Is Archaeology a thing of the past?

Subject: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Guest / Digger
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 11:56 AM

Why do archaeologists and metal detectorists not get on with each other? After all it's the metal detectorists who discover most of the 'new' ancient sites. During lectures at universities, archaeology students are told to avoid metal detectorists and have nothing to do with them. Yet, on occasions they have used metal detectors themselves. Could someone please shed some light on this! Why is there so much bad blood between them? Maybe 'Fibula Mattock' can help put the story straight.

Digger

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:03 PM

Hmmm - I never heard anything about metal detectors in all my anthropological studies, neither for nor against... others?

Meanwhile, to answer the thread title question, yes.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:05 PM

its the same with astronomers, astrologers, and tabloid gossip columnists. I mean, they're all dealing with stars, so why not work together?

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: sledge
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:17 PM

It may be that Detector folks are equated with treasure seekers, those who will happily dig up any material without recording the cirumstances in which they were found, or the treasure so to speak is recovered in such a way as to destroy other valuable information before it has a chance to be recorded.

The only time that I am aware of where detectors are used regularly is to go over the spoil heaps from an excavation on the chance that the excavators themselves missed something.

Or maybe the academics hate getting pipped at the post by the ranks of the amatuer.

Sledge

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:34 PM

A term I heard several years ago from an archaeologist friend was "pothunter." A pothunter is an untrained hobbyist who either doesn't care or doesn't know how to excavate a site carefully so as to get the maximum amount of information from it. His only interest is to find artifacts (usually pots) he can sell or add to his collection. These people often ruin a site for archaeologists. That's why archaeologists are usually very secretive about their sites – unless the sites can be kept under constant guard, which is seldom the case – until their work is finished.

Here's an article that illustrates what I'm talking about: Click here.

I suppose many pothunters use metal detectors (assuming the sites they're looking for are post-stone age), and that's why they have a bad reputation.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:40 PM

That could be closer to the truth Sledge. Most responsible metal detectorists do record and report valuable finds (at least in the ones I've met) a few, sad to say do not. Then again I've heard (on good authority) of archaeologists who have 'sold on' finds for their own gain. Not to say all are like that! Most archaeologists are honest (to their trade) as are the metal detectorists. Maybe, as you have hinted its a 'class' thing. Why should some 'dweeb' go out and buy a metal detector and find lots of valuable, historical artefects while an archaeologist has to attend univesity for years, sit exams etc and are not allowed to claim the value of their finds if declared treasure trove.

Digger

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:44 PM

A musical analogy would be somebody having the nerve to sing a traditional song without first having done the necessary research so that they can expatiate for half an hour before they sing on which broadside collection it was first found in and how many regional variants are to be found etc etc ....

Murray

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:45 PM

A trained archaeologist will use all tools that are available and consistent with good field practice. A "detectorist" without archaeological background would have to work under strict supervision.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 12:53 PM

Sorry Murray, I wouldn't agree with you there. I have been singing for over thirty years (stopping for the odd breath) and if a song takes my fancy I learn it, practice it until I feel comfortable it and then sing it. I don't go and research all about who recorded it, when or where! I will probably over a period of time find out more of its back ground but I wouldn't research it before I learned it. Few do. (a far as I know - or maybe I have the wrong approach)

Digger

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 01:18 PM

Digger, I think Murray was kidding!

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 01:23 PM

They are all essentially grave robbers, so what does it matter eh?

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 01:48 PM

If you insist on a musical analogy, a better one would be breaking into the Cecil Sharpe House, stealing one valuable old manuscript, and then setting fire to the place to cover up your tracks.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 02:05 PM

Only if the archaeological site were clearly delineated as such, Jim , and trespass were committed. But that is not what the first post is about ....

Murray

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 02:23 PM

Mrrzy, I figured that out a little late. Sorry Murry. To get back to the thread - every time you turn on sky television it's like dejavu! A new fossil has been found to prove that cheeta was my great-aunt six times removed. It's almost like the 'Egg and the Chicken' Which camefirst, ape or archaeologist. only this time they were predated by the metal detectorist!

