Metal Detecting and Archaeologists...Can we work together?

[Underwonder]

Here is a resource I happened upon and just ordered. I cannot give feedback yet, but hoping it will help in giving a short presentation to a Heritage Association.

https://www.amazon.com/Metal-Detect...ge-Matters/dp/1783272201?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Apparently. I consider myself an amateur of both.

 

[ChampFerguson/TN]

Graverobbers. (spit)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Under-wonder, I can not see anything about that book. Other than the teaser paragraph. So I don't know what it's trying to promote, it's view, etc...

But I will say this, as someone who works at a few museums volunteering time (hence frequent brushes with archies): BE VERY CAREFUL in any attempt to think you can have some sort of happy-hand-holding. Sure, they might welcome help for some sort of project . Eg.: there's been several much-publicized hunt locations. And apparently some sort of fed. park sponsored thingy for persons wishing to volunteer.

HOWEVER: You will find those to be very condescending to md'ing (the type we hobbyists do). Not AT ALL a lovey-hand-holding affirmation of our hobby. They will only consider md'ing done with them, at their sites, and with their methods, to be legitimate. Boring stuff like flagging each beep with a little flag, and coming back the next day to dig it with tweezers and brushes, blah blah.

I am speaking with a broad brush, I know. I'm sure that not all of them are the "purist" type. But just be very careful. Because some of them will BRISTLE at the notion of md'rs getting coins or relics from parks, beaches, forests, etc... of any type public land. (except, of course, if it's under their princely say-so-supervision).

I brush shoulders with them (attend their lectures, read their books, etc...) to sleuth out places to hunt. But when it comes to gleefully high-fiving and showing them some cool finds, I am careful. Some of them on public payrolls can have input into public policies (laws). And as such, perhaps the LESS they think of us, the better.

 

[uglymailman]

Can MDer's and Arkies. work together? Sure. Westfront in Germany has a good relation with them. They seek him out for projects and he's called them when he found a small horde or Roman coins. I think Crusader in G.B. has worked with them.
That being said I don't think there will ever be a loving relationship. Like most things, there are jerk's on both sides and some who feel superior. And like most things, if you treat the other guy (or gal) like you want to be treated you can get along.
When I worked at a strip coal mine, new area's had to be looked over by State Arkies looking for Native American artifacts. After their research and release, mining operations could begin. 4 feet of topsoil was removed, stockpiled until mining had taken place and the land reclaimed, then the soil was replaced. The operator on the dozer that pushed the earth movers had time between cycles of the earth movers to pick up a cigar box of arrowheads each day. The Arkies weren't very good at finding things.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....Westfront in Germany has a good relation with them. .....

Examples like that, and from the UK, are going to be hard to replicate here in the USA. Like in the UK: If you turn over a trove (necessary by law), the archies are going to study it, pay the md'r fair value, etc... So it might *seem* like an example to point of "good hand-in-hand relationship". But you have to remember: Their laws are different (everything below the ground belongs to the queen). Not so in the USA.

So any examples drawn from other countries, where the legal situation is different, is not needed (and would only be swatting hornet's nests) here.

Also: If you look closely at some European country examples where lax-examples can be pointed to, yet I bet you can archies in those very countries who writhe with disdain for md'rs as well. I've seen some UK archie websites where the UK archies are very much anti-md'ing.

 

[Tpmetal]

Only if the Archies remove the stick from their sunless regions....but then again I'm no peach pie either

 

[Underwonder]

Wow...I had only gleaned the discourse of the two via rules and regulations, but did not know there was such a fierce rivalry (though I guess I should have suspected by the limits placed on detectorists..as we are "less scientific"). I thought detecting and mapping depth and location of an area would be the metal side of archaeological study of an area. I have much to learn about the process. The only thing I know about the book is the title and intro. paragraph too.. I thought it would be a good resource for me as I was granted permission to check out an older area and present finds at one of the heritage meetings.

 

[Underwonder]

Graverobbers. (spit)

? Is that what they call us? We are not even allowed to go in cemeteries, right?

