Lowbatts
Gold Member
Aw heck Huck, my knowing of things contextual is limited to experience, not academics. Have had a few professors who go on digs then come back with more knowledge of the site and times they were looking into. But then again, that thirteen thousandth Roman bronze coin is not likely to add great detail to the site. So I don't feel bad about the three my tnet pal sent me from his numerous digs in the UK. He'd get 50 in a day. I am dumbfounded when someone can tell me which Roman family lost a hoard that has been recovered. Very cool.
But while casually detecting an area on the south end of my town, I found a collection of items all dated to a very brief period in the early 1840's and left behind by someone who spent at least one season on that spot. Here in