Comments on: More Teaching Moments: National Geographic Television’s “Diggers”

By: National Geographic’s Diggers Redux | SHA Blog

National Geographic’s Diggers Redux | SHA Blog — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:22:20 +0000

[...] competing to see who find the most loot at historic sites. Needless to say, the profession howled (read SHA’s response here) and National Geographic heard us. They pulled the show until they could get a sense of how to [...]

By: Making Historical Archaeology Visible: Community Outreach and Education | SHA Blog

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:05:56 +0000

[...] there’s one thing that the controversies surrounding the Diggers and American Digger reality shows have taught us, it’s that the general American public still [...]

By: Digger Shows Stir Up Controversy - Cultural Heritage Partners

Digger Shows Stir Up Controversy - Cultural Heritage Partners — Wed, 23 May 2012 02:28:36 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Snowy

Snowy — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 02:41:00 +0000

Kristin…. the common steryotype of metal detectorists is no longer accurate as well, which has several detecrotists in an uproar.

Detectorists view the past as “ours to keep” as well…. ours being the communities… detectorists LOVE unearthing history. And MOST follow a code of ethics, which are not portrayed or explained in the show. Archaeologists are no different than ethical detectorists.

By: Agent1209

Agent1209 — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:55:00 +0000

Archeologist are a bunch of baby’s who think that everything old belongs to them! I’m a digger and they can shove it! If its private land it dosent belong to them. I’m on a mission to dig up as many relics as possible and not let them know about it. So far I have lots of awesome finds that they will never know about.

By: Archaeology and Paleontology: A Smackdown | Danielle D.M. Gembala

Archaeology and Paleontology: A Smackdown | Danielle D.M. Gembala — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:53:00 +0000

[...] [...]

By: The Extreme History Project Says NO to “Diggers: Montana Juice” After TV Producers Break State Laws | Thunderbird Public Relations

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:23:45 +0000

[...] SHA letter http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/more-teaching-moments-national-geographic-televisions-digg… [...]

By: Flp3

Flp3 — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:36:00 +0000

I decided to watch a couple of episodes of Diggers just to
see how much foundation there was to the dissent out here.   Well, I am not sure the world needs to worry
about anything for the simple reason that I can’t see this show lasting more
than about ten minutes in the real world. �
They have taken what could be a fascinating premise and suspenseful theme
– metal detecting for the unknown – and put it in the hands of two of the
dumbest people ever to land a TV show (that excludes some journalists who have
brought “dumb” to an all new level).   I swear, the two guys who “host” the show
Diggers are practically idiots. They giggle
and jump up and down like infants when they find a penny … not a treasure mind
you, a penny.   They have an asinine
slang word for everything; “rev” for revolutionary war era stuff, “cologne” for
colonial era stuff, “civ” for civil war era, and so on. Are these guys in the sixth grade or
what?   It isn’t cute.   It isn’t informative. It is freaking annoying.   It would be difficult to put together a less
appealing show based on an otherwise good idea.   So fortunately the solution to the possible desecration
of historic sites might well present itself; an early cancelation should do the
trick.

By: Kristin Sewell

Kristin Sewell — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:30:00 +0000

Randy (and CaydeWyant),

Your view of archaeologists stems from our history as antiquarians and collectors and is sometimes reinforced by movies and television. The archetype of swashbuckling antiquities hunter is no longer accurate. The profession has changed over the last century into a scholarly discipline in which information about the past rather than the acquisition of rare objects is the goal.

I think I am safe in speaking for my peers and colleagues when I say that none of us think the past is ours to keep. Indeed, just the opposite is true. We wish to preserve the past for ours and future generations to enjoy and it is this desire that is at cross-purposes with the two “digger” shows we’re addressing here. Whether on public or private land, the past belongs to everyone and needs to be recorded in a systematic way. Diggers, pot hunters, looters and their ilk collect artifacts without regard to documentation, mapping, association or any of the methods which have evolved over the decades and have become of the hallmark of professional archaeology.

I hope National Geographic and Spike TV will reconsider the message they are sending and the industry they are encouraging. Not only is it bad stewardship (especially for National Geographic) but it’s irresponsible.

Kristin

By: Terry Brock

Terry Brock — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:31:00 +0000

Cayde: I’m glad that some artifacts are donated, and I don’t doubt that your uncle has a genuine appreciation for the past: we all have that in common. One of the archaeological community’s primary concerns is with the way in which the artifacts are removed from the ground, and, more importantly, how they are recorded. Archaeologists have developed methods that ensure that when an artifact is excavated, every component of where it was located, and what was located around it has been recorded, mapped to the nearest millimeter, photographed, and catalogued, because it is the context within which the artifact was found that gives us the most information about how that artifact was used, when it was used, and by whom. The issue, therefore, is more than just whether or not items are being sold or donated to a museum: it has to do with what type of information is being collected when the artifact is removed so that the artifacts can provide us with as much information about the past as possible. There are instances in the UK, as @Randy:disqus notes below, where archaeologists and metal detector enthusiasts work together, and it may be of use for archaeologists and metal detector enthusiasts to investigate that type of model further.

I would encourage you to read archaeologist Kathy Deagan’s letter about the importance of context to getting every ounce of information out of artifacts through archaeological methods, which she wrote in response to articles in her local paper about metal detecting. I think she does an eloquent job of explaining it: http://staugustine.com/opinions/2012-01-09/guest-column-veteran-archaeologist-takes-issue-treasure-hunters#comment-form

thanks for commenting, and I hope that you can understand our perspective.