Topic ID #5683 - posted 8/9/2009 12:38 PM
Alaskan_Lithics
Out West - Letter From A Concerned Citizen
Alaskan_Lithics
It’s 3:45 pm in the middle of December somewhere in the Western United States. I have just waded through the freezing waters of one of the many freestone creeks that empty out of this mountain range. A maze of man made canals will corral this winter’s snowmelt into an ever tightening noose and force it down stream to a distant city to be used by millions of people who share the same DNA and common ancestors as I do.
Most of these people would not take the slightest interest in what I am doing. More than a few would perhaps feel I deserved whatever it was I was going to catch hell for if I were caught. It’s risky business, because after all, it’s almost dark, the temperature has dropped to below freezing, and I’m wading across an icy, slippery creek so I won’t be seen emerging at the sandy cut in the opposite bank. It is an ugly gouge that has been exposed by hundreds of cattle. Livestock are allowed to freely roam this part of America and cross this particular creek daily.
I know from past experience that if it has rained the day before and, most importantly, if the cattle have not already crushed that which I seek, there might be treasures to be found on the other side. At the mention of treasure, most of the people in the great city downstream would perk up their ears. If they were to learn that the treasures I am seeking are Native American artifacts, I can guarantee that if given the chance, many of them would be waiting anxiously on the other side of the creek. They would hope for my safe return, and that I had managed to find an artifact undamaged by the daily migration of cattle. How wonderful it would be for them to actually hold something in their hands that was manufactured by our ancestors over 3,000 years ago! Most of you who are reading this know exactly what that feels like, and once felt, you can either let it go and walk away, or you can start on your own journey of discovery. You would want to know more about your ancestors and might even start collecting artifacts. You would want to experience that feeling of touching something made from Native Americans who have lived here for at least 12,000 years!
This particular evening, I would be able to dazzle them with the beautiful 2 1/2 inch dark obsidian Gateway point I found underneath the Cottonwood that overlooks the crossing. I would next pull out the mano that had rolled down to the streams edge, where I was lucky enough to find it before it fell in and was washed downstream to be covered by tons of water-borne silt and sand—never to be seen again.
I would be clever enough to keep my rarest find for last, because by now, I would have the un-divided attention of almost all of these people. With my heart pounding, I would pull from my inside jacket pocket an object that would make everyone gasp in amazement. Under the starlight, a 4 1/2 inch bi-pointed stone knife glitters, flaked to perfection and clear as smoky crystal! Would they believe that our ancestors made this marvel of technology from molten lava borne from the eruption of a small volcanic event just a few miles up this valley? I found this obsidian jewel poking out of the sand where it had been exposed by the rock hard hoofs of that day’s cattle commute. Even more miraculous is the fact that it has not been shattered! Everyone wants to touch this artifact made from solid rock. They don’t realize that a dark cloud of ignorance and mistrust will completely destroy this artifact without any help from the local range cattle. I keep these dark thoughts to myself. Apathy runs rampant in our world, but I want to savor the moments as the beautiful artifact is passed from hand to hand to those who want to know more.
I would be asked a myriad of questions: Who made these? How were they made? Why are they here? Why are you sneaking around like a thief? And I would have to tell them all why I have to keep my nocturnal collecting a secret. I am a ghost collector—forever haunted by the evolutionary
Most of these people would not take the slightest interest in what I am doing. More than a few would perhaps feel I deserved whatever it was I was going to catch hell for if I were caught. It’s risky business, because after all, it’s almost dark, the temperature has dropped to below freezing, and I’m wading across an icy, slippery creek so I won’t be seen emerging at the sandy cut in the opposite bank. It is an ugly gouge that has been exposed by hundreds of cattle. Livestock are allowed to freely roam this part of America and cross this particular creek daily.
I know from past experience that if it has rained the day before and, most importantly, if the cattle have not already crushed that which I seek, there might be treasures to be found on the other side. At the mention of treasure, most of the people in the great city downstream would perk up their ears. If they were to learn that the treasures I am seeking are Native American artifacts, I can guarantee that if given the chance, many of them would be waiting anxiously on the other side of the creek. They would hope for my safe return, and that I had managed to find an artifact undamaged by the daily migration of cattle. How wonderful it would be for them to actually hold something in their hands that was manufactured by our ancestors over 3,000 years ago! Most of you who are reading this know exactly what that feels like, and once felt, you can either let it go and walk away, or you can start on your own journey of discovery. You would want to know more about your ancestors and might even start collecting artifacts. You would want to experience that feeling of touching something made from Native Americans who have lived here for at least 12,000 years!
This particular evening, I would be able to dazzle them with the beautiful 2 1/2 inch dark obsidian Gateway point I found underneath the Cottonwood that overlooks the crossing. I would next pull out the mano that had rolled down to the streams edge, where I was lucky enough to find it before it fell in and was washed downstream to be covered by tons of water-borne silt and sand—never to be seen again.
I would be clever enough to keep my rarest find for last, because by now, I would have the un-divided attention of almost all of these people. With my heart pounding, I would pull from my inside jacket pocket an object that would make everyone gasp in amazement. Under the starlight, a 4 1/2 inch bi-pointed stone knife glitters, flaked to perfection and clear as smoky crystal! Would they believe that our ancestors made this marvel of technology from molten lava borne from the eruption of a small volcanic event just a few miles up this valley? I found this obsidian jewel poking out of the sand where it had been exposed by the rock hard hoofs of that day’s cattle commute. Even more miraculous is the fact that it has not been shattered! Everyone wants to touch this artifact made from solid rock. They don’t realize that a dark cloud of ignorance and mistrust will completely destroy this artifact without any help from the local range cattle. I keep these dark thoughts to myself. Apathy runs rampant in our world, but I want to savor the moments as the beautiful artifact is passed from hand to hand to those who want to know more.
I would be asked a myriad of questions: Who made these? How were they made? Why are they here? Why are you sneaking around like a thief? And I would have to tell them all why I have to keep my nocturnal collecting a secret. I am a ghost collector—forever haunted by the evolutionary
Post ID#14947 - replied 8/9/2009 3:03 PM
BAJR
Interesting read.
and I will say here what I say in the UK
Show and tell ain't enough.
Find and record is (in most cases)
if you find, you record and the ability to record should be there.
these isolated finds , one by one build a picture. By themselves are meaningless, but one by one, piece by piece they gather meaning.
to lose under a thousand tons of silt, or in a box beneath a bed or in an attic.. at least in the silt, I know where it came from (somewhere up stream) in a box.. it came from anywhere in the world.
Collect, record and share the info. The archaeologist is often only angry at the loss of info that this find could have told.. could have, but never will. If we all care about what we find, then the show and tell (which is important) has the potential to be a show and marvel.
I wish sincerely that archaeologists would accept we can't be everywhere, and others do search... I wish sincerely that those that search realise that finding is only the start, and sharing is the beginning of real knowledge.
You post is heartfelt.. so is mine. Imagine what we could do if we did listen, talk and share?
and I will say here what I say in the UK
Show and tell ain't enough.
Find and record is (in most cases)
if you find, you record and the ability to record should be there.
these isolated finds , one by one build a picture. By themselves are meaningless, but one by one, piece by piece they gather meaning.
to lose under a thousand tons of silt, or in a box beneath a bed or in an attic.. at least in the silt, I know where it came from (somewhere up stream) in a box.. it came from anywhere in the world.
Collect, record and share the info. The archaeologist is often only angry at the loss of info that this find could have told.. could have, but never will. If we all care about what we find, then the show and tell (which is important) has the potential to be a show and marvel.
I wish sincerely that archaeologists would accept we can't be everywhere, and others do search... I wish sincerely that those that search realise that finding is only the start, and sharing is the beginning of real knowledge.
You post is heartfelt.. so is mine. Imagine what we could do if we did listen, talk and share?
Post ID#14950 - replied 8/10/2009 2:54 AM
AD
Greetings...
