Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Archaeologists use of metal detectors???
- Thread starter Grunter
- Start date
Heelgrasper
New member
That's really not how archaeology have been done the last 50 years or so but there are plenty of places that archeologist became aware because of the use of metal detectors.
Les in the UK
New member
Archaeologists do not search for sites with metal detectors, they normally know where a site is before they start a dig. They do get metal detectorists to help them when they start a dig by detecting the spoil heaps.
fowlercharles
Member
Hi Grunter,I have no positive knowedge of any Archie alone locating a site with a detector but I would bet that it does happen.They usually bring in a club for such locating projects. As Les and Heelgrasper mentioned them using detectors has not been a part of how they have done things for a long time. Back in the early 90's a club I was in took part in an Arch. dig on a National Battlefield. I was very dissapointed with the attitude those folks had toward us Detectorists.As it turned out, they had to rely a great deal on the research maps,drawings and overlays that I had brought to the dig.Fact is they brought none because they had done none. Fact also was that the objective we were to locate, according to my research was about 99% outside the Park grounds, and our actual detector "digs" bore that out.Attitudes are changing "some" and many Archies are beginning to mellow out more toward detectors and detectorist.I personally know a few,and all are great folks! There are several that are regulars on the detector forums. I believe that many of them have learned, and will say so, as one of my friends says,"the best way to learn where stuff is, is to listen closely to the diggers/detectorist", and yes he especially included the "pot hunters". Lol, ain't that considered picking one's brain? HH,Charlie.
fowlercharles
Member
Very true Elton, and if they allow and watch you dig it they snatch it from your hand and drop it in a plastic bag. Then the only way you get to see it is while looking through the bag.That speaks volumes about those folks.HH, Charlie
Heelgrasper
New member
Perhaps I should expand my rather shorter answer a bit just to be clear.
I live in Denmark and speak primarily based on conditions here. To a large extent archaeologists however to my understanding work on the same principles in most countries but of course under different laws, financing etc.
First of all they don't dig if they can avoid it. The principle being that if something is sitting in undisturbed layers and have been there for 1,000-2,000 years there's no harm in letting it sit there for 50-100 years more. But there could be harm in excavating it. Archaeologists who study old excavations (like 100 years old or even just 50) often find themselves upset that the excavation wasn't done by modern standards. And based on that they figure that their grandchildren or greatgrandchildren are likely to feel the same about the excavations they are doing now. So if the site is unharmed and not in any danger of being destroyed they rarely excavate it.
Secondly there are situations where they need to dig. In Denmark those are the cases where they will also get the money to excavate while for other digs there are a very strict budget. This is primarily when something is going to be build on a site. This will most often destroy anything ancient in the ground and make it almost impossible to ever get to excavate the site later. I those case they basically clear the ground for "archaeological pollution".
Thirdly there are some cases where they need to find out if the current land use is destroying the remains and perhaps excavate if that is the case. Here that could often be based on finds made by detectorists that indicate something major perhaps being destroyed slowly by farming. It's however quite rare and doesn't happen every year.
And finally there a few cases where they want more knowledge on old findspots (often from the 19th century here) where there's little information about the find circumstances. In those cases metal detectors are often used to try to locate the exact find spot.
So it's extremly rare that archaelogists go looking for places to excavate. In fact they would rather make sure the the place is left undisturbed for future generations of ressearchers by having some restrictions put in place.
Here we have no problems working with the archaeologists and gladly turn over finds to them in accordance with the law. Often we help out on excavations where the archaeologists of course do the digging since our crude method of digging up finds is only acceptable in the plough soil and that is the first thing they remove, sometimes after letting us search the area for plough soil finds.
I live in Denmark and speak primarily based on conditions here. To a large extent archaeologists however to my understanding work on the same principles in most countries but of course under different laws, financing etc.
