Thursday, March 1, 2012

Detecting "Reality" Shows and the Amateur/Professional Debate

Detecting "Reality" Shows and the Amateur/Professional Debate

It seems the detecting forums and the archeological communities are in a tizzy about a pair of detecting-themed “reality” shows hitting the airwaves this year.  The first of these, entitled “Diggers”, premiered yesterday on National Geographic as a two-episode pilot trial.  The second is a full 13 episode season called “American Digger”, set to air on Spike TV and starring former professional wrestler and long-time relic hunter Ric Savage.

As much as I hate to give publicity to the debate and potentially fuel the fire, I believe it is my responsibility as a detectorist, relic hunter, and blogger to provide my opinions on the controversy to my readership.  Let me first begin by saying that most of the opinions I have seen (from amateur detectorists, relic hunters, professional archeologists, and my own) are not particularly fond of the idea of these shows.  I should also mention that I don’t have cable television, so I will be commenting on hearsay from the premier episodes of Diggers and press releases of American Digger, but I will try to focus less on specifics of these shows than on the basic premise and potential problems they present.

It would seem the majority of the debate revolves around relic hunting, and not other hobby detecting pursuits such as jewelry hunting and coinshooting.  I have yet to hear many arguments against either of these aspects of detecting, though they have been lumped in with the arguments against relic hunting in many cases.  I will limit this discussion to relic hunting in particular.


This US belt buckle from the Civil War shows extensive plow damage.  It was recovered from a field where troop movement is highly documented and recorded, but where archeological excavation would not  be logical.  Without relic hunters, it would have been destroyed in that field where it lay.


Part One:  The Skewed Reality of Detecting "Reality" Shows


There are two fundamental parts to the argument against shows like these and their portrayal of the relic hunting community.  The first is a depiction of relic hunting solely as a means of financial gain, a concept which neither professionals nor amateurs agree with.  Now don’t get me wrong, metal detecting is one of the few hobbies that can pay for its own equipment in the long run.  A man at my detecting club recently purchased Big Dawg search coil for his detector, and on his second trip the unique geometry of the coil allowed him to find a gold ring which paid for the coil.  If I were to sell my Civil War relics, I would certainly be able to pay for my equipment and then some (though I have been fortunate enough to make a few lucky finds which contribute the bulk of the worth of my collection).  Those who are in it for the money tend to be jewelry hunters, searching modern schools, parks, and beaches, not historical areas. 

But this hobby is far from profitable as a career path.  Only a very few will ever find enough to cover the cost of their equipment, batteries, fuel, and most of all the incredible amount of time required to be successful.  For each post I make showing Civil War relics I have gone out at least as many times on full day detecting trips and found nothing whatsoever.  Contrary to what these shows depict, the overwhelming majority of relic hunters I have ever met don’t do it for monetary reasons, and those who do would be quite disappointed at the typical results.  No, we relic hunters do it for the same love of history and preservation of artifacts that motivates professional archeologists.

The reality of relic hunting - far more trash than treasure. 
I personally dug everything that you see in this picture
.

Shows like Diggers and American Digger have been crafted in the same way as other successful profit-based shows like Storage Wars and American Pickers.  But in doing so, they completely misrepresent both the intentions of most relic hunters as well as the potential for profit.  Reports from the premier of Diggers show incredibly inflated values of recovered objects, and as I said, it is extremely difficult to make any money as a relic hunting hobbyist.  Sadly, this irresponsible depiction may attract new detectorists with the wrong motivations for relic hunting, delusions of quick wealth, and little training.  While I doubt that such types will stick with the hobby once they learn the reality of how difficult it actually is, I worry about the damage they may cause to our hobby in the meantime if they don’t practice ethical detecting.