Digger

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Rabbo
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 06:18 PM

Enough of this! Are there any songs about archaeology or even better, are there any aout metal detecting? One about prehistoric bones will do!Come on Fib, help out.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 06:22 PM

Dry bones

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 02 - 06:48 PM

How many archeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Well........... that depends on the context

you have to have done a bit of scraping to appreciate that one but substitute "layer" for "context" and you get close.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Kaleea
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 02:44 AM

My buddy who is an Archaeologist tells me that they use scientific proof to find a "dig" and that if the evidence is not there to back up the "dig", then they will not get any $$, and after all, these "digs" are usually paid for by grants & endowments from Universities &/or endowment trusts & corporations. Many early civilazations did not always have much metal, so how could metal detectors find the deeply buried villages & homes many of which are from quite early in history. The metal detectors are sometimes used for finding more modern sites for "digs" and some Archaeologists turn their noses up because they feel that the "new" dig sights are not really good finds as they are too modern ( a few hundred years ago) & we know enough about those modern times, and therefore it is not what they are supposed to be finding.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 06:56 AM

Am I missing something?

Is there an assumption that a metal detector user is never a trained archaeologist, and/or that a trained archaeologist will not use a metal detector?

Shouldn't good scientists use all the best tools available to their discipline?

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 07:08 AM

Oooh, nice topic. I'll just put my archaeologist hat on.

The problem archaeologists tend to have with metal detectors is that of destroying stratigraphy. Metal-detecting laws differ in Ireland, N.Ireland, and England (I've no idea whether Scotland and Wales have the same metal-detecting laws as England). In Ireland you'd be lucky to be allowed a metal detector - it's all licensed. In N. Ireland, I believe it's permissible provided you are not searching near monuments listed in the SMR (Sites and Monuments Record). In England, if you own a piece of land it is apparently your right to do what you want with it, regardless of what's there, unless it's a scheduled monument under state care.

Anyway, a couple of issues:

1. Just because a field/hill/ditch/whatever isn't listed as an archaeological site, it doesn't mean there isn't one there. Perhaps it's still waiting to be discovered. Still, because of legislation, if one hasn't been recorded/identified there, the metal detectorists can come in and search there. An archaeologist excavates and determines the date and context of things from the layers they are in, and those which are in proximity. That way we can build up a idea of how the site was used over time. If someone comes in with a metal detector and digs down to find something, they could be disturbing the stratigraphy of archaeological layers, and could be destroying information in order to get to the piece of metal the machine has found.

2. Metal detectors find metal. Archaeologists deal with all types of artefacts and remains - bone, pottery, wood, stone, etc - much of these could be destroyed by people turning over the soil just to find metal.

3. Certainly there are tensions over unscrupulous metal detectorists, and I have worked on excavations where we have had to scatter nails across the site to deter such people. Yes, there are probably unscrupulous archaeologists out there (in fact, I know there are - although perhaps in a different way from not reporting finds - there are some archaeologists who are ripping off their employees and doing a shoddy job, and that's unacceptable too).

4. Many of the excavations in the UK/Ireland these days are rescue digs, funded through development and only carried out because the site will be ruined in the construction process. The general feeling amongst most archaeologists is that if you don't have to excavate it - don't. Excavation is a destructive process, and once something has been dug it is gone forever with only the records the archaeologists have made as evidence. If we think how much archaeological technique has improved since the start of the discipline, think of all the information that has been lost on the early, poorly-excavated digs (e.g. Knossos - an example of pretty damn bad archaeology). With the hope that archaeological techniques can become more "hands-off" and less destructive, it pays to think that the best thing we can do to retain the maximum amount of information, is to leave well alone.
Don't even start me on Time Team!

(Now, would "GUEST, Digger" happen to be a metal-detecting, singing uncle of mine? If so, thanks for the birthday card!)

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: The Walrus at work
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 08:40 AM

Ah well, I'm always willing to stir the pot....

Fibula, What do you think of Time Team?...

Walrus (Running for Cover)

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 08:45 AM

mutter...mutter...sensationalist media archaeology...grumble...mutter... (it's not all sour grapes!)