I think BAJR captured the essence of the matter rather well.
The question of whether or not to collect a surface artifact is a complicated one. But assuming a nice obsidian point lying in the middle of nowhere, no active or intended investigation of the site, and the possibility of the artifact being smashed by cattle, I'd say go for it. But by all means record the provenience. Take a photo of the thing in situ, record its location by coordinates from a GPS unit, write these on paper along with any other meaningful observations, and put the artifact and paper in their own "ziploc" bag. Thus, should you yourself later be crushed by a cow, your artifact's context data will have been preserved.
AD
I think BAJR captured the essence of the matter rather well.
The question of whether or not to collect a surface artifact is a complicated one. But assuming a nice obsidian point lying in the middle of nowhere, no active or intended investigation of the site, and the possibility of the artifact being smashed by cattle, I'd say go for it. But by all means record the provenience. Take a photo of the thing in situ, record its location by coordinates from a GPS unit, write these on paper along with any other meaningful observations, and put the artifact and paper in their own "ziploc" bag. Thus, should you yourself later be crushed by a cow, your artifact's context data will have been preserved.
AD
Post ID#14955 - replied 8/10/2009 12:29 PM
Dmack89
The original piece shows a lack of understanding of the law and includes several wrong statements. I offer the following for consideration
1. - I believe that picking up isolated "arrowheads" is actually allowed by the law -it is excavation (digging) that is prohibited.
2. If someone is really interested in collecting and recording history, there is a process to get a permit to do that - of course anything found will have to be turned over for curation, but it will still allow all those educational opportunities if you are willing to put in the effort to take it on. An application has to show that you are committed to proper recordation, curation and dissemination of information, and that you actually have the abiltiy to carry out such tasks - but there is a process to allow it if done right.
3. No where in the original piece is there a mention of being willing to provide information on where the material is found to the appropriate inventory agency. Perhaps that is out of fear of doing something illegal, but again, if you have a permit - recording the locations on the official inventory is an important part of the process - allowing that data to actually be used to learn more about the past. This should go for any sites found on private land as well. What good is any data you may collect if it sits in your attic and someday is tossed by an uncaring descendant?
4. The orignal post talks about being able to answer questions about who created an item, how it was used. How do you think we know what we already know - from the type of study that the laws call for. The only way we learn more in the future is to continue that type of study - which unfortunately does not happen very often when material are simply collected to be looked at and "passed around".
5. Site Steward programs allow people from all walks of life to get involved in helping to preserve sites, in reporting sites, in saving items from 'being trampled by the cattle' - they provide training and a framework to work within that benefits everyone. If you are not aware of one in your area - ask, put the effort into getting one started.
I have worked with many collectors over the years, and some have become very good avocational archaeologists - doign great work and adding a lot to our knowledge base - while too many others do not want to make the effort - those that want only to dig, not record, and keep whatever is found as "theirs" are the pot hunters. For those willing to work within the rules, there are plenty of opportunities to do everything the orignal post claims the author wants to do. There is no reason that all parties can not work together if those are the real goals.
1. - I believe that picking up isolated "arrowheads" is actually allowed by the law -it is excavation (digging) that is prohibited.
2. If someone is really interested in collecting and recording history, there is a process to get a permit to do that - of course anything found will have to be turned over for curation, but it will still allow all those educational opportunities if you are willing to put in the effort to take it on. An application has to show that you are committed to proper recordation, curation and dissemination of information, and that you actually have the abiltiy to carry out such tasks - but there is a process to allow it if done right.
3. No where in the original piece is there a mention of being willing to provide information on where the material is found to the appropriate inventory agency. Perhaps that is out of fear of doing something illegal, but again, if you have a permit - recording the locations on the official inventory is an important part of the process - allowing that data to actually be used to learn more about the past. This should go for any sites found on private land as well. What good is any data you may collect if it sits in your attic and someday is tossed by an uncaring descendant?
4. The orignal post talks about being able to answer questions about who created an item, how it was used. How do you think we know what we already know - from the type of study that the laws call for. The only way we learn more in the future is to continue that type of study - which unfortunately does not happen very often when material are simply collected to be looked at and "passed around".
5. Site Steward programs allow people from all walks of life to get involved in helping to preserve sites, in reporting sites, in saving items from 'being trampled by the cattle' - they provide training and a framework to work within that benefits everyone. If you are not aware of one in your area - ask, put the effort into getting one started.
I have worked with many collectors over the years, and some have become very good avocational archaeologists - doign great work and adding a lot to our knowledge base - while too many others do not want to make the effort - those that want only to dig, not record, and keep whatever is found as "theirs" are the pot hunters. For those willing to work within the rules, there are plenty of opportunities to do everything the orignal post claims the author wants to do. There is no reason that all parties can not work together if those are the real goals.
Post ID#14961 - replied 8/10/2009 2:50 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Ah, another "let's bash archaeologists" thread. Wonderful. (CRM archaeology is conducted in response to project impacts, not for the want of doing archaeology itself. I suggest reading some books on history, CRM law, and the history of both; the many works of Tom King is a good place to start).
As DM points out, there are oh so many erroneous assumptions and presumptions in the "article" above.
As DM points out, there are oh so many erroneous assumptions and presumptions in the "article" above.
Post ID#14962 - replied 8/10/2009 4:12 PM
prisoner
[quote:="Dmack89"]The original piece shows a lack of understanding of the law and includes several wrong statements. I offer the following for consideration
1. - I believe that picking up isolated "arrowheads" is actually allowed by the law -it is excavation (digging) that is prohibited.
If it is federal land, it is illegal to pick up, dig, or even possess an artifact from that land. If it is some other public land, i.e. county, city, state, there may also be applicable laws. If it is private land it is generally the property of the landowner and may be collected with their permission. Digging is even permissable, state laws may vary, on private land with the consent of the landowner. If you trespass on private land and collect an artifact, then transport this artifact across state lines, you are in violation of federal law (just learned this from an ARPA investigator a few weeks ago).
1. - I believe that picking up isolated "arrowheads" is actually allowed by the law -it is excavation (digging) that is prohibited.
If it is federal land, it is illegal to pick up, dig, or even possess an artifact from that land. If it is some other public land, i.e. county, city, state, there may also be applicable laws. If it is private land it is generally the property of the landowner and may be collected with their permission. Digging is even permissable, state laws may vary, on private land with the consent of the landowner. If you trespass on private land and collect an artifact, then transport this artifact across state lines, you are in violation of federal law (just learned this from an ARPA investigator a few weeks ago).
Post ID#14963 - replied 8/10/2009 5:00 PM
FireArch
Moderator
ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470ff (3)) still specifies that surface collection of arrowheads is legal (specifically not subject to penalty). Additionally, NPS implementing regs (43CRF7 Sec. 7.16 (3)) states that removal of arrowheads only "shall not be subject to the penalties..." You take anything else, or excavate without a permit, and you're in violation.
Post ID#14964 - replied 8/10/2009 5:45 PM
StarRider
ARPA stipulates that there are no civil or criminal penalties for picking up an "arrowhead" from the surface-doesn't make it legal. Read the whole statute-no one may remove an artifact from federal land without a permit. Any surface finds are subject to confiscation, and removal of an artifact also constitutes theft of government property.
It's a common misconception, almost universal among collectors, very prevalent among professional archeologists. If you want archeological advice ask an archie, for legal advice try an attorney. :lol:
It's a common misconception, almost universal among collectors, very prevalent among professional archeologists. If you want archeological advice ask an archie, for legal advice try an attorney. :lol:
Post ID#14965 - replied 8/10/2009 6:08 PM
BAJR
I may also add, to me it was not a bash the archaeologist thread, it was a chance to put forward reasoned arguments and also to correct misconceptions. It is also a chance to say, OK... thats what you feel or believe... what do you see as a reasonable result.. (ps that does not include the old chestnut.. leave us alone)
I would really like to hear back from the original poster, otherwise I would be tended to believe it was nothing but a handgrenade rolled into the room, rather than an opportunity for dialogue.
