Thought Id share this article.........

[panchoveeya]

I thought I would share this article since it's close to home and some MDers think it's okay to detect places like this and be sneaky, but get caught and ruin everything for the rest of us or raise the chances of banning mding at other sites.

Dropping water levels could bring area's past back to life | Recordnet.com

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[vpnavy]

Interesting article. Isn't it amazing how a few can ruin it for all...

 

[cudamark]

What a load of BS. Preserving history for future generations to enjoy by leaving artifacts at the bottom of a lake? Right......If they were so concerned about them, why didn't the recover them before now? They're just looking for grant money to a full dig on our dime. As for the statement that old items are not to be removed from public or PRIVATE land....they know where they can stick that comment!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

panchoveeya, you're falling prey to the hype. You're failing to take the context of that (the sources, etc...) into consideration. Go figure who they're interviewing for those quips and quotes in your article: purist archies. Or perhaps only said to be a "spokesperson" for whatever body of water is in question, but where do you think THOSE persons are getting their buzz phrases from? Puist archies somewhere else, asked to comment on this "pressing issue".

Well duh. That would be a little like asking the president of P.E.T.A. (an animal rights wacko group) if it's ok to leave your pet bunny in the car while you ran into 7-11 to get a slurpee. What would they say ? They'd screech: "NNEEEEOOOO!! You can be arrested for animal cruelty! The bunny could suffocate! Your car will be confiscated!" blah blah blah But seriously now, what did you expect to come from an animal rights wacko? So too do I put little stock in what some purist archies say. Of COURSE they're going to spell out dire consequences, because archies hate md'rs from the git-go.

For example, notice this quote: "Removing objects from archaeological sites is illegal, whether they are on public or private land." What?? Since when is it illegal to remove objects from archaeological sites on PRIVATE land? You can go to farmer bob's orchard and remove objects till you're blue the face, as long as you've got farmer bob's permission. It's his site and he can do whatever the h*ck he wants with it!! That's just an example of the hysteria that an archie will promote.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to rush off and hunt Folsom at this time. Why? Because of all the current news bruhaha, then OF COURSE they'll be there booting people. Of COURSE it's "front and center". But in years past (before the colorful ruins came to light), you could hunt folsom till you were blue in the face. You'd be hard-pressed to have gotten booted. And there were other ruins/foundations further back in the fingers of the lake which get exposed in lesser droughts, but that aren't as colorful and known as the mormon island thingy. And no, no one was "sneaking around" to hunt them. And notice that at no time, either then or now, did the rules or entity administering said site changed. What CHANGED was the recent attention and focus, that now every single ranger has been given a BOL for, perhaps. So in this case, sure, don't do something stupid in-lieu of the scrutiny.

 

[panchoveeya]

well for some reason i got the idea that mding was restricted at that lake and people were still going out and doing it anyways. thats the impression I got from the article at least.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

well for some reason i got the idea that mding was restricted at that lake and people were still going out and doing it anyways. thats the impression I got from the article at least.

yes, that's true. People "are doing it". There's even a youtube clip floating around from a few weeks ago where someone shows the viewers the cool ruins that are becoming exposed. And in the background is ....... yup, you guessed it, MD'rs! haha. No one's paying them any mind. I suppose if it were an "all-fired big offence", then there's nothing to stop the enforcers from capturing those person's images on freeze-frame, and figuring out who those scofflaws are, right? The throw the book at them, with the video as evidence!!

But on the contrary, nothing appears to be happening. Oh sure, some have reported getting warned, and then sure, I suppose if that/those persons continued on despite the warning, then sure, you could be in trouble.