First of all they don't dig if they can avoid it. The principle being that if something is sitting in undisturbed layers and have been there for 1,000-2,000 years there's no harm in letting it sit there for 50-100 years more. But there could be harm in excavating it. Archaeologists who study old excavations (like 100 years old or even just 50) often find themselves upset that the excavation wasn't done by modern standards. And based on that they figure that their grandchildren or greatgrandchildren are likely to feel the same about the excavations they are doing now. So if the site is unharmed and not in any danger of being destroyed they rarely excavate it.
Secondly there are situations where they need to dig. In Denmark those are the cases where they will also get the money to excavate while for other digs there are a very strict budget. This is primarily when something is going to be build on a site. This will most often destroy anything ancient in the ground and make it almost impossible to ever get to excavate the site later. I those case they basically clear the ground for "archaeological pollution".
Thirdly there are some cases where they need to find out if the current land use is destroying the remains and perhaps excavate if that is the case. Here that could often be based on finds made by detectorists that indicate something major perhaps being destroyed slowly by farming. It's however quite rare and doesn't happen every year.
And finally there a few cases where they want more knowledge on old findspots (often from the 19th century here) where there's little information about the find circumstances. In those cases metal detectors are often used to try to locate the exact find spot.
So it's extremly rare that archaelogists go looking for places to excavate. In fact they would rather make sure the the place is left undisturbed for future generations of ressearchers by having some restrictions put in place.
Here we have no problems working with the archaeologists and gladly turn over finds to them in accordance with the law. Often we help out on excavations where the archaeologists of course do the digging since our crude method of digging up finds is only acceptable in the plough soil and that is the first thing they remove, sometimes after letting us search the area for plough soil finds.
We have been doing a series of hunts assisting Archaeologists and have had a great time. Old timers are against metal detectors, but a new alliance is forming. I am happy to be part of it. And we do dig our own holes lol. I would never even consider keeping anything this important....it belongs in a museum. I can find lots of things for my self at other sites. The crew has been excellent and never once made us feel unwanted. Mater of fact, we all discuss the project and interject ideas. I guess it comes down to who runs the project. I can't find one negative from my experience. The project is about to start again for another season and I can't wait!!!
Les in the UK
New member
You can be detecting the spoil heaps one day or detecting around the site the next looking for surface finds or datable evidence that might date the site.
Some times you can find your self in the trench looking for grave goods (metal finds that have been placed in the grave). A metal detector to an Archaeologist is just a tool to use to find metal that might date the site, they do not like to use an archaeologist to detect the site as that would mean that they would lose an archaeologist. They would much sooner use a detectorist like us who would probably be a volunteer and not put extra money on the cost of the dig.
Some times you can find your self in the trench looking for grave goods (metal finds that have been placed in the grave). A metal detector to an Archaeologist is just a tool to use to find metal that might date the site, they do not like to use an archaeologist to detect the site as that would mean that they would lose an archaeologist. They would much sooner use a detectorist like us who would probably be a volunteer and not put extra money on the cost of the dig.
fowlercharles
Member
Hi Les, Great point and I agree. I believe there is so much competition, "peer pressure", pride and strictness among Archies that it hinders their ability to open up to anyone not so "educated" as themselves.It is a type of elitism more or less bred into their trade.because of the very ordered and precise procedures they have to atain that they are left with very little leeway for any compromise. Those that have overcome that to some degree and loosend up usually are almost always the cream of the crop achievers in their lot. Just my thoughts. HH Charlie
in the UK they used to hate them and spoil heaps containing valuable artifacts that were dumped and lost .
but now they do but keep them out of site and prefer not to give credit where its due after .
in The UK major finds have been found over thr past 30years with machines.
these finds would never have been found otherwise .
but now they do but keep them out of site and prefer not to give credit where its due after .
in The UK major finds have been found over thr past 30years with machines.
these finds would never have been found otherwise .