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: smallpiper at work
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 10:01 AM

It might also be noted that the unscrupulous metal detectorist is essentially steeling OUR history so lets lock the buggers up! Retired Arahaeologist John

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 06:36 PM

What, pray tell, is "Time Team"?

WDYAT12 could speak to the issue of Fort Saint George better than I can but he hasn't checked in lately. Something about being a newlywed.

The head archaeologist on the dig, Professor Brain, ran across mention of the lost fort on the coast of Maine many years ago. It interested him and he began to research it. He determined, through work in both the library and the field, and leaning heavily on his education, where the fort might be. He then talked some wealthy organizations into funding a dig. The first year (with only two weeks on site) were frustrating though they found a few bits and pieces that seemed to indicate they MIGHT be on the right track. The second year they found a post hole as well as some other artifacts (some of which were metal.

Now, consider. Most (note I did not say "all") people with a metal detector scan an area and dig up their hits. They don't necessarily know where they are or what might have happened at the site or when it might have happened. If such a person had stumbled on the Fort St. George site they might have disturbed that posthole and removed the metal objects.

That would be a shame for in the following years they confirmed the site, found the location of at least two buildings, and have confirmed the only known map of the area.

It might have been lost if the wrong metal detectorist had stumbled on the scene.

That's why the academics shy away from praising the metal detectorists. Marine archaeology has the same problem with sport divers.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 06:50 PM

Professor Brain? Really?

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 02 - 07:28 PM

Kaleea, archaeologists do not turn up their noses at sites less than a few hundred years old. Here in Canada, very careful excavations have been carrier out on sites from the 19th century, and the same is true in other areas as well.
Hrothgar, archaeologists do use all tools from a whisk broom and dental tools to the most sophisticated spectrophotometric analyses, DNA, etc. etc. Their "digs" take careful account of stratigraphy, and removed materials are carefully screened. Many valuable sites are still being partially destroyed by potholers, metal detector wielders and the like.
Here in this province of Alberta, laws protect fossils and archaeological materials on private as well as public lands, with a schedule of penalties including very stiff fines. Important cultural artifacts are similarly protected. Many other jurisdictions have or are enacting similar laws. Of course the unscrupulous or ignorant still take a toll.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: The Walrus at work
Date: 08 Feb 02 - 09:09 AM

Naemanson,

"Time Team" is a TV programme in which an actor (Tony Robinson) is the TV "frontman" for a mixed bag of archaeologists, various specialists (geophysicists, metallurgists, stonemasons, artists, computer bods, suveyers etc.- as required for that particular show), the occasional "celebrity" (usually "b" list) a local historian or two and often a few re-enactors (if required). This group are invited to dig a site from scratch and report on their findings within three days, all infront of the camera. It can be fascinating TV at times but what it is as archaeology, I'll leave to others more qualified to comment.

Is that a fair assessment Fibula?

Walrus

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 08 Feb 02 - 09:13 AM

Tony Robinson, eh? As in Baldrick ("I have a cunning plan, m'lord") ?

Murray

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: The Walrus at work
Date: 08 Feb 02 - 11:50 AM

Murray,

That's the one!

Walrus

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 08 Feb 02 - 11:54 AM

Fair assessment, Walrus. It is Speed Archaeology indeed.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 08 Feb 02 - 05:56 PM

Since starting this thread I have spoken to a few members of different metal detecting clubs. I must admit I now see them in a much clearer light. First - they all belong to a Federation of Independent Detectorists. This being an insurance body that helps protect livestock, farm land etc shouldany of them be negligent in the pursuit of their hobby. Two - most, if not all members are all 'well read' in their local history and the law that their hobby is bound by. I have been invited out with a local club to see first hand how things work on 'a club rally'. ( that is next week - I will keep you informed Fibula) why did you scatter nails over the field to put metal detectorists off the scent? All metal detectors have what is called a descriminator (or so I'm informed) and they can ignore the metal that the nails are made from, while on the other hand animals can be hurt and damagedby that thoughtless act, either standing on or eating these nails. All metal detectorists remove scrap metal from the land and deposit it in a safe and proper place. Has this thread 'dug up' a whole can of worms, if you pardon the pun. Is there a feeling of being threatend by these detectorists that cause archaeologists to feel the way they do? I dont want world war 3 on my hand between archaeologist and metal detectorists, can you reply Fibula please.