 

[luvsdux]

I'd like to know how far the definition of an "Archeological site" applies to anything old that is NOT being studied by official personnel. I agree with Cudamark in that anything left in the ground, let alone under water as well is "saved" for the enjoyment of future individuals. Don't get me wrong, I definitely support the saving and study of older sites that may truly be unique in offering insights and knowledge from the past that may be new, but in many cases the only common factor is age, not significance. Rusty horseshoes, shovel blades, or harness buckles etc. are nothing more than chunks of (usually) rusty, deteriorating iron. My two bits.
luvsdux

 

[TreasurePirate69]

There are different definitions of "archeological site". A site that is listed as a protected archeological site is off limits even if it is on PRIVATE land. So no, not all private land is free game and "farmer Bob" may have legal injunctions against digging on his own property if the archies can get it declared as off limits due to archeological significance. It really all depends on whether or not a formal declaration has been made and also what state you are in.

It is not black and white. For example, digging on an Indian burial ground that has been identified and labeled as such is usually illegal even if it is on private land. But you can usually do whatever you want on private land and the archies can't do a darn thing about it as long as they have not been able to officially label the site with some sort of legal designation.

With all of that said, I do agree with others that this article wreaks of archies who have been given way too much power. The idea that some junk sitting at the bottom of the lake is somehow going to have more archeological significance to "future generations" is a bunch of hooey. What's to keep those future generations from doing the exact same thing and just picking the stuff up and putting it in their pocket? If it isn't worth it for current archeologists to dig it then why would future archeologists care? The bottom line is that archies never dig unless they are PAID to dig. They scream about how metal detectorists are only in it for the money and not the history. But this is a bunch of bull. Most metal detectorists don't make squat on what they find. More often than not, the metal detectorist is really in it for the history aspect. Yet almost ALL archeologists will not even touch a site unless they are either getting paid directly to dig, or the site has enough significance such that they can get published for the work (thus earning a higher salary in academia). And they say that WE are only in it for the money?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'd like to know how far the definition of an "Archeological site" applies to anything old that is NOT being studied by official personnel. I agree with Cudamark in that anything left in the ground, let alone under water as well is "saved" for the enjoyment of future individuals. Don't get me wrong, I definitely support the saving and study of older sites that may truly be unique in offering insights and knowledge from the past that may be new, but in many cases the only common factor is age, not significance. Rusty horseshoes, shovel blades, or harness buckles etc. are nothing more than chunks of (usually) rusty, deteriorating iron. My two bits.
luvsdux

luvsdux, good questions. It's the fequent objection of md'rs that a coin at a beach or picnic site does NOTHING to shed any archaeological light on the past. All it does is tell you what's already known: It was a picnic site or beach that people went to! Doh! The 10th or 100th barber dime doesn't add a lick more knowledge to present or future generations "about their past". And worse yet, if it remained there for another 1,000,000 years, it will never do anyone any good anyhow (except rot till it becomes nothing) .

So as logical as that sounds to us md'rs, put yourself in their shoes. I'll be the devil's advocate and spell out their mindset: Because the minute they say:

"oh... well.... ok .... I guess this one spot wouldn't hurt, since it's not a sacred sensitive monument" Or

"oh, I guess that one horseshoe or seated dime isn't revealing any new info, and isn't particularly old, so I guess that can slide". Or

"oh, odds are no one would ever have found that barber, since odds are, no one would ever have sunk an archie pit over there"

Then you can see where this goes, in their mind's eyes. It's the old camel's nose-in-the-tent story. While each of the above individual points is no doubt indisputably true, yet ..... the minute they start to mince and dice various things, it just becomes an endless debate, and md'rs endlessly "pushing the envelope" (admit it, wouldn't you??). So guess what the easy answer is? No to all everything, everywhere. Just cut and dried simple.

And mind you, some of those same people might whole-heartedly agree with you, and may not care less (so long as you're not tromping around in/on a truly sensitive historic monument). By that I mean, take for example the speed limit: if you ask a cop "can I go 56 in a 55 zone? They will be obliged to tell you "no". Afterall, that's the law. Because the minute they say "sure, go ahead, 1 mph over isn't gonna be noticed", then the motorist will say "ok, how about 57?" and so forth. Thus at no time does any of them ever say "it's ok". Yet a quick look around you, on the roads, and what do you see ?