OK, here is a prime example. I found a class ring from the class of 1958. I'm currently trying to locate the person who owns it to return it to them or their family. It is a gorgeous ring and in my opinion a work of art from a now defunct H.S. It may have gone undiscovered for another 54 yrs and may have never been found. I don't think an Archaeologist would have ever found it because the area where it was found is not historically valuable enough. My point being unless by some recorded documentation,archives indicated that an area was once a historical sight that it will probably never be located. Metal detectorists could be a great asset to those who wish to reveal past,dead,extinct civilizations habits and practices. And another thing is I don't desire any acclaim for this find. I am using the resources of an elderly lady who has voluntarily organized class reunions for this H.S for decades. I told her that if she locateds I.D.'s the owner I will give her the full honor and recognition for returning the ring to its rightful owner.
You might be interested in a story in Ancient American magazine from Barns and Noble book sellers.
http://www.ancientamerican.com/
A guy using a garrett under water machine has discovered an old indiana city and artifacts from the copper mining era
that goes back some 5000 plus years. It's a good story with lots of photos.
It's this months issue and it's called Ancient America. at Barns and Noble. I've seen it at the stores here in Indiana.
Salida
http://www.ancientamerican.com/
A guy using a garrett under water machine has discovered an old indiana city and artifacts from the copper mining era
that goes back some 5000 plus years. It's a good story with lots of photos.
It's this months issue and it's called Ancient America. at Barns and Noble. I've seen it at the stores here in Indiana.
Salida
GoGoGopher
New member
If they would learn to work with us and not against us, they might get more work done...???
HH,
HH,
C E Stricklin
New member
I have had five bad experiences with Professional Archaeologists. The first was when I was involved in the installation of a waterline through the parade ground of a War of 1812 fort. I was in charge of a survey crew utilized to accurately plot the location of every Artifact uncovered. The Artifact was bagged and tagged with an identifying number and its exact location recorded. One afternoon when I entered the room of the fort being used by the Archaeologists as an office to turn in my notes on that days finds, I overheard: "Do you want this Button, I already have one like it." As they were both from the same University I believe they were speaking of personal private collections. Which makes me believe that most if not all Archaeologists have their own personal private collections. The second was when I and some metal detector colleagues located the remains (rear portion) of the largest Cannon the Confederate Army had during the Civil War. It had been blown up to keep it from being captured by the advancing Union Army. We turned the location information over to Archaeologists at the local University, our reward was to be accused of removing the Brass Sight from the Cannon, undergoing extensive interrogations and having our collections of Civil War Artifacts searched. They wanted to seize them and this was only avoided through us obtaining a court order stopping their actions. The third was when the Largest Fort the Confederate Army had was being threatened by development. Archaeologists were called in to do an evaluation and the test excavations they made were outside the main confines of the Fort. A number of metal detectorists could have pointed out many locations where these test excavations should have been done, locations where Metal Artifacts had been found. The end result was they determined the Fort was never manned or used during the Civil War and the development was allowed to proceed, forever destroying the location. The fourth was when some colleagues of mine, located and dove on a sunken Confederate Blockade Runner only to have everything they had recovered be seized and undergo expensive court battles to try to get it back. The fifth and I do hope the last encounter I ever have with Professional Archaeologists occurred when I discovered an undisturbed articulated Indian Burial Mound consisting of a large mound with several smaller mounds radiating off of it like spokes on a wheel. I photographed it and sent the pictures and information to the State University. They sent a team down and I led them to the location, situated on some high ground, deep in a swamp. After several months, I received a letter informing me that the State University did not have the funds or manpower to undertake the excavation and they were turning it over to a neighboring State University, giving me the date when the dig was scheduled to begin. A few days after the scheduled start I was metal detecting in the area and paid a visit to the site to see what was developing, the Archaeologist in charge, a woman saw my metal detector and went ballistic. She took my name and address, ordered my off the site and never once listened to me trying to explain who I was and that I had discovered the Mounds. Two days later I was served with a court order banning me from the entire area. DO YOU THINK I WILL EVER AGAIN REPORT A DISCOVERY OF ANY TYPE.