What is it that makes people think Archaeologist are bad?

[bluehunter1973]

You can call me anything you feel Berntout what you wont call me is selfish, inconsiderate, a thief or any other name and end it with ologist. I hunt for anything that is legal to hunt including wild game. What ever I feel is important to share historically I have and will share it. I have permission wherever I go and respect everyone I hunt with. Every property I hunt is private and people I get to know. Whatever I find I show the owner and if its of historical value or importance I let the owner decide what he or she want to do with it. I have donated to museums and University archaeologist professors only to find out the item I gave was sold to cover costs of equipment or running costs. What I have learned in six years on Treasure Net is everyone is entitled to their opinion and thats just what they are opinions. Just what this thread is about.

 

[Twisted One]

You can call me anything you feel Berntout what you wont call me is selfish, inconsiderate, a thief or any other name and end it with ologist. I hunt for anything that is legal to hunt including wild game. What ever I feel is important to share historically I have and will share it. I have permission wherever I go and respect everyone I hunt with. Every property I hunt is private and people I get to know. Whatever I find I show the owner and if its of historical value or importance I let the owner decide what he or she want to do with it. I have donated to museums and University archaeologist professors only to find out the item I gave was sold to cover costs of equipment or running costs. What I have learned in six years on Treasure Net is everyone is entitled to their opinion and thats just what they are opinions. Just what this thread is about.

It sounds to me like you are an Archaeologist, you just aren't a career one. What do they do other than uncover the past, and I feel pretty confident in saying that not everything they find off the clock goes to a museum. I know one of the guys near me has worked as an archaeologist for several years, and his collection is quite extensive. It was all obtained legally, and in his free time though. Just like yourself.

 

[bluehunter1973]

We all are in a way. All of us have a collection of some sort. I just like to be fair to everyone. I have no need for museums or archaeologists the few I have dealt with while trying to provide history for all to see I got screwed. Now I believe in the private collections. I dont think you go detecting in a grave yard or would you even try, morally you dont feel you have the right to even if you had permission because you would feel its just wrong. An archaeologist feels he has every right even without permission because his ego and government says he can. I have a degree in forestry and wildlife biology so you can call me a biologist. Your friend obtained a collection as an archaeologist. Even legally he obtained it somewhere you and I would not be able to hunt only those who are archaeologist. Ask yourself why is he allowed to keep what he finds and you are not able to. The archies argument is that we keep history away from the people of the state that own the artifact. The are no different and the only thing that makes it legal is their name. If he didnt have that title then it would be illegal and he would receive jail time. I also said in my first post of this thread is that "If I had to label myself" not that I was.

 

[Tuberale]

What happens all too often is that people who are uneducated about archaeology want to criticize and label all archaeologists as grave robbers, and this is not correct. In many states, regular folks
like you and I can volunteer in archaeological excavations, and learn through training and hands-on that this (grave-robbing ) is NOT what archaeologists are hired to do.

If I stepped on your thesis, I apologize. I spoke about a very specific instance over 200 years ago. Archaeology was then much more in its infancy.

It occurs to me that many people in CA don't have an understanding of the numbers of Native Americans that used to live in the PNW. When Lewis & Clark came in 1805-6, there may well have been 150,000+ Native Americans of the Chinook Tribe alone along the Columbia River. They seldom stayed at one location for over a year, and often moved from place to place along the river during seasons. Their gravesites were sometimes formal, and most often not. When the smallpox and malaria plagues decimated the tribes in the 1840-1850 period, thousands of dying Indians were seen naked and abandoned along the shores. Both plagues were introduced by whites. There is almost no acre of land along the Columbia River which does not have either a Native American grave or gravesite, village site, hunting grounds, war, food gathering, garbage midden, etc. etc. etc. on it.

Some archaeologists have proposed that all the sites be kept off-limits to all except archaeologists.

