SHA Blog - Latest Comments

Re: Toward a Dynamic—and Virtual—Public Archaeology

Mike — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:04:50 -0000

This is great thing to bring awareness in people,s mind about archeology and material culture. The best thing is that even if they cannot touch the original artifact, they can touch its almost real like duplicate. Nevertheless the copies cannot replace the original ones. I had a question in mind that whether they make these 3D images on their own or they approach some other printing services ( http://goo.gl/my5db ) for printing these images ?

Re: Toward a Dynamic—and Virtual—Public Archaeology

Mark Freeman — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:04:19 -0000

Getting the public more aware of how material culture informs us about the past is really valuable. Mount Vernon has a lower tech version of the 3D images (http://www.mountvernonmidden.o... using animated gif's, but the detail and tactile dimension of printing these things is a fascinating addition.

I think the importance of these 3D images in drawing the public into looking at objects is great, but for archaeology it's really important to present the materials in a context-rich environment both spatially and thematically, lest the object is prioritized over the assemblage. With an existing backlog of materials to catalog archaeologists can't create 3d images of all artifacts, but making materials available is surely a crucial part of archaeological advocacy.

Re: The Primal Fear: Historical Archaeology and De-Accessioning

Bill White — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:22:03 -0000

The biggest question is: who is supposed to do the collections management?

This article suggests archaeologists, like myself, should do more to manage what they collect. What about situations with mandatory 100% collection guidelines? Or, projects with no culling protocols? Or, projects where there is no limit on the size of historical artifacts get collected. I've collected tens of thousands of near microscopic glass and ceramic fragments because of adherence to near-sighted, ancient regulations. It seems like, since repositories have the option of deaccessioning, the archaeologists need to make more of an effort to help them with this process.

We are rapidly facing a situation where repositories may refuse to take historical artifacts at all. And archaeologists may start culling collections in the field at their own discretion. There is some indication this is already taking place.

The fact that, after 40 years, we're still talking about this is even worse than the fact that we rarely, if ever, revisit these collections. What are our alternatives?

Re: A Student’s Perspective on the 2013 SHA Conference

William Moss — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:47:54 -0000

Please have a look at the assistance available for 2014: http://www.sha2014.com/support...

Re: Why historical archaeology should pay attention to the Occupy movement

Quentin Lewis — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 04:28:23 -0000

Hey John--Great post. I would also add that there is a distinct spatiality and materiality to protest that is little understood. Given how important control of space is in regimes of domination and resistance, we have very little data on how space is utilized and reconfigured by protesting groups in such instances. Studies of occupy camps (of which I believe there are a few) would add to this interesting data-set and provide for longer-term studies of the modern world and its discontents.

Re: The Primal Fear: Historical Archaeology and De-Accessioning

Brandy Tunmire — Wed, 29 May 2013 12:20:59 -0000

Hi! A common misconception about deaccessioning is that it means objects are "disposed of," which is not the case. Deaccessioning simply means that objects are moved out of the permanent collection. Deaccessioned objects can be turned into teaching/education collections, exhibit prop collections, or rolled into destructive research projects like you are describing. If an institution cannot use the object in some way, many will try to find new homes for deaccessioned objects in more appropriate collections at other institutions. I just want to make sure you (and everyone else who reads this) understand that deaccessioning does not equal throwing objects away. :) Cheers!

Re: The Primal Fear: Historical Archaeology and De-Accessioning

Brandy Tunmire — Wed, 29 May 2013 12:06:20 -0000

I love this post so much! Thank you for saying what no one seems to understand in the field of archaeology: archaeologists are collection generators; therefore collection management should be a standard aspect of archaeological study. You spoke many truths in this post—thank you!

Archaeology is implicitly an information science; there is much that we can learn from libraries, museums, and archives (which are understood to be information centers and have, therefore, been developing methods of information management and ACCESS for decades). Yet we continue to manage archaeological collections in a vacuum… why? Another great concept we stand to learn from these information fields is that PEOPLE are at the heart of what we do... people TODAY, not ancient people! We do archaeology ultimately so that we better understand our place in the universe, not just knowledge for knowledge’s sake. The popular notion of archaeology is that “archaeologists excavate.” I feel this contributes to looting because people think that’s what archaeology is all about—obtaining relics. Archaeology is the scientific interpretation of material culture, not the scientific study of excavation! Instead of taking students into the field to generate more collections for the sake of learning field methods, take them to a repository and teach them how to curate and utilize collections. Not to say that field methods aren’t important because they are; I’m just saying that maybe we should put the emphasis where it belongs.