A discussion must have a response... so... what say you Alaskan?
what is your solution? what is your dialogue
I would really like to hear back from the original poster, otherwise I would be tended to believe it was nothing but a handgrenade rolled into the room, rather than an opportunity for dialogue.
A discussion must have a response... so... what say you Alaskan?
what is your solution? what is your dialogue
Post ID#14966 - replied 8/10/2009 6:51 PM
FireArch
Moderator
I have read the whole legislation, and have a copy of the history of such written and published by the original proponents of said. The arrowhead stipulation was a "gift" to the sponsoring legislator to help a) keep the sponsoring legislator from being prosecuted under the law he was sponsoring, as he was an arrowhead collector, and b) to further help get the legislation passed through congress as there would have been a tremendous push against passing the bill if surface arrowhead, coin, or ammunition collection was not allowed.
Surface collection of arrowheads is specifically cited not once, but twice in the legislation (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf), first at 16 U.S.C. 470ee(g), then at 16 U.S.C. 470ff(a)(3).
Yes, if you want legal advice, see a lawyer. If you practice CRM, be prepared to go to court.
Surface collection of arrowheads is specifically cited not once, but twice in the legislation (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf), first at 16 U.S.C. 470ee(g), then at 16 U.S.C. 470ff(a)(3).
Yes, if you want legal advice, see a lawyer. If you practice CRM, be prepared to go to court.
Post ID#14967 - replied 8/10/2009 7:47 PM
StarRider
The exclusion was granted to convince Jimmy Carter (an avid surface collector) to sign the bill into law.
So you went to court-and they asked you for a legal opinion?
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/heritage-program/archaeological%20Resources%20Protection%20Act.shtml
Isn’t it OK under ARPA to collect artifacts on the surface?
No. This is a frequent misconception about ARPA. ARPA has a clause that excludes surface collection of arrowheads from criminal penalties. However, ARPA does include surface collecting under prohibited acts. What this means is, it is illegal to collect arrowheads from the surface, but one cannot be fined under the criminal penalites in ARPA. There are a couple things to remember:
1. Collecting arrowheads from the surface is included under the prohibited acts listed under ARPA Section 6, Subsections a, b, and c.
2. Arrowheads collected from the surface are still subject to forfeiture under ARPA.
Only arrowheads, no other artifacts meeting ARPA's definition found on the surface are exempt from the criminal penalties.
Citations for surface collecting are issued uner CFR 261.9, rather than ARPA. Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 261.9, Section (h) prohibits removal of any archaeological artifact from federal lands. This violation is subject to a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment of not more than 6 months or both.
This is admittedly a confusing aspect of ARPA. However, the answer is no, ARPA does not have a clause excluding surface collecting from illegal acts, but it does exclude arrowheads collected from the surface from criminal penalties.
So you went to court-and they asked you for a legal opinion?
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/heritage-program/archaeological%20Resources%20Protection%20Act.shtml
Isn’t it OK under ARPA to collect artifacts on the surface?
No. This is a frequent misconception about ARPA. ARPA has a clause that excludes surface collection of arrowheads from criminal penalties. However, ARPA does include surface collecting under prohibited acts. What this means is, it is illegal to collect arrowheads from the surface, but one cannot be fined under the criminal penalites in ARPA. There are a couple things to remember:
1. Collecting arrowheads from the surface is included under the prohibited acts listed under ARPA Section 6, Subsections a, b, and c.
2. Arrowheads collected from the surface are still subject to forfeiture under ARPA.
Only arrowheads, no other artifacts meeting ARPA's definition found on the surface are exempt from the criminal penalties.
Citations for surface collecting are issued uner CFR 261.9, rather than ARPA. Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 261.9, Section (h) prohibits removal of any archaeological artifact from federal lands. This violation is subject to a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment of not more than 6 months or both.
This is admittedly a confusing aspect of ARPA. However, the answer is no, ARPA does not have a clause excluding surface collecting from illegal acts, but it does exclude arrowheads collected from the surface from criminal penalties.
Post ID#14968 - replied 8/10/2009 9:03 PM
Dwarmour
I know the letter doesn't necessarily state the location, if its even a real situation but seeing as how it is out west, aren't much of the lands out west under the homestead act in the first place? I may be distorting what I have gone over before but I thought it the act included cultural resources under it as well.
Did the Homestead Act cover a wide enough range that they could press charges under this law?
Did the Homestead Act cover a wide enough range that they could press charges under this law?
Post ID#14969 - replied 8/10/2009 9:41 PM
Alaskan_Lithics
Sorry to say, but I don't have a solution. Here in my state, artifact or "arrowhead" collecting is a clandestine adventure. While my primary focus is collecting Alaskan Artifacts, my other hobby is rock collecting. It just so happens this secondary hobby places me in the same areas were arrowheads might be found. For the most part, I'm not afraid to pick up an isolated arrowhead here in my good home state. So, if I find one, what am I to do? I suspect I should leave it for the next person to pick up and stick in their pocket! Maybe I should put a big ol' flag on it and call an archie to rescue it. Perhaps I should pick it up and give it back to an Indian, telling him his great great great great great great grand daddy lost this, and I thought maybe he would like it back. This is what I've been told by several archaeologist friends of mine: pick it up, stick it in your pocket and go your merry way. I found this article on another website and thought it might liven up the forum. So, yeah, sorta this was one of those hand grenades rolled into the room, but it stimulates dialogue and presents another point of view.
Regards,
Joel Castanza, aka: Alaskan Lithics
Regards,
Joel Castanza, aka: Alaskan Lithics
Post ID#14970 - replied 8/10/2009 9:44 PM
FireArch
Moderator
I dont think the Homestead Act of 1862 is applicable, for a number of reasons, including that the Act was repealed in 1976/7. You were perchance thinking of the Antiquities Act of 1906?
Post ID#14971 - replied 8/10/2009 9:47 PM
Dwarmour
ah great haha. No, I was reading up on the laws on my own a few months back and was typing from fragmented memory. I just didnt know the homestead act was repealed. Ill have to look at the reasons why.
Post ID#14972 - replied 8/10/2009 9:52 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Understandable, ha ha. I had a vague notion that it was superseded by the Newlands Act of 1902, but superficial research suggests otherwise. I too will have to look through my source on this. Along with my ARPA history book so I can complete my reply to StarRider. :D
Post ID#14974 - replied 8/10/2009 9:59 PM
Dwarmour
yeah, I guess all of the laws from the historic sites act up to arch resources protection act made the homestead weak in comparison? Seems they would have just beefed up the homestead protection act to include more lands.
edit: The Federal Land Policy and Management act of 1976 ended the homestead act. It looks like it gave more power to the government in protection of public lands.
edit: The Federal Land Policy and Management act of 1976 ended the homestead act. It looks like it gave more power to the government in protection of public lands.
Post ID#14976 - replied 8/10/2009 10:50 PM
StarRider
[quote:="FireArch"]Understandable, ha ha. I had a vague notion that it was superseded by the Newlands Act of 1902, but superficial research suggests otherwise. I too will have to look through my source on this. Along with my ARPA history book so I can complete my reply to StarRider. :D
I look forward to it LOL but don't envy you, your position is untenable. Don't read too much in to me being a smart-aleck, all in fun, I assure you.
The obvious solution would be a permitting system, such as South Carolina has for submerged finds. If truly the information represented by the find is more valuable than the artifact itself, locational, typologic, and metric (along with photographic) data could be recorded, and title passed to the finder.
I look forward to it LOL but don't envy you, your position is untenable. Don't read too much in to me being a smart-aleck, all in fun, I assure you.
The obvious solution would be a permitting system, such as South Carolina has for submerged finds. If truly the information represented by the find is more valuable than the artifact itself, locational, typologic, and metric (along with photographic) data could be recorded, and title passed to the finder.