Archaeologists have to deal with their history, like the rest of us. Anyone who has read of the excavations in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt knows that early grave robbers and archeaologists were competing for the same gravesites. Yes, laws enacted afterwards were designed to stop looting. But history of both grave robbers and grave robbing archaeologists remains.

Last year this article appeared regarding Howard Carter (the discoverer of King Tut's tomb): http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/01/17/Tuts-finder-may-have-stolen-relics/UPI-83721263767849/

History speaks for itself.

 

[Twisted One]

We all are in a way. All of us have a collection of some sort. I just like to be fair to everyone. I have no need for museums or archaeologists the few I have dealt with while trying to provide history for all to see I got screwed. Now I believe in the private collections. I dont think you go detecting in a grave yard or would you even try, morally you dont feel you have the right to even if you had permission because you would feel its just wrong. An archaeologist feels he has every right even without permission because his ego and government says he can. I have a degree in forestry and wildlife biology so you can call me a biologist. Your friend obtained a collection as an archaeologist. Even legally he obtained it somewhere you and I would not be able to hunt only those who are archaeologist. Ask yourself why is he allowed to keep what he finds and you are not able to. The archies argument is that we keep history away from the people of the state that own the artifact. The are no different and the only thing that makes it legal is their name. If he didnt have that title then it would be illegal and he would receive jail time. I also said in my first post of this thread is that "If I had to label myself" not that I was.

You are making assumptions then. I think a lot of his current collection was actually found before he became an archie, not that I can confirm that. I just recall a few of his stories, and they were not in the last few years.

I still think the majority of the people that have a bad opinion of them are judging the majority by a minority. I have the feeling most of the bad relations with archies is based on the office archies, the bureaucrats, the ones that sit in the office rubbing elbows with politicians, and making rules.
Based on my very limited experience, the couple of Archies I know are nothing like what most people describe here.

And the only grave site I know of that anyone here has touched, is the indian burial ground the local Native Americans asked to be moved to another area so that they could build their Casino on the current location.

 

[bluehunter1973]

If you cant confirm it then I believe that is an assumption. And if we are judging the majority because of the minority then why am I judged with the minority of metal detectors who dont pick up their trash and leave holes. Sounds like their is a lot on both sides but you only seem to defend one side. So who sounds like the archie?

 

[Twisted One]

Reading a lot more the last couple of days, on this topic. And others related to it, such as the antiquity laws, and the recent topic of bills being passed in Florida, and other state laws.

I really like the idea of being an archie for the sake of being an archie. But I have to agree the political archie are just too much to deal with, and I disagree with the usage of the vague laws written and instituted by these political archies.
I think following a career in this field would be putting myself in a position much like having to choose a side of a war, and that is not somewhere I want to be.
I have always felt that the government was out of control and beyond it's intended purpose, and reading these laws, and the ways that they were intentionally worded in order to leave it open in their favor.
I hate this sort of legal abuse, and I don't wish to be a part of it, and even if I intended to be a "Bridge" between the hobbyist and the archaeologist, I would most likely just become shunned from both sides of the fence.

Time to start looking into yet another field of interest to pursue....

 

[Twisted One]

If you cant confirm it then I believe that is an assumption. And if we are judging the majority because of the minority then why am I judged with the minority of metal detectors who dont pick up their trash and leave holes. Sounds like their is a lot on both sides but you only seem to defend one side. So who sounds like the archie?

I don't defend either side Bluehunter. I agree there are bad apples falling on both sides of the tree. I just don't have a bad experience from either side, and I count myself lucky on that point. If sounding like an archie is intended as an insult it didn't land as one. I can see both sides of the story pretty clear at this point, just from an inactive distance. Meaning I can't find a bad side. Just bad people on both.
On the archie side, it is the political archies, the ones that come up with vague laws, that can pretty much make anyone a felon, even that guy that found a 1950 dime in his front yard.
On the hobbyist side, there are the people that do dumb things, as you said, the ones that give the hobbyist a bad name, leaving holes, stealing from grave sites, and historic monuments.

But your right, we can not judge the whole by a few bad spots.