Re: The Primal Fear: Historical Archaeology and De-Accessioning

Corey McQuinn — Wed, 29 May 2013 09:24:08 -0000

If historic artifacts must be deaccessioned, maybe there are some opportunities for a second chance, perhaps in something like experimental archaeology. I have a particular experiment in mind that I never had the time for regarding glass bottles. Problem is: I need a lot of bottles of all different types, they need to be whole, and they will get (hopefully) destroyed in the process. Perhaps there are a suite of questions that can be answered in this way...

Re: Historical Archaeology will be Televised: Ethics, Archaeology, and Popular Culture

Chris Espenshade — Thu, 02 May 2013 07:48:59 -0000

Paul:

I have read your blog posting and the President's Corner in the recent SHA newsletter. I am concerned that you and leaders of the other professional organizations continue to miss the point. There is no reason to be mystified why some archaeologists feel that any involvement or support of Diggers is unethical. The ethic statements of all the major organizations state that professional archaeologists will not undertake activities that may promote site looting and the selling of artifacts. When a show such as Diggers presents the digging of artifacts and then immediately shows the market value for those items, there is no question that the show will prompt people to dig artifacts for their monetary value. Therefore, any participation in this show, whether as a guest archaeologist or the staff archaeologist is unethical.

This is not a gray area. That is the refuge of archaeologists who do not want to stand by their ethics. The whole point of establishing baseline ethical standards is to prevent gray areas, and to avoid attempts to redefine our ethics when a new situation comes along. SHA, SAA, and RPA should be condemning this show, and should be pushing the National Geographic Network to stop providing market values for the dug artifacts. As a profession, we should be clear that it is unethical for a professional archaeologist to be involved in such shows.

Please let me take a moment to address some possible counter-arguments. I was both amazed and disappointed when the RPA Grievance Coordinator said there were no ethical issues with an archaeologist participating on Diggers. In her counter-argument,she presented the valuation of collections donated to museums as a direct parallel. Her logic is faulty on three key points of comparison:

1. Such valuations for contributions are for tax purposes, and do not represent the actual value that the donor might achieve on the open market. The museum valuations apply only to the value if a collection is donated. The tax break is never equal to the full market value of the items. The cents on the dollar tax benefits are not considered by SAA, SHA, and RPA to encourage looting of sites to sell artifacts. In contrast, Diggers shows the act of digging the artifacts and slaps up a full market price. There can be little doubt that the flashing of dollar amounts for dug artifacts will encourage certain detectorists to follow the example on TV and loot sites to recover items for the market.

2. Museum valuations may occur without knowledge of where and how the collection was gathered. In contrast, on Diggers there is a direct and immediate valuation of dug artifacts. There is no ambiguity about where the Digger items originated,

3. Museum valuations are not shared with a huge TV viewing audience. They are usually
private arrangements between the donor and the museum. In contrast, Diggers flashes the dollar
valuation to all its viewers. By the network’s own admission, the provision of dollar values is a key element of the program.

So, there is no validity to the claim that museum valuation of contributed items (an acceptable practice) is analogous to a TV show where relics are first dug and then valued. The museum valuation counter-argument is not valid.

You offered another parallel, when you argued that Diggers was just doing what Antiques Roadshow does. Again, this is a faulty comparison. The Roadshow has a general policy not to include items that they know have been looted. The Roadshow certainly does not include footage of an item being ripped from the ground immediately before valuation. There is no realistic similarity.

Another worrisome counter-argument is that the National Geographic Network (NGN) concessions will help educate people about the archaeological process, and that fact somehow should over-ride the ethical concerns. This is a very twisted logic. Although there is some mention of research in Season 2, the overall show is at best confusing regarding what archaeologists do. Why would there be any need to show dollar valuations of artifacts if they were all going to a museum or curation
facility? Do we really want the public thinking that professional archaeologists sell what they find? If NGN overhauled their show a second time,removed all mentions of dollar values, and emphasized archaeology, context, and research design, then the show would be a good opportunity to teach the public about archaeology. Whether or not the show might have some redeeming value, we are not allowed to simply throw out a baseline ethical principle.