Digger

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Tig
Date: 08 Feb 02 - 06:15 PM

Having done a couple of stints on pot washing (cold water, no detergents and small toothbrushes - and don't DARE scrub the bones, shells, or metals) on a Time Team site (the one about Roman Castleford due to go out on March 10th) I was impressed with the care that was actually taken to ensure that as much info was gathered as possible with as little disturbance to the surrounding area as feasable.

Although they look huge on TV the trenches which were actually dug were remarkably small. The area was recorded carefully (something you don't see on the programme) and all finds were given, where possible,trench numbers and stratification designations.

I also learnt that most of the work was not done by the 'Experts' but by a team of hard working skivvies who were either fully qualified archeologists or experienced amateurs! Even us lowly pot washers were checked up on.

Yes there were the re-enactment lads wandering round with cold knees, but they would probably be doing it somewhere else on a weekend if not on Time Team.

This programme has probably opened a lot of eyes as to their own history - and future archeologists have to come from somewhere!!!

And Yes, there was a metal detector used for going over the spoil heap - it found various very interesting bits that had got missed/taken out in the very top layers - but it was ONLY used there.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Naemanson
Date: 09 Feb 02 - 12:23 AM

This is an interesting discussion. I would love to see an episode of Time Team though I can't say I approve of using up historically important sites merely to make a few bucks on advertising. There are some twisted sensibilities involved there.

I think the problem between the metal detectors and the pros is a matter of educatioon and snobbery. The lowly metal detector goes out on a weekend to take the air and enjoy his hobby. There is a chance s/he'll find something valuable and that excites the blood.

What does each party consider valuable? Perhaps that is the main difference. The archaeologist considers the whole site in context. Why is artifact A lying in proximity to artifact B and how do these artifacts fit in with Professor X's theory of the the history of these people? Everything, from the layers of soil to the fragments of wood and pottery have meaning and need interpretation.

The metal detector just wants to dig up something interesting. It helps to know the history of the artifact because that makes it more valuable in his eyes. There is a big difference there.

You can't blame the archaeologist if he gets miffed because the sites have been disturbed.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 09 Feb 02 - 03:31 PM

Naemanson you have hit the nail on the head,if only more folk could see it like that! Somehow I don't expect any archaeologist to have the same opinion. I fear it will always be a case of 'them and us.' Thanks to all who cleared the air a little, I have arranged to go with this metal detecting club next week and who knows I might catch the detecting bug. It would have been nice to have a round up from an archaeologist, but they seem to have gone shy.

oh by the way, I should possibly have mentioned I was an archaeologist for twelve years. That was some seventeen years ago, I am now retired and maybe the fresh air will do me good as I poke around in the soil for my first find. Wish me luck!

Digger

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: wildlone
Date: 09 Feb 02 - 04:46 PM

Through my re-enactments I have met a few "detectorist's".
One of which is a member of a club and gets permission from the land owner and works sites that have no "known" archaeology. This gave him an even greater interest in history and he is studying for a doctorate in archaeology and he takes his detector on digs to find artifacts, mark them so that they can be excavated properly.
The other is what is called a nighthawk, he enters known sites at night and will dig up and sell anything of value. I know for a fact that he has found a bronze age bridle hanging, a knife pommell in silver of a celtic womans/goddess's head and a gold stator.
This guy will go out at least three nights a week he does not work but has allways got cash.
I have only found a stone age axe plus a few microliths and a bronze coin of 3ad romano-british, by keeping my eyes open.
dave

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 02 - 11:51 AM

I worked on a dig, chosen as a totally different kind of holiday. What I learned was the value archeologists put on context. I found a lot of animal bones specific to the god of the romano-celtic temple we were working on. I found one that looked like a knee or arm socket (not that I was particularly knowledgeable on animal bones). I put it with the other mud laden bones in an unrelated tray rather than contextual finds trays, only to have an agitated leader shout out "who found this votive vase?" I still didn't recognise myself in that. Eventually he showed everyone in turn & what I saw was a terra-cotta thumb-pot, a religious object and he needed to know where it was found to give it context. The sum total of finds in a given square foot at a given depth says far more than any one single bit of "mud" can. Once dug the far more valuable "context" is lost. The gold coins (I found one only) have value more in their appeal to the public and hence funding - and dating.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Feb 02 - 02:13 PM

Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
No, but then nostalgia ain't what it used to be!!