Post ID#14977 - replied 8/10/2009 10:56 PM
StarRider
And a conversation a few weeks ago with the guy in charge of curating artifacts for the whole state led us off to a conversation about deaccessioning artifacts through auction, with the proceeds being used to aquire sites in danger of destruction, a la the Archeological Conservancy. He said a sizable portion of the artifacts curated were donated with no provenience, and are basically just taking up space. Thoughts?
Post ID#14980 - replied 8/11/2009 12:48 AM
Alaskan_Lithics
[quote:="StarRider"]And a conversation a few weeks ago with the guy in charge of curating artifacts for the whole state led us off to a conversation about deaccessioning artifacts through auction, with the proceeds being used to aquire sites in danger of destruction, a la the Archeological Conservancy. He said a sizable portion of the artifacts curated were donated with no provenience, and are basically just taking up space. Thoughts?
I see no problems with them selling the artifacts. That's how I acquired a large portion of my Alaskan Collection. Now on the flip side. I tell folks don't donate your artifacts to museums because of the potential of de-accession.
I see no problems with them selling the artifacts. That's how I acquired a large portion of my Alaskan Collection. Now on the flip side. I tell folks don't donate your artifacts to museums because of the potential of de-accession.
Post ID#14981 - replied 8/11/2009 4:48 AM
BAJR
Sorry to say, but I don't have a solution. Here in my state, artifact or "arrowhead" collecting is a clandestine adventure. While my primary focus is collecting Alaskan Artifacts, my other hobby is rock collecting. It just so happens this secondary hobby places me in the same areas were arrowheads might be found. For the most part, I'm not afraid to pick up an isolated arrowhead here in my good home state. So, if I find one, what am I to do? I suspect I should leave it for the next person to pick up and stick in their pocket! Maybe I should put a big ol' flag on it and call an archie to rescue it. Perhaps I should pick it up and give it back to an Indian, telling him his great great great great great great grand daddy lost this, and I thought maybe he would like it back. This is what I've been told by several archaeologist friends of mine: pick it up, stick it in your pocket and go your merry way. I found this article on another website and thought it might liven up the forum. So, yeah, sorta this was one of those hand grenades rolled into the room, but it stimulates dialogue and presents another point of view.
Aye.. you see I know a hand grenade when I see one... but it failed to go off (so far) as teh argument you present is fataly flawed.
One I have discussed for years in the UK.
You have three ways, but don't put up the fourth, which has been suggested before. The record of the object - find it - pick it up - the record.
The suggestion that you are saving something is untrue as it is as lost to the public as if it had never been found - the suggestion you should flag it and await an archaeologist is interesting, but as you know just a red herring, the suggestion that if you don't take it, someone else will falls at the hurdle of moral responsibility. Tell me - if you found a wallet - would you just take it ? Or would you report it - telling the police where you found it? There is the difference... indeed, you may even get to keep it, but .. BUT you would have done "the right thing", rather than what you suggest is a "clandestine adventure" - which by definition, makes me think you know what you do is "wrong"
This is where my knowledge of North AMerican laws and formal reporting shows. There should be an easy method and one where the finder is greeted with a big thanks.
See even this Detectorists website that took the initiative to record more.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/
They saw the responsibility and did something. They took positive steps rather than shrug. The challange to debate is to find a productive outcome.
It is odd to say on an archaeologists forum - I take lithics and never report them. I have no idea on how to move forward, but thought it would be good to tell you anyway... what do you think of that.
I suggest that if you want real dialogue and real positive actions, you look at what you can achieve together, and bring the past to life for more people. It has been done, and can be done, and it does work... so is the grenade a damp squib? or an explosive revelation? You decide.
David Connolly
BAJR
Aye.. you see I know a hand grenade when I see one... but it failed to go off (so far) as teh argument you present is fataly flawed.
One I have discussed for years in the UK.
You have three ways, but don't put up the fourth, which has been suggested before. The record of the object - find it - pick it up - the record.
The suggestion that you are saving something is untrue as it is as lost to the public as if it had never been found - the suggestion you should flag it and await an archaeologist is interesting, but as you know just a red herring, the suggestion that if you don't take it, someone else will falls at the hurdle of moral responsibility. Tell me - if you found a wallet - would you just take it ? Or would you report it - telling the police where you found it? There is the difference... indeed, you may even get to keep it, but .. BUT you would have done "the right thing", rather than what you suggest is a "clandestine adventure" - which by definition, makes me think you know what you do is "wrong"
This is where my knowledge of North AMerican laws and formal reporting shows. There should be an easy method and one where the finder is greeted with a big thanks.
See even this Detectorists website that took the initiative to record more.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/
They saw the responsibility and did something. They took positive steps rather than shrug. The challange to debate is to find a productive outcome.
It is odd to say on an archaeologists forum - I take lithics and never report them. I have no idea on how to move forward, but thought it would be good to tell you anyway... what do you think of that.
I suggest that if you want real dialogue and real positive actions, you look at what you can achieve together, and bring the past to life for more people. It has been done, and can be done, and it does work... so is the grenade a damp squib? or an explosive revelation? You decide.
David Connolly
BAJR
Post ID#14991 - replied 8/11/2009 5:30 PM
StarRider
[quote:="Dave"]StarRider - What don't you understand about the word "specifically" in the ARPA law? Can you site a case where someone has been arrested for what you rave, other than a declared site?
Did you go to the link I posted?
Did you go to the link I posted?
Post ID#14992 - replied 8/11/2009 5:48 PM
StarRider
[quote:="Alaskan_Lithics"][quote:="StarRider"]And a conversation a few weeks ago with the guy in charge of curating artifacts for the whole state led us off to a conversation about deaccessioning artifacts through auction, with the proceeds being used to aquire sites in danger of destruction, a la the Archeological Conservancy. He said a sizable portion of the artifacts curated were donated with no provenience, and are basically just taking up space. Thoughts?
I see no problems with them selling the artifacts. That's how I acquired a large portion of my Alaskan Collection. Now on the flip side. I tell folks don't donate your artifacts to museums because of the potential of de-accession.
It's an elegant solution, you make more room for curation, you take in a lot of cash, maybe save a few important sites, and you take dollars out of the artifact market that may have otherwise been spent on looted artifacts. There is no real downside.
States often give tax exemptions for donated collections. In a couple of instances in which I'm familiar with the details their assessments were very generous, IMO a good deal more than the artifacts would have realized if they had been sold. So the person that put the collection together got something, and the state got the artifacts to study and display to the public.
I see no problems with them selling the artifacts. That's how I acquired a large portion of my Alaskan Collection. Now on the flip side. I tell folks don't donate your artifacts to museums because of the potential of de-accession.
It's an elegant solution, you make more room for curation, you take in a lot of cash, maybe save a few important sites, and you take dollars out of the artifact market that may have otherwise been spent on looted artifacts. There is no real downside.
States often give tax exemptions for donated collections. In a couple of instances in which I'm familiar with the details their assessments were very generous, IMO a good deal more than the artifacts would have realized if they had been sold. So the person that put the collection together got something, and the state got the artifacts to study and display to the public.
Post ID#14994 - replied 8/11/2009 8:45 PM
Alaskan_Lithics
[quote:="BAJR"]Sorry to say, but I don't have a solution. Here in my state, artifact or "arrowhead" collecting is a clandestine adventure. While my primary focus is collecting Alaskan Artifacts, my other hobby is rock collecting. It just so happens this secondary hobby places me in the same areas were arrowheads might be found. For the most part, I'm not afraid to pick up an isolated arrowhead here in my good home state. So, if I find one, what am I to do? I suspect I should leave it for the next person to pick up and stick in their pocket! Maybe I should put a big ol' flag on it and call an archie to rescue it. Perhaps I should pick it up and give it back to an Indian, telling him his great great great great great great grand daddy lost this, and I thought maybe he would like it back. This is what I've been told by several archaeologist friends of mine: pick it up, stick it in your pocket and go your merry way. I found this article on another website and thought it might liven up the forum. So, yeah, sorta this was one of those hand grenades rolled into the room, but it stimulates dialogue and presents another point of view.