Part Two:  The Impossible Idealism of the "Professionals-Only" Argument

The second argument against these shows illustrates the divide between traditional archeology and amateur enthusiasts, and is the most common argument that I have seen from those who are neither professionals nor hobby diggers.  The argument claims that relic hunting damages the integrity of historic sites, and such recoveries should only be performed by professional archeologists in every circumstance.  It isn’t simply against these shows, but the very act of relic hunting.  Those on the extreme of this viewpoint call us looters, thieves of history, and even graverobbers.  This argument is unfortunately, in large part, misinformed and counterproductive to the stated goal of preservation of our history.  Allow me to explain, but first, a caveat.

I do believe that not all sites should be available to relic hunting.  The most basic example is undisturbed pre-historic sites.  Since there is no written record of these human activities, the only information that we can gather is through painstaking archeological excavation, and this should be left to the professionals.  Furthermore, some locations in modern history are simply too engrained in our social fabric to be left to the amateurs, or are generally considered “hallowed ground” that should remain untouched by all.  Sites like Gettysburg and Monticello spring to mind.  But rather than focusing on banning metal detecting at all sites, professional archeologists need to work to preserve these sites of specific cultural importance (many of which have been purchased by the government for preservation).  I see nothing wrong with this approach whatsoever.

The argument of destruction of American cultural heritage falls apart, however, when applied to most sites which are searched by amateur relic hunters.  There aren’t enough professional archeologists, time, or money in the entire United States budget to conduct a full archeological excavation at all of this nations modern-historical sites.  Even if there were, very little new evidence would be gained by such an endeavor.  The lifestyles of 18th and 19th century America are well documented.  Civil War troop locations were well recorded (that’s how I’m able to find these sites in the first place!), and typical camp life is well understood.

The Freeman House (now Roxy Farms Antiques) in Saxapahaw, which I detected several times in 2011, was built in the late 1800's.  There are simply far too many historical sites like this one for archeologists to survey them all, and very little new information would be gained by doing so.

I often hear how important it is to examine the “strata”, or layering of depth of artifacts at a site.  But typical Civil War camp sites are often found in farmed fields, routinely plowed to depths of up to three FEET.  Strata, in such a circumstance, are meaningless.  Furthermore, we know the years and in many cases weeks or even specific days when these relics were lost thanks to the historical record.  Again, very little additional information can be obtained by a professional versus an amateur historian, even if we had unlimited resources for such professional excavations.

The idea of leaving these relics in the ground for professional recovery would be disastrous for the preservation of these items.  Many volumes of relic identification guides have been written by relic hunters based on their recoveries.  To leave these relics in the ground would be to allow them to decay to nothing, and as another relic hunter put it so eloquently, this would be nothing short of “looting by neglect.”  There is nothing more saddening to a relic hunter than excavating a Civil War era button and watching it crumble away to nothing (quite literally) upon recovery thanks to years of plow damage and heavy fertilizer use.  Contrary to popular belief, these relics won’t be around forever until an archeologist has the time and money to recover them.  They will continue to succumb to oxidation, chemical damage, physical damage from plows and bulldozers, and burial under asphalt and concrete until nothing remains.  All in the name of “preservation” from amateur relic hunters who would recover, restore, preserve, and cherish the history of these items without the luxury of a PhD and a government grant.  Pardon me if I sound a bit frustrated by that notion.

 These bullets were recovered from a construction site ready for development.  The bullets with blue circles show damage from bulldozers.  The bullet in the red circle was found on top of the ground illustrating the disturbed strata of the site.

Part 3:  The Benefits of Compromise


I mean this with no disrespect for traditional archeologists.  In fact, I believe detectorists, with all their passion for the preservation of history, are a great untapped resource for the archeological community.  I have even worked side by side with professionals from the North Carolina Office of State Archeology conducting a detector survey of the Battle of Alamance.  Together with the Old North State Detectorists club, we donated many hundreds of man hours at no cost to the state, surveying the battlefield, recording finds locations, and recovering relics for preservation.  Many of our finds are currently on display at the battlefield museum, including a rare USA button, the first and only physical evidence of a second skirmish reported to have occurred at the site later during the Revolutionary War.  The site was not a good candidate for traditional excavation (doing so would have cost much more time and money than the state could provide), and without our help that fragile pewter button would have crumbled away to nothing underground.  I have to note, however, that archeologists will never be able to tap into the potential assistance from detectorists if the rhetoric of looters and graverobbers continues.