The most dangerous counter-argument is that we should be happy with the concessions made by the network. This implies that ethics are scored or rated on improvement. Ethics are an absolute. An action either abides by the baseline ethics – in this case, a professional archaeologist will not be involved in any activity that may promote the looting of sites and selling of artifacts – or it does not. There is no grey area in ethics. That is the whole point of ethics, so a group does not have to decide anew on a case by case basis where they stand on crucial issues. The baseline ethical statements should not be applied with an asterisk (*National Geographic Network made some concessions, so in this case we are going to abandon our baseline ethic on looting and selling artifacts).

Lastly, let's consider the counter-argument of Kelly Britt (earlier blog on this post). Britt argues that not every viewer of Diggers is going to run into their backyard and start digging for treasure. Britt does not understand the ethical obligations of professional archaeologists. Our principles do not come with a measure. We do not say 1 percent of a TV audience looting sites is acceptable, but 50 percent would not be. Professional archaeologists are to avoid any activity that might prompt even one person to loot. By Britt's own calculations, some viewers of Diggers are going to be prompted to loot. That some is all it takes to bring the ethical principle into play, and to say archaeologists should not have a role in this show.

To be clear, I am not saying that archaeologists cannot be involved in lobbying NGN to change the show. However, on-screen participation as a guest archaeologist or staff archaeologist on Diggers, in its current format, is an ethical violation. It is time that the SHA, SAA, and RPA stop hiding behind supposed gray areas and invalid counter-arguments. It is time for SHA, SAA, and RPA to tell their members and NGN that professional archaeologists should not be appearing on Diggers, and to do so will be considered an ethical breach. We are well beyond the point where your call to "continue to monitor" is enough. I ask our professional organizations to step up on this issue.

Thank you.

Re: Where to go in January 2014: Quebec City

Victoria Hottel — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:24:02 -0000

Quebec city had a wonderful snowboard big air event when I was there. Beautiful architecture in the city - wish I had visited sooner!

Harbour Towers Hotel & Suites
345 Quebec St, Victoria, BC V8V 1W4
(250) 385-2405

Re: Looking In and Reaching Out: Becoming a Public Archaeologist

Bill White — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:58:25 -0000

Mark, blogging is a totally new concept to most archaeologists. Most blog posts are read by dozens of people and very few leave comments. Its the nature of online "dialogue"

Sarah, this is excellent information that I will take to heart because I plan on conducting a public archaeology project for my dissertation. I would add that anyone interested in community archaeology should hook up with someone that has already done community organizing or community non-profit work. It doesn't have to be an archaeologist. For instance, the director of a food bank can show you networking tricks that archaeologists wouldn't typically think of. Also, check out some of the literature on frendraising that has been published recently. Hildy Gottleib's books have helped me organize my strategy.

Thanks for this post. Keep in touch.

Re: Historical Archaeology will be Televised: Ethics, Archaeology, and Popular Culture

Kelly M Britt — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:32:53 -0000

Better late in responding than not responding…..I echo many
of the points Paul and Mike make above-particularly the point that these shows
will continue with or without our (archaeologist’s ) input—it is the nature of
popular culture. The fact that National Geographic has met with archaeologists
and discussed and addressed concerns is a step in the right direction to find
some sort of negotiated ground.

However, I think we also might need to give the viewers of
these shows more credit than we have been—not everyone who watches these shows
is going to run into their backyard and start digging for treasure. To
illustrate my point, as an end of year project for my Introduction to
Archaeology course last fall I had my students watch either National Geographic’s
Diggers or Spike TV’s American Digger and critique it. As
background—the class was made up of all levels-Freshman through Seniors, mainly
anthropology majors but none had a previous experience in archaeology or taken
any archaeology courses prior to this class. My first class questionnaire illustrated
the link popular culture and archaeology already have for I posed the
question-“What do you think of when you think of the word archaeologist?” It was
met with seven out of 33 students answering “Indiana Jones”. After watching the
shows we as a class had a great discussion about them. The theme that coming up
from multiple students is that they could watch these shows for what they were—entertainment and discern for themselves
the ridiculousness or over board antics that were done for “entertainment’s”
sake and diverged from the historic information being investigated. What was
also interesting is that many of them ended up looking up more information on the
topics that were presented in the show. While they knew a lot of the show was
filled with non-information, the show did provide a stepping stone into
subjects or areas they may not have otherwise been exposed to. While I realize
this is not the case for all viewers who watch this show or any other like this
on TV—it does show that many do not view it as “history” but rather
“entertainment” and discern the difference.

