Any archies on site?

[neo]

I know lots of people on this site don't seem to like Archie's but i wonder if any are on here and if they treasure hunt I'm sure not every Archie is out to get treasure hunters and doesn't seem like a far leap from there job.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Msbeepbeep]

If there were I doubt they would say so, and all the members who do lots of research are probably just as qualified.

 

[neo]

Probably right but i would like to hear from one i think they have been stereotyped because of past incidents. I.just think someone might have became one because of treasure hunting. If any want to stay anonymous pm me.

 

[Sod Buster]

I was wondering. I am assuming that "archies" are archeologists?

Why do people on the site have problems with archeologists? Just a newbie question.

 

[Moresound]

Not an Archie ... my name is Henry.

 

[neo]

I was wondering. I am assuming that "archies" are archeologists?

Why do people on the site have problems with archeologists? Just a newbie question.

Many feel that archies don't like treasure hunters because some think they ruin sites by treasure hunting.

 

[Sod Buster]

Many feel that archies don't like treasure hunters because some think they ruin sites by treasure hunting.

Ah.......it all makes sense now. Thanks for filling me in neo.

 

[Moresound]

Many feel that archies don't like treasure hunters because some think they ruin sites by treasure hunting.

And as we all know the truth is just the opposite!

 

[G.I.B.]

I've met a couple of Archeologists. They have the best private collections of stuff from places you could never go.

Almost like a personal museum, very interesting.

 

[eyemustdigtreasure]

I know lots of people on this site don't seem to like Archie's but i wonder if any are on here and if they treasure hunt I'm sure not every Archie is out to get treasure hunters and doesn't seem like a far leap from there job.

Well, I've been called an "archaeologist" by my peers - altho I just consider myself a "shovel bum" - a paid crew member of various outfits. That's what we do, when we retire, right?....we keep on digging!
I have taken up MD-ing since my retirement, and just love it! A natural transition, I'd say!
I'd like to call the places we detect, "LOCATIONS"...., rather than "Sites", which implies RECORDED Archeological Sites....!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There's an archaeologist who frequents a Calif. specific forum I participate on. I suspect he doesn't "make waves" amongst his peers about that though. Also, you have remember: While we all disdain archies, yet truth is, it's really just the PURIST archies who hate md'rs. There are other archies who are ok with our hobby, so long as you're not sneaking into their open pits in the middle of the night.

The archie I know who detects, needless to say gets into some good sites

 

[justdon]

In my area if someone gets a spot with good finds .Whether its arrowheads or jewelry and coins the archies get the state to claim the land and make it off limits.

 

[Jeremy S]

I was once browsing an archaeology forum and read some rather disturbing things. Many of these guys posting were working for various state departments or colleges.

We were referred to as "diggers" who "loot" artifacts and destroy history. I read many posts about how the "diggers" were destroying another site and stuff like that. It is sad that just a few a$$holes from both sides are the ones that get this hobby banned for the rest of us. All it takes is one inconsiderate prick with a detector and one big headed state archaeologist with a chip on his shoulder, and so a new law is born.

That is a very biased article. The author of that article is mainly outraged at the show "American Diggers" which shed a long and lasting bad light on our hobby.

?Diggers? are to archaeology as pro-wrestling is to sports: fake | A Hot Cup of Joe

"But “diggers” aren’t amateur archaeologists. They negotiate with land owners to rape their lands for cultural artifacts with the promise that the land owner gets a cut (either in artifacts or money). They plunder the landscape with holes in roughshod manner and, in a few hours, can remove all the “valuable” artifacts from a site, leaving a scarred and raped patch of land that can more closely resemble the pockmarked surface of the moon than an archaeological site. Artifacts are quickly pulled from the ground without regard for their positions or placements and chunked in a bucket, sometimes a bag."

"Diggers treat artifacts as commodities to be sold to the highest bidder on Ebay and Craig’s List."

"I say diggers are looters. Not because what they do is illegal (many times it is -but they will never admit to digging public or government lands), rather because what they’re doing is stealing from future generations. They’re stealing the possibility of understanding a culture or civilization. They’re going for the loot, and leaving the data behind in the piles of dirt they discard in heaps, forever lost as contexts to the past. There’s no question that private land owners have the right to do with their land what they please. But just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s ethical."

That is a very biased article. The author of that article is mainly outraged at the show "American Diggers" which shed a long and lasting bad light on our hobby. My local parks banned detecting because of some crazy archaeological laws, and when a group challenged the laws the archaeologists defended them with outrageous claims of looting and destroying land, just like what the article said. When they went to the state government and had a vote to allow detecting in state parks, archaeologist used examples of grave robbers and guys looting historical sites to spread propaganda and keep the ban in place. I am surrounded by state parks, many with absolutely no historical properties at all, but if I step foot on them with a detector I face fines and who knows what else. Most of these parks will never have an archaeological dig and consist of almost 100% improved areas.


Those "archies" are not too different than you or I, we all hated Ric Savage!

