MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Dr. Elizabeth Moore" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:50:34 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (78 lines)
Perhaps a more diplomatic way of responding to the original request would have been to politely decline providing information but offering an educational opportunity instead.  Instead of offending this person, as well as numerous others and widening the gap between "professional" and "avocational" archaeologists a response that attempted to educate Mr. Saldivar could provide the opportunity to use his enthusiasm to better ends.  I find the response to Mr. Saldivar patronizing and highly antagonistic and I am not at all surprised by the vitriolic responses.  It is that kind of high-handed response to an uninformed request that only makes a bad situation worse.  Did the response stop Mr. Saldivar from metal detecting and collecting?  No.  Did it give him an opportunity to learn why archaeologists object so strongly to collecting?  No.  You mention that he is destroying the historical record but don't tell him how or why.  Does Mr. Saldivar now know that it is the context that is so critical to interpretation?  No.  He was probably distracted by the tone of the response.

Unless Mr. Saldivar is a known collector who deliberately skirts the antiquities laws for personal gain, does his request really merit this kind of response?  I don't think so.

----------
From:   Robert T. Handy[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Tuesday, November 04, 1997 10:20 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: [Fwd: Pot hunters]

M. A. Ehr wrote:
>
> Although I cannot agree with the assumptions or the vitriol of these respondents, I am curious to see the original e-mails (from John S. to you and your response) that have generated these comments.
>
> Meg Ehr
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Robert T. Handy [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:   Monday, November 03, 1997 10:43 AM
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:        [Fwd: Pot hunters]
>
> Would anyone like to provide me a little assistance with this barrage of
> E-mail I am receiving?  A local emailed me last week wanting assistance
> from the museum in accessing private, former plantation sites so that he
> could hunt for relics with his metal detector.  I responded with an
> explanation that we don't provide assistance to "pothunters."  I
> attempted to explain that removing relics from a site to bolster private
> collections or make money through flea marketing was not something
> legitimate museums and archaeologists look kindly on.  I am now being
> bombarded by pothunters from all over the country.  Time to rally our
> forces.  If anyone cares to join the fracas, you will be welcomed.
>
> Bob Handy
> Brazoria County Historical Museum
> Angleton, Texas
> www.bchm.org
>  << Message: Pot hunters >>


Here are the originals.

Bob Handy

ohn Saldivar wrote:
>
> Mr. Handy,
>   My name is John Saldivar and I live here in Angleton.  I like to collect
> old coins and I was wondering where I can find out who the owner(s) of some
> of the surrounding plantations in our county reside so I may get in touch
> with them to ask for permission in searching old plantation grounds with a
> metal detector in search of old coins. I have been metal detecting for a
> number of years and this is my hobby.  If I can ever assist you in any way
> with the use of a metal detector please feel free to e-mail me.  Thank you
> for you time in this matter.  John Saldivar

Thanks for contacting us, John.  Appreciate hearing from you.

I'm afraid I am going to have to blunt in my response, however.  We
absolutely do not cooperate with what we in the profession call "pot
hunters."  And in no way will we assist you in your endeavors.  The
reason for this position is that you Pot Hunters are destroying the
historical record every time you remove an artifact from the ground.
That practice must be left to the archaeologists who keep detailed
records on where artifacts are found.  They often leave them where they
found them just in case future researchers, with more documentation on a
particular site need to look at the record again.

I don't mean to be scolding because I am sure no one has ever revealed
this problem to you before.  If you want to be a really good guy, bring
you collection to the Museum where it can be recorded properly and
preserved for posterity.  You can always come here to see it and you
will have allowed many others to share in the historical knowledge to
which the collection might add.

Bob Handy
Director

ATOM RSS1 RSS2