We also should remember there have been positive shows-or at
least more positive ones such as Time
Team and PBS specials that incorporate community archaeology projects into
a larger historical documentary such as Michael Wood’s Story of England. There have also been historical reality TV shows
such as 1900 House, 1940s House, Frontier House, and Colonial
House to name a few that brought living history to a whole new level. I
found many of these shows fascinating and intrigued that many of these
successful shows such as Time Team
and some of the living history series were designed “across the pond”. This
introduces a completely different subject on US versus Europe’s view of the
past and the idea of collective versus individual memory and the role of
popular culture in all of this, so before I digress too much, I would like to
pose that perhaps the wave of the future for archaeology is to look towards popular culture rather than away
from it. Archaeology and popular culture are here to stay and will evolve with
or without us—it’s really our decision to be included in the dialogue.

Re: SHA Québec 2014: Preliminary Call for Papers

Tkeogh — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:07:39 -0000

The very best of luck with this conference! We’ve set up a LinkedIn group so Academic Conference organisers can help and learn from each other!
http://www.linkedin.com/groups...

Re: Looking In and Reaching Out: Becoming a Public Archaeologist

Mark Staniforth — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:35:10 -0000

All very good advice. Question- why is a "retired" archaeologist the first (and only person so far) to comment on this?

Re: Ten Take-Aways from SHA Public Day 2013

Toni Wallace — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:46:37 -0000

Clanging of the Coins - Richard the III coin machine. Can you tell me where I can obtain the tools and blanks to replicate your outreach activity? Thanks for any guidance.

Re: Historical Archaeology will be Televised: Ethics, Archaeology, and Popular Culture

Mike Polk — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:27:50 -0000

Paul. I share many of your hopes, desires and dispair with this program. My company, Sagebrush Consultants, worked on one of the first episodes of the program called "Oregon Trail Mix". We also did another on the Nevada-California border which has been split into at least two different programs. You have probably seen Don Southworth, one of my principals on those shows. I have been disappointed in the amount of editing that was done at each location, reducing the archaeologist’s role to not much more than a cameo shot. In fact, it makes me cringe on a regular basis to see these guys running around screaming about the “nectar” they have found, enhancing the idea of digging up cool stuff with very limited deference to its context or even why they are digging where they are digging other than it sets off their metal detectors. . But Wouldn’t it make sense to give people some kind of guide to understanding, better than they do, why they are running around digging with so little historical context to help them? Of course its entertainment, but I think at this pace that they will very soon bore people to death. There is no real substance to the whole thing. National Geographic does very good documentaries where they have extended discussions with knowledgeable people about the history of a subject. They then show excavations going on and material being found and talk about it. And, I’m not talking about this thing being an extensive, and to many people, boring, discussion show about history, but at least put some bookends on the episode with a longer introduction, perhaps talk to the archaeologist at the beginning to show there is something sought other than “digging up stuff” and then give us 3-5 minutes at the end to wrap it up and tell people where the artifacts are going, i.e. to some curatorial facility, even if a local museum.Now, I don't have all negative things to say regarding "Diggers". As you state, we will never have control over the media, but to my knowledge, this is the first time that we have even had a voice in any of it, at least at the national level. That is, other than occasional NGC, Discovery or History Channel episodes focusing on particular archaeology projects or subjects and even then, I’m not sure if the archaeologists in them believe that they were appropriately portrayed. Now, I don't have all negative things to say regarding "Diggers". As you state, we will never have control over the media, but to my knowledge, this is the first time that we have even had a voice in any of it, at least at the national level. That is, other than occasional NGC, Discovery or History Channel episodes focusing on particular archaeology projects or subjects and even then, I’m not sure if the archaeologists in them believe that they were appropriately portrayed.
In some ways, this program is more egalitarian for historical archaeologists as a whole. Seldom has TV coverage been spread around like this to less than spectacular historical sites, but to ones that, nevertheless, often peak the interest of many in the American TV audience. As with so many aspects of life, we have no clue where this is heading or will end up, but I don’t believe that we can even consider turning away from the opportunity provided to us. Yes, it does and will portray our profession in a rather seedy light at times. Yes, it does attract prurient interests in the sense of showing possible prices, but we at Sagebrush have, at times, been asked to put a price on pot hunted collections (we calculated the cost of proper analysis and curation) for law enforcement actions. Apparently, in these cases, this is the only means that they had to quantify criminal actions on archaeological sites. The urge to know how much something is worth is just something in the human condition. People want to know this kind of thing – it’s certainly not new to our society or even our age. I believe that we should continue on, despite these unfortunate aspects of the show. Perhaps it is the price that we have to pay to continue to insert contextual and ethical statements. I don’t think that it compromises our ethics, unless you are a purist. We won’t progress far in our efforts to educate the public and work with their fascination with archaeology if we get so ethical that we refuse to even interact and try to improve the portrayal of historical archaeology. Programs like "Diggers" will do it without us anyway and we have no way of competing with the scale of audience that they attract.

Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah

Re: Ten Take-Aways from SHA Public Day 2013

Laura Hadland — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:59:05 -0000

The coin activity of course represented the traditional method of striking coins. The engraved plates are known as dies and Leicester's Jewry Wall Museum (who brought the activity to the open day) will soon be procuring a Roman coin die to use at all our future events, as the Richard III half groat was such a success!

Thank you for such lovely positive comments.

Laura Hadland
Senior Curator

Re: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better?

Chris Espenshade — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:14:26 -0000

Paul:

We went to DC in a position of power. National Geographic was concerned that professional archaeologists were in such an uproar. I am not convinced that shows will go on, at least not on the National Geographic Network, if the professional outcry were to continue. I think it is too early to shrug and say it is going to happen with or without us. Please recall that National Geographic pulled their show the first time. I think, as a discipline, we have given up much too easily on a key ethical point.

I recognize how hard it is to get things done in any volunteer organization, but a six-month delay is unfortunate. During that span, how many viewers will walk away with the wrong impression that professional archaeologists condone the dollar valuation of artifacts? How many professionals will be left in a fog of not knowing whether or not the participation of the series archaeologist and any guest archaeologists is unethical per SHA guidelines?

There is room on TV for a program that teams avocational detectorists and professional archaeologists. Diggers, in its present form, is not that show. We should not be giving them a pass on the key ethical issues because they made some minor concessions elsewhere. There is no imperative that says we must continue to work with or support Diggers.

I encourage the SHA leadership to address this promptly, rather than waiting six months to even define a course of action.

Thanks,

Chris

Re: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better?

Paul Mullins — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:46:40 -0000

SHA is at the moment trying to be fair and firm partners with National Geographic Television without sacrificing our ethics or science, and we are not at all committed as individual scholars or as SHA to accept whatever representations of artifact recovery made in this or any other television show. Both the SHA Board and the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology discussed some of these issues during the January meetings in Leicester, including the complications of what precisely constitutes "commercial exploitation": we need some clarity on whether providing a dollar value is an ethical violation in the same way as hawking an artifact online. I do believe National Geographic has partnered with a range of archaeologists in good faith, but I also acknowledge that even the best intentions may not ultimately measure up to our professional standards, and the SHA Board agreed to revisit this at our mid-year meeting and provide systematic feedback to National Geographic about the changes they have made since the May, 2012 meeting, identifying areas they may have improved as where as places where we would like to see more change. Dan Sivilich's posting agrees that he has seen little substantive change since last May, and he is also fundamentally offended as a responsible detectorist who has worked extensively with archaeologists and wants to encourage archaeologists to resist facile caricatures of detectorists as "treasure hunters." I remain convinced that we can do responsible partnering around these sorts of programs focused on detectorists working in the US because we are simply compelled to do so (internationally, metal detecting law creates somewhat different issues because local laws differ quite a lot from place to place, and some of the discussions here about artifact recovery and ethics are not really good parallels to many other places). These shows will press on with or without us, so I personally think the effort now is well-placed even if it does result in some frustrations along the way.

Re: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better?

