Very interesting read

Checked out the lady in the bikini. Then read this-

One of the tangents to our mission is the question of standards. We hope that one of the outcomes of growing knowledge of effective metal detecting is that state and federal agencies will enact standards for metal detecting.


Checked out the lady in the bikini again.

Actually, the first journal was,,,well ...boring, sorry about that. Read further down and there is a lot of discussion about Civil War sites that have been studied due to MD finds.

"The involvement of relic hunters can be an opportunity to educate them and perhaps change their avocational activities." Page 9

No thanks don't need to be educated and changed regarding my avocational activity. Do they have to be so condescending to people that metal detect. Every article I read from an archaeologist is written in such a way to portray us as a group of idiots. Hard to have a conversation with someone if they talk like this and want to change our activities.

Kemper said:

Checked out the lady in the bikini. Then read this-

One of the tangents to our mission is the question of standards. We hope that one of the outcomes of growing knowledge of effective metal detecting is that state and federal agencies will enact standards for metal detecting.


Checked out the lady in the bikini again.

Click to expand...

Yes I often go in tangents when looking at bikinis.
But seriously they had to use that as a picture to portray us as a group. I don't need any "standards" when I am in my local park pulling stinking pull tabs and modern pennies.

Here is a link from Stout Standards of a blog I was involved with. See what Lisa has to say before leaving the conversation.-

http://stoutstandards.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/paint-me-suspicious/

Kemper, let me give you a concrete example of why I and many other 'tekkies' do not trust archaeologists. Our area of the state has several 'national forests' that exist only because the lumber companies that owned the land went bankrupt and the fed government ended up with the land by default. So they raise and sell timber on it. In one of these national forests, a sawmill and accompanying sawmill town had been built in 1905. Nothing was there before that, and it ceased to exist in 1925. There are maps of the town as it existed, photographs, etc. It has been clear-cut several times since then, and the entire area has been bulldozed and rearranged more than once. In other words, nothing was ever of great historical value there, and nothing was in its original location anymore, anyway. A metal detecting club I belonged to in the 1980s and '90s had asked permission from the area forest manager for permission to metal detect there. At the time (early 1990s), nothing on the site would have been 100 years old, so it would not have come under the antiquities act. Permission was given, and they even told the manager that they would mark and document everything that was found (which was not much other than pay tokens - this mill paid with tokens). After they had several club hunts out there, the area archaeologist found out about it and went ballistic. He had the site 'staked out' and when a few of the people went to metal detect, they were arrested and charged under the antiquities act (which did NOT apply). Not only that, the archaeologist got a search warrant for their houses and seized EVERYTHING that looked old - things like coin collections, a man's grandfather's pocket watch, a pocket knife collection, and other things that were obviously NOT taken out of the ground - and all their metal detecting equipment. The federal prosecutor knew he had no case (not even trespassing, since they were out there with permission for the forest manager), but refused to release the stuff that had been seized from them until they pleaded guilty to SOMETHING. However, these folks had the stubbornness to hold their ground and finally, after several years, got the charges dismissed - and STILL had to sue to get their stuff back! So spare me all the stories about how those noble, good-hearted archaeologists only want to save the past for the future. For quite a few of them it is just a territorial thing: they believe that "if it is in the ground it is MINE MINE MINE!" Needless to say, not many metal detectorist who knew these persecuted (and prosecuted) folks would be willing to tell any arkie anything at all. They are not to be trusted.

Great post TexasPast. I don't mind preserving the past, but the laws that are on the books and the way they are written are horrible. Common sense gets thrown out the window in many cases. More people that detect would be willing to work with the archeologist if some of these laws were updated and they stopped taking away land that was once o.k to detect on.

Paul Barford lives in Warsaw and its' believed he is employed by UNESCO to write his blog. If you read it daily you will see has no love for detectorists or collectors (type my name into his search area).

I stopped commenting on him so as to not send anyone to his site. I would however suggest you check in on him from time to time. He is an example of what might happen here if we let it. Just my two cents

DS
www.stoutstandards.wordpress.com

Yes ,I caught some flack ( 4 Brits nonetheless)from the MLO (Minelab Owner's Forum) for posting this blog. I know all about Mr. Barford and his stance on Metal Detectorists. There are other entries posted that applaud the use of MDs. I hope it was read beyond page 9 Like any blog, you have to be able to take the good with the bad, sift out the negative BS and look for the positive. It is good to see freedom of speech/opinion at work about the blog. It was not posted to make anyone angry or to feel threatened but it might make you hold your MD a little tighter at night as you sleep.
I could care less what Mr.Barford thinks about Metal Detectorists and/or the hobby but it makes a case for the need of MDs in discovering/recovering history and that is a big positive.