 

[bluehunter1973]

thank you and i agree

 

[lookindown]

because a lot of them (the purist ones anyhow) hate metal detecting. That's why.

BINGO.

 

[foolsgoldtx]

Reading a lot more the last couple of days, on this topic. And others related to it, such as the antiquity laws, and the recent topic of bills being passed in Florida, and other state laws.

I really like the idea of being an archie for the sake of being an archie. But I have to agree the political archie are just too much to deal with, and I disagree with the usage of the vague laws written and instituted by these political archies.
I think following a career in this field would be putting myself in a position much like having to choose a side of a war, and that is not somewhere I want to be.
I have always felt that the government was out of control and beyond it's intended purpose, and reading these laws, and the ways that they were intentionally worded in order to leave it open in their favor.
I hate this sort of legal abuse, and I don't wish to be a part of it, and even if I intended to be a "Bridge" between the hobbyist and the archaeologist, I would most likely just become shunned from both sides of the fence.

Time to start looking into yet another field of interest to pursue....

If its what you want to do, go for it man! just be you, dont worry about getting shunned. As mentioned before, I would be interested myself, and very much have a stance like yours. Im on both sides of it too. Main reason for me not getting into the profession is the money, or lack of. I started out my career, over 10 years ago at the 30k mark, and thank God, have moved up the scales.
If I would have put the time and effort into Archaeology, instead of business, I may be happier today, who knows.
I am not sure the financial reward would be the same today, but thats not what its all about.

Dont worry about being shunned by anyone, cause that will happen anywhere! No matter what your doing! Like mentioned before people will always have a problem or stereotype tied to you because of your field of work, but thats not you. Just be you and do your deal! Whatever you do, you gotta do it with respect and uprightness, whether its metal detecting, hobbyist archaeology, professional archaeology, working on cars, or waiting tables! (I'm sure some stereotypes pop up with different minds on all those!)
Screw all the junk that goes along with it. Go for it if thats whats drawing you in.

In the end, just follow whats in your heart(not trying to sound 'funny' there...) thats the only way to go! Dont live in regret for fear of a little shunning.

My bad on the Arkies deal...feel free to go back and put Archies in all the places I put that!
seen it both ways, Arkies is shorter and easier to type and I think everyone knows we are not talking about Arkansans!

 

[foolsgoldtx]

one more thing, I left out somehow...
you will be the best archaeologist you can be, if thats where your heart is.
same as if you really had a passion for business, computer programming, used car sales, whatever it is. you gotta have that passion and drive to make you the best you can be in your field.
If your passion is in archaeology, how are you going to be your best at sales, or the other way around?

If you are your best at it, work your way up, and start pushing the changes you want to see!
Go for it and good luck!

 

[Twisted One]

If the responses posted here to this article about that new TV show, is the average mind set of an Archie, I don't want to be that closely associated with them, they are kind of scary in their way of thinking?
http://aroundthenetworks.com/spike-tv-announces-unscripted-show-american-digger/
Not sure if my current mind set would make me a better achie then them, or worse. But reading their responses, they all sound like a bunch of lunatics to me.
Oh and then there is some of the Anthropology that would just bore the crud out of me, and honestly, the history in my area would be limited. The Archie I mentioned knowing earlier in this thread, I called him to discuss the idea, and he told me he is moving to another county, because he was told to if he wanted to keep working in this field. I don't want anyone having that kind of power over me.

 

[lostcauses]

An Archeologist is some one that sees history more than just an object found. Where it is found and what is around it may answer questions about the history of an area, or how people lived in an area.

Of course the average treasure hunter sees the object as history or worth some thing of money value.

This distinct difference is the problem between the groups. Just digging up objects by detecting, or digging, can remove parts of the history.

Now the real problem is not all areas are worth wile archeological sites. I see both sides of the situation. A good Archeological site should be left alone for them Archeologists.

The rest should be available to the people and there hobbies. The problem is were would such a line be drawn.