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: mooman
Date: 10 Feb 02 - 05:37 PM

Having worked as a forensic biologist in the past (my postgraduate specialization is in the microscopic identification of woods and other plant fragments) in relation to dozens of archeological projects, e.g. involving the Institute of Archeology, British Museum, Somerset Levels, National Maritime Museum, etc., I have to support Fibula Mattock observations here.

Careless excavation can totally destroy the integrity and mapping of a site. Besides metals, there may be bones, pottery and implements not to mention scraps and pieces of organic material such as leather, fibres, woods (especially difficult to work with if waterlogged and compacted) and this is why trained and scrupulous archeologists take such care on a site and carefully monitor and look after volunteers and helpers. It only takes a second to put beyond scientific analysis potentially important and seemingly mundane artefacts that can provide vital clues or evidence regarding a site. Just to give a small example: on a maritime excavation of a wrecked ship, the identification of woods, plants remains, fibres, etc. can give important information on trading routes, ports of call, etc.

Best regards,

mooman

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 04:46 AM

GUEST, Digger - sorry for not replying sooner but I was in Stony Stratford at the Mudcat gathering.
I know nothing about the machines used for detecting, so I know nothing about "descriminators". No animals would have been harmed by us putting nails down - there was an industrial estate being built on the site. Most of the digs I have worked on are rescue ones, done in the course of construction. Besides, we use nails anyway to mark grids/features etc.
As Naemanson, mooman, Mr Red and others have pointed out, context is the key. But then, since you were an archaeologist for 12 years, you'll know that already. What are your own views on archaeologists vs. detectorists?

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 10:52 AM

Fibula the reason I posed this thread was: a few months ago I met three young men (30's) metal detecting and on chatting with them they kindly let me have a go on one of their machines. I was amazed at the changes in the law concerning 'Treasure Trove' and even more amazed at the attitude of archaeologists towards the hobby of metal detecting. I was reluctant to inform them I was an archaeologist (some years ago) but they were only too happy to talk on and even invite me out with them on their next outing. I can not form an honest opinion so early but I will give you an up-date when I return. I now subscribe to a magazine 'Treaure Hunter' and I am surprised to see how informed these detectorists are about local history. I was put to shame when talking to these lads a they (being much younger than I) knew more about the area than I did. Have you ever used a detectorist on any of your sites? More to the point would you be allowed to? Fibula, why dont you go out with a club or individual detectorist and then form an opinion. I think it would soften slightly, they are not all 'bully boys and grave robbers' as most archaeologists would have us think. I beg you to try it. I will let you know how I get on.

Digger

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 11:22 AM

No, I haven't used a metal detector - I'm not out digging any more. I work on the computer reconstruction side of things now and all the sites I work on are rock art/wall painting ones. I can only go on the reaction to metal detectors in N.Ireland and the Rep. of Ireland as those are the places where I dug. The Republic of Ireland is particularly strict with laws concerning archaeology (which is definitely a great intention, even if it does get petty and bureaucratic at times). Next time I'm home I'll ask what the current views are, and I'll chat to my mates to see what the reaction would be on their sites. I'm not hardline aginst metal detectors, just extremely concerned about unecessarily disturbing sites and unwittingly destroying information. That covers concerns about poor archaeological practice as well!

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: wildlone
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 01:39 PM

As an aside to "Time Team" I watched it on sunday and to see a bloody great big JCB digging into a known site and watching it ripping into roman remains makes me cringe.
But then again from some of the pot shards that were dug up I can say that I know of a field near to where I live that has the same type of shards and tiles.
dave [keeping his eyes open]

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Rollo
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 07:30 PM

Most archeological sites (besides the ones discovered while digging holes on construction sites of course) are found by enthusiastic hobby searchers. In Germany interested people, mostly retired teachers of course, work as "ehrenamtlicher bodendenkmalspfleger", you might translate it as "amateur keeper of historical sites". Typically they regularly take a stroll through the fields and look out for remnants brought up by the farmer's ploughs, not only looking for new ones but also controlling if known ones are in danger of destruction. They are important helpers for the communal archeologists. They are also of course amassing a lot of knowledge in local history and it is allways amazing what they can tell you about the landsscape you believed to know. Of course this is also a way to channel potential pot hunters' activities into archeological support...

