Convincing the director to let me MD

[janedrew]

I work at a forest preserve in Illinois. In the past the director has said "no" to requests from local MDs. We've purchased four properties with very old houses (one since demolished, one inhabited by an employee). Now that I have a metal detector , I'd love to convince him to allow me to host events at our sites.

These are NOT on the nature preserve or other protected sites, but since we're a city government, it's...well, they're not open to the public yet (prairie restoration work in progress), but sort of owned by the public via tax dollars.

His view is, "What if they find something really valuable or historically significant?" to which I responded, "No one is going to find anything if it stays buried in the ground."

I might be close to changing his mind, but I think I need a good, solid policy for finders donating things if they really are historically significant (though I'm having trouble imagining what that would be to a forest preserve). What have you all agreed to in the past for these kinds of situations?

Thanks! Hopefully there will be a few more places to go in the near future in our area...

[pocketspill]

This is the list I use to counter archaeologists on 18th and 19th century sites. Perhaps it would be useful to you?

- Archaeologists deny the evidence that neglecting metallic artifacts is
"looting via neglect". Bronze, copper, iron and other artifacts, along with
their historic context, disappear over time and become useless.
- The archaeology community will never have the resources to study all
18th and 19th century sites on protected lands, which are often
low-priority.
- The "historical context" of these 18th and 19th century items is
already well documented, but can be supplemented by amateur work. In other words, why spend limited public research money with low expectations of new information versus tapping enthusiastic amateurs to assist in building the data set for free?
- Pre-history sites should be off-limits to detecting so that both
artifacts and historical context can be carefully studied. We share the
common interest of learning more about the Commonwealth's past.
- Many detector finds make their way into Kentucky museums and
educational institutions as donations (along with others found in private
lands, currently unavailable to historians.) Artifacts do not get donated
if archaeologists treat amateurs poorly.
- Detectorists are extremely good stewards of the land (holes filled,
litter removed, contraband reported.)
- Skilled detectorists can help archaeologists with surveys and
accelerate their results. It takes many years to become a skilled metal
detector user.
- There is an enormous backlog of unstudied artifacts already in academic archives.

[mark v]

Originally Posted by janedrew

His view is, "What if they find something really valuable or historically significant?"

I have heard this reply so many times and I just don't get it. "What if"!?
I get so annoyed anymore when I hear this staement. Well, "What if" I don't find anything significant? No one thinks of that. People would rather let old items rot away in the ground instead of letting someone enjoy them.
People deny access because they can.
Good luck. I hope you can get in there and find some neat stuff.

[Patton]

Tough situation.
Some really good info by pocketspill. Use that and lots of $$$$.
Kidding! I would indeed use his info and see if you can get this situation reversed. Good Luck!