# Archaeologists catch looter !! haha please



## caldigs (Oct 27, 2008)

oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/archaeologists_stop_alleged_lo.html 

 Archaeologists stop alleged looter at Chinatown site

  by Stuart Tomlinson, The Oregonian Thursday October 23, 2008, 8:46 PM

 [/align] Something just didn't look right to Meris Mullaley and Stacy Schneyder as they walked Thursday morning by an empty lot at Northwest Fourth Avenue and Burnside Street.  The women, archaeologists for environmental consulting firm ICF Jones & Stokes, saw a man with a shovel removing items from a pit in the corner lot just east of the Chinese gate, which had been the site of Cindy's Adult Book Store before it was demolished.   Two archaeologists stopped a man they said was looting the site Thursday. [/align] 
  "I saw the shovel and water bottles and a man removing Chinese ceramics and loading them into his car," Schneyder said. To the veteran archaeologist, the pieces "were clearly important artifacts."  Mullaley and Schneyder confronted the man, who told them he also was an archaeologist and that he had permission from the property owners to dig there.  But his story unraveled quickly. Not only did the man, who hastily packed up and left after being confronted, not have permission from the owners, but also he lacked a required state permit to excavate or dig for artifacts.  By the end of the day, the city had ordered all work to stop at the site and had hired its own contractor to put up a protective fence overnight.  Ken Ames, chairman of Portland State University's anthropology department and former president of the Society for American Archaeology, called the apparent looting "a clear violation of the law," and said this is what happens with haphazard regulation of the city's historical sites.  "We've been trying to move the city to deal with these resources in a better way," Ames said. "Not to blame anyone, but what we need is a process to manage these kind of historical sites."  Contacted late Thursday, one of the property's owners said there's no way he would have granted permission to dig on the lot.  "Some guy called me two weeks ago and told me he collected old bottles and wanted to dig in there, but I told him no," said Daniel Cossette. "I told him if he fell and hurt himself I'd have to pay."  Cossette and his wife own half the property and another couple owns the other half. The lot is on the market for $3 million.  Schneyder said the digger at the lot left behind glass bottles and other items that were from the turn of the century, but left with items she estimated to be of Chinese origin from the 1870s to 1890s, including what Mullaley identified as a brown stoneware soy sauce vessel.  Schneyder could tell by the brick lining of the pit that it was probably the remnants of old sewer pit, that was later filled with trash.  "That's a chamber pot," she said, pointing at a shard of pottery partially buried near the lip of the pit, "and that's the top of a pot."  Schneyder said the deeper you go, the older the items are likely to be.  "This is the kind of site that can tell us a lot about the period," she said. "I think there is still a lot of stuff left in there."  For more than four hours after confronting the man, the two women stood guard over the open pit -- which is about 3 feet deep and 10 feet across -- to make sure no more artifacts, which were literally spilling out of the ground, were removed.  They also called police, Portland city officials and the State Historic Preservation Office in Salem. State officials confirmed no permit had been issued to excavate the site.  City Commissioner Randy Leonard's office told the contractor and the owner of the property to stop work at the site immediately, said Aaron Johnson, who's handling the case in Leonard's office. Johnson said his office had issued a demolition permit for the site, not knowing anything about archaeological artifacts there.  State archeologist Dennis Griffin said in an e-mail to Johnson that he had told the city's planning commission some time ago that artifacts were at risk at the site. But the planning commission is not in charge of revoking demolition permits.  Griffin told Johnson in that same e-mail that he had directed the contractor to stop digging, to no avail.  "Most of our history is written by the winners, but sites like this tell a more democratic story," Mullaley said. "It's about saving our communal history."


----------



## caldigs (Oct 27, 2008)

Here is what I think:

     1. Experienced privy diggers will find about %90 of the bottles and artifacts on any given site.  An archaeologist will find %20, if that.  After the archaeologists are done, the rest is destroyed by the equipment.   

   2. No experienced privy digger digs for profit.  If a digger were to sell all his finds, it would hardly cover the money and time invested.  

   3. Experienced privy diggers do respect historical properties with potentially anomalous features such privies of: Chinese, Native American, historic political figures, or other unique individuals. We respect these special sites and think they do deserve to be excavated by archaeologists and their reports published.  Any digger who does not respect these sensitive sites is out of line, and does not represent privy diggers as whole.    