Yep some of them great getting sites should be protected, and some of them places that will never be worth examining should be let go to the rest of the people.

A single relic or artifact does not make an archeological site.

 

[Twisted One]

You pretty much covered my feelings on the subject. I think most acrhies, or at least the ones I have seen voicing their stances are of mind that all of america should be protected from us.

 

[Tuberale]

You pretty much covered my feelings on the subject. I think most acrhies, or at least the ones I have seen voicing their stances are of mind that all of america should be protected from us.

I think you almost have their mindset.

But as an example, there are estimated over 200,000 shipwrecks. Let archies have all wrecks over 1,000 years old. (Let's see if any actually get salvaged in the next 100 years.)

I think anything 600- to 200-years-old should be shared between archies and salvors.

 

[Twisted One]

You pretty much covered my feelings on the subject. I think most acrhies, or at least the ones I have seen voicing their stances are of mind that all of america should be protected from us.

I think you almost have their mindset.

But as an example, there are estimated over 200,000 shipwrecks. Let archies have all wrecks over 1,000 years old. (Let's see if any actually get salvaged in the next 100 years.)

I think anything 600- to 200-years-old should be shared between archies and salvors.

I'm not sure if you saying I have their mindset was meant as an insult, or that you think I am getting a grasp of the difference between the groups

As far as age goes, I think you are asking for a bit much when you talk about the 200 to 600 year age range. I mean depending on where you are at a lot of the history in your area might be contained in that very age range. I live on the west coast where the early settlers dated only as far back as the mid 1800's.
Of course there were earlier settlers that we know very little about. Which also lends to your suggestion. If we already know the majority of the stories from the mid 1800's to now. Then why do they need archaeological sites for those periods? As far as my area we damn near know everything that happened during that time period down to how often the average person changed their underwear.

 

[Cable]

This may not pertain to the question 100 % but Archaeology is a field of study, it does not give anyone the right, the power to do anything special or to dig up graves and more. Their right comes from a governmental agency acting on that governments authority. Anyone can call themselves an archaeologist----their is no license granted to them by an institution of higher learning. I doubt that there is any criteria by which an archaeologist is tested---Phd's, MAs in schools yes--. Anyone can call themselves a mechanic, carpentar or whatever, obviously in some places contractors are licensed as are other trades. Archaeologists are only where they are through governmental authority. Yeah I know there might a few exceptions-----Have more to say but will end it here

 

[Philvis]

Twisted One,
Let me give you a very good piece of advice, if you like and are interested in archaeology, stick to it as a hobby. Jobs for archaeology are even more sparse now do to the downtrend of building. The bulk of archaeology positions are CRM related and are contract positions. In other words, if the state or feds widen a road, are building something, etc., archaeologists are sent in ahead of time to ensure the site is not of any significance. Most of these contract jobs are known as Phase I surveys. They are done one of two ways, you either walk the site and look for surface indicators (mainly for fields), or you go and dig a test hole every 20 meters(varies) until you hit subsoil. You screen your finds and if you notice large concentrations of artifacts for any particular area of the grid you laid out, you go from there. If people don't build, archaeologists aren't needed. And trust me, there is not a shortage of archaeologists out there either. Expect pay to be $11-12/hr if you are lucky. It definitely is not a lucrative field. Expect to live in motels in the middle of nowhere. I was an archaeologist for years before I had to move on. Paid archaeology is not glamorous or lucrative at all. Academic archaeology is the best kind, as those are the type of excavations you commonly see on news reports, programs on National Geographic, etc. 90% of it is digging a hole in all kinds of terrains every 20 meters. My best advice for you is to seek out local archaeology clubs and join one of them. My buddy and I both got our post graduate degrees in archaeology; he's a firefighter and I'm a banker, haha.

 

[Twisted One]

Not exactly on topic, but as a trained archaeologist did the recent show Diggers concern you? And where do you stand on the hobbyist? Obviously you don't have a very negative look on the hobby since you are here.