifacts getting separated from their location info and context.

Such as, for example, when artifacts get sold on Ebay and nobody knows where they came from. I can't blame the archies for hating this, because I really don't like it either. Of course, the public should understand that some finds are indeed without context... either they are isolated drops in a rural area-- impossible to know who dropped them, and when-- or they are found in a pre-disturbed area such as a plowed field or an ocean beach, and also it's impossible to restore the context. I think if there were some intelligence in the lawmaking process, we could have these facts recognized. If detectorists remain part of the decision making process, I think a true win-win situation can be developed, where finders keep their finds but have them available for study if the archaeologists want to do so.

It's all about preserving as much info as possible on your finds.

 

[Monty]

Re: archie's are ok

The problem is that there are some archies that think it is their place to police everyone else. They accuse us of stealing history when we recover artifacts. And so many of them seem to think it is better to let history stay in the ground and rot away to nothing rather than recovering it and preserving it in our homes or a museum. Most of us would be willing to loan our finds to a museum or to a school to help students learn about archeology and history. but many archies want to confiscate them and then no one knows where they are or what happens to them. I am all for working with archies and historians. The determining word is WITH not for or against, but with them. Monty

 

[baspinall]

Re: archie's are ok

Personally I have had only positive experiences with archies. My MD club just worked hand in hand with them at a Rev. War site. They were installing a cell phone tower and needed to check the area out first. The archies contacted us. It was pretty cool. A British musket ram rod end was recovered.

Brian

 

[Rusted_Iron]

Re: archie's are ok

And so many of them seem to think it is better to let history stay in the ground and rot away to nothing rather than recovering it and preserving it in our homes or a museum.

There is a contingent of wing nuts who operate on spite and envy rather than any true love of history. It is unfortunate that the public has a hard time discerning who's who in the archies, because once the wingnuts get into the right places, they are experts at "highgrounding". They hide all their selfishness behind the veneer of propriety and correctness.

I agree with the rest of your sentiments as well, Monty.

 

[Goodyguy]

Re: archie's are ok

Of course the "Archies" would prefer to dig undisturbed ground. Or at least to have any previous artifacts that were found, to have been cataloged and bagged as to where each object was located, both by longitude and latitude as well as depth. Something that most MD'ers would not either take the time or want to do.

Most professional Archaeologists are very protective of their artifacts and are not amused that we like to dig and recover any buried objects at any depth modern or not. Of course there are exceptions but in the overall picture, very few.

If there is a local Archaeology club in your area, I would suggest joining and seeing the situation from their point of view. Perhaps you will have an opportunity to have them see us and our hobby as other than a bunch of greedy pot hunters out to steal history.

GG~

 

[mpostma]

Re: archie's are ok

Right on Good Guy!

I recently joined the county's Historic Preservation Society. There are some very cool projects that they are working on, including preserving a couple of really old buildings, recording oral history from our elders, and reviewing and scanning rural township land records.
I have found some amazing leads for mding. The other members are very encouraging, and some have even offered me places to hunt!

Now I find that I am on their board of directors. A glutton for punishment again.

It has been my experience that these kind of organizations attract some very good people, with a minimum of control freaks.

Good Luck,
Mark

 

[Rusted_Iron]

Re: archie's are ok

Of course the "Archies" would prefer to dig undisturbed ground. Or at least to have any previous artifacts that were found, to have been cataloged and bagged as to where each object was located, both by longitude and latitude as well as depth. Something that most MD'ers would not either take the time or know how to do.

Most professional Archaeologists are very protective of their artifacts and are not amused that we like to dig and recover any buried objects at any depth modern or not. Of course there are exceptions but in the overall picture, very few.

If there is a local Archaeology club in your area, I would suggest joining and seeing the situation from their point of view. Perhaps you will have an opportunity to have them see us and our hobby as other than a bunch of greedy pot hunters out to steal history.

GG~

Good points GG, I just hope the legislators don't listen to the frantic wingnuts who would impose blanket restrictions on everything. Plowed fields are not archaeological sites, at least within the first 12 inches or so. They are heavily disturbed, it would just be nice if people would realize this. Many home sites are also disturbed with re-landscaping.

The field I am hunting lately, it still appears that the finds I'm making have been pushed all into one little spot from someplace else. They are not quite where the map says there should be a house, and the other two houses on the map have no finds. I may be finding the items from three different houses, which would be a shame, because I really want to know what each house had, and what tools & artifacts each one had separately.

Right on Good Guy!

I recently joined the county's Historic Preservation Society. There are some very cool projects that they are working on, including preserving a couple of really old buildings, recording oral history from our elders, and reviewing and scanning rural township land records.
I have found some amazing leads for mding. The other members are very encouraging, and some have even offered me places to hunt!