Aye.. you see I know a hand grenade when I see one... but it failed to go off (so far) as teh argument you present is fataly flawed.
One I have discussed for years in the UK.
You have three ways, but don't put up the fourth, which has been suggested before. The record of the object - find it - pick it up - the record.
The suggestion that you are saving something is untrue as it is as lost to the public as if it had never been found - the suggestion you should flag it and await an archaeologist is interesting, but as you know just a red herring, the suggestion that if you don't take it, someone else will falls at the hurdle of moral responsibility. Tell me - if you found a wallet - would you just take it ? Or would you report it - telling the police where you found it? There is the difference... indeed, you may even get to keep it, but .. BUT you would have done "the right thing", rather than what you suggest is a "clandestine adventure" - which by definition, makes me think you know what you do is "wrong"
This is where my knowledge of North AMerican laws and formal reporting shows. There should be an easy method and one where the finder is greeted with a big thanks.
See even this Detectorists website that took the initiative to record more.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/
They saw the responsibility and did something. They took positive steps rather than shrug. The challange to debate is to find a productive outcome.
It is odd to say on an archaeologists forum - I take lithics and never report them. I have no idea on how to move forward, but thought it would be good to tell you anyway... what do you think of that.
I suggest that if you want real dialogue and real positive actions, you look at what you can achieve together, and bring the past to life for more people. It has been done, and can be done, and it does work... so is the grenade a damp squib? or an explosive revelation? You decide.
David Connolly
BAJR
Finding a wallet with money and finding an arrowhead are two separate moral issues. Now if the wallet was from the 1800's and had money in it, I'd keep it.
Actually I do keep a record of my finds. Granted they may not be very professional but non the less they are documented.
Projectiles, Tools and Knives
Plus a Little Bit of Pre-History from The Enumclaw Plateau
Western Washington State
http://www.alaskanartifacts.com/Enumclaw/Enumclaw_Wa.html
Aye.. you see I know a hand grenade when I see one... but it failed to go off (so far) as teh argument you present is fataly flawed.
One I have discussed for years in the UK.
You have three ways, but don't put up the fourth, which has been suggested before. The record of the object - find it - pick it up - the record.
The suggestion that you are saving something is untrue as it is as lost to the public as if it had never been found - the suggestion you should flag it and await an archaeologist is interesting, but as you know just a red herring, the suggestion that if you don't take it, someone else will falls at the hurdle of moral responsibility. Tell me - if you found a wallet - would you just take it ? Or would you report it - telling the police where you found it? There is the difference... indeed, you may even get to keep it, but .. BUT you would have done "the right thing", rather than what you suggest is a "clandestine adventure" - which by definition, makes me think you know what you do is "wrong"
This is where my knowledge of North AMerican laws and formal reporting shows. There should be an easy method and one where the finder is greeted with a big thanks.
See even this Detectorists website that took the initiative to record more.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/
They saw the responsibility and did something. They took positive steps rather than shrug. The challange to debate is to find a productive outcome.
It is odd to say on an archaeologists forum - I take lithics and never report them. I have no idea on how to move forward, but thought it would be good to tell you anyway... what do you think of that.
I suggest that if you want real dialogue and real positive actions, you look at what you can achieve together, and bring the past to life for more people. It has been done, and can be done, and it does work... so is the grenade a damp squib? or an explosive revelation? You decide.
David Connolly
BAJR
Finding a wallet with money and finding an arrowhead are two separate moral issues. Now if the wallet was from the 1800's and had money in it, I'd keep it.
Actually I do keep a record of my finds. Granted they may not be very professional but non the less they are documented.
Projectiles, Tools and Knives
Plus a Little Bit of Pre-History from The Enumclaw Plateau
Western Washington State
http://www.alaskanartifacts.com/Enumclaw/Enumclaw_Wa.html
Post ID#14996 - replied 8/12/2009 6:41 AM
BAJR
That managed to swiftly nip into the room - grab the unexploded grenade and pop out again. I was under the impression that collectors wished to be either taken seriously, or wanted archaeologists to listen to a convincing argument.
I highlighted points that needed addressed - with the moral issue only one of many.
Again, with your 1800s wallet .. i would still report it. indeed more so.
Keeping it as a pretty thing to show my friends would be the last thing on my mind. The concept that the arrowhead is somehow 'better' in a box in a room with a record of roughly where it is from, so that when the person dies (after a long life I hope) it can be transfered into a trash can...
Do you for example have a clause that will donate the items you have taken ? Would the records you have kept be of any use to anyone? Questions that must be asked and answered.
Until these are... and this has been comprehensively covered in the UK with regards to metal detecting... the argument for 'saving' is a non starter.. the argument for you right to 'own a piece of the past' becomes a moral question that starts with the big WHY? And the arguement that somehow, going to a school and showing a class an arrowhead is an educational tool falls at the question of... but what does it tell? Does it actually tell them that taking is ok - that objects have no other value other than being pretty.. that learning more about an artefact stops at teh artefact itself.... with location something to be hidden.
Sure I can tell a great story about finding amazing things... from Iron Age Hoards to Roman marching boots.. from prehistoric beads to flint blades over 200,000 years old... the difference? Anyone can see them, look at them, study them, read about them, know where they are from, what they were found with, how deep they were, ...and on and on...
Now as you rightly say... I am a professional... you are an amatuer.. a nd probably know your flints very well... so what do you see as a minimum record to ensure that teh additional info - is not lost forever... and that loss can only ever be laid at the feet of the person who does not just find one and casually pocket it... but the collector who actively goes out to collect... not one, not 10, not 100 but perhaps 1000's all taken from where they belong... with scarce records.
As I have often said in the UK... I support anyone who cares enough to record - I have put my neck on the line (and yes it has been tough on my career) for those that see that collecting the past does not mean personal ownership.
Answers on a post please :)
I highlighted points that needed addressed - with the moral issue only one of many.
Again, with your 1800s wallet .. i would still report it. indeed more so.
Keeping it as a pretty thing to show my friends would be the last thing on my mind. The concept that the arrowhead is somehow 'better' in a box in a room with a record of roughly where it is from, so that when the person dies (after a long life I hope) it can be transfered into a trash can...
Do you for example have a clause that will donate the items you have taken ? Would the records you have kept be of any use to anyone? Questions that must be asked and answered.
Until these are... and this has been comprehensively covered in the UK with regards to metal detecting... the argument for 'saving' is a non starter.. the argument for you right to 'own a piece of the past' becomes a moral question that starts with the big WHY? And the arguement that somehow, going to a school and showing a class an arrowhead is an educational tool falls at the question of... but what does it tell? Does it actually tell them that taking is ok - that objects have no other value other than being pretty.. that learning more about an artefact stops at teh artefact itself.... with location something to be hidden.
Sure I can tell a great story about finding amazing things... from Iron Age Hoards to Roman marching boots.. from prehistoric beads to flint blades over 200,000 years old... the difference? Anyone can see them, look at them, study them, read about them, know where they are from, what they were found with, how deep they were, ...and on and on...
Now as you rightly say... I am a professional... you are an amatuer.. a nd probably know your flints very well... so what do you see as a minimum record to ensure that teh additional info - is not lost forever... and that loss can only ever be laid at the feet of the person who does not just find one and casually pocket it... but the collector who actively goes out to collect... not one, not 10, not 100 but perhaps 1000's all taken from where they belong... with scarce records.
As I have often said in the UK... I support anyone who cares enough to record - I have put my neck on the line (and yes it has been tough on my career) for those that see that collecting the past does not mean personal ownership.