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 08:16 PM

The question is what do detectorists do? are they out there to dig up 'neat' shiny things, or are they trying to throw light on the past. (Do they record meticulously what they find, along with the contextual information, do they publish their findings in journals available to others in the field? I would say that Im sure that while there may be some good in the service the 'detectorists' may provide in drawing attention to new hitherto unknown sites, they may, in their haste to dig up neat, collectible objects destroy other information about the culture where those objects came from. Information which is then irretrievably lost.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 10:05 PM

Petr has asked the right question. Why are they out their with their fancy gadgets? What do they hope to find.

Several times people have used the term "local history", as in they are well versed in local history. Where do they think that knowledge came from? Also, the professionals are out there with more than a good knowledge of local history. They also know the theories that are based on the razor edge of evidence. Their dig may be the one that pushes a theory over on to either the side of knowledge or that of the unproved theory.

Another point is that archaeology is based on so much more than a pot sherd or cave painting. There are whole bodies of knowledge based on findings seed and pollen found in the right place. We know a lot about the climate of the earlier years based on the evidence found through the meticulous digging, millimeter by millimeter through layers of history.

This is not something the hobby hunter can do or should try.

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 01:44 AM

So far this very interesting discussion seems to be taking place mostly on the eastern side of the Atlantic. Despite the relatively "recent" European colonization (with the exception of various Nordic and Irish excursions along the now-Canadian and New England coasts) there are ancient civilizations in North and South America also. In my part of it, the US, there is a vast array of sites that archeologists visit. Caves, mounds, graveyards, cliff dwellings, edges of rivers and lakes for camps, middens, etc.

My years in the National Park Service put me in many of those historic places where hobbiests and metal detectors were absolutely forbidden. I see the detectors here in the US mostly at beaches, as the human version of "magpies" search for shiny metal objects (watches, rings, coins) lost by visitors. Much of what exists in the pre-colonization sites doesn't contain metal. In the battlefield parks, people will sneak in with metal detectors to find bullets, swords, bridles, anything that can be collected and sold.

During those same years I saw archeologists doing core samples in middens, and occasionally coming up with human bones of (in the case of the Pacific Northwest Coast) slaves who were tossed or buried in the midden (trash) when they died. They were very casual about it one day when they bored through a skull and came up with a few teeth from several feet down. They didn't plan to excavate the entire site, but were trying to establish the depth and boundaries of the midden.

There are huge problems with pot diggers (I don't remember the exact term here--it has been a while since I was a ranger in the field). I've heard stories about such things as an ancient limestone crypt with the remains and accouterments of a well-positioned native person being picked clean by a road crew that discovered it with a bulldozer. They didn't report it to the state archeologist, just kept (and sold) their findings. That valuable information (Apache most likely, in this case, or a fore-runner tribe) is gone. And then there is the mentality from Barnum and Bailey (circus) folks who used to buy and display embalmed remains. I'm sure this isn't typical to just the U.S., but it was an abominable practice that only ended recently. There is an act in the US called "NAGPRA" or the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act" that for the last 10 years or so has resulted in the reassessment of matierials in museums and public collections. When the items in the collection came from a burial site, they are to be returned to the tribe they came from, if at all possible. This can mean items of great value, and it tears up museum folks to have to send back unique and elaborate items that may just be reburied.

All of this refers largely to archeologist-found items. What has been found by folks with metal detectors is basically gone, not recorded or documented.

There is a revision of the view of archeology in these postmodern times in the U.S. In scholarly circles of non-archeologists, the practice of digging up the remains of "other" cultures is beginning to be frowned upon. And the results of analysis of digs is seen as suspect--because the sciences are now considered suspect. White males tended to find what they were looking for, tended to tell the story from a very male/European view point. Important cultural clues were set aside or appropriated. Further analaysis (in particular in the field of primate studies) shows that the hard sciences need some shaking up, some recalibration.

