Hypothetical Relic hunting question

[BamaBill]

If you were hunting an area known to have CW relics and you started turning up a lot of material and it looked like this area had not been hunted before and it was clear you were onto something significant, would you:
A. Call somebody and report it, so it could be dug and reported properly or
B. Call your friends and get digging?

I haven't found something like this, but I was reading an article in one of the Treasure Mags I have and it was real disturbing how it was handled. To me, its one thing to be picking up the occasional artifact or to find a small hotspot with a cluster of artifacts, but if you're finding enough that your site is starting to look like an Archaelogical dig, you just might be destroying something of significance.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[warsawdaddy]

CW items have nothing to do with the real meaning of archaelogical items.They do not fit the webster definition for time in archaeology.Not old enough!If the 'archies' keep having their way,a 1960 house demolition will be an 'archy'dispute.

 

[Blind.In.Texas]

I am no fan of civil war era battlefield excavations. My opinion of that is my own. Hoooowever, there are many areas of civil war era occupation that involved no conflict, therefore, I say dig it with your boys and keep quiet about it. I say if it was a battle field stay off of it. Just my opinion. I do hope you get some really cool relics though. GL and HH

Laater...

 

[Kentucky Kache]

How would the Archaeologists make things more proper?
Get a trowell and start sifting. If it's proper for them, it's proper for you.

 

[Michigan Badger]

There have been those archaeologists who have gone on record as saying that often dug relics end up in higher ranking archaeologist's private collections.

I think it's great when a unique and unusual site is excavated and preserved for future generations to enjoy and study. But this is seldom the outcome of archaeological digs.

If I ever find a really hot CW site I'll put the directions to it into a letter only to be opened in the event of my sudden disappearance.

Badger

 

[bazinga]

I wouldn't let an archie know at all! What are they going to do with the finds? Maybe they will be shown for a couple of months somewhere but after that you can bet they are all going to be put in to storage somewhere and never seen again.

Plus if they really were that interested in doing this type of dig they would have done the research and found the site themselves.

 

[Blind.In.Texas]

How would the Archaeologists make things more proper?
Get a trowell and start sifting. If it's proper for them, it's proper for you.

jbot jbot jbot....we ain't all edumacated in these here ways that them there archies have sofisticated themselves in. we ignernt and undeserving. let it ride......

 

[Blind.In.Texas]

I wouldn't let an archie know at all! What are they going to do with the finds? Maybe they will be shown for a couple of months somewhere but after that you can bet they are all going to be put in to storage somewhere and never seen again.

Plus if they really were that interested in doing this type of dig they would have done the research and found the site themselves.

Right on. I refer to that as the 'vulture syndrome'. See, vultures don't care about you and your business. If of course you should happen to drop dead in plain sight they might as well eat you. I've never seen a vulture picked carcass under a dense canopy. Know what I mean? I would just dig it and show it, but, never tell where I found it.

 

[jeff of pa]

You said it Yourself Canwarp.

(many were rotting away or disintegrating in warehouses because of a lack of funds).

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,34078.msg407896.html#msg407896


Need I say More

 

[BamaBill]

I know what I said. That was 20 years ago and I wanted to see if anything had changed and what the prevailing attitudes are, about this. The problem with Archaeology, as it exists in this country, is the fact that most sites are only found when federal money is involved and it becomes rescue work that doesn't get the careful consideration that an academic dig would. In many cases, historical Archaeology sets the record straight, because memory is often and usually fallible. I'm not arguing that relic hunting is wrong, just that if we don't agree on where to draw the line and what to do about it, we're potentially robbing the future historians of the chance to have a more accurate picture, not just one told by the winners. If I were so lucky as to find such a site I would find out where the nearest University with an Archaeology department was located and would approach the head of that Department about where this site is located and I would volunteer (for free) to be part of the excavation, once he raised the necessary funding. However, as some people have pointed out, you may need to feel the guy out first and check his rep before divulging anything. In my experience the academic Archaelogy departments are easier to deal with and usually can get the best funding for this kind of work. Of course, this all my opinion and I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm just a very passionate history buff and would like to see cross interest cooperation in this matter, because everyone, in my opinion, would win. My apologies to those that have been *&^%$ over by an over zealous Archaelogist, but they are just as passionate about what they are doing as you are.