This message concerns the issue brought up by Chuck Niquette that
archaeologists are only one of many users of archeological deposits, and
that others, such as metal detectoring enthusiasts, have equally significant
and justifiable claims on it.  I basically understand this issue, and I have
been wrestling with it.  In our discussions about metal detecting here, we
have developed an arguement against letting non-archaeologists collect in
artifact-rich spoil and owuld like your comments on it.  The arguement is as
follows:
 
Many archaeological significant contexts originally were what we would call
"disturbed" such as construction trench and posthole backfill for historic
buildings and sheet midden deposits.  These contexts today are extremely
important in dating and understanding the past ways of life that took place
in and around former structures, defenses, homes, and communities.
Following this line of logic, the artifact-rich backfill and spoil piles of
today from archaeological sites that are used for backfill and in
construction surely also could be very significant in the future.  Isn't it
our responsibility as archaeologists to keep these contents as intact as
possible because they can be so informative to archaeologists of the future
100, 500, 1000 years from now?  Therefore, we should not allow mining of
these contexts today because of the alteration it causes of the
archaeological record of the future. I can think of many examples where the
artifacts in what was originally "spoil" used for erosion control, earth
constructions, and backfill has been incredibly useful in piecing together
chronology and lifeways.  How do we deal with this issue? Is it our
responsibility as professionals and academics  to protect those contexts
that we can today so that can be used productively by our colleagues in the
future?
 
Judy Bense