Gaye:

Like you, as Archaeochemists and Archaeogeophysicists, Dr. Claudia Brackett
and I extensively and routinely use Metal Detection, FIRST, when we are
getting ready to do Combined Survey Format (CSF) pXRF Archaeochemical and
Archaeogeophysical site surveys in the manner of Weymouth and Wood for our
mineral industry and governmental clients.  

We find that the new Class III VLF metal detectors with the ability to "tune
in" or "tune out" discrimination functions and work well with a "double
blind", two phase survey technique that we have used for the past 5 years
and are described in a series of USFS publications and a SHA presentation at
Long Beach by Chris Adams on his work on 19th Century conflict sites in New
Mexico.  

Specifically, WRI and Country Chemist conduct VLF Metal Detecting surveys
that are TOTALLY non-intrusive and intended to alert our archaeological
colleagues as to patterns of anomalies and where to do subsurface
investigations BY THEM AND to give US insights as to what is causing the
pXRF chemical data that we are collecting BEFORE doing the Phase II
Archaeogeophysical Surveys (typically, EM-16/38, Magnetics, Very Low
Frequency-ElectroMagnetics (VLF-EM from a transmitting station),
Radiometrics, Resistivity\Conductivity and GPR).  The Metal Detecting
surveys are done in two phases:

Phase I:  No Discrimination surveys using a VLF Class II or III instrument
utilizing the "sweep" method as described by Adams with the placement of
YELLOW or ORANGE plastic pin lags at each anomaly and recordation of each
anomaly by TOTAL STATION or Plane Table and Alidade Methods (which I use).

Phase II: Full Discrimination surveys using a VLF Class III instrument using
the "sweep" method as described by Adams with the placement of RED or PINK
plastic pin flags and recordation as in Phase I.

With this information at hand and plotted the orientation of the Class I
pXRF survey lines can be, then, established.  

As noted by Rich Green, Metal Detecting surveys are invaluable
Archaeogeophysical tools for determining what are the physical and,
potentially, the chemical characteristics of human activity at a site.
Wondjina Research Institute (WRI) and Country Chemist (CC) feel that VLF
Metal Detecting surveys are EXTREMELY VALUABLE in determining if other
Archaeogeophysical technologies and survey techniques (i.e. the high
presence of many, near-surface, STRONG ferrous anomalies can completely
negate a Magnetic survey as WRI found out in a cemetery in Nevada in 2000
and at a Mexican Presidio in Arizona in 2002 OR to help understand
resistivity data at a survey at the Presidio of San Francisco in 2008).

In short, WRI and CC heartily recommend the work that Mr. Green is doing and
recommend that he give a presentation on the "Modern Applications of Metal
Detecting to Historical Archaeology" at the 2nd SHA Technology Session at
SHA 2011 in Austin Texas.  

In addition, Dr. Brackett and I suggest that Jim Promfret gets in touch with
Steve DeVore and Dave Morgan of the National Park Service, both RPAs and Ken
Kvamne and Larry Conyers of the University of Arkansas and University of
Denver, both of whom can be contacted through the NADAG website.  Finally,
Dr. Ervin Garrison of the University of Georgia might be helpful in writing
the protocols that GADOT is seeking to put in place.

As is well known, in nearly all of Georgia on the side of nearly any
undisturbed rural road are Civil War Era archaeological sites that can be
easily found and scientifically characterized by proper use of CSF surveys
utilizing, modern and scientific VLF Metal Detecting technologies and survey
techniques.

My Two Cents!

Sincerely,

Richard J. Lundin BA, MA, RPA, ISAP
Consulting Historical Archaeologist & Remote Sensing Specialist
(Archaeogeophysics)
Director, Wondjina Research Institute
Partner, WRI\CC JV
Co-Organizer & Co-Chair 1st SHA pXRF Symposium at SHA 2010, Amelia Island
Florida
Co-Organizer & Co-Chair 2nd SHA Technology Symposium at SHA 2011, Austin
Texas
Co-Organizer & Co-Chair 2nd SHA pXRF Symposium at SHA 2011, Austin Texas
Co-organizer & Co-Chair 1st SAA pXRF Symposium at SAA 2011, Sacramento
California
Member, SHA Technology Committee
Liaison from Society for Archaeological Sciences (SAS) and the International
Society for Archaeometry (ISA) to SHA 

WRI Sonora California Office number: (209) 532-3873


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gaye
Nayton
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: metal detecting guidelines

I notice that with these guidelines the artifacts indicated by the metal
detector search are excavated and recovered.

I use metal detectors as part of non intrusive survey techniques to help
locate sites or determine the spread of buried artifacts across a site. The
methods of actually using the machines is similar except I don't do it to
dig up finds but use the machines to determine the relative density and
extent of buried material deposits.

gaye

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rich
Green
Sent: Tuesday, 22 June 2010 8:39 PM
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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release Date: 06/21/10
11:36:00