 

[cudamark]

It seems to me that if a site is all that historically significant or sensitive and that finding artifacts there would be all that important to humanity, that they should be digging that site and not moaning about us digging an insignificant one. Have them sift the whole area and keep every single thing. Then open it up to anyone who wants to hunt there. If they did their job, there would be nothing to find and detectorists would quit going there. If something good IS found, then reward the finder and improve your recovery techniques. (or ask us to help and show you how to do it! )

 

[aa battery]

look out here I come

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... or ask us to help and show you how to do it! )

Hey Mark, I'll go one step further, and agree with them ,sure: I don't want to rob future generations of enjoying their past. Sure history is for ALL to enjoy. Not just lone individuals going out there and digging it up to put on their own mantle place. And in recognition of this fact, I invite any and all of the public to come over to my house and view it on my mantle piece. They can see & enjoy it there all they want.

 

[Newfiehunter]

I agree with you all with regards to our rights as metal detectorists and had a debate with an archaeologist and this was his view on it...


Metal detector users may argue that they are not harming anything by collecting. Not surprisingly, I would argue otherwise. In reality, they could potentially be destroying an archaeology site, a part of our collective history. Every archaeology site and every single artifact tells a story. Once the site is disturbed, that story can never be told again. It goes beyond the artifact to something called context, where the artifact was found, for example, was it associated with a fireplace, stonewalls or inside a tent ring? These are things that metal detector users are not seeing when they take artifacts out of context. Each artifact and its location is part of a story. Taking artifacts out of context is essentially the same as walking into a library and ripping pages from books. Those pages out of context are just sheets of paper and what is left behind are incomplete stories

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I agree with you all with regards to our rights as metal detectorists and had a debate with an archaeologist and this was his view on it...


Metal detector users may argue that they are not harming anything by collecting. Not surprisingly, I would argue otherwise. In reality, they could potentially be destroying an archaeology site, a part of our collective history. Every archaeology site and every single artifact tells a story. Once the site is disturbed, that story can never be told again. It goes beyond the artifact to something called context, where the artifact was found, for example, was it associated with a fireplace, stonewalls or inside a tent ring? These are things that metal detector users are not seeing when they take artifacts out of context. Each artifact and its location is part of a story. Taking artifacts out of context is essentially the same as walking into a library and ripping pages from books. Those pages out of context are just sheets of paper and what is left behind are incomplete stories

newfie-hunter, I love it! Straight out of the play-book of the archie mindset. You nailed it perfectly. And you certainly can't argue with any of those bullet points, right?

A come-back line I once heard posed back to this mindset: The fact that when you consider that even the most WELL-FUNDED university archaeology dept, can take weeks or a month to do a single 4 ft. x 10 ft. pit. Which they do with tweezers, teensy brushes, and write a volume of meticulous notes on every bird tooth or piece of charcoal they find. Ok, fine. Wonderful. Well do the math: at THAT rate of speed, it would take thousands of years just to do a single few square miles of land, in a SINGLE federal or state park. It's simply never going to happen! They CAN'T dig every last inch of soil.

So here's the come-back line of reasoning for the purist archie: That you or I don't know where the future generation will sink that 4' x 10' pit, now do you? For example: look at the ancient egyptian landscape. Mundane things like peasant cities of the common-day workers yield a lot of info about "daily life" back in those days. So we're not just talking the obvious sensitive sacred pyramids, but also just commoner laborer sites, or small villages along the nile, etc.... And here we are, thousands of years later, gleaning info from those un-disturbed things, eh? SO TOO might that mercury dime you found in the middle of a CCC camp in Yellowstone *might* yield a clue, if an archie sunk a pit on *just that* spot, 3000 years from now. Afterall, ya never know, right?

 

[cudamark]

I agree with you all with regards to our rights as metal detectorists and had a debate with an archaeologist and this was his view on it...


