Probably too idealistic. For every relic hunter that does the  
background research and documents the site, there are many more who  
dig a hole and then display it in the den or sell it on e-Bay.

There was a history teacher in Richmond, Va who took his class out  
relic hunting. Except that they were exhuming bodies (after all most  
of those buttons are attached to coats and what are the coats on...).  
This is a crime in Virginia, but the state decided it just wasn't  
worth the effort to prosecute. And as he wasn't prosecuted, the local  
newspaper wrote a glowing story about the field trip. So the kids  
have now been taught that grave robbing is OK as far as Virginia is  
concerned.

On Apr 16, 2006, at 16:48, Joe Roberts wrote:

> At the risk of crucifixion on this fine Easter Sunday, I feel  
> compelled to raise a few contrarian positions on the relic hunter  
> issue.
>
> Having looked at both sides for some years, I wish I were seeing  
> archaeologists bringing the level of sociological sensitivity we  
> apply in the interpretation of our data to the evaluation of the  
> phenomenon of relic hunting.
>
> The often heard claim that "relic hunters just want to loot sites  
> and put the loot on ebay" is as reductionistic and misguided as the  
> relic hunter commonplace that "archaeologists are in it for the  
> money, CRM contracts and such."
>
> The realities in both practices are much more subtle than looking  
> at the cash flow would suggest.  Money is involved on both sides,  
> but not the key factor for either project.
>
> Relic hunters, for the most part, sincerely believe that they are  
> rescuing history and so do archaeologists, so isn't that a point  
> for further discussion?
>
> What if Civil War relic hunters articulated their interests in  
> terms of membership in descendant communities? This is what I hear  
> a lot of relic hunters saying, even if they don't have
> the jargon to put it that way.
>
> Basically what we have here is a "heritage war" as described by the  
> historian David Lowenthal. At a high level of abstraction it  
> resolves to an issue of private property rights vs. government  
> control, as it is being played out, but ratcheting the dialogue up  
> to that basis is no starting point.
>
> Where is the call for cooperation and mutual education between  
> archaeologists and relic hunters?  From what I have seen, relic  
> hunters will respond to archaeologists if they are met on the  
> common ground of interest in history.
>
> Archaeology can benefit from many forms of knowledge in the relic  
> hunting community, having relic hunters serve as our "eyes and  
> ears" out there in the field, and partners in research projects.
>
> Relic hunters should be viewed as a priority in our public  
> archaeology outreach efforts, not a target for Draconian  
> legislative efforts.
>
> I'd like to see a model of cooperation extending beyond occasional  
> and isolated participation by relic hunters in "official"  
> archaeological studies. Look at the UK.
>
> Any dialogue would be more productive than the dug-in stance both  
> parties are taking now.
>
> Illegal looting is just that. Throw the looters in jail. This kind  
> of activity is ALREADY illegal.
>
> However, demonizing the activities of people who are engaged in  
> LEGAL pursuits who see themselves as connecting with their past,  
> doing something healthy and good, is missing out on an opportunity  
> to educate and create beneficial partnerships.
>
> There are a lot of good, decent, law-abiding folks in the metal  
> detecting hobby. These people should be our audience, maybe even  
> partners, not our mortal enemies!
>
> In short, I think there is more to be gained via stepped-up PR  
> efforts than through anti-metal detector advertising. We are  
> talking past each other instead of with each other.
>
> Does this sound reasonable--or am I being too idealistic?
>
> Joe Roberts
> [log in to unmask]