In a message dated 95-09-11 16:16:57 EDT, Judy Bense wrote:
 
> there has been a growing contingent of avid, rampant metal detector
>enthusiasts who want to collect AFTER we have finished our archaeological
>investigations in artifact-rich backfill of heavy equipment and other
>disturbed contexts which are headed for the dump or reburial.  I
>have held and the city supports the position that collecting in backfill and
>disturbed areas encourages looting in general and, if it is unsupervised,
>can lead to disturbance of intact site areas and escalate detecting into
>pothunting.
 
Judy, I feel just the opposite.  Yes, such behavior has little regard for the
information a site holds and places the emphasis on the "thing" found, but
archeology and archeological "treasures" hold a great deal of interest for
lots and lots of people who do not share our views.  The resource base is not
a proprietary playground reserved only for trained archeologists.
 Increasingly we are challenged sucessfully by others, notably Native
Americans, who also believe that they have a particularly significant and
justifiable claim (interest in) on archeology.  If the site in question has
already been subject to scientific study, and the information contained
therein has been documented adequately, and the relic seekers are simply
mining backdirt, disturbed contexts (or even undisturbed contexts), we would
be remiss to fight against archeology's other interest groups.  Instead, we
should seek to work with these people, to capitalize upon their interest in
the artifacts and to educate them about what they find and the information
that the data provide to trained individuals under controlled circumstances.
 In other words, we need to think creatively about ways in which to garner
support for archeology throughout all of its diverse publics.  Ours isn't the
only game in town.
 
Chuck Niquette