Chris Espenshade — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:31:32 -0000

I must respectfully disagree with the positions being taken by the SHA, RPA, and SAA on Diggers. The ethical guidelines are being allowed to slip, simply because National Geographic has made certain small concessions to appease the archaeologist. However, the key ethical problem with the program -- the posting of dollar values for the artifacts -- remains. Dr. Ewen dismisses these concerns based on two points: 1) the Digger folks are not actually selling the artifacts; and 2) all the other reality shows are doing it. On the first point, the intent of ethical guidelines against valuation does not come with the provision that such valuation is discouraged only if items are to be sold. Any public presentation of dollar values runs the risk of promoting looting. SHA is not supposed to be condoning programs that encourage looting. On the second point, ethics are not designed as a popularity contest, and should not shift at the whim of public opinion. Yes, there are a lot of reality shows that place dollar values on items, some excavated. However, that does not mean it is right to condone such behavior. The bedrock ethical guidelines were established for a reason, and we should not be eroding those guidelines just because popular culture has another opinion.

I was at the DC meeting where changes to Diggers were discussed. The network has made only the least changes they could and still hope to appease the archaeologists. Most of the changes do not even appear in the program; instead, you have to dive into their website to find the additions.

If the RPA, SHA, and SAA have changed their ethical guidelines, they should share that information with their membership. As it now stands, it is a very confusing situation. I am ethically prohibited from offering a dollar valuation for a projectile point that somebody's grandfather collected 30 years ago, but professional archaeologists can be party to a program that broadcasts artifact values to a large audience. I understand the desire to work with National Geographic and to use Diggers to educate people on proper archaeology. However, the small changes the network has made are very minor compared with the major ethical concession being made by SHA, RPA, and SAA. The average viewer is receiving the message that professional archaeologists have no problem with the valuation of artifacts (and by extension, with their sale. Why else put a dollar value on an artifact?). I do not think that this is image of archaeology that we want to spread.

I encourage SAA, SHA, and RPA to revisit their tacit support of Diggers. I also ask these organizations to clarify their ethical positions relative to participation by a professional archaeologist on a program that offers dollar values.

Thank you for considering these arguments.

Chris Espenshade

Re: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better?

Scott Clark — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:26:54 -0000

This is the kind of response that keeps us in the detecting hobby held back. Nice.

Re: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better?

Ticker_shuffle — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:57:29 -0000

Archaeologist - okay...whatever it takes for them to feel important. They are upset about the value of the items found? Clearly they aren't worried about money too much, since they decided to major in archaeology. Let it go, already.

Re: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better?

Amanda Morrow — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:25:57 -0000

The new season of Time Team America is aiming to be more exciting to viewers without compromising scientific integrity. Hopefully it works out! Thanks for this insightful review of the revamped Diggers show, it certainly seems like a step in the right direction.

Re: National Geographic’s Diggers: is it better?

Scott Clark — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:45:50 -0000

I feel, as an responsible detectorists, that we are finally getting somewhere with the National Geographic Show. I think that, if your tone down their silliness, the guys on the show are a much more realistic representation of our hobby's majority. The Spike "American Diggers" show (a totally different program from the National Geographic series) is offensive to us all and we morn the damage it's caused.

Most of the detectorists I know are lovers of history, interested in adding to the dataset, and willing to increase the level of rigor used in our hunting. Most have never sold anything they've found. I think that detectorists should be allowed to keep common coins from any site after the date, location, depth and so forth are recorded.

I would happily work with local archaeologists with my hobby - but the respect must be bi-directional. My last 4 emails to regional academics about ideas have gone unanswered. Our historical society's 2012 annual report referred to the detecting community as "treasure hunters and looters" ...And in recent legislative sessions in Kentucky, there was a lot of unwarranted name calling and falsehoods taking the place of civilized discussion. My respect for the discipline was shaken, but not broken.

I'll be going to Montpelier in March to earn my MACP certification and gain a clearer understanding of the methodology and motivations of professionals. I hope that this will clarify my ideas for working together in the future. I think that someday permits should be issued for detecting on public lands with accountability and a protocol. Could digital archives with detectorist credit be a good idea? I'd happily (and patriotically) surrender the odd artifact I find during coin hunting from public lands for academia if I could point my website to the finds and research around them online. I'm filled with hope.

Re: Defining a Global Historical Archaeology

Paul Courtney — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:49:25 -0000

Liked this piece by Paul Mullins. The thing I have always liked about our subject whatever we call it is its lack of definition in practice and scope for interdisciplinary crossover. And for us Europeans who straddle both periods -rather than mythologising the Middle Ages as filled with"feudal" ciphers with no free will- not really clear where medieval end.
paul courtneyFrom a very snowy Leicester and we had an earthquake a few days back!!