This is me holding a musket ball from the Battle of Alamance, recovered while working with the North Carolina Office of State Archeology.

I invite the reader to peruse my site once more, and realize that many of the relics shown here would have been lost forever without amateur relic hunters like myself.  Many of the bullets presented here were recovered from a site already cleared and graded for development, soon to be covered over in asphalt.  The US buckle I recovered is nearly destroyed by constant plow damage, and would not have survived much longer in that farmed field.  The private properties where I have recovered relics with landowner permission right here in Saxapahaw would never be considered as candidates for professional archeological excavation.

This South Carolina state seal button was recovered at the Battle of Bentonville, NC.  The back is corroded and almost destroyed, while the front is barely recognizable.  The field has been plowed and turned for many years, and it common knowledge to historians that South Carolina troops were on the road where it was recovered.  There are currently no scheduled plans for archeological digs in the Bentonville area to my knowledge.  Without relic hunters, artifacts like these will be destroyed by time and the elements.

Relic hunters are not stealing history, but are showing our enthusiasm for it by preserving artifacts which would otherwise be lost.  Unfortunately, shows like “Diggers” misrepresent our goals and inflate the idea of relic hunting for profit, and do us all a disservice.  Please, do not fall into the trap of Hollywood hype, but go talk to some relic hunters for yourself.  I do believe you will find the vast majority to be as passionate and motivated about preserving history as any professional.

Sorry for the rant.  But like I said, we’re a passionate lot.

UPDATE:  I have had several requests to reprint this article.  I am offering it up under creative commons license, and you are free to repost or reprint this article in whole or in part provided you credit me as the author.

29 comments:

  1. Excellent piece, brother, and HH.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Possibly the best Metal Detecting post I've yet read. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Most definitely this post should be spread around. Not being a relic hunter, I was woefully unaware of the issue you discuss but your article has done a lot to open my eyes.

    Well written and the your points well made. I am glad the hobby has people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. very well thought out sir , this "relic hunter" shares in your sentiments as well.

    Del

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent blog! The hostility we amature relic hunters feel from the professional archiologists is not deserved. Those who take up the hobby for profit will not last long. They have a better chance in playing the lottery.

      Delete
  5. Dear Tony:

    It is obvious that you care about our national heritage but that you lack sufficient understanding of what archaeology really is to propose a ‘compromise’ that would satisfy the archaeological community. Your blog also unintentionally highlights many of the very concerns that archaeologists have with ‘relic hunters’. I will attempt to take your essay, point by point and break down the failings of your argument.

    To begin, I submit that the big difference between archaeologists and relic hunters is that relic hunters are interested in the artifacts, while archaeologists are interested in the information potential of the sites where the artifacts are found. This difference in perspective leads to a disagreement about how historic properties should be treated. This also leads archaeologists to value equally the things that you divide into “trash” and “treasure”. Archaeologists do not care about the relative rarity of a particular artifact or the price it could command on the open market. Archaeologists care more about where it was found, what was found around it, and what these things can reveal about past events.

    According to you, “The [archaeologists’] argument claims that relic hunting damages the integrity of historic sites, and such recoveries should only be performed by professional archeologists [sic] in every circumstance.” That is not my view and I doubt that most archaeologists would agree with this view. In fact, most archaeologists I know try very hard to get the public involved in their research because they hold the view that the past is (or should be) owned collectively. Many amateur archaeological groups have made substantial contributions to the field --when they operate ethically. I think the position of archaeologists can better be summarized as, “Archaeological sites should only be excavated when there is a plan to extract the maximum data potential from them.” The problem is that relic hunters have little interest in the data potential of archaeological sites and by non-systematically removing all the metal artifacts from a site, the integrity is compromised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, thank you for taking the time to respond! I'll see what I can do to address your concerns.