The biggest obstacle in the discussions between the "arkies" and the "tekkies" is the refusal of the arkies to admit what their number one goal is. That goal is to stop the natural progression of history of items and present the past history as well as themselves.

That may be justifiable in certain situations but that is what they are doing in every situation. That is a fact.

The tekkie believes that a person that legally finds an item should be able to let that natural history continue unless their is a justifiable reason to alter that history.

By gaining more ground the arkies can control legal rights to any items that may be on or in those grounds. This lets them paint the tekkies as someone wanting to do something illegal and allows the arkies to avoid the fact that they are altering natural history of items.

There will be no signs at the displays in the museum stating the main facts.

Kemper said:

Checked out the lady in the bikini. Then read this-

One of the tangents to our mission is the question of standards. We hope that one of the outcomes of growing knowledge of effective metal detecting is that state and federal agencies will enact standards for metal detecting.


Checked out the lady in the bikini again.

Click to expand...

LOL that's a HORRIBLE PS job on that pic.

ZR2guy said:

Yes ,I caught some flack ( 4 Brits nonetheless)from the MLO (Minelab Owner's Forum) for posting this blog. I know all about Mr. Barford and his stance on Metal Detectorists. There are other entries posted that applaud the use of MDs. I hope it was read beyond page 9 Like any blog, you have to be able to take the good with the bad, sift out the negative BS and look for the positive. It is good to see freedom of speech/opinion at work about the blog. It was not posted to make anyone angry or to feel threatened but it might make you hold your MD a little tighter at night as you sleep.
I could care less what Mr.Barford thinks about Metal Detectorists and/or the hobby but it makes a case for the need of MDs in discovering/recovering history and that is a big positive.

Click to expand...

Yes I read beyond page 9. There are many examples were the metal detecting community has helped on archaeological excavations. I don't have a problem with that. What I do see as a problem is how we help them and then they precede to take more and more locations off the table to detect, especially the ones that were o.k. in the past. Kind of like getting stabbed in the back don't you think?

I think we should care about what Mr. Barford thinks of us. It is his mentality and others like his who are working to make metal detecting a thing of the past and a dirty word to the rest of the public.

I don't think anyone has done more damage to the hobby in a short period of time as what Mr. Savage and his crew have done on television with their train wreck of a show "American Digger", heard of it? Thanks everyone for the input

Yes I agree with you that T.V. show has done a great deal of damage. In Wisconsin though, that is not what caused all DNR controlled waterways to be off limits to detect. That person would be the head state archaeologist.

In those journals, some authors stated that their age-old method of random shovel plugging could not compare to the speed and flexibility of the Metal Detector in the beginning stages of a dig. They have also been used to delineate an area to create a rough map for the Arkies. I guess some Arkies are just jealous that an average guy/girl can spend a lot less than the cost of a college degree to discover a historical site or better yet pinpoint a relic deep in the ground. Maybe there should be a new generation Indiana Jones movie done where the 21st century Arkie carries a Metal Detector in one hand and a digger on his belt. Earbuds ,so the hat can stay and keep the whip, it is pretty cool. The interesting thing is that Metal Detectors save time and we all know that time=$$. I wonder how many colleges know about this since they are called to investigate historical finds in a lot of cases.

9
Experience
The field supervisor should have extensive metal detector experience, personally. By personally, we mean that they should have been actively in the field, not serving as office-boundor part-time PI. We do not know how to put a number on extensive experience, but we do notwant PIs learning on the job.If inexperienced operators are used, the ratio of novices to well-experienced should notexceed 2 to 1. It is crucial that the supervisor have sufficient time to instruct, observe, and fine-tune the performance of the novices. The supervisor cannot be working under a budget thatrequires them to be conducting their own sweeping full-time. The research of Alyson Wood atJames Madison University suggests that the performance gap between experienced detectoristsand absolute beginners closes quickly when there is mindful teaching and observation in thefield. The supervisor should be monitoring the performance of novices versus those moreexperienced. If there remains a significant gap in recovery rates, further instruction will benecessary. There must be sufficient experienced detectorists on a crew to serve as a yardstick for the performance of the novices.If non-professional detectorists are used, there should be no more than three detectorist per professional supervisor.