   4. The time period of most privies (1850-1900) on the west coast of America is a period which has much written history.  Archaeologists are not going to 'discover' much or rewrite history. We already know how they lived, what they ate.  With the exception of minority groups (Chinese, slaves, ect.) we know it already.  The privies we dig belong to â€˜average Joesâ€™ who had average jobs, consumed average products, and lived average lives.  Enough â€˜average Joeâ€™ privies have been excavated over the years to construct their living histories.  Instead of targeting these â€˜average Joesâ€™ archaeologists efforts would be far more productive targeting pre-historic features. 

   5. I find it very suspicious that the bottles archaeologist dig up (at least here in CA) seem to disappear.  Occasionally one will see little displays with bottles that were excavated before a building was put in, but the majority of the bottle put in the display are DAMAGED and WORTHLESS.  Where do the valuable whiskey and bitters bottles go ?????????  It is impossible that the archaeologist do not find these valuable bottles.  The fact is that they DO find the incredibly valuable bottles, but instead of showing them off to the public, they disappear into the archaeologistsâ€™s private collection or even worse the archaeologists sell them through different distribution channels.  I would call this dishonest behavior looting, wouldnâ€™t you ???  Furthermore, what is the point of having these bottles cataloged and put in storage for nobody to enjoy, admire, and learn from.  How is that productive ???? ITâ€™S NOT.  Archaeologists may not be aware of this, but us privy diggers contribute several of our finds to local historical societies and even occasionally give speeches to various historical alliances.  We privy diggers spread the knowledge gleaned from our excavations.  Archaeologists do not.


----------



## Penn Digger (Oct 27, 2008)

Chinese?  LOL  Give me a break!  I hope the digger got all he could before these uptight stiffs showed up.  Sounds like had he not been there, the whole lot would have been destroyed.  They can have the chamber pot shards for their collection.  Jerks, go hug a tree.



 PD


----------



## JOETHECROW (Oct 27, 2008)

Those kind of stories make my blood run cold, because it's just a hint of typical beauracratic thinking and reaction,...also the continuation of  govt. interference of a constructive hobby. I fear it's the shape of things to come.                                        Joe


----------



## NorCalBottleHunter (Oct 27, 2008)

yes andrew, well put in your second post, i couldnt agree more with ya


----------



## brokenshovel (Oct 27, 2008)

Isn't is funny how the Gubment wants to control everything they can?  Even a 120 year old SH#THOLE!  You own the land unless some "historic" piece of trash is discovered and then they have a right to it.
 Complete BS.


----------



## 77waystodeal3 (Oct 27, 2008)

He shoulda dug  a deeper Hole.........Someplace Else....HAhaha[]


----------



## Lordbud (Oct 27, 2008)

The reason "archaeologists" are even "interested" in relatively new historical sites & materials on the West Coast is because there are too many "trained" archaeologists working for private companies, and not enough pre-historic Native American sites for them to dig.  

 The state lawmakers craft these ridiculous laws because they're pushed to do so by private archaeological firms who need something to do to get paid. 

 Imagine the line otherwise out-of-work archaeologists push on your state representatives:
 "We need to protect the history of California which belongs to all of us, not just destructive relic hunters." "We cannot allow these people to destroy entire archaeological sites for their own greed!"

 Can you imagine having your own law on the books that guarantees regular public-funded projects for your own company and others like it?

 The state government works for private interests rather than the public they are supposed to represent.


----------



## GuntherHess (Oct 27, 2008)

Sounds like a stupid digger to me.
 Didnt have permission and digging in an obviously sensitive place.
 Are the few $100s to $1000s of bottles you MIGHT find worth the fine you are going to have to pay when you get arrested. Got to use common sense at some point.


----------



## CALDIGR2 (Oct 27, 2008)

If you visit a "Historic Archaeologist's" offices you will see many books written by, and for, bottle collectors. These collector books are their primary source for information concerning these "rare and important pieces of American history". I have walked the storage facility near Sacramento and observed row after row of drawers filled with bottles, and other artifacts, excavated from City and State owned properties. While there are a few exciting pieces, most are mundane objects that I would toss back in the pit. There are numbered and catalogued bags of shards and other junk that, to them, are every bit as valuable as are mint examples of bitters or soda bottles. 