      "I submit that the big difference between archaeologists and relic hunters is that relic hunters are interested in the artifacts, while archaeologists are interested in the information potential of the sites where the artifacts are found."

      I fully support protection of land with significant archeological potential through purchasing of private property and establishment of historical trusts. I I stated in my article, some sites should be left to the professionals (or not excavated at all), and many have been preserved in this way. But the vast majority of sites searched by amateur relic hunters lack the archeological significance to be considered for such excavations.

      "This also leads archaeologists to value equally the things that you divide into “trash” and “treasure”."

      Trust me, it's trash. But I can donate all the soda can tabs, beer cans, and fired modern bullets to the University of your choice if you would like them ;) And as for the "treasure" I'm referring to, it usually has no market value whatsoever. But I will treasure it anyways for the history it represents. We're more on the same wavelength than you might think.

      "Archaeologists do not care about the relative rarity of a particular artifact or the price it could command on the open market."

      I agree, as would most relic hunters. Shows like these are the exception, and should be condemned for their irresponsible depiction of relic hunting by focusing on profit over history. That was the entire point of "Part One". They are the exception to the majority of relic hunters.

      "In fact, most archaeologists I know try very hard to get the public involved in their research because they hold the view that the past is (or should be) owned collectively."

      You are still advocating a position in which excavations can only be done under the supervision of the professionals. Once again, you fall into the trap of "impossible idealism".

      "The problem is that relic hunters have little interest in the data potential of archaeological sites and by non-systematically removing all the metal artifacts from a site, the integrity is compromised."

      Again, most sites searched by amateur relic hunters have very little archeological significance, and would never be candidates for archeological study. Those that do should be protected by acquisition and historical trust, not by banning responsible relic hunting.

      Delete
    2. "But the vast majority of sites searched by amateur relic hunters lack the archeological significance to be considered for such excavations."

      How can you possibly know that unless your conduct a systematic study? Most sites in the US go through between 2 and 4 phases of research to make that determination. This can (and often does) take years of careful study and analysis.

      "Trust me, it's trash. But I can donate all the soda can tabs, beer cans, and fired modern bullets to the University of your choice if you would like them ;)"

      Again, its not really the item that is important, but where it was found and what was found around it. If a bunch of 7-Up cans are found associated with a bunch of mini-balls then we know that, that particular deposit was disturbed. If they came from the plow zone above the intact deposit, then we know that just the plow zone was disturbed.

      "You are still advocating a position in which excavations can only be done under the supervision of the professionals. Once again, you fall into the trap of "impossible idealism"."

      No, I am saying that if amateurs want to dig sites they should do it systematically and ethically. If they need training to know how to do that, then they should consult with professionals, and share their finds with the wider community, as professionals do.

      "most sites searched by amateur relic hunters have very little archeological significance, and would never be candidates for archeological study."

      If this is true, then how come I have had to dig on so many sites that were previously dug by relic hunters?

      "Those that do should be protected by acquisition and historical trust, not by banning responsible relic hunting."

      With so many historic properties on private land, is that really the best use of public funds? Or instead, should we educate the public about heritage preservation and encourage only ethical and systematic excavation of historic sites?

      Delete
    3. "How can you possibly know that unless your conduct a systematic study? Most sites in the US go through between 2 and 4 phases of research to make that determination. This can (and often does) take years of careful study and analysis. "

      There are millions of old home places, countless farmed fields, miles of historic roads. And the vast majority of them professional archeologists have no interest in whatsoever. You have neither the time nor the money nor the resources to be interested in them. Shutting them all off indefinitely while you conduct years of study into every inch of this country while the relics are systematically destroyed below the ground seems foolish and wasteful to me.

      "Again, its not really the item that is important, but where it was found and what was found around it. If a bunch of 7-Up cans are found associated with a bunch of mini-balls (sic)"

      But if you lack the desire to conduct an excavation at the site which has little archeological significance and you lack the time and resources and money to conduct the surveys anyways, then it doesn't matter. There's nothing to learn by the placement of a 7-up can relative to the minie balls if the minie balls don't tell you anything.

      "No, I am saying that if amateurs want to dig sites they should do it systematically and ethically. If they need training to know how to do that, then they should consult with professionals, and share their finds with the wider community, as professionals do."

      If every relic hunter reported every GPS coordinate of every relic they ever dug (and the trash near them) your servers would crash in a day, and your office would be completely incapable of handling the volumes of information. Most of which, in the long run, wouldn't actually provide much if any new information.

      "If this is true, then how come I have had to dig on so many sites that were previously dug by relic hunters?"

      Because professional archeologists failed to preserve the sites of greatest important through acquisition and historical trust.

      "With so many historic properties on private land, is that really the best use of public funds? Or instead, should we educate the public about heritage preservation and encourage only ethical and systematic excavation of historic sites?"

      It is the only way to get what you're really looking for - total control over the sites that interest you most. That, or passing some sort of draconian "all relics, known or unknown, are now property of the state and we can excavate them on your property without your permission" law. Good luck with that one.

      Delete
  6. This quote highlights the differences in objective between archaeologists and relic hunters. Although you were thrilled to find a button, the archaeologists were interested in “the specific location of the recovered ordinance”. In short, we already know that during the Revolutionary War, soldiers wore uniforms with buttons and fired ammunition. What we don’t know is the precise location of the battle, details about the units involved, what type of ordinance was used, etc. Historic archaeology also provides us much fine grain information excluded in the historic record. For example, we know relatively little about groups that did not hold power at the time, such as enlisted men vs. officers, slaves vs. their owners, and women vs. men. The idea that no important information can be gleaned from the careful archaeological study of historic properties is obviously not true.

    Your next argument seems to move on to the idea that archaeologists overemphasise the importance of recording the context of specific archaeological deposits. You stated, “I often hear how important it is to examine the ‘strata’, or layering of depth of artifacts at a site. But typical Civil War camp sites are often found in farmed fields, routinely plowed to depths of up to three FEET. Strata, in such a circumstance, are meaningless. Furthermore, we know the years and in many cases weeks or even specific days when these relics were lost thanks to the historical record. Again, very little additional information can be obtained by a professional versus an amateur historian, even if we had unlimited resources for such professional excavations.”

    This statement shows that you do not really understand proper archaeological methodology or the importance of using it. That is understandable as only trained archaeologists likely would. There is no doubt that plowing of fields does impact the data potential of archaeological deposits, and for that reason, the entire plow zone is usually considered one soil stratum. It is also true that plowing can horizontally displace individual artifacts. However, studies have shown that groups of artifacts tend to stay in generally the same location even after repeated plowing. As was demonstrated in the example above, the horizontal position of artifacts can teach us quite a bit about these sites. Of course, there is also the issue of artifacts and features located beneath the plow zone, which would probably show little signs of disturbance. Even if we accept your conclusion that the amateur can gain just as much information from a site as a professional, there remains the difference that the professional takes pains to document and publish their findings so that the data is not just stored in the individual relic hunters brain or on his mantel.

    Moving on, you argue that our collective national heritage is literally vanishing and that if concerned citizens don’t act then all will be lost. You wrote “...leaving these relics in the ground...would be disastrous for the preservation....To leave these relics in the ground would be to allow them to decay to nothing, and as another relic hunter put it so eloquently, this would be nothing short of ‘looting by neglect’....They will continue to succumb to oxidation, chemical damage, physical damage from plows and bulldozers, and burial under asphalt and concrete until nothing remains.’” This is a common justification that many relic hunters use. Unfortunately, there are a few flaws in this logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the only part of this post that you didn't also post elsewhere involves the Alamance Battleground site. Alamance is a perfect example of the type of site that DESERVES to be protected. As such, it was purchased by the state for preservation.

      But Alamance was a poor candidate for traditional excavation. Recovery of the artifacts and subsequent interpretation was only made possible thanks to the generous donation of time by the Old North State Detectorists MD Club.

      Alamance Battleground stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming majority of sites searched by amateur relic hunters. These sites have little new information to provide, and are often themselves terrible candidates for traditional excavation. Not being worth the precious time and funding of the professionals, they are being negelected and the artifacts they contain left to be destroyed by time, the elements, and human activity. I would much rather see them rescued by amateur relic hunters like myself to be preserved and cherished for the history they represent.

      Delete
  7. AMEN BROTHER!!!! An outstanding blog about the current state of affairs. If archaeologist would open their minds and actually talk to relic hunters such as you and I, I think they may have a different outlook and perhaps a new working relationship could be formed. We are not graverobbers or pot diggers, we are amateur historians. What new and wonderful information can an archaeologist tell from a mini ball found in a plowed cotton field? Nothing excecpt that fertilized doesn't treat lead well... What information can that mini ball teach others? LOTS! I visited my son's school and showed my collection of bullets and other detecting finds to my son's classmates and I had more questions regarding those bullets than I did any silver coin or gold ring I showed them. And these were FIRST GRADERS! I'm hopeful that I planted a seed for history that will grow within those young minds.

    Again, well written Tony, lets get out there and save some more history from deterioration.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Tony:

    It is obvious that you care about our national heritage but that you lack sufficient understanding of what archaeology really is to propose a ‘compromise’ that would satisfy the archaeological community. Your blog also unintentionally highlights many of the very concerns that archaeologists have with ‘relic hunters’. I will attempt to take your essay, point by point and break down the failings of your argument.

    To begin, I submit that the big difference between archaeologists and relic hunters is that relic hunters are interested in the artifacts, while archaeologists are interested in the information potential of the sites where the artifacts are found. This difference in perspective leads to a disagreement about how historic properties should be treated. This also leads archaeologists to value equally the things that you divide into “trash” and “treasure”. Archaeologists do not care about the relative rarity of a particular artifact or the price it could command on the open market. Archaeologists care more about where it was found, what was found around it, and what these things can reveal about past events.

    According to you, “The [archaeologists’] argument claims that relic hunting damages the integrity of historic sites, and such recoveries should only be performed by professional archeologists [sic] in every circumstance.” That is not my view and I doubt that most archaeologists would agree with this statement. In fact, most archaeologists I know try very hard to get the public involved in their research because they think that the past is (or should be) owned collectively. Many amateur archaeological groups have made substantial contributions to the field --when they operate ethically. I think the position of archaeologists can better be summarized as, “Archaeological sites should only be excavated when there is a plan to extract the maximum data potential from them.” The problem is that relic hunters have little interest in the data potential of archaeological sites and by non-systematically removing all the metal artifacts from a site, the integrity is compromised.

    Your point that many archaeologists use potentially inflammatory language to characterize relic hunters is well made, and something I have criticized other archaeologists for. Everyone knows you catch more flies with honey, right? But I’m sure you can understand why relic hunters are sometimes called “looters” or “grave robbers”. If we define a looter as someone who steals goods, and archaeologists believe that the past belongs to everyone collectively, then a person who takes artifacts from sites into their personal collection can be defined as a looter. As for grave robber, I’m sure you have heard of people who dig burials. What else would you call this practice?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems your replies have gotten all kerfuffled!! I'll try to replay as best I can despite the confusion! I have replied to the majority of this above, as it was already posted once.

      I take great exception to your claim that you are opposed to "inflammatory language", and then proceed in an attempt to justify that language.

      Under our current laws, relic hunters may excavate artifacts on private property with the permission of the owner. Under your "collectivist ownership" definition, those artifacts would belong to the state to extract from my property WITHOUT my permission. I know which of those two scenarios I would more likely refer to as "looting"

      Furthermore, I have met many MANY relic hunters in my day, and not ONCE known anyone to excavate graves. I have known one relic hunter who uncovered what turned out to be a mass gave of Union soldiers. The authorities were notified, and the soldiers were buried in Arlington Cemetery. The finder was given high praise from his home state as well as in South Carolina in which they were found.

      I am HIGHLY OFFENDED at your insinuation that the hobby of relic hunting has anything to do with grave robbing. That would be to say that the hobby of skeet shooting is akin to murder or the hobby of sleight-of-hand is akin to pickpocketing.

      This kind of talk WILL NOT be tolerated on this website. Period. It does nothing to further the discussion, and it undermines your integrity and your others arguments. I'll say no more on the subject, and move on.

      Delete
    2. The relic hunters you associate with seem to be much more ethical than some I have run across. I have often been told about how the best finds come from burials. Can we just both agree that intentionally digging burials is wrong and that those who do that should be labeled as grave robbers?

      Delete
    3. Yes, prosecute those criminals to the fullest extent of the law! But don't lump them in with the majority of Relic Hunters either. Who told you that the best finds come from burials? Sounds like smear-campaign propaganda to me.

      A few bad apple archeologists and museum curators have sold relics from collections for personal gain, but I won't accuse you and yours of doing that illegal and immoral behavior. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

      Delete
    4. Haha, no I got that from the mouths of relic hunters, not from archaeologists on a smear campaign.

      Good point about unethical people in museums and universities though. I'm sure you are aware that recently several major museums have come under fire for unethical practices. I have actually worked to run out of town a few of those bad apples. Unfortunately, they often find refuge and employment in the relic hunter community.

      Delete
    5. "no I got that from the mouths of relic hunters, not from archaeologists on a smear campaign."

      Yes, but WHICH relic hunters. If it's not hearsay, then NAME NAMES. Otherwise, like I said, it all sounds like a smear campaign to me, and I won't have it on this website. PERIOD.

      "Unfortunately, they often find refuge and employment in the relic hunter community."

      Again, I have asked you to please not lump criminals in with the OVERWHELMING majority of law abiding relic hunters. I will now be requiring an email address to post comments on this blog. Any more of that, and I will be deleting posts which refer to us as looters or criminals.

      It's not helpful to your side of the debate, and makes you look petty at best and dishonest at worst. Enough.

      Delete
  9. Your next argument seems to move on to the idea that archaeologists overemphasise the importance of recording the context of specific archaeological deposits. You stated, “I often hear how important it is to examine the ‘strata’, or layering of depth of artifacts at a site. But typical Civil War camp sites are often found in farmed fields, routinely plowed to depths of up to three FEET. Strata, in such a circumstance, are meaningless. Furthermore, we know the years and in many cases weeks or even specific days when these relics were lost thanks to the historical record. Again, very little additional information can be obtained by a professional versus an amateur historian, even if we had unlimited resources for such professional excavations.”

    This statement shows that you do not really understand proper archaeological methodology or the importance of using it. That is understandable as only trained archaeologists likely would. There is no doubt that plowing of fields does impact the data potential of archaeological deposits, and for that reason, the entire plow zone is usually considered one soil stratum. It is also true that plowing can horizontally displace individual artifacts. However, studies have shown that groups of artifacts tend to stay in generally the same location even after repeated plowing. As was demonstrated in the example above, the horizontal position of artifacts can teach us quite a bit about these sites. Of course, there is also the issue of artifacts and features located beneath the plow zone, which would probably show little signs of disturbance. Even if we accept your conclusion that the amateur can gain just as much information from a site as a professional, there remains the difference that the professional takes pains to document and publish their findings so that the data is not just stored in the individual relic hunters brain or on his mantel.

    Moving on, you argue that our collective national heritage is literally vanishing and that if concerned citizens don’t act then all will be lost. You wrote “...leaving these relics in the ground...would be disastrous for the preservation....To leave these relics in the ground would be to allow them to decay to nothing, and as another relic hunter put it so eloquently, this would be nothing short of ‘looting by neglect’....They will continue to succumb to oxidation, chemical damage, physical damage from plows and bulldozers, and burial under asphalt and concrete until nothing remains.’” This is a common justification that many relic hunters use. Unfortunately, there are a few flaws in this logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Of course, there is also the issue of artifacts and features located beneath the plow zone, which would probably show little signs of disturbance."

      If it's that deep, we won't find it with a hobby detector anyways!

      "Even if we accept your conclusion that the amateur can gain just as much information from a site as a professional, there remains the difference that the professional takes pains to document and publish their findings so that the data is not just stored in the individual relic hunters brain or on his mantel."

      I should be more clear. I didn't mean to say that there is as much information to gain, which implies that there is, in fact, some information to gain. In the case of the vast majority of sites that amateur relic hunters search, there is little to no new information to be gained by professional excavation. Those sites which are candidates for excavation should be preserved through acquisition or historical trust, and it is this avenue that you should be pursuing.

      Delete
  10. hell yes my man!!!! YOU GIVE IT TO IM!!!!! i digg every weekend out here in colorado and i get so sick of the uptite acedemics telling us what we need to do!!! its just thier liberal elite bias! you don't need a phd to know how to find a minie ball i watch discovery channel and i know i find better stuff then them!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know what makes America the BEST country in the whole world? We are the only country that lets the land owner decide what to do with the relics on his own property! I pay the landowners on my dig sites a couple of hundred dollars a year. That way I get the BEST treasures! As a proud NRA member I say the archies can pry my relics from my cold dead hands! They are going to the grave with me lol!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excellent stuff! Very pleased to see the debate. I don't see the current archaeological arguments as standing up very well when the sheer number of potential sites is considered. There must be a compromise position somewhere. Rough recording of find locations with GPS is better than no reporting at all, right? Then encourage relic hunters to do just that. Perhaps build a smartphone app that aids them in reporting site finds (without publishing the information publicly.) Then the data set, as imperfect as it is, still grows.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry it took me so long to get to this! Your article and thoughts are probably the best I've read on this whole topic. Nice work! :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. As of now, in KY this is now House Bill 352.

    I have heard the following from preservationists & archaeologists and must say, I am very disappointed in their tactics. I heard even more from people who talked to legislators, but since I didn't witness it, am not posting it anywhere.

    a) we plan to exhume and steal gold teeth from buried soldiers.
    b) we plan to dig holes in the State Capital.
    c) we plan to target pre-historic Mammoth / Sloth excavation sites and steal *bones.*

    Professionals and amateurs should be working together and stop petty bickering. And I mean cooperate so that everyone is able to utilize public lands.

    KY should lock down and study historically significant sites professionally, and let metal detector hobbyists hunt the thousands of documented 18th and 19th century sites that will *NEVER* be studied to save those hand-made artifacts.

    Detector hobbyists should post their finds online and be ready to lend them to professionals and report on the location they were found if the data set needs a patch. Detector hobbyists should use their collections to share with students at schools and provide schools with entire collections when they die.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Great post. Thanks. I'll take you up on your offer and post on my blog with a link back here. Thanks again for a great piece.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sir, "Anonymous" and I have been at it before on his face book page "Sexy Archaeology". His conduct as a "professional" was and is a more common belief than I initially believed. After several back and forth discussions similar to your experience, I stopped posting anything because of his consistently self-serving monologues. This Archae has done more to negatively inflame the existing separation of MD'ing and Archaeologists. I know this is his main purpose, what I don't know is his motive. (I know he can't debate though). He maintains he is a "professional", yet has never disclosed his level of education or place of employment. I suspect he is little more than a grad student. He told me in one of his posts "if I don't get paid, I won't work" when I was trying to detect his motivation. He later retracted that saying, "I have to provide for my family". Sad to admit, but I wouldn't tell an archae the time of day. Much less the GPS coordinates of any relic finds. Nor will I ever volunteer to help them at any dig site because of their "my way or the highway" attitudes.

    ReplyDelete