Rich, 

Thank you very much for the quick reply.  I look forward to checking out your guidelines.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rich Green
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: metal detecting guidelines

You can look here for general guidelines that have been used successfully 
for nearly two decades: http://www.har-indy.com/Methods.html The author's 
technical background and education is in RF engineering including 35 years 
experience with metal detecting devices, 10 of which were as a factory 
authorized service center for four major metal detector manufacturers. 
Since 1993, these methods of metal detection have been employed and 
empirically refined in archaeological reconnaissance on many different 
historic period sites and under variable field conditions.

Apologies for the short pedigree; however, it is important I think to 
understand that these procedures are tried and proven over time and have 
been carried out by individuals and teams with the knowledge and experience 
to do so.  http://www.har-indy.com/page4.html

The selection of appropriate metal detection equipment process has continued 
to evolve, like most modern technology, as instruments with superior 
performance come on the market every few years.  However, most of these 
truly innovative types of metal detectors have been designed for specific 
purposes such as detecting minute placer gold in heavily mineralized ground 
conditions.  While these kinds of instruments do perform at a higher level, 
they are typically much more expensive, require more time to master and more 
skill to operate.  Midrange VLF metal detectors on the market today still 
perform much as they did 20 years ago and are more than adequate for 
archaeological reconnaissance in the hands of trained operators under most 
field conditions encountered in North America.

In my opinion, the experience/knowledge and skill of the operator is as 
important as the performance of a given type metal detector. The 2-2-90 
method of metal detection tends to integrate and reduce the differential in 
operator competence, is very thorough and simultaneously takes advantage of 
metal detecting instruments that are designed with complimentary performance 
characteristics. The newer type multi-frequency detectors are accounted for 
in this system as well.

Hope this helps some.  Please feel free to write me directly if I can answer 
any further questions or be of any assistance.

Regards,

Rich Green
Historic Archaeological Research
4338 Hadley Court
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Office:  (765) 464-8735
Mobile: (765) 427-4082
www.har-indy.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pomfret, Jim" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:21 AM
Subject: metal detecting guidelines


Dear Colleagues,



We are developing draft guidelines for archaeological metal detecting. 
These guidelines will apply to archaeological investigations under Section 
106 and similar work.  Do any of you have or know of established guidelines 
for the use of metal detectors on archaeological sites?  Specifically, we 
are focusing on: (A) metal detecting methods used to locate sites, delineate 
site boundaries, and investigate the internal structure of sites and (B) 
what level of sampling is appropriate during different phases of 
investigation.  If anyone has worked with metal detecting guidelines and has 
learned some lessons first hand, we would like to hear those as well.  Any 
information you could share is appreciated.


Thanks,


Jim Pomfret
Archaeology Team Leader
Georgia Department of Transportation
Office of Environmental Services
600 West Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30308
Phone:  404.631.1256
Cell:     404.797.6322
Fax:      404.631.1916