I would like to address the following points in Mr. James's post:

1.  Poorly displayed artifacts at Civil War sites--this is an exhibit
design flaw, and exhibit design is not usually the responsibility of
archaeologists.  I would like the names of archaeologists who collect,
since that activity is viewed as highly unethical and should be reported
to SOPA.

2.  While a large "hit" with a magnetometer will give you an indication
of the location of a shipwreck, small, individual "hits" with a MD may
lead you on one wild goose chase after another.  It's better to have an
excavation plan than to leave all to randomness, especially when you
start calculating what it costs to conduct field work.

3.  The "historical knowledge" you tout is closely tied to provenance.
At the moment, I have over 1,000,000 artifacts in a collection for which
I am responsible.  Probably 150,000 have no clear, reliable provenance.
Do you know what that makess them from a research standpoint?  Junk.

4.  Betty Weeks should find another avocation.  I'm tired of ignorant
people outside the discipline who look at archaeology as "goody
getting."  That's not the point of it.  As far as "never saw daylight in
a museum," how do you know these artifacts weren't used as a teaching
collection or as a comparative collection?

5.  Old coins.  Hmmm... coins have dates!  That gives them a special
designation archaeologically.  Professionals call them diagnostic
artifacts.  Coins discovered subsurface on a site can give
archaeologists an idea of temporal parameters for the site.  On the
prehistoric level, it's projectile points--what you call "arrowheads."
There are temporal parameters for individual types which can give
archaeologists ideas of site dates.  When pot hunters go out and collect
points off sites, they're robbing the world of that body of knowledge.

6.  I think "Conservation" is the key word in the Missouri Department of
Conservation.  Just because a site or landscape exists doesn't mean you
or archaeologists or anyone should dig it up.  That's not a foregone
conclusion.  They may be out there detecting, but are they collecting?
My guess is no because one a state or the fed brings artifacts in from
the field, regulations require that they be CURATED FOREVER.

7.  I have no respect for you--if you haven't guessed by now.  You use
some kind of avocational status and snobbery to take shots at
individuals who have dedicated their *lives* (not just their weekends)
to the profession of archaeology.  I hold an M.A.  I have worked two or
three jobs at a time in order to keep myself financially afloat while
being trained as an archaeologist.  I have worked sites for minimum
wage--I have volunteered my time for other's research projects.  After
18 years in the field, I have finally moved into a job in which I can
start making decent payments on the student loans it took to the get the
education.  I'm sure it's people like you who laugh at the Aetna
commercial with the retired lawyer working for free at a dig--what a
bunch of putzes those archaeologists are!  It's people like you and
attitudes like yours that devalue the scientific validity of archaeology
in our society.  The attitude that "anyone can do this" without adequate
training is reprehensible and is part of the reason why typical wages in
the field remain low.  Avocationals and "goody getters" add nothing to
the body of historical knowledge because they don't document their
finds, nor do they publish or attempt to disseminate information.  MDs
take diagnostics from sites and leave only samples of samples for
archaeologists coming in begind them and trying to piece together the
site's history.  Would you violate a crime scene like this?  It's
essentially the same thing--forensics needs ALL the information they can
gather in order to reconstruct events at the scene.  Archaeology is no
different.

May I suggest that you do some more research into the field you are so
cavalierly condemning?  It's not Ivory Tower and it's not academia--it's
CRM (cultural resource management) people working in the dirt and in
obscurity because they believe they can make a difference in preserving
the past for future generations and, if we're fortunate, shed some light
on the past to bring us closer to a better understanding of humanity as
a whole.  Is that naive to think this way?  Probably--but if I didn't, I
can assure you, there are a lot of other fields of studey I could pursue
and not starve in.


Amy K. Marshall
Archaeologist and Amateur Brain Surgeon

**All views expressed are my own and are not those of my employer**

> ----------
> From:         Automatic digest
> processor[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Museum discussion list
> Sent:         Monday, November 03, 1997 10:22 PM
> To:   Recipients of MUSEUM-L digests
> Subject:      MUSEUM-L Digest - 2 Nov 1997 to 3 Nov 1997 (#1997-29)
>
> -----------------------------
>
> From: "Jerry James" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: "Pot Hunters"
> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:52:25 -0600
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Handy,
>
> You are a prime example for the stake that has been driven between the
> "Archies and the MD users. I have visited many Civil War sites and
> battlefields and have seen first hand the poorly displayed artifacts
> and
> also there didn't seem to be very many displayed. It is a known fact
> that
> there are invaluable artifacts found in homes of Archies. You people
> seem
> to live in an academic world that is out of touch with the rest of
> society.
>
> Instead of refusing to "cooperate" with John, why didn't you invite
> him to
> go on one of your outings where he would probably be tickled to use
> his MD
> to help find relics and artifacts? Do you own a Metal Detector? We had
> a
> dig here in my hometown last summer and they welcomed me with open
> arms. Is
> it because you want to keep the best ones for yourself?
>
> There are many "Pot hunters" who freely give their time and donations
> to
> the Archies. Many of their donations are duplicates of what they have
> in
> their homes. Granted, they may not document every find like you would
> like
> them to do but they do DONATE them to your museums so that "others can
> share in the historical knowledge".
>
> Ask Betty Weeks why she seems to be sour on you Archies. She
> participated
> in a dig in which hundreds or thousands of the same artifacts were
> found
> and she was not allowed to keep even one. This was after all the hours
> and
> days she helped you people. You can be sure that many of them never
> saw
> daylight in a museum. Where did they go?
>
> If you read John's e-mail closely you can see that he was after old
> coins,
> just like the millions of the rest of us are doing. He didn't mention
> artifacts or relics of which you are accusing him of stealing. Why
> didn't
> you ask him to inform you of any relics or artifacts he might find and
> document them for you? I'm sure he would have been glad to do so. As
> far as
> old coins, they are being found in every imaginable place every day
> and
> haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the history of the area as
> compared to relics and artifacts which can give the true story.
>
> The Department of Conservation here in Missouri bought up some land
> that
> had been detected for many years and immediately declared it off
> limits to
> us. Now THEY have been seen detecting the same area. When we
> questioned
> them about their activities and asked if we could at least
> participate, we
> were rudely brushed aside with no adequate explaination. They don't
> even
> have a museum to display these artifacts. Where do you think they
> went? I
> know exactly where.
>
> So, Mr. Handy, come out into the real world and show respect to those
> who
> would be glad to share their time with you. Come off of your aloof
> attitude
> towards those who don't have an ivory degree and join the real world.
> Most
> of these "POT HUNTERS" are backbone of our country and many fought for
> this
> country so that you can now enjoy your present position.
>
> Jerry James
>
>
>