Answers on a post please :)
Post ID#15006 - replied 8/13/2009 12:34 AM
Alaskan_Lithics
[quote:="BAJR"]That managed to swiftly nip into the room - grab the unexploded grenade and pop out again. I was under the impression that collectors wished to be either taken seriously, or wanted archaeologists to listen to a convincing argument.
I highlighted points that needed addressed - with the moral issue only one of many.
Again, with your 1800s wallet .. i would still report it. indeed more so.
Keeping it as a pretty thing to show my friends would be the last thing on my mind. The concept that the arrowhead is somehow 'better' in a box in a room with a record of roughly where it is from, so that when the person dies (after a long life I hope) it can be transfered into a trash can...
Do you for example have a clause that will donate the items you have taken ? Would the records you have kept be of any use to anyone? Questions that must be asked and answered.
Until these are... and this has been comprehensively covered in the UK with regards to metal detecting... the argument for 'saving' is a non starter.. the argument for you right to 'own a piece of the past' becomes a moral question that starts with the big WHY? And the arguement that somehow, going to a school and showing a class an arrowhead is an educational tool falls at the question of... but what does it tell? Does it actually tell them that taking is ok - that objects have no other value other than being pretty.. that learning more about an artefact stops at teh artefact itself.... with location something to be hidden.
Sure I can tell a great story about finding amazing things... from Iron Age Hoards to Roman marching boots.. from prehistoric beads to flint blades over 200,000 years old... the difference? Anyone can see them, look at them, study them, read about them, know where they are from, what they were found with, how deep they were, ...and on and on...
Now as you rightly say... I am a professional... you are an amatuer.. a nd probably know your flints very well... so what do you see as a minimum record to ensure that teh additional info - is not lost forever... and that loss can only ever be laid at the feet of the person who does not just find one and casually pocket it... but the collector who actively goes out to collect... not one, not 10, not 100 but perhaps 1000's all taken from where they belong... with scarce records.
As I have often said in the UK... I support anyone who cares enough to record - I have put my neck on the line (and yes it has been tough on my career) for those that see that collecting the past does not mean personal ownership.
Answers on a post please :)
Hi David,
Pleased to meet you,
I will attempt to address your comments. Understand I only speak for myself and I am not arguing in favor of who is right, the collector or the archaeologist. I'm not looking for acceptance nor alienation. I'm not on an archie bashing trip. I'm not in the argument for the right to 'own a piece of the past.'
I suspect you and I will not agree on the issue of artifact possession and that is okay. I do think that if we were able to sit down and talk face to face we would be able to understand each other's view on artifact collecting, recording, curation, ownership and any other aspect of the hobby.
I have no plans to donate the artifacts I collect. I have three children and my personal collection will be passed down to them. My children have rock hunted and collected with me, they all have found arrowheads. I have little concern that these pieces and/or the record will end up in the trash can. The reason is ownership, my kids have a vested interest in my (our) collection. As for the recording my artifacts, the items that were found in Western Washington were all found on a registered site. The site is on private property and was being damaged by Sod Farming. I guess I would call my collecting mere salvaging. My collection was catalogued at the local community college. Now, unlike the millions of artifacts that sit in drawers and boxes in museums and private institutions and (of course) other collectors homes (I'm sure you've heard this rhetoric before), I display all my pieces on my website so everyone can view them. For the majority of my isolated arrowhead finds, I take insitu pictures. I code the picture title as to the date found and location. Example: 071998_PChwlbws Piece was found 07/19/98 Name of place (hw) Head waters (lb) left bank (ws) west side etc.
I have never really given the "Big Why" much thought. It isn't a matter of why I think I have the right, as to why can't I own a piece of the past? In my opinion, an isolated find is just that: some native was out hunting and lost the point. I should be able to own it. It really doesn't matter which direction the tip was pointing in. The areas I visit have been hunted for over 100 years, picked almost clean by other rock hounds and hunters of game. Understand, I don't collect on registered sites other than the one stated above. That site was obliterated by farming.
You state: "Now as you rightly say... I am a professional... you are an amateur.. and probably know your flints very well... so what do you see as a minimum record to ensure that the additional info - is not lost forever... and that loss can only ever be laid at the feet of the person who does not just find one and casually pocket it... but the collector who actively goes out to collect... not one, not 10, not 100 but perhaps 1000's all taken from where they belong... with scarce records."
Yes, in a sense I am an amateur. I have no formal training in the techniques in which archaeologists perform digs. But, put me in the midst of a group of archies and you wouldn't be able to tell me apart. I have 28 years of field collecting experience. Put me toe to toe or head to head with a field tech and there would be no difference. So what really separates us? A piece of paper! Or the fact that I can put my arrowhead in a frame, or on my website and show the world and an archie has to put it in a drawer, so only a few select academic types can measure it over and over. (Or it may reside in a plastic bag never to be seen again.)
Realize that collectors out West are no longer finding 100's or 1000's of arrowheads. Those days are long gone. If I'm lucky, I find one or two a year. The downside is that I have to drive 2.5 hours one way to hunt for agate and jasper and petrified wood. It costs me roughly $80.00 in fuel. The upside is that I spend quality time in the outdoors with my children. (And the dog gets out!) To me it is better than looking at arrowheads through a piece of glass. You ought to see the sheer enjoyment when my boy finds & photographs a point that was lost many thousands of years ago (or as recently as several hundred years. It really doesn't matter the time reference.) Who knows? Maybe I just encouraged another future archaeologist. Then again, maybe not. At least I hope I opened a pair of eyes to the past.
You ask, "Is the grenade a damp squib or an explosive revelation?" I would say neither. The purpose of my original post was to put forth another perspective.
Respectfully,
Joel
This point was found on a very good friend of mine property. The property is heavily trafficked by free range cattle and Elk.
I highlighted points that needed addressed - with the moral issue only one of many.
Again, with your 1800s wallet .. i would still report it. indeed more so.
Keeping it as a pretty thing to show my friends would be the last thing on my mind. The concept that the arrowhead is somehow 'better' in a box in a room with a record of roughly where it is from, so that when the person dies (after a long life I hope) it can be transfered into a trash can...
Do you for example have a clause that will donate the items you have taken ? Would the records you have kept be of any use to anyone? Questions that must be asked and answered.
Until these are... and this has been comprehensively covered in the UK with regards to metal detecting... the argument for 'saving' is a non starter.. the argument for you right to 'own a piece of the past' becomes a moral question that starts with the big WHY? And the arguement that somehow, going to a school and showing a class an arrowhead is an educational tool falls at the question of... but what does it tell? Does it actually tell them that taking is ok - that objects have no other value other than being pretty.. that learning more about an artefact stops at teh artefact itself.... with location something to be hidden.
Sure I can tell a great story about finding amazing things... from Iron Age Hoards to Roman marching boots.. from prehistoric beads to flint blades over 200,000 years old... the difference? Anyone can see them, look at them, study them, read about them, know where they are from, what they were found with, how deep they were, ...and on and on...
Now as you rightly say... I am a professional... you are an amatuer.. a nd probably know your flints very well... so what do you see as a minimum record to ensure that teh additional info - is not lost forever... and that loss can only ever be laid at the feet of the person who does not just find one and casually pocket it... but the collector who actively goes out to collect... not one, not 10, not 100 but perhaps 1000's all taken from where they belong... with scarce records.
As I have often said in the UK... I support anyone who cares enough to record - I have put my neck on the line (and yes it has been tough on my career) for those that see that collecting the past does not mean personal ownership.
Answers on a post please :)
Hi David,
Pleased to meet you,
I will attempt to address your comments. Understand I only speak for myself and I am not arguing in favor of who is right, the collector or the archaeologist. I'm not looking for acceptance nor alienation. I'm not on an archie bashing trip. I'm not in the argument for the right to 'own a piece of the past.'
I suspect you and I will not agree on the issue of artifact possession and that is okay. I do think that if we were able to sit down and talk face to face we would be able to understand each other's view on artifact collecting, recording, curation, ownership and any other aspect of the hobby.