Archaeologists Protest 'Glamorization' of Looting on TV | Science/AAAS | News

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Jeremy, great post. And you and I are QUITE PROUD to be "diggers" , "looters", "pothunters" , etc... I will wear that badge with honor. And stealing from future generations? On the contrary! They are MORE THAN WELCOME to come look at the artifact on my mantle place, or buy it on ebay! haha

Ok, all joking aside, a look at a few of your points: Yes, we would all agree with those archies in one point: That there *are* sites (sensitive historic monuments), that .... sure .... shouldn't be dug up by hobbyists. Examples: Shiloh, Bodie, Ghettysburg, etc... Ok, I'll grant them that. We all appreciate a cool historic part, with intact displays, etc... But where we disagree with them is that ALL public land (and even private land, if you were to ask some of the more purist types) falls under the same category. Because as you point out, NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS can even the most well-funded university archaeologist dept's dig every square foot of even a single state or federal park. They dig little 6 ft. square pits which take them painstaking weeks to do (with tweezers, brushes, etc....). Thus obviously they could never progress to get a single square mile, of a single park. So what the h*ck are they worried about ?

To answer that, they would probably answer like this:

"Because you never know where, 1000 yrs. from now, a future archie *might* dig a pit. You can't say for 100% certain that some archie won't gather crucial information, by the v-nickel or button you just dug, in this spot in the middle of the forest, or desert, etc.... For example: look at Egypt, how/where, to-this-day, they are finding fun and exciting bits of information, by digging even on seemingly mundane sites, far from pyramids. You know, like a ho-hum village along the Nile where they can deduce how the pyramid quarry workers lived. Therefore while it may seem mundane to you NOW, yet 1000 yrs. from now, a mundane ball park or beach *might* become a crucial contextual piece of information."

See ? And let's be honest: Even if you COULD get them to agree that a wheatie or barber dime gives no relevant info, nor would be anywhere near anything "sensitive", yet let's be honest: It would be the old "camel's nose in the tent" logic. If you tell an md'r that "it's ok at all these federal parks" (because they are not historically themed), then it will just begin a "splitting hairs" baby-sitting exercise on the government's behalf. So seriously now, what do you THINK the "easier answer" is? To merely say "no to all". Presto, problem solved.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Next you say:

...My local parks banned detecting because of some crazy archaeological laws, and when a group challenged the laws the archaeologists defended them with outrageous claims of looting and destroying land, just like what the article said. When they went to the state government and had a vote to allow detecting in state parks, archaeologist used examples of grave robbers and guys looting historical sites to spread propaganda and keep the ban in place.

Hmmm, question for you: What do you think put this "pressing issue" on those said-archie's radars, as something that needed their princely sanction and say-so, TO BEGIN WITH ? I mean, sure: I don't doubt that's their rehearsed lines, their logic, etc.... But .... what you really have to do is back-track and ask yourself, why the matter is before them, in the first place.

Do you really think that it's because an archie happened to be walking by, saw an md'r, and thought "hmm, there ought to be a law" ? Because mind you, there are VERY FEW archies (relatively speaking), in the total count of park workers, state employees, etc.... And the odds of them running into you or I are logically going to be very slim. And even if it DID happen, they need not have a specific "no detecting" rule by-which to gripe at you. They can simply use already existing verbage about cultural heritage, removing and collecting, etc..... So then it really didn't need a "new rule" or "new decision", when you think of it. Therefore, if the issue is a proposed rule, that specifically was to say "no detecting", what do you think puts that on their radar as a decision for them to chime in on ?

I'll give you one guess.

 

[mrwilburino]

Youse guys gotta knock it off wit all dat rapin and pilligin of dem der historical sites fer cryin out loud!

 

[Jeremy S]

You always have to wonder why some of these bans were put in place, and why some archaeologists are so hell bent on twisting the truth to protect them. One recent ban was around 5 years ago in a nearby city to prohibited detecting on all city parks. It was more or less a pissing match between a member of a detecting club and the parks manager. The easy way for him to win the match was to spout off about "archaeological" things in the city parks and there you have it. Not even the mayor would argue with that, gotta protect the city's heritage.... that is until they pave over the oldest part of the park to make room to accommodate a new water park.

Sure, I bet there were plenty of cases way back when and even recently where somebody did intentionally seek out a historical site to dig everything they could and then run, only to make a quick buck. Instead of the state structuring the new rule to prohibit detecting only on historical sites, it was easier to ban it on all properties. This is where I strongly disagree with the laws and am developing a plan to fight them. I don't want a permit system. I don't want access to every square inch of state property. I do think that detecting should be allowed in all improved areas of state parks and on beaches. As Tom mentioned, special historical sites should be protected. The same goes with city parks, they often just copy a state law to use as their own.

When you put up a fight to get a law changed simply stating "I pay taxes and this is my right, I should be allowed to do this..." you will face resistance. You have to show them the benefits of detecting. Detector sales, supplies, food, and gas all bring in tax revenue. Might not seem like much, add up the taxes from everything that is a direct result of metal detecting in a state and you probably have a pretty penny. Demographics... you have to remove the stereotype of some dork with a shovel or a pirate ready to loot. I personally know several disabled veterans and many senior citizens who enjoy this hobby, along with parents who take kids. The superintendent of a local school takes his grand-kids detecting. The benefit of detecting a beach or park: last weekend I found a jagged piece of molten aluminum can in the water at a local beach. I showed the lifeguards on duty, they were extremely impressed on how I just made the beach safer. I couldn't tell you how many broken bottle necks with a bottle cap I find in parks, along with rusty nails/tent stakes, can slaw, knives, and countless other harmful object right on the surface. I have probably saved countless adults, children, and pets painful cuts and wounds from all of the garbage and broken glass that I have removed over the years.

The hobby isn't just about some guy who wants to get rich and destroy the grass. You have to remove that image and shed a different light on us. As long as people think of Ric Savage rolling on his back and squealing like a pig while a backhoe destroyed the property, this hobby will continue to lose the privileged to hunt public places.