 

[P.ALLEN]

Metal Detecting should be a heavily relied upon scientific tool for Archaeology. I graduated with a Bachelors of Science in Geology, double majored in Geology and Archaeology. It's almost like detecting and relic hunters are the scum of the earth to them. The fact of the matter is, most history hunters (detectorists, and the like) are the reason things get found for the world. Sure, some academic/professional archaeologists are using MD'ing for artifact location, for the most part though it was blacklisted. At least to my mentors in the field. Here is how most studies take place. Site location or significant find or future destruction of site, funding, staffing, ground survey, grid sets, test pits, further test pits if multiple artifacts found, if that pans out, then full on 1x1 M blocks dug. Now if there is a body or a significant site they might go ahead and just do full pit excavation of the site right then and there. Then cataloging of artifacts, and curation. It feels like the old school Royal Academy of Science, where a far flung not very accepted idea was laughed out of the smoking room only to later be a forefront primarily used technique in the future. Even with historical non-prehistoric sites, test pitting and excavation is the preferred method, flotation techniques etc. Depending on what I was expecting to find (if I had a professional/academic job in the Arch world) I would definitely utilize Detecting to locate metallic artifacts. I think they are just coloring in the defined lines. To defend the archaeology world though, they do a good job and sometimes utilize detecting. Most bodies and bones are returned to the nearest affiliated tribes if they are Native. Legally they have to do it, some tribes have opted to leave them in place non disturbed and construction is done around them. A park in Louisville Kentucky had to leave the remains in and build around them about 15-20 years ago. A lot though are returned and a ceremony takes place and cleanses them and returns the remains to another location so the ancestors can be at peace.

Edit: I'm a detectorists and an avid proponent of historical preservation. I respect the past and love it. If an artifact is going to sit in a box in a museum (or Sitting Bull's skull in freaking frat house in Harvard (thanks George Bush Senior)makes me vomit) I'm all for it being protected instead, returned to the family, or loved and cared for by an avid history hunter. I don't want a projectile point or pot shards to be given a number and forgotten, return them to the ancestors or revere them in your home and family.

 

[ChampFerguson/TN]

? Is that what they call us? We are not even allowed to go in cemeteries, right?

THEY are the graverobbers. detectorists do not dig in graves and if we stumble into one, we treat it with respect and return it to its original condition or report it to the police if appropriate.

detectorists collect discarded and lost items. THEY make a career of digging up dead people and whats buried with them.



eta: Laws vary by state, so know the law where you hunt. in TN, you may not 'disturb the ground' within 10' of a grave.

 

[RGINN]

Metal Detecting should be a heavily relied upon scientific tool for Archaeology. I graduated with a Bachelors of Science in Geology, double majored in Geology and Archaeology. It's almost like detecting and relic hunters are the scum of the earth to them. The fact of the matter is, most history hunters (detectorists, and the like) are the reason things get found for the world. Sure, some academic/professional archaeologists are using MD'ing for artifact location, for the most part though it was blacklisted. At least to my mentors in the field. Here is how most studies take place. Site location or significant find or future destruction of site, funding, staffing, ground survey, grid sets, test pits, further test pits if multiple artifacts found, if that pans out, then full on 1x1 M blocks dug. Now if there is a body or a significant site they might go ahead and just do full pit excavation of the site right then and there. Then cataloging of artifacts, and curation. It feels like the old school Royal Academy of Science, where a far flung not very accepted idea was laughed out of the smoking room only to later be a forefront primarily used technique in the future. Even with historical non-prehistoric sites, test pitting and excavation is the preferred method, flotation techniques etc. Depending on what I was expecting to find (if I had a professional/academic job in the Arch world) I would definitely utilize Detecting to locate metallic artifacts. I think they are just coloring in the defined lines. To defend the archaeology world though, they do a good job and sometimes utilize detecting. Most bodies and bones are returned to the nearest affiliated tribes if they are Native. Legally they have to do it, some tribes have opted to leave them in place non disturbed and construction is done around them. A park in Louisville Kentucky had to leave the remains in and build around them about 15-20 years ago. A lot though are returned and a ceremony takes place and cleanses them and returns the remains to another location so the ancestors can be at peace.

Edit: I'm a detectorists and an avid proponent of historical preservation. I respect the past and love it. If an artifact is going to sit in a box in a museum (or Sitting Bull's skull in freaking frat house in Harvard (thanks George Bush Senior)makes me vomit) I'm all for it being protected instead, returned to the family, or loved and cared for by an avid history hunter. I don't want a projectile point or pot shards to be given a number and forgotten, return them to the ancestors or revere them in your home and family.

Good post. That's supposed to be Geronimo's skull. I've been to Geronimo's grave and the old Apaches I know say that's exactly where he is, all of him.

 

[P.ALLEN]

You are correct on that, mistake on my part (I got passionate and forgot).

