I agree with the characterization of artifact hunters as people who have
a deep, if private and proprietary, interest in the material culture of
the past.  And, part of the problem is that our profession, either
setting itself up as, or being set up as, privileged stewards of
knowledge about the past, all too often does not connect to others who
are outside this privileged priesthood.  However, I am also struck by
the statement that the Confederate belt buckle, found by the relic
hunter in the original newspaper article, might be worth $12,000.00.  To
understand the motivation of someone trying and, once in a very great
while, succeeding in recovery of such a "treasure," I think we need to
look at the social context in which this activity takes place, and the
direct financial motivations for it.  I will hazard the assumption that
most of the relic hunters are working class to middle class people who,
increasingly, are living lives of progressively less economic security,
with inflation, increased layoffs, jobs downsized and outsourced, the
rise of benefit-less contingent work (something CRM archaeologists know
all too well!), political leaders who are incompetent, corrupt or, more
usually, both, and so forth.  We also, now, have a burgeoning lottery
culture, expressed through state lottos, Native American casinos, Las
Vegas and Atlantic City.  In such a situation, can you really blame
someone for thinking that, just maybe, the next "Big BBQ Relic
Shoot-Out" will gain him, at least, more than his entry fee, if not (at
current prices, probably not those of next week) 120 tanks of gas?  I'm
afraid that this desire, for a bit more financial advantage if not for a
$150-million power ball payout, is right up there with appreciation for
the past as a motivation for these programs of site destruction.  I'm
also afraid about how a Rep. Pombo (R-California) would greet an appeal
to preserve the past through limitation on an activity that his
constituents enjoy and which, on occasion, one or another of them might
parlay into a big payday--derisive laughter would be the least of it.  I
very much doubt that a solution that infringes on the "rights" of
artifact hunters to destroy sites will gain much traction, especially if
we frame its as us--eggheads against them--good old boys.  What Joe
Roberts recommends here is difficult, dangerous, and, to us
archaeologists, entirely distasteful.  But, what else might work?

D. Babson.


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe
Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Individual rights and relic hunting: Thorny issues

Among Civil War relic hunters, there are reasons why a CSA button goes
for $700 and a Federal eagle button is $9. Relic hunting enacts
deeply-felt notions of identity and patriotism. Digging is a powerfully
meaningful activity for those who dig.

For hardcore relic hunters, more than money is involved. These guys will
slave in the mud and poison ivy for eight hours and be overjoyed to find
a few blobs of camp lead and a bent knapsack hook. Digging is about
heritage.

Most of the time, metal detecting is not a real profitable hobby. 99.9%
of the finds would be hard to sell for a dollar. Many hunters do not
sell their relics--they are holy items. I look deeper for the motivation
to relic hunt and the source of the value attached to artifacts. 

In his 'Heritage Wars' discussion, Lowenthal makes the point that for
the pluralistic west, universal access to heritage is construed as an
INDIVIDUAL right.

The anti-metal detecting stance of archaeology is viewed by relic
hunters as instance of Lowenthal's "tribalistic" or political claims
that exclude others in such a way that "those who are not privy to the
inside knowledge must accept the authority of those persons who are
privy, and the wisdom of the restrictions."

In some parts of the USA, the very concept of patriotism is phrased as a
battle of individual rights versus elite/big money/government control.
Did I mention I lived in Texas for 13 years? Archaeology, in certain
circles, is viewed as an agent of elite control.

It is interesting that relic hunters commonly believe that relics on
public land belong to everybody, because its PUBLIC, so they can go out
and retrieve a few at will. We respond legalistically: "You can't do
that! Relics on public land belong to everybody." 

Here is a total disconnect on philosophies of individual vs. corporate
rights. Gut-level politics. The loud call for restrictive legislation
and exclusive access, particularly when sacred individual property
rights are at risk, VALIDATES the relic hunters' conceptions of
archaeologists as part of the Federal power/control grab and gives moral
fuel to their passion. 

IF part of our goal is to work with and educate relic hunters, and I
think it should be, we need to meet on common ground. 

History, value of the past, best use of archaeological resources, and
sharing our findings--these are talking points. Campaigns for property
rights restrictions are "fighting words"--a recipe for stalemate.
Full-out Heritage Warfare.

Discouraging tales of greed and destruction abound, but part of the
message there is that archaeology needs better public relations--with
the people as well as with lawmakers.

It's the long road, but I believe that if archaeologists' leading
gesture were to better explain and teach how we see things and share
what we know-- public archaeology --we can make allies rather than
enemies. Doors have to be open before  our vital message can be
delivered.

Certainly, consideration of legislative reform should continue but we
must not neglect the postitive potential of our role as stewards of
knowledge in promoting dialogue, encouraging education, and contributing
to public enlightenment.

I know a number of relic hunters back in Texas. When relic hunters and
archaeologists meet in unguarded social situations --at club meetings,
in the field, at the saloon--the discussion turns to history and places,
the wonder of the past. For a few minutes, it can seem like we're all
good folks heading in a similar direction.

We should build on that shared ground as part of our struggle against
destruction of cultural resources.
   
Joe Roberts
[log in to unmask]