 No archaeologist will dig on his, or her, own. They must be funded before any work is performed. California trained archys are a particularly nasty lot, and consider us collectors as little better than common theives. UC Berkeley produces aparticularly virulent form of this ilk. They have a narrow field of vision and see things in a perspective that their education and training dictates. In other words, they are blind to anything but what their little heads have been doctrinated with. The "full picture" is unavailable to them, so there is no comprehension of why we do what we do. That is exactly why the Portland archys were so irate. They were only capable of seeing a "burglar" in action, not a bottle collector doing what we do. 

 Oregon's new protectionist laws will set a precedent that I predict will soon be followed by other states, especially CA. Archaeologist's selfish interests have already begun this process, so it is just a matter of time. Dig while you are able, but only do so with the permission of the property owners. A verbal "OK" is good, but written is preferred. Stay completely clear of anything even closely related to Native American sites. This kind of digging is against current laws and will net you a nice residency in the "Iron Bar Hotel".

 I, and a few friends, have written permission to dig privies on properties in a certain central Oregon city and we have every intention of doing so. I spoke to the COP last week and he has "No problem" with this endeavor. Soon, we will see how the situation pans out. Hopefully, we will not be challenged by some "foamer", but if the situation arises, it will be dealt with appropriately.


----------



## Mike O (Oct 27, 2008)

How important of an area could it have been, It used to be an adult bookstore!  I guess there could have been some great vintage porn in there []


----------



## glass man (Oct 27, 2008)

I ENJOYED THE PART WHERE "ARTIFACTS WERE LITERALLY SPILLING OUT OF THE GROUND",WHAT A VISION! WOW AN ARTISIAN #HIT HOLE WELL WITH BOTTLES JUST BUBBLING OUT OF THE GROUND!! []


----------



## baltbottles (Oct 27, 2008)

> Here is what I think:
> 
> 1. Experienced privy diggers will find about %90 of the bottles and artifacts on any given site.  An archaeologist will find %20, if that.  After the archaeologists are done, the rest is destroyed by the equipment.
> 
> ...





> ORIGINAL:  caldigs
> 
> Here is what I think:
> 
> ...


 
 I would agree with you on number 1 because privy diggers and archaeologists dig a site for a different reason. Privy diggers go to find artifacts and the focuse on wher they are highly concentrated. Archaeologists dig a site to do a historical survey. They dig over the entire site so they can map building foundations. they look at how the grade of the land has been changed over time by building up or being cut down. they locate and map important features such as fence and building post holes, dranage trenches, privies, and wells. this is why they only find 20 percent o fthe bottles they simply are not looking for them.

 I would disagree with number 2 beacuse i know more then one experinced digger that simply digs to sell. For them its about making extra money.

 As for 3 if the sites going to be destroyed I'd dig it. May places don't do archaeology because they can't afford to pay for it. But if the sites not threatened I wouldn't mess with it.

 Number 4 I agree with completely. I've dug enough privies to know that you find alot of the same items. and you don't need to dig too many to get a good demographic sample.

 As for 5 I will say I've heard stories of archaeologists destroying valuable bottles so they couldn't be had by collectors. I know a few Archaeologists that have nice private collections. And was once told that how may does a museum actually need and a broken one is often more interesing for a display then an intact example. So basically everything found does not always get reported.

 Chris


----------



## Jim (Oct 27, 2008)

I agree 100% that Oregon's law is overreaching, unconstitutional and easy to abuse. However, the guy made a mistake by digging a site that he had been denied permission to dig. If he had permission from the landowner, the police and the landowner would likely have been on his side, and told the "spoilers" to get lost, as THEY did not have permission to be there.