Metal detector users may argue that they are not harming anything by collecting. Not surprisingly, I would argue otherwise. In reality, they could potentially be destroying an archaeology site, a part of our collective history. Every archaeology site and every single artifact tells a story. Once the site is disturbed, that story can never be told again. It goes beyond the artifact to something called context, where the artifact was found, for example, was it associated with a fireplace, stonewalls or inside a tent ring? These are things that metal detector users are not seeing when they take artifacts out of context. Each artifact and its location is part of a story. Taking artifacts out of context is essentially the same as walking into a library and ripping pages from books. Those pages out of context are just sheets of paper and what is left behind are incomplete stories

I would tell them that some pages wouldn't be missed. (or Cliff's notes would be out of business!) I many cases, the story is the same when it comes to digging artifacts. I mean, is it really a surprise that people used money and jewelry throughout history? And that they used tools and ate nuts and berries? To spend years digging a small site it just a waste of our tax money. Turn us loose on a site like that and we'll get the goods in no time and not cost the Gov a cent. That's mainly why they're pissed at us. We'll do for free what they want to charge us an arm and a leg to find.

 

[TreasurePirate69]

I agree with you all with regards to our rights as metal detectorists and had a debate with an archaeologist and this was his view on it...


Metal detector users may argue that they are not harming anything by collecting. Not surprisingly, I would argue otherwise. In reality, they could potentially be destroying an archaeology site, a part of our collective history. Every archaeology site and every single artifact tells a story. Once the site is disturbed, that story can never be told again. It goes beyond the artifact to something called context, where the artifact was found, for example, was it associated with a fireplace, stonewalls or inside a tent ring? These are things that metal detector users are not seeing when they take artifacts out of context. Each artifact and its location is part of a story. Taking artifacts out of context is essentially the same as walking into a library and ripping pages from books. Those pages out of context are just sheets of paper and what is left behind are incomplete stories

Not all sites are equal in terms of their archeological importance. Ask that archie if he wants to come dig in my back yard and see what he has to say. I'll say it again: it isn't black and white. I agree that letting a metal detectorist come in and take stuff from an important archeological site/battlefield/whatever destroys context. Heck, even allowing people to WALK on that land and drop additional litter on it technically can destroy context too (or at least make the context harder to interpret). But my back yard has no context because there is nothing of archeological significance there. Therefore, it makes no sense for an archie to assume that every place on earth has context if there will never be anyone who cares to look at that context in the first place.

When I first got into detecting I couldn't drive down the road without seeing every single strip of land as being a "potential goldmine" of relics that I wanted to get at. After my first year of detecting that went excitement away. I realized that you need to pick and choose your locations wisely. Sometimes, a strip of land really is just a strip of land. The good archeologists understand this. Not every piece of land is an archeological site waiting to happen. Most of the time, that strip of land is really just a strip of land. And even though there may be some interesting things to discover there, the likelihood that there is something archeologically significant is about nil.

 

[deadeye 22250]

If the archaeological wackos could get their way, nobody would be able to detect anywhere. So are the idiots going to design x-ray glasses so people can look into the ground to enjoy the stuff in the ground. It is hard for anyone to enjoy things they can't see.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

If the archaeological wackos could get their way, nobody would be able to detect anywhere.....

which is why the less they see and hear of us, the better.

 

[Jason in Enid]

If it were so dang archaeologically important, why wasn't a dig made before they flooded it? AS a matter of fact, they like to consider ALL these submerged towns as "important" but it was just so much trash to be bulldozed when the lake was made.

They are like little kids, they only care about it because somebody ELSE might get it.

 

[cudamark]

99.9% of EVERYTHING they find is insignificant. The only ones even interested are archie students or other academics. 1% might make it to a museum. The knowledge gained is just mental masturbation. Sure, there may be some interesting facts discovered, but, they're just a curiousity satisfied for a very few. The actual benefit for mankind is virtually nil. Let's take a hypothetical situation like Custer's last battle..... Say an archie dig that took years to complete discovered that Custer was shot by his own men instead of being killed by the Indians. That just prompts more questions and only answers just one......how he died. Now they'll want to know if he was shot to spare him from being tortured or if he was hated and executed for his arrogance. My point is, other than people who study this sort of thing, who cares at this point in time? Our world at large is not going to change regardless of the changing minutia.