Metal detectors and their operators are generally seen as amateur treasure hunters, out of the loop scientifically. Opportunists, magpies in the scientific scheme of things. But archeologists are not squeaky clean themselves, at least, a lot of the early digs.

I notice no one has mentioned the Elgin marbles. No, they're not metal. But they were "rescued," so it has been said, by the British, who still have them. Wasn't what Lord Elgin doing just treasure-hunting on a larger scale?

I should offer a disclaimer here; I have mixed feelings about what I have reported. I find it disrespectful for such groups as the road crew to have distributed remains and faience kinds of materials (I may be using this too losely, to mean ceramics, bone, shell, etc. all as burial objects). I've always been fascinated by archeologists, but in recent years have begun to wonder if they aren't just the same as the road crews, just with a more elaborate story and some funding. Yet over the years I've picked up spear points, arrow heads, potsherds, bits of old bottles, cave objects, that seemed like common everyday things. The difference, I think, is that what we find from a utilitarian context can be treated differently than that which is found in a burial context. And the burial items need to be in a class by themselves.

SRS

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 05:41 AM

Someone on the Britarch mailing list reported seeing this yesterday:
http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_518480.html

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,sherlock
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 08:17 AM

So far from read the above I can se that DIGGER is the only one willing to give the two side a chance to work together. Everyone seems to want to paint the other black! OH! if only this was a perfect world! What is wrong with the two working along side by side. (not like the 'token gesture' Time Team try and make out)Would each not learn from each other? metal detectorists would learn what is expected of them from archaeologists and try and rid themselves of the tag 'pot-holers or night hawks' and archaeologists may learn some of the techniques used by metal detectorists. I'm sure metal detectorists go out looking for (excuse the over used term) local history and not SHINY OBJECTS as stated. Why cant folk take off the blinkers and see beyond their self imposed rules and boundries and be prepared to give it a try. Good thread DIGGER, good debate.SRS did you catalogue where you picked up the arrow and spearheads? people in glass houses!

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 01:08 PM

I put that there to illustrate the glass house, Sherlock. It isn't realistic to expect every bit and shard to be documented. Park rangers are some of the worst for keeping bits of historic sites where they work. Hopefully they don't keep very big and important pieces, just trinkets. I've worked in places like Mammoth Cave in Kentucky where it wasn't the rangers, but the speleological society folks, with permission to explore passages, who used to leave the caves with garbage bags full of loot from prehistoric cave users.

Here in the US amongst some folks who work in public recreation areas, those metal detectors are considered an amateur shortcut to chunk change that ended up on the beach instead of in the couch cushions.

SRS

Subject: RE: Is Archaeology a thing of the past?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 01:22 PM

sherlock, Its not a matter of seeing it from another side. In one case objects are collected, and information is lost. (Since I doubt that detectorists are going to be sifting through layers of soil, looking at plant, pollen, and carbon dating evidence with the rigour of scientific analysis) I dont know specifically what 'detectorists' are looking for, but knowing one metal detector enthusiast, he has no interest in anything except in finding some kind of salable collectible commodity (such as coins, jewellery) I dont see these people as any different from the Grave Robbers who pick out the gold jewellery from Moche Graves in south america. (I doubt they are interested in exploring local history). No doubt, as SRS mentioned above, archaeologists have been and are, guilty to some extent of imposing their own Eurocentric views and not treating other cultures burial sites with respect they deserve, although that's been changing.

A case in point, is the people who look through battle fields picking up bullets or shells. There was a recent article in an archaelogy magazine about an investigation into a 19th century Apache, US army battle in New MExico. The archaeology team collected, marked bullets and shells and measured trajectories etc. and was able to reconstruct a battle which historians had only some second hand information on. In essence they re-wrote history. All of that information would have been lost if someone went around collecting souvenirs on the battlefield.

Its as if someone had destroyed the rosetta stone in their haste to dig up gold treasures, we wouldnt know what all the squiggles meant.