 While some states may be able to pass such BS laws like Oregon's, there are many where it simply will not happen. Here in PA, a number of our Governor's "big government" proposals (none pertaining to our hobby) have been killed by our state Senate. I have also dealt with archaeologists from the PHMC, which is PA's official state archaeology department. I must say, the ones I have dealt with, including the chief archaeologist, are good people. They do their job, they care about preserving our history, as do I, but they also respect what I do and have never tried to infringe upon my pursuit of this great hobby. They were actually quite pleased when I told them how I do my digs and documentation, and even wished me good luck on future digs.  ~Jim


----------



## appliedlips (Oct 27, 2008)

> ORIGINAL: Jim
> 
> I agree 100% that Oregon's law is overreaching, unconstitutional and easy to abuse. However, the guy made a mistake by digging a site that he had been denied permission to dig. If he had permission from the landowner, the police and the landowner would likely have been on his side, and told the "spoilers" to get lost, as THEY did not have permission to be there.
> 
> While some states may be able to pass such BS laws like Oregon's, there are many where it simply will not happen. Here in PA, a number of our Governor's "big government" proposals (none pertaining to our hobby) have been killed by our state Senate. I have also dealt with archaeologists from the PHMC, which is PA's official state archaeology department. I must say, the ones I have dealt with, including the chief archaeologist, are good people. They do their job, they care about preserving our history, as do I, but they also respect what I do and have never tried to infringe upon my pursuit of this great hobby. They were actually quite pleased when I told them how I do my digs and documentation, and even wished me good luck on future digs.  ~Jim


 

       Jim,don't be so sure that it can't happen where you live.Indiana is one of the most conservative states out there but I have been made aware that legislation is currently underway to make digging any pre 1870 site,including privies illegal.

       As far as the archies in this story are concerned.I think we should all fill up their email box and voice mail with our opinions.Some of the dumbest crap I have ever read.They didn't have any interest until somebody else was getting something.Losers!


----------



## appliedlips (Oct 27, 2008)

> ORIGINAL: Penn Digger
> 
> Jerks, go hug a tree.
> 
> ...


 
         I will vote for any poliltical candidate that makes this their slogan!


----------



## Jim (Oct 27, 2008)

Any state legislature, city council, or any other government that would pass such crap should stop and think about a few things. 1- They are not going to stop most excavations on private property with landowner permission. Many (myself included) would simply ignore their draconian nonsense and continue doing what we do. There are not enough state-sponsored, taxpayer-leeching knuckleheads to patrol every small town and large city looking for "looters". 

 2- What they WOULD succeed in doing is p*ssing off non-professional historians like me, and a number of good things would be halted, including- Public displays/ educational exhibits within communities by people who actually know and appreciate the local history of their area; donations of items to local historical societies (something I do a lot of), newspaper/magazine articles that share historical information with the community, and more. If greedy statists and bad-apple archies want to play nasty, so will I. My collections, dig journals and a lot of good historical information will be stashed away, and will not see the light of day until after I'm dead and gone and they are willed to my historical society. Consequently, a lot of people would miss out, as I'm only 27 and hope to be around for a few more decades.

 To those who push this crap, I ask one thing: Who would be causing a disservice to the historical record then??


----------



## tigue710 (Oct 27, 2008)

the whole thing is scary to me, there gonna wrap things up so tight someday your going to need a permit to take a dump and then another to flush it!

 Funny how those dumb broads, who must live locally, walked past the site everyday and never thought anything of it until the got jealous of some free lance digger who got to just go in and dig!  I bet those Chinese artifacts, (broken English porcelain) are still there if they want them!

 Man I feel sorry for you west coasters, I hope I'm not feeling sorry for myself soon!  Na probably not, its the liberals who F*** things up, were all to tight out here to care... I hope...


----------



## bottlebadger (Oct 27, 2008)

Reread the last 3 sentences or so.  I work for County government here is Wisconsin so I see it all the time.  Paraphrasing its says" We think there might be something of value (historical or otherwise), but the inefficient way we enforce laws (with one hand not knowing what the other is doing) and have no incentive of significance to compel the landowner or demolition contractor to care, everything will hauled to a dump where it will be lost for good."  The landowner is ticked- not because some dirty bottle burglar went behind his back but now his project will be shut down until he pays to have some archy firm dig up all the items of "great historical value".  That being said, digging on land you were told not to or not asking at all should not be done. These stories only make all diggers in eyes of the public seem like sneaky unsavory types skulking around looking for items of great historical value to steal.  Sorry- I'm getting off the soap box now.


----------



## pyshodoodle (Oct 27, 2008)

> sewer


 
 ???????????????



> For more than four hours after confronting the man, the two women stood guard over the open pit -- which is about 3 feet deep and 10 feet across -- to make sure no more artifacts, which were literally spilling out of the ground, were removed.


 
  Archaeologist - Just stand guard? Not go home and get the shovel??? 

 Whatever... at least the looter saved "clearly important artifacts" from immenent distruction.


----------



## appliedlips (Oct 27, 2008)

*
      I agree that the landowner is getting screwed because it is his site getting shut down. However, I believe the digger is not the one responsible for all the bad press from this story. If the landowner had caught him, he would have been told to leave or the police would have showed up and said fill the hole and leave.. It was the jealous, nosey ladies who blew the situation out of proportion. It was a torn up construction site for crying out loud! Any artifacts would have been lost if not for him.


      I know, I know all diggers should always have permission even on construction sites. However, on these sites it is normally a waste of time, asking. I think it is fair to say a majority of dug bottles circulating on eBay ,bottle shows, auction sites were dug without permission from construction sites and wooded dumps. I know diggers that have dug more bottles than alot of the regular posters on this site that gave it up because of the â€œuptightâ€ attitudes on construction sites. A lot of old time collectors got their start on these digs and no one thought nothing of it back then. This world needs more trial attorneyâ€™s I tell ya!

     I dig most of my bottles in backyards with ownerâ€™s permission but if I pass a jobsite in my travels and the ground is torn up and time is of the essence, I will dig it. The history in some well groomed backyard of a nice house in a small town will be preserved indefinitely. The front end loaders will haul the â€œhistorical artifactsâ€ to the dump in minutes, from the jobsite. This said I still respect the property and fill my holes and stay out of footers, clean gravel, etc..

     Jim, you are right, most of us care more about the history of these artifacts than most of those bureaucrats. We also are more willing to publicly share our finds
 Two locals sites to me have had their privies â€œcarefully excavatedâ€ with backhoes by privately contracted archeologists. Of course they were paid with public monies to conduct these surveys. One site contained some of the oldest privies to be found in the city. They dug to 5 ft. with the backhoe and quit and wrote a little bit about how nothing was to be found. The privies bottomed out at around 20 ft. and had a lot of cool stuff including some unique local items. I would have done it for the tens of thousands they were paid but being the philanthropist I am I did it for free. On yet another site they hassled me and other diggers before work began for digging with ownerâ€™s permission. The landowners were loosing their homes to imminent domain so they were some of the easiest permissions ever. Of course many of these homes were the earliest homes left in the city. I even had some fool hassling me through eBay. After we were done digging almost every last one of these privies and the land was bought up. The city (which is one of the poorest in the stateâ€ paid $40,000 for archeologists to come in and dig a few of the 6 ft. deep privies with backhoes. I am hoping to see my Diet coke bottles in some museum somewhere. You see, A LOT of these types could give a damn about the artifacts of the common man but are just protecting their â€œgovernment cheeseâ€. There are good ones out there and I truly respect what they do but have no patience for the overeducated morons.*


----------



## pyshodoodle (Oct 28, 2008)

Let's think about this.. If the "looter" had permission from the land-owner, would there have been any problems? If the archeologists had complained, and he said he gave the guy permission, is there anything they could have done? Couldn't the landowner say:
 "This is my land and if I want to allow someone to dig up an old privy, I have that right? Go find your own privy to dig up - I'm sure there're plenty more out there! If you want these clearly important artifacts, I'll give you his number and you can ask him what he wants for them.  If you want the shards, I'll tell him to leave them for you."
 Can this story be used to the digger's advantage to obtain permissions?

 Kate


----------



## appliedlips (Oct 28, 2008)

Kate,  I am not sure on the Oregon law but I  am not positive that it would be alright even with permission.Silly huh? These stories make landowners and developers scared "something" will be found on their site of importance that will shut there jobsite down.I like your point about  being other sites to dig.Inner city lots are continuously getting torn up and developed, why aren't they all important to save?


----------



## caldigs (Oct 31, 2008)

Have you guys seen the response to my articulated points on the article ?  Look at what the pro-archaeologist side has said. Just about all they're done is said I'm stupid, they can't answer the questions. PLEASE, I urge you all to leave more comments/feedback on the article (takes a second to register to leave comments) !

 I found this especially insulting : " 5) Your ignorance and unwillingness to ask the people the might have answers does not constitute a conspiracy. Also, this gem: * "We privy diggers spread the knowledge gleaned from our excavations. Archaeologists do not."*. Yeah, that's a lie. "

 I guarantee the hundreds of home-owners I have educated has been FAR more productive than %90 of any archaeologists excavations in my area.


----------



## pyshodoodle (Oct 31, 2008)

I started to read the comments, I really did. But I felt myself getting really really annoyed. [] I will try to read this and post a comment tomorrow. Can't deal with this kind of stress before bed, so I closed the page. 
 For those of you that do post comments, for the sake of all diggers, my suggestion would be to take the high road with your comments. The name-calling, archaeology bashing, anti-establishment rude comments will only hurt the cause.


----------



## kastoo (Oct 31, 2008)

The whole thing is a crock.  If that guy wasn't digging there, they would never have known and wouldn't have bothered.  The construction dudes don't want anyone knowing about crap to dig because they don't want to have to slow or stop for the archie types or the gov.  It would get destroyed.  Lastly, I have heard those dig problems are common up there in the Northwest as they have buku rules about digging.  He should have dug at night...oops did I say that.


----------



## MINNESOTA DIGGER (Nov 12, 2008)

every  construction site that  i have ever been at that has  SOIL contamination " privys ,wells ,trashpit , construction debris etc. " is hauled to the modern day mega landfill so fast   you would never know it existed .  just get inside a modern day landfill that takes " CONTAMINATED  SOIL " and look at all the bottles there  they cant get it to the landfill fast enough . if you happen to be the driver of the  end dump  truck and get out and take a look   around you might find some bottles  i know i have found them at the modern day landfill . what a joke these 2 witches are . WHO gave them the right to be in charge of someones waste . wheres the hardhat  hi vis clothing steel toe boots safety glasses  ? and lastly where is the common sense  . common sense is more then just having  TWO CENTS in your pocket


----------



## MINNESOTA DIGGER (Mar 6, 2013)

bump


----------



## Bottles r LEET (Mar 6, 2013)

> Kate,Â  I am not sure on the Oregon law but IÂ  am not positive that it would be alright even with permission.


 
 I heard in another article that it is illegal to dig up anything older than 75 years old in Oregon without a permit. So anything older than 1938 is illegal to dig up without a permit. I guess just dig and don't get caught, or don't go to Oregon.


----------



## luckiest (Mar 6, 2013)

I think that the idea of getting permission is great and I would always prefer to have the land owner's go-ahead, but at least where I live you would never dig again if that's how you decided to roll.  You just wont get any permissions end of story.


----------



## frozenmonkeyface (Mar 6, 2013)

I hug trees all of the time. [][]


----------



## westernglassaddict (Mar 6, 2013)

In Oregon, it is absolutely, positively illegal to dig, excavate, or remove ANY artifact over 75 years old. EVEN WITH the landowner's permission. The original intent of this administrative rule was to protect native American burial sites. Unfortunately it extends to virtually any antique item dug up...even while digging a fence post hole, or drainage ditch in your back yard. This is simply the reality of desecrating Mother Earth in Oregon.
  I have had digging partners who were close to age 75. I quit digging with them as they are considered an "artifact" and once in the hole, I legally could not remove the old coots from the hole without a permit.These guys needed to get home for dinner and take their meds so the risk was too great. Because of Oregon's "law", I have had to dig in other states or in local antique shops. WGA.


----------



## MINNESOTA DIGGER (Mar 6, 2013)

the law is a joke . total joke  i guess nothing i  would ever  dig in oregon would ever be older then 75 years old . how do you dig out a stump that is older the 75 years old . it would be against the law to pick up a rock and throw a skipper in the water . or walk on a gravel road and pick up an agate . or have a old house and do any maintainece to an old home near ground  level . . how  do they build any new buildings in oregon what a ***king joke . the law is to broad and needs to be redefined . . spend money on  busting outhouse pit diggers and let the criminals deal the drugs . and all sorts of other nonsense this law  is  purely stupid  . common  sense there isn't any in this  law WHAT A JOKE and  it is not funny !


----------



## diggerdirect (Mar 7, 2013)

> I have had digging partners who were close to age 75. I quit digging with them as they are considered an "artifact" and once in the hole, I legally could not remove the old coots from the hole without a permit.These guys needed to get home for dinner and take their meds so the risk was too great.


 
 [][][][][][][]


----------



## mtfdfire22 (Mar 7, 2013)

A friend of mine and fellow bottle digger who is an archaeologist is just the opposite of these people. He is an avid collector and supports the hobby at his archaeological meetings. Their are many times he has stuck up for privy diggers saying "Archaeologists are never going to get everything out of the ground so the privy diggers are actually doing something to get the history". He will be the first to tell you that most bottles from an archaeological dig are stuck in boxes or drawers in basements of museums and historical societies.


----------



## Btl_Dvr (Mar 7, 2013)

You think this is bad. Try dealing w/ Marine Archeologists. They are probably even more underfunded than land arch's and have to wait for someone to find a wreck then claim it, (submerged cultural resources), they call them. Between them and UNEXO, beware.
 Jay


----------



## blade (Mar 7, 2013)

Five year old post.[8D]


----------



## Bottles r LEET (Mar 7, 2013)

> Try dealing w/ Marine Archeologists. They are probably even more underfunded than land arch's and have to wait for someone to find a wreck then claim it, (submerged cultural resources), they call them. Between them and UNEXO, beware.


 
 What about in international waters?


----------



## mctaggart67 (Mar 7, 2013)

I wish I could find my copy of the Ontario Archaeological Society's journal in which a wonderfully funny contradiction was printed, so I could scan it and post it, but here goes a description anyhow . . .

 Back in the late 1980s, I researched and published two books for the bottle collecting world up here in Canada, entitled (verbosely, I admit), "The Ontario Soda Water and Brewers Gazetteer and Directory (1851-1930)" and "The Ontario Drug Store and Druggist List (1851-1930)." These books list known historical soda water works, breweries and pharmacies and their respective dates of operation during the span of years covered. This raw data is useful for dating bottles, identifying bottles to places in the case of bottles not marked with place names, such as primitive ginger beers and early druggists, etc. A bottle-collector sympathetic archaeologist and educator graciously gave my books a very nice combined review, which turned out to be good for sales to archaeologists, as one might expect. The very same edition of the journal contained an editorial or a letter to the editor (I can't remember exactly), in which the author condemned bottle collectors for such amateur horrors as: 1) digging significant sites without gridding them according to academically accepted process, 2) destroying the layers of deposited trash by which professionals could date dug artifacts, 3) not generally respecting the law that addressed archaeology, and so on -- the usual diatribes that just serve to divide people. But what really struck me as ironically way off the mark was the statement that bottle collectors never contribute anything towards our greater understanding of the past, and, in particular, that we never wrote books useful for documenting old bottles!


----------



## splante (Mar 9, 2013)

I think having permission could of saved a lot of BS, and these dam digger shows are not helping..along with the tree huggers..lol


----------



## elmoleaf (Mar 9, 2013)

For me, the issue is not whether the items were of historical value.  It's that he apparently asked permission, was told no, and dug anyway.
"Some guy called me two weeks ago and told me he collected old bottles and wanted to dig in there, but I told him no," said Daniel Cossette. "I told him if he fell and hurt himself I'd have to pay."​ The digger could've offered to sign a liability waiver. He could've offered to split finds with the owner to entice the owner to grant permission. Instead he decided digging up someone else's property and stealing would be the next logical step.

 This type of story gets repeated on here too often, with rationalizations why it's ok: "oh, it's just some empty lot, nobody will care" "the stuff is gonna rot/get lost anyway" "the owners don't even know it's there anyway".


----------



## trail (Mar 9, 2013)

To the veteran archaeologist, the pieces "were clearly important artifacts." ..... I didn't hear about them getting of thier butts to do the work. All to often it all gets damaged by construction. Better that some one save it!


----------



## 2find4me (Mar 9, 2013)

Sadly, archaeologists took over one of the few of my TOC Dumps that still produced nice stuff.[][][]  I got some nice deco sodas from this one.  I don't exactly understand why they are so interested in these newer sites.


----------