Now I find that I am on their board of directors. A glutton for punishment again.

It has been my experience that these kind of organizations attract some very good people, with a minimum of control freaks.

Good Luck,
Mark

That does sound good. I think the control freaks are a minority, but they're just good at leveraging up the outrage factor ("they're looting sites! stop them!"). Private collectors tend to preserve and cherish finds just as well as, if not better than, public institutions. Especially because, in most cases, they shelled out their own hard-earned money, rather than someone else's money for the stuff. So if we can have more MD'ers keep better records of find locations, depths, etc, then I think we'll all be ahead of the game.

 

[baspinall]

Re: archie's are ok

Of course the "Archies" would prefer to dig undisturbed ground. Or at least to have any previous artifacts that were found, to have been cataloged and bagged as to where each object was located, both by longitude and latitude as well as depth. Something that most MD'ers would not either take the time or know how to do.


GG~

Exactly what we did at our dig. I was surprised that we were able to dig the item.

Brian

 

[Goodyguy]

Re: archie's are ok

Of course the "Archies" would prefer to dig undisturbed ground. Or at least to have any previous artifacts that were found, to have been cataloged and bagged as to where each object was located, both by longitude and latitude as well as depth. Something that most MD'ers would not either take the time or want to do.


GG~

Exactly what we did at our dig. I was surprised that we were able to dig the item.

Brian

Great,

Congrats on finding the musket ramrod end

GG~

 

[zaxfire69]

Re: archie's are ok

I think all archie's need metal detectors.

 

[Goodyguy]

Re: archie's are ok

I think all archie's need metal detectors.

Most Archie's I know concentrate on pre historic cultures.
They typically use GPR and then dig pits over the anomalies.
And when they dig a pit they screen everything so nothing is missed.

I have worked a few historical sites with a local group of Archies and donated my metal detecting skills.
First the area is gridded off and then all finds down to a foot are cataloged.
If a significant find or concentration of finds are made, then a pit may be developed at the discretion of the Archie in charge.

I am sure some Archie's have metal detectors but I haven't met one yet.
This is the Archaeological group that I belong to: http://www.falls-society.org/

GG~

 

[Tnmountains]

Re: archie's are ok

Most I have dealt with have been pety nice when they realise you are can share a wealth of knowledge. I do not tell them about any Cw sites but have pointed out a few ancient burials areas they were getting ready to bull doze over.Of course they made front page with their discoverys,LOL. Thats ok though. They are ok. I am not going to GPS around a homestead my finds. Thats silly. I may grid it out for me and maybe maybe gps the scatter but that will be for me.To be honest I have only GPS ancient artifacts at over 7000 years old not colonial stuff. Its my land and I lease the archeological rights on most and am able to dig.
If I found something of great importance to the scientific and public community I would share it after all recoverys were complete. Then I could report my data. Any moron can run a GPS now days.
Just be a professional in your hobby always. Dazzle people with your knowledge of your machine and the history.
Thanks for letting me post !!!
TnMtns

 

[Woodland Detectors]

Re: archie's are ok

I have nothing but, good things to say about the Archaeologists in this country. If you think about it, These folks are trained to study, retrieve and document important events and artifacts to teach the community how things "ticked". Without the Scientists, Professors etc.We would really be lost. Like Teddy Roosevelt said: "How do we know where we are going if we don't know where we have been?" And without these folks doing their jobs We'd really be messed up. Besides, It's actually the "irresponsible Detectorist's" That piss them off. As it does me. We work with Archaeologists here at our camp and we get along just fine. We work together here. In this neck of the woods. HHHH

 

[baspinall]

Re: archie's are ok

I have nothing but, good things to say about the Archaeologists in this country. If you think about it, These folks are trained to study, retrieve and document important events and artifacts to teach the community how things "ticked". Without the Scientists, Professors etc.We would really be lost. Like Teddy Roosevelt said: "How do we know where we are going if we don't know where we have been?" And without these folks doing their jobs We'd really be messed up. Besides, It's actually the "irresponsible Detectorist's" That piss them off. As it does me. We work with Archaeologists here at our camp and we get along just fine. We work together here. In this neck of the woods. HHHH

Exactly

 

[Brett SD]

Re: archie's are ok

So I just so happened to stumble upon this forum via a friend who wanted to show me some pictures of Russian and German WWII artifacts. I saw that human remains were also being recovered and was a little disturbed, but mostly curious about what kind of documentation was being done.

I'm curious, because I am an "archie" as you call them. While I don't specialize in North American archaeology I have ventured into the field. I'm sure you're all aware of the many laws concerning the retrieval of Native American artifacts and remains and the discovery of their occupations. I'm not sure however that those laws may be accounted for in some of the threads and posts that I've observed (in a rather short time) in dealing with those topics. I saw a post about "Forbidden Archaeology" and while I didn't get to read the full scoop it seemed that the author was ignoring the rules concerning Native American sites and chalking it up to a conspiracy. The truth is we have to back fill ("bulldoze" seems to be the common term here) sites we excavate and we have to report them. Forgive me if it sounds like I'm making a judgment call, I've only been able to glance at things briefly until I saw this thread and felt compelled to reply with the other side.

As far as post-contact interest archaeologically, it's a missed conception that we're not interested. There are many programs interested in Spanish and Colonial period artifacts and locations. There are even programs aimed at more modern day topics.

I would urge anybody to contact their local archaeological sources. You're just as interested in the stories and history behind recovered artifacts as we are and only good things can come from the partnership. My biggest concern at looking at many of the things here is indeed what poster 4-H covered, context. Recording context can be just as important as the artifact itself.

Forgive my jumbled thoughts. I'm in the middle of writing a thesis and my brain is mush.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Re: archie's are ok

Brett, I see that you are from San Diego, CA. As a Californian, Mission docent, and as a person who has detected here for over 30 yrs, both with the blessings of archaeologists (helping them, invited by them, etc...), and without the blessings of archaeologists (gotten the "3rd degree" from some), I feel I can answer your concerns:

You hit on several different issues, so breaking them down individually:

As far as bones, and laws concerning north american indian artifacts (the indians here had no refined metal prior to contact), believe it or not, metal detecting is actually the MOST politically correct method to retrieve artifacts. Because believe it or not, metal detectors can not pick up bones. We go right to the metal artifact, in pinpoint fashion, while disturbing a minimum of soil. Contrast that to an archaeologist, who ..... in order to find what he finds, digs an entire 4 x 4 x 4 pit, and disturbs and touches every single item (including bones) in his path. Who, in that case, has done "the disturbing" on bones? If you saw someone in a video push aside a bone while retrieving a metal target, I don't doubt it could happen, especially if you are detecting a battlefield for instance (where bones might exist). But keep it in perspective that that would be incidental, and not the target of a metal detector, while an archaeologist clears an entire pit of both metal and non-metal targets. Therefore metal detectors should be the desirable choice for relic hunting, in places where bones might incidentally be. Detectors should be a non-threatening device for an archie in CA to see, if he is concerned about respect for pre-contact native american indian artifacts, bones, etc..... It is the most politically correct method of retreiving artifacts.

The other major point of your post is that it is not only bones that bothered you in seeing those pictures of relic hunters and their WWII relics. You also point out that there are schools of archaeology that deal with post-contact periods. Ie.: colonial archaeology, western archaeology, etc... To that I would agree, that yes..... there is a cross-over in desired goals, function of equipment, methods, etc.... I suppose the archaeologists solution in that case, would be to prohibit anyone, ever, anywhere, from ever digging relics, bottles, etc... Afterall "they might find a relic, metal item, coin, etc...". And taken to its logical extreme, no one should dig anywhere, at any time, "lest they disturb the past" (afterall, that's what a portion of EIR's are focused on, to make sure no one builds on a place where digging a foundation might disturb a colonial site or whatever, right?). So taken to the logical extreme, you would be right: outlaw all metal detecting, beach-combing, bottle-digging, etc... But no, that's not how it works. There are protected sites we all agree on. There are laws that deal with state & federal sites, and no one is advocating detecting those places. At present, in our great free country, we can metal detect on various other levels of land, and private land with permission, to our heart's content. If that ever changes, so be it. But in the meantime, the archaeologists in our great land will never, in a million years, be able to exhaust even a fraction of our historical sites. Even the most well-funded most aggressive archaeology dept. at a university can do just a handful of pits in various studies and various parks or whatever. Yet there are zillions of acres of such places. They spend all summer on a single few pits around a cabin or indian rancheria somewhere. That's fine. But there is no reason for them to look askance at someone for metal detecting a park sandbox, the beach, an old yard, etc... (I mean, did they think they were going to do a pit there someday? C'mon!)

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Re: archie's are ok

Just to ask, why are there university museums, state and federal museums filled with 10's of thousands of boxes of artifacts found by archies that are stored and not available for public viewing. Do they honestly expect us to believe they will be examine and displayed one day.

I know I took a trip through a university archaeology store room guided by a friend who worked there and there were boxes and boxes full of artifacts not available for public viewing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Re: archie's are ok

Treasure hunter, as a docent at several museums, I can not agree with you more. In the old days, museums would take donations as people walked in. I mean, it would be "rude" afterall, to decline the donation of your grandmother's antique sewing machine, to the city's historical museum, right? To YOU, the person donating it, it is very relevant to the city's past. So you want to see it preserved. If it's not immediately displayed, you are assured it is to be put in safe-keeping for research, future displays, etc... But after decades of such generosity, museums develope entire warehouses of stuff! So much so, that one museum I worked for, had to build and develope an entire specialty room (with climate control and such, to make sure paper documents were preserved) to house it all. And with a limit on volunteer time, hundreds of boxes sat waiting for sorting, classifying, ID'ing, photo'ing, etc.... Stuff I worked on there, had sat for years before I got there! And once classified, sat and never got displayed, nor will they likely ever be.

Why is it, that in most museums, the display you see now, is probably the display you'll see next month, and the following year, etc....? Because don't you know that to rotate displays takes time and budget. And do you really think that people come back each month to see more necessarily? The museums I work in took great pride and work in putting out the most relevant time-lines of whatever theme of the museum is. And each month, we get new visitors that have never been there before. They see the same well-thought-out materials. If time allows, the curator's work on the displays, add or subtract stuff, etc... But in no way does it keep pace with the stuff that people attempt to donate.

And then of course, if somene donates something that you rotate OUT of a display, they might come in a few months later, and ask "why?" You see, now you've offended them that you, apparently ... think "Fred's antique ice-cream machine" is more important than your grandma's sewing machine". So people would sometimes attach mandates to their donations "must be displayed". Museums wised up and would not agree to such stipulations, lest they be at the public's whims of what is displayed, and what is not.

And some people would donate things with the stipulation "on loan to the museum". The problem there was, that then the museum risks someone waltzing in to the museum the following month or following year, and saying "give it back", causing display cabinets to have to be opened up and put into dissaray. Or other strange scenarios where someone's sister-in-law comes in demanding something saying "my brother had no right to donate that, so since it's 'on-loan', give it to me now lest I call the police". Or worse yet, whatever the "on-loan" item is gets misplaced (afterall, we're talking volumes and volumes and racks and racks of STUFF that comes in), and now they're legally threatening museums or cities for the return of something that the museum can't immediately locate. For this reason, museums have you sign over anything you intend to donate, as the complete and utter property of the museum. This puts great items out of reach of museums and the public viewing, because some family priceless heirlooms, or items that a relic-hunter finds (that families want to say is still theirs) will therefore never be seen.

So there is a whole host of problems and issues with museums, in that their hands are tied with budgets, personalities, volunteer hours, political correctness run awry, etc.... And yes, little of what is dug is ever displayed. So why all the hoopala about someone digging yet another coin or that one-billionth indian crockery shard or mortor rock?

 

[Philvis]

Re: archie's are ok

As an archaeologist, I can say with certainty one thing. There are indeed some jack azzes out there. But, that being said, there are those in every single field. One thing those who hate archies must realize is that a lot of the animosity stems from metal detectorists from the 60's, 70's, and even into the 80's. I'm not going to generalize and say a majority of detectorists or anything like that, but there were enough rogue detectorists who would plow through burials (especially Civil War related) or state/national parks under the cover of night to give the hobby as a whole a black eye. This is one of the big reasons there can be some animosity with "some" archaeologists.

There are those archaeologists out there who do feel anything in the ground should only be removed by them. I think that is pretty silly and those are usually the ones I would never associate with , but as I said before, every profession has its share of jack azzes. One thing for sure though, is that most archaeologists do have a love and appreciation for history, just like most detectorists. They aren't all evil and they are very appreciative of leads on possible sites.

If an archaeologist has an issue with you digging on a playground, at the beach, etc., they would be classified as jack azzes in my book. My original archaeological mentor is an avid relic hunter, so it just goes to show that all is not as it seems. Most archaeologists are a friendly bunch and appreciate your input. Typically the archaeologists who will display the most skepticisim and doubt towards detectorists are students and those fresh out college. They are the ones who are bright eyed and full of ambition and ideals (soon the real world will hit them hard) and think they are saviors of the past. You've just got to learn to ignore them.

Your gut instinct typically is your best asset when it comes to digging. If you ever think, "hmm, maybe an archaeologist should take a look at this area," then probably you should call one up. Do this, and you never should encounter issues. If you find a cache of coins, that is a different story. I say have at it! I think the biggest problem is that some folks feel archaeologists are out to get them, which they are not. Archaeologists are not out their lobbying against metal detecting. The stiff archaeological law passed on a state and federal level were not anti-metal detecting in nature. They were put in place to prevent the mass Native American grave robbing, and desecration of state and national historic sites that became widespread in the mid 20th century. The people everyone on here should truly fear are the local municipalities who pass the absurd anti-metal detecting laws. Just remember that you are always going to run into someone who is less than likeable. You cannot judge everyone because of that.