What's the difference between inexperienced and non-professional ? If you figure that out then maybe you can work on the math.

Kemper, when I was in high school I was hired by the regional Texas A&M Research Center as a 'field hand.' (Ever cut an acre of wheat on your hands and knees with a hand sickle? What fun!) I worked for a guy who had his doctorate in agronomy and was trying to develop a wheat that would grow in East Texas (not minding that the reason no wheat is grown in East Texas is that there are very few plots of land that are flat enough, large enough and clear enough to do so). Anyway, he was from Chicago. Had no actual experience on a farm. I, on the other hand, had grown up farming and using farm machinery. One day he told me to go harrow this particular field. I told him that since it had rained last night it would be a bad idea to try to harrow a plowed field - I'd bog down the tractor. That hacked him off so he got on the tractor to show me how it was done. And bogged the tractor down to its axles. But, by golly, he had a doctorate, so that made him the educated professional and me the experienced non-professional. That doctorate meant (to him) that he knew better than any non-doctorate, no matter how much experience.

As to the Arkies, many of them really do have the very pronounced attitude that their degree gives them priority ownership of anything still in the ground. And they have an attitude of 'if I can't have it, NOBODY can have it!' I have seen arkies run people off of a site that had been cleared for a new highway that would within a few days be either scraped, leveled and covered with asphalt or covered with fill dirt. There was no reason to run those people off (who were looking, basically, for potsherds and stone artifacts) other than the attitude of 'if I can't have it, nobody can!' If the arkie had asked nicely, those folks would have been happy to show him what they had found surface hunting - but that is not in most arkie's makeup.

Texaspast said:

Kemper, when I was in high school I was hired by the regional Texas A&M Research Center as a 'field hand.' (Ever cut an acre of wheat on your hands and knees with a hand sickle? What fun!) I worked for a guy who had his doctorate in agronomy and was trying to develop a wheat that would grow in East Texas (not minding that the reason no wheat is grown in East Texas is that there are very few plots of land that are flat enough, large enough and clear enough to do so). Anyway, he was from Chicago. Had no actual experience on a farm. I, on the other hand, had grown up farming and using farm machinery. One day he told me to go harrow this particular field. I told him that since it had rained last night it would be a bad idea to try to harrow a plowed field - I'd bog down the tractor. That hacked him off so he got on the tractor to show me how it was done. And bogged the tractor down to its axles. But, by golly, he had a doctorate, so that made him the educated professional and me the experienced non-professional. That doctorate meant (to him) that he knew better than any non-doctorate, no matter how much experience.

As to the Arkies, many of them really do have the very pronounced attitude that their degree gives them priority ownership of anything still in the ground. And they have an attitude of 'if I can't have it, NOBODY can have it!' I have seen arkies run people off of a site that had been cleared for a new highway that would within a few days be either scraped, leveled and covered with asphalt or covered with fill dirt. There was no reason to run those people off (who were looking, basically, for potsherds and stone artifacts) other than the attitude of 'if I can't have it, nobody can!' If the arkie had asked nicely, those folks would have been happy to show him what they had found surface hunting - but that is not in most arkie's makeup.

Click to expand...

You make some good points and I enjoyed your previous post as well. That seems to be the general attitude to me. As I said earlier I don't think they are willing to admit to what they are doing so It is hard to find any common ground.

What I do not get is the general attitude towards us from archaeologist. Why is it that if a archaeologist deems something we are doing wrong, they go after the whole entire detecting community by completely banning areas to hunt. Why don't they go after just the wrong doers? Instead they ban it for everyone. What other hobby gets treated that way? I have seen other hobbies like fishing where people catch over their limit and the people get penalized in some way. The response to my knowledge is not "We are going to ban all fishing in the state or on this specific waterway". I just do not get it. I think it shows their general attitude towards us. They must feel that it is not a real hobby and we all are just "looters" or whatever their new catchphrase is for the day. But yet we are supposed to work with them, makes me sick. Not until their general attitude towards us and the laws that they push for that harm all the metal detecting community change; would I be willing to work with them.