Brett SD
Tenderfoot
Re: archie's are ok
It would seem that my post was taken as perhaps taking a position in opposition of metal detecting. It was not. I myself own a device and I understand what it can and cannot do. There are sections of this site where members display items they have salvaged that are not metallic, i.e. projectile points and the like. I don't even take issue with that. Items such as those, if found on the surface or near it generally don't carry much of a context with them. So I'm not concerning nor arguing any counter position to what many of you enjoy. My allusion to "forbidden archaeology" was directed at a topic that I went over where an article and link were posted concerning the conduct at a Native American site. The article seemed to suggest that the site had been "bulldozed without explanation" and that there was some kind of government conspiracy involved.
I am a student and despite poster Philvis' note on archaeological students being bright eyed and bushy tailed on the issues stated before hand I do not share this viewpoint. I have no illusions of grandeur when it comes to the notion of who should be "allowed" to dig. That's not my job or really my interest. Seeing as I have a device myself it's not too hard to conclude that I have partaken in the same kind of activities. I think a point that hasn't been brought up yet in this discussion is that many archaeologists start out relic hunting and using metal detectors. If you think about it both groups are essentially doing the same thing. The dividing line, if there really is such a thing is more that archaeologists spend years learning the craft and we pay quite a good amount of money to do so. So really, you guys have a leg up in that you're doing a hobby that we've turned into an often stressful career.
Archaeologists are just like any other group of people, they are as varied in personality and goals as the fields and industries they work in. I have to say though that reading "archies are greedy and envious" was a little offensive. Perhaps they are in a competitive sense when contributing to the academic realm and progression of their study, but archaeology is, generally not a lucrative field. I have yet to meet somebody in this field whether they're in academia, private/public CRM projects or "amateurs" that are out to strike it rich. Not even Indiana Jones who is more of an educated looter was out to make a pretty penny... Although you might be able to debate that by looking at the beginning scene of Temple of Doom. We don't get rich because we find something. Anything gained from a find is usually in the form of securing more funding for further excavation and lab work or in publishing, that's from my own experience though.
Concerning museum collections there's no conspiracy in displaying pieces. I've gone through the San Diego Museum of Man many many times, including their storage facilities as well as other museums around the world. It's already been stated before but some institutions become victim to funding and politics. The best solutions that I've seen have been outside of the U.S. Creating working museums that do more than display items and aim to educate the public, which is probably the single most important goal of any of this. There are working museums in the U.S., but there aren't a whole lot in my area.
In the regards of human remains there are definitely photos of bones on this site. I was initially dumbfounded, but upon further examination it seems that those remains are cataloged, attempted to be ID'ed and then sent back to country of origin (the example I'm talking about is in the Battlefield relic section where a poster from Russia had put up a larger a amount of photos). I can only hope that is the case in all discoveries of human remains.
Sorry for the long post.
It would seem that my post was taken as perhaps taking a position in opposition of metal detecting. It was not. I myself own a device and I understand what it can and cannot do. There are sections of this site where members display items they have salvaged that are not metallic, i.e. projectile points and the like. I don't even take issue with that. Items such as those, if found on the surface or near it generally don't carry much of a context with them. So I'm not concerning nor arguing any counter position to what many of you enjoy. My allusion to "forbidden archaeology" was directed at a topic that I went over where an article and link were posted concerning the conduct at a Native American site. The article seemed to suggest that the site had been "bulldozed without explanation" and that there was some kind of government conspiracy involved.
I am a student and despite poster Philvis' note on archaeological students being bright eyed and bushy tailed on the issues stated before hand I do not share this viewpoint. I have no illusions of grandeur when it comes to the notion of who should be "allowed" to dig. That's not my job or really my interest. Seeing as I have a device myself it's not too hard to conclude that I have partaken in the same kind of activities. I think a point that hasn't been brought up yet in this discussion is that many archaeologists start out relic hunting and using metal detectors. If you think about it both groups are essentially doing the same thing. The dividing line, if there really is such a thing is more that archaeologists spend years learning the craft and we pay quite a good amount of money to do so. So really, you guys have a leg up in that you're doing a hobby that we've turned into an often stressful career.
Archaeologists are just like any other group of people, they are as varied in personality and goals as the fields and industries they work in. I have to say though that reading "archies are greedy and envious" was a little offensive. Perhaps they are in a competitive sense when contributing to the academic realm and progression of their study, but archaeology is, generally not a lucrative field. I have yet to meet somebody in this field whether they're in academia, private/public CRM projects or "amateurs" that are out to strike it rich. Not even Indiana Jones who is more of an educated looter was out to make a pretty penny... Although you might be able to debate that by looking at the beginning scene of Temple of Doom.
We don't get rich because we find something. Anything gained from a find is usually in the form of securing more funding for further excavation and lab work or in publishing, that's from my own experience though.Concerning museum collections there's no conspiracy in displaying pieces. I've gone through the San Diego Museum of Man many many times, including their storage facilities as well as other museums around the world. It's already been stated before but some institutions become victim to funding and politics. The best solutions that I've seen have been outside of the U.S. Creating working museums that do more than display items and aim to educate the public, which is probably the single most important goal of any of this. There are working museums in the U.S., but there aren't a whole lot in my area.
In the regards of human remains there are definitely photos of bones on this site. I was initially dumbfounded, but upon further examination it seems that those remains are cataloged, attempted to be ID'ed and then sent back to country of origin (the example I'm talking about is in the Battlefield relic section where a poster from Russia had put up a larger a amount of photos). I can only hope that is the case in all discoveries of human remains.
Sorry for the long post.