 

[Underwonder]

Metal Detecting should be a heavily relied upon scientific tool for Archaeology. I graduated with a Bachelors of Science in Geology, double majored in Geology and Archaeology. It's almost like detecting and relic hunters are the scum of the earth to them. The fact of the matter is, most history hunters (detectorists, and the like) are the reason things get found for the world. Sure, some academic/professional archaeologists are using MD'ing for artifact location, for the most part though it was blacklisted. At least to my mentors in the field. Here is how most studies take place. Site location or significant find or future destruction of site, funding, staffing, ground survey, grid sets, test pits, further test pits if multiple artifacts found, if that pans out, then full on 1x1 M blocks dug. Now if there is a body or a significant site they might go ahead and just do full pit excavation of the site right then and there. Then cataloging of artifacts, and curation. It feels like the old school Royal Academy of Science, where a far flung not very accepted idea was laughed out of the smoking room only to later be a forefront primarily used technique in the future. Even with historical non-prehistoric sites, test pitting and excavation is the preferred method, flotation techniques etc. Depending on what I was expecting to find (if I had a professional/academic job in the Arch world) I would definitely utilize Detecting to locate metallic artifacts. I think they are just coloring in the defined lines. To defend the archaeology world though, they do a good job and sometimes utilize detecting. Most bodies and bones are returned to the nearest affiliated tribes if they are Native. Legally they have to do it, some tribes have opted to leave them in place non disturbed and construction is done around them. A park in Louisville Kentucky had to leave the remains in and build around them about 15-20 years ago. A lot though are returned and a ceremony takes place and cleanses them and returns the remains to another location so the ancestors can be at peace.

Edit: I'm a detectorists and an avid proponent of historical preservation. I respect the past and love it. If an artifact is going to sit in a box in a museum (or Sitting Bull's skull in freaking frat house in Harvard (thanks George Bush Senior)makes me vomit) I'm all for it being protected instead, returned to the family, or loved and cared for by an avid history hunter. I don't want a projectile point or pot shards to be given a number and forgotten, return them to the ancestors or revere them in your home and family.

P.Allen,
Thank you for such a professional, thought-filled, and personal response that makes a whole lot of sense to me! I am interested in finding and preserving relics also, and a whole lot more can be found when covering more than a 1x1 M area . I hope I can find many artifacts before more and more areas are restricted. All the best to you and the many who have responded!

 

[Waterbug]

Sooooo,you happen to be working with a group of archaeologists and you find something of importance------who gets the credit for the find? You can be assured(BYA) it will NOT be you.Been there done that with a state university and with a US Government agency.

 

[Eu_citzen]

Yes, we can. Even in a restrictive country such as Sweden I've noticed a slight increase in the cooperation and actual use of metal detectors in archeology.
Much of it, however, is due to the Swedish Metal Detecting Associations work.

I think we can all learn more together. But it also means we have to cooperate and the mutual suspicion needs to be addressed; worked on.
Even an amateur detectorist can add valuable scientific info if he's told/taught how to.

 

[Tpmetal]

Yes, we can. Even in a restrictive country such as Sweden I've noticed a slight increase in the cooperation and actual use of metal detectors in archeology.
Much of it, however, is due to the Swedish Metal Detecting Associations work.

I think we can all learn more together. But it also means we have to cooperate and the mutual suspicion needs to be addressed; worked on.
Even an amateur detectorist can add valuable scientific info if he's told/taught how to.

you must not ever travel to USA. Over here they try to make laws to ban us from detecting and try to claim all our finds for their own. Then they publicly talk down about us and would rather see the stuff rot in the ground then let anyone else dig it up.

 

[Icewing]

I have volunteered and helped Midwest Archeology who was utilizing local detectorists to survey some trails on the local (civil war) military park, and it was a great experience. However I have been shunned by the Arkansas Archeological Survey for simply reporting some Native American artifacts I found (legally) on accident.

As far as I'm concerned the Arkansas Archeological Survey is a joke and deserves no credibility or funding if they willfully ignore legitimate findings simply because they didn't find them. They won't even conduct a survey on my land after multiple invitations. We can only help those who are willing to accept help. Some archeologists you will find simply have an agenda.

To me, they are just treasure hunters with student loans.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... it was a great experience. However I have been shunned by the Arkansas Archeological Survey for simply reporting some Native American artifacts I found (legally) on accident.....

This is an excellent example of what I alluded to in my post on this thread: A seeming "lovey-dovey-hand-holding" . But lo-&-behold: It's only when you're doing things in their supervision and with-their-say-so.

Otherwise: You are "ripping things from context" . How can you be so rude and thoughtless ? I am so guilt-stricken, that I am going to go out and re-plant all those old coins I've ever found now .

 

[Underwonder]

I guess no one else is buying this book...[emoji12]LOL