I have no plans to donate the artifacts I collect. I have three children and my personal collection will be passed down to them. My children have rock hunted and collected with me, they all have found arrowheads. I have little concern that these pieces and/or the record will end up in the trash can. The reason is ownership, my kids have a vested interest in my (our) collection. As for the recording my artifacts, the items that were found in Western Washington were all found on a registered site. The site is on private property and was being damaged by Sod Farming. I guess I would call my collecting mere salvaging. My collection was catalogued at the local community college. Now, unlike the millions of artifacts that sit in drawers and boxes in museums and private institutions and (of course) other collectors homes (I'm sure you've heard this rhetoric before), I display all my pieces on my website so everyone can view them. For the majority of my isolated arrowhead finds, I take insitu pictures. I code the picture title as to the date found and location. Example: 071998_PChwlbws Piece was found 07/19/98 Name of place (hw) Head waters (lb) left bank (ws) west side etc.
I have never really given the "Big Why" much thought. It isn't a matter of why I think I have the right, as to why can't I own a piece of the past? In my opinion, an isolated find is just that: some native was out hunting and lost the point. I should be able to own it. It really doesn't matter which direction the tip was pointing in. The areas I visit have been hunted for over 100 years, picked almost clean by other rock hounds and hunters of game. Understand, I don't collect on registered sites other than the one stated above. That site was obliterated by farming.
You state: "Now as you rightly say... I am a professional... you are an amateur.. and probably know your flints very well... so what do you see as a minimum record to ensure that the additional info - is not lost forever... and that loss can only ever be laid at the feet of the person who does not just find one and casually pocket it... but the collector who actively goes out to collect... not one, not 10, not 100 but perhaps 1000's all taken from where they belong... with scarce records."
Yes, in a sense I am an amateur. I have no formal training in the techniques in which archaeologists perform digs. But, put me in the midst of a group of archies and you wouldn't be able to tell me apart. I have 28 years of field collecting experience. Put me toe to toe or head to head with a field tech and there would be no difference. So what really separates us? A piece of paper! Or the fact that I can put my arrowhead in a frame, or on my website and show the world and an archie has to put it in a drawer, so only a few select academic types can measure it over and over. (Or it may reside in a plastic bag never to be seen again.)
Realize that collectors out West are no longer finding 100's or 1000's of arrowheads. Those days are long gone. If I'm lucky, I find one or two a year. The downside is that I have to drive 2.5 hours one way to hunt for agate and jasper and petrified wood. It costs me roughly $80.00 in fuel. The upside is that I spend quality time in the outdoors with my children. (And the dog gets out!) To me it is better than looking at arrowheads through a piece of glass. You ought to see the sheer enjoyment when my boy finds & photographs a point that was lost many thousands of years ago (or as recently as several hundred years. It really doesn't matter the time reference.) Who knows? Maybe I just encouraged another future archaeologist. Then again, maybe not. At least I hope I opened a pair of eyes to the past.
You ask, "Is the grenade a damp squib or an explosive revelation?" I would say neither. The purpose of my original post was to put forth another perspective.
Respectfully,
Joel
This point was found on a very good friend of mine property. The property is heavily trafficked by free range cattle and Elk.
Post ID#15008 - replied 8/13/2009 6:21 AM
BAJR
And thank you too for replying.
I suspect, that like you say, we could sit down face to face and hammer away over a bottle (well me anyway) and come to an understanding. I can say taht, as you have probably realised, because I have done that a few times already, with everyone from hardline detectorsits to bitter archaeologists. (does not always work, but its best to be face to face)
And yes, you have me again... I have heard the 'salvage from destruction' argument many times. As with the 'finds rotting in museums' arguement.. etc... The difference being that the artefact in teh drawer can be viewed, studied and handled anytime... while most collectors artefacts are not available, because unlike yourself, most people do not even know they exist. The idea of archived curation is not exactly the same as rotting in a drawer. (though don't get me started on the collections and storage policy madness!)
What we get down to though is you actually do curate your finds.. you actually do care about what and where they are from... (as if I was not aware already :) ) and you are seeing for yourself the loss of artefacts, from when once they were plenty.. but now are few.
I will now admit that I have no formal qualifications in archaeology - other than being damn good, so even teh paper that separates us is not there. What I have been pushing for in the UK, is recognition... recognition that - for example, people like yourself will know a damn sight more about lithics than your average archaeologist - and that an archaeologist will know (I hope) more about cultural context, stratigraphic details etc.... and that together, this forms a strong and useful alliance.
I have seen much enjoyment when kids find old artefacts.. I part run a Young Archaeologists Club in Scotland. However, (an I suspect you instil this in your kids) I ensure my kids realise that finding is only the start, and the story unfolds when shown to the archaeologists, who pass it to the specialist, who records it and this and other artefacts is taken up by academics, who see the pattern, or have enough to sample or can use to understand and create new theories, which benefit us all.. and at teh end of teh day... in most cases (and I mean 99%) the artefact is handed back to the finder..
The perspective only comes forard if there is a will to cooperate, to change - and this is for both archaeologist and collector.
and again
best wishes
David
ps..
the photo... yup its an arrow head... my choice... pick it up and tell (or leave it...damn this is hard?) the human in me makes me want it... the archaeologist in me wants to know more about why it is there.. There really should be - and correct me here if I am wrong - an easy, non judgemental and America wide process for recording... so that if... IF a find appears that is going to rewrite (pre)history.. it can be studied. who knows what treasuries of knowledge lie in museum drawers (in one case in the UK, they have found evidence of cannibalism from a site excavated in 1880s... took time to look, but 130 years in a drawer, and somebody could and did) and how many more lie in peoples houses?
I guess we also have a different approach to property here... I can walk anywhere in Scotland, it is my right (within reasonable limits) but anything I find, belongs to the Crown. we do like to keep things simple. :)
I suspect, that like you say, we could sit down face to face and hammer away over a bottle (well me anyway) and come to an understanding. I can say taht, as you have probably realised, because I have done that a few times already, with everyone from hardline detectorsits to bitter archaeologists. (does not always work, but its best to be face to face)
And yes, you have me again... I have heard the 'salvage from destruction' argument many times. As with the 'finds rotting in museums' arguement.. etc... The difference being that the artefact in teh drawer can be viewed, studied and handled anytime... while most collectors artefacts are not available, because unlike yourself, most people do not even know they exist. The idea of archived curation is not exactly the same as rotting in a drawer. (though don't get me started on the collections and storage policy madness!)
What we get down to though is you actually do curate your finds.. you actually do care about what and where they are from... (as if I was not aware already :) ) and you are seeing for yourself the loss of artefacts, from when once they were plenty.. but now are few.
I will now admit that I have no formal qualifications in archaeology - other than being damn good, so even teh paper that separates us is not there. What I have been pushing for in the UK, is recognition... recognition that - for example, people like yourself will know a damn sight more about lithics than your average archaeologist - and that an archaeologist will know (I hope) more about cultural context, stratigraphic details etc.... and that together, this forms a strong and useful alliance.
I have seen much enjoyment when kids find old artefacts.. I part run a Young Archaeologists Club in Scotland. However, (an I suspect you instil this in your kids) I ensure my kids realise that finding is only the start, and the story unfolds when shown to the archaeologists, who pass it to the specialist, who records it and this and other artefacts is taken up by academics, who see the pattern, or have enough to sample or can use to understand and create new theories, which benefit us all.. and at teh end of teh day... in most cases (and I mean 99%) the artefact is handed back to the finder..
The perspective only comes forard if there is a will to cooperate, to change - and this is for both archaeologist and collector.
and again
best wishes
David
ps..
the photo... yup its an arrow head... my choice... pick it up and tell (or leave it...damn this is hard?) the human in me makes me want it... the archaeologist in me wants to know more about why it is there.. There really should be - and correct me here if I am wrong - an easy, non judgemental and America wide process for recording... so that if... IF a find appears that is going to rewrite (pre)history.. it can be studied. who knows what treasuries of knowledge lie in museum drawers (in one case in the UK, they have found evidence of cannibalism from a site excavated in 1880s... took time to look, but 130 years in a drawer, and somebody could and did) and how many more lie in peoples houses?
I guess we also have a different approach to property here... I can walk anywhere in Scotland, it is my right (within reasonable limits) but anything I find, belongs to the Crown. we do like to keep things simple. :)
Post ID#15019 - replied 8/13/2009 11:57 PM
Alaskan_Lithics
[quote:="BAJR"]And thank you too for replying.
I suspect, that like you say, we could sit down face to face and hammer away over a bottle (well me anyway) and come to an understanding. I can say taht, as you have probably realised, because I have done that a few times already, with everyone from hardline detectorsits to bitter archaeologists. (does not always work, but its best to be face to face)
And yes, you have me again... I have heard the 'salvage from destruction' argument many times. As with the 'finds rotting in museums' arguement.. etc... The difference being that the artefact in teh drawer can be viewed, studied and handled anytime... while most collectors artefacts are not available, because unlike yourself, most people do not even know they exist. The idea of archived curation is not exactly the same as rotting in a drawer. (though don't get me started on the collections and storage policy madness!)
What we get down to though is you actually do curate your finds.. you actually do care about what and where they are from... (as if I was not aware already :) ) and you are seeing for yourself the loss of artefacts, from when once they were plenty.. but now are few.
I will now admit that I have no formal qualifications in archaeology - other than being damn good, so even teh paper that separates us is not there. What I have been pushing for in the UK, is recognition... recognition that - for example, people like yourself will know a damn sight more about lithics than your average archaeologist - and that an archaeologist will know (I hope) more about cultural context, stratigraphic details etc.... and that together, this forms a strong and useful alliance.
I have seen much enjoyment when kids find old artefacts.. I part run a Young Archaeologists Club in Scotland. However, (an I suspect you instil this in your kids) I ensure my kids realise that finding is only the start, and the story unfolds when shown to the archaeologists, who pass it to the specialist, who records it and this and other artefacts is taken up by academics, who see the pattern, or have enough to sample or can use to understand and create new theories, which benefit us all.. and at teh end of teh day... in most cases (and I mean 99%) the artefact is handed back to the finder..
The perspective only comes forard if there is a will to cooperate, to change - and this is for both archaeologist and collector.
and again
best wishes
David
ps..
the photo... yup its an arrow head... my choice... pick it up and tell (or leave it...damn this is hard?) the human in me makes me want it... the archaeologist in me wants to know more about why it is there.. There really should be - and correct me here if I am wrong - an easy, non judgemental and America wide process for recording... so that if... IF a find appears that is going to rewrite (pre)history.. it can be studied. who knows what treasuries of knowledge lie in museum drawers (in one case in the UK, they have found evidence of cannibalism from a site excavated in 1880s... took time to look, but 130 years in a drawer, and somebody could and did) and how many more lie in peoples houses?
I guess we also have a different approach to property here... I can walk anywhere in Scotland, it is my right (within reasonable limits) but anything I find, belongs to the Crown. we do like to keep things simple.
:)
Where could you go to view some outstanding Alaskan Artifacts? Are there any museums in your country in which you could go to and examine them?
Joel
I suspect, that like you say, we could sit down face to face and hammer away over a bottle (well me anyway) and come to an understanding. I can say taht, as you have probably realised, because I have done that a few times already, with everyone from hardline detectorsits to bitter archaeologists. (does not always work, but its best to be face to face)
And yes, you have me again... I have heard the 'salvage from destruction' argument many times. As with the 'finds rotting in museums' arguement.. etc... The difference being that the artefact in teh drawer can be viewed, studied and handled anytime... while most collectors artefacts are not available, because unlike yourself, most people do not even know they exist. The idea of archived curation is not exactly the same as rotting in a drawer. (though don't get me started on the collections and storage policy madness!)
What we get down to though is you actually do curate your finds.. you actually do care about what and where they are from... (as if I was not aware already :) ) and you are seeing for yourself the loss of artefacts, from when once they were plenty.. but now are few.
I will now admit that I have no formal qualifications in archaeology - other than being damn good, so even teh paper that separates us is not there. What I have been pushing for in the UK, is recognition... recognition that - for example, people like yourself will know a damn sight more about lithics than your average archaeologist - and that an archaeologist will know (I hope) more about cultural context, stratigraphic details etc.... and that together, this forms a strong and useful alliance.
I have seen much enjoyment when kids find old artefacts.. I part run a Young Archaeologists Club in Scotland. However, (an I suspect you instil this in your kids) I ensure my kids realise that finding is only the start, and the story unfolds when shown to the archaeologists, who pass it to the specialist, who records it and this and other artefacts is taken up by academics, who see the pattern, or have enough to sample or can use to understand and create new theories, which benefit us all.. and at teh end of teh day... in most cases (and I mean 99%) the artefact is handed back to the finder..
The perspective only comes forard if there is a will to cooperate, to change - and this is for both archaeologist and collector.
and again
best wishes
David
ps..
the photo... yup its an arrow head... my choice... pick it up and tell (or leave it...damn this is hard?) the human in me makes me want it... the archaeologist in me wants to know more about why it is there.. There really should be - and correct me here if I am wrong - an easy, non judgemental and America wide process for recording... so that if... IF a find appears that is going to rewrite (pre)history.. it can be studied. who knows what treasuries of knowledge lie in museum drawers (in one case in the UK, they have found evidence of cannibalism from a site excavated in 1880s... took time to look, but 130 years in a drawer, and somebody could and did) and how many more lie in peoples houses?
I guess we also have a different approach to property here... I can walk anywhere in Scotland, it is my right (within reasonable limits) but anything I find, belongs to the Crown. we do like to keep things simple.
:)
Where could you go to view some outstanding Alaskan Artifacts? Are there any museums in your country in which you could go to and examine them?
Joel
Post ID#15020 - replied 8/14/2009 5:32 AM
Heather626
There are quite a few Alaskan things (don't know what you consider "outstanding") in the collections and on display at the British Museum. You can look them up in their online collections database. They are in the middle of a major rehousing and updating of the database right now, so some of the objects still have yet to have much information entered in the online database... but they're getting there. These collections are free to study and see, just takes a phone call and an appointment.
Post ID#15024 - replied 8/14/2009 12:42 PM
BAJR
I guess if I was studying Alaskan lithics, I would start in the National Museums of SCotland, then to the British Museum, but if I was serious.. I would go to Alaska :) in the hope that the museums had lithics in their major collections... easier than going round individual collectors, one by one, if I even had their addresses, and even if they would let me.. :wink:
Your collection would be very useful, and I would more than likely (if I had an ounce of sense) talk to colelctors who were also deeply involved in the study and presentation of these artefacts as a well curated collection.
Web based datasets are good to start, to help narrow down where to go, but I would require handling to do whatever I needed to do.
I personally have issues with Museums who store someone elses culture.. but hey.. reality strikes.. !
Your collection would be very useful, and I would more than likely (if I had an ounce of sense) talk to colelctors who were also deeply involved in the study and presentation of these artefacts as a well curated collection.
Web based datasets are good to start, to help narrow down where to go, but I would require handling to do whatever I needed to do.
I personally have issues with Museums who store someone elses culture.. but hey.. reality strikes.. !
Post ID#15892 - replied 10/30/2009 3:57 PM
bcartifacts
Very good thread!! Thanks for posting I wish the collector professional relations would improve as all would benefit. Ps Hi Joel 8-)
|
Next topic: "Rampart Scotland: Excavating Scottish Celtic Hillforts 2010 " |
|
Previous topic: "Preserve America Stewards Applications Invited " |
|
Looking for something else? Show recent posts in Discussion |
