Gaye,
Good point. On many sites, particularly homestead or cabins with locally
concentrated materials, we too only flag detected metal artifacts and
perhaps take a representative sample uniformly across the site. Generally,
we flag ferrous artifacts with an orange flag and non-ferrous with blue.
Photographing the distribution of colored flags from a number of points on
the site grid assists in determining the amount and type of metal artifacts
present without excavation.
Many of our projects have been larger area battlefield surveys in
agricultural fields; some of which are thousands of meters long. Many metal
artifacts that are unrelated to the battle including farm implements, tools,
scrap metal, beer cans and other modern refuse are typical. In this case,
simply flagging the detected artifacts is less telling.
Metal detection with both a hand-held magnetometer and VLF metal detector is
also useful in advance of any non-invasive subsurface imaging such as GPR,
EMC or other types of electromagnetic data collection. Large, near surface
buried metal items or dense concentrations of metal refuse can be
problematic for instance when interpreting unmarked graves in 19th century
cemeteries. Generally, it is a good idea to locate, identify and in some
instances remove these impedances to data interpretation in advance of
subsurface imaging.
There are many practical uses for metal detection on archaeological sites.
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: "Gaye Nayton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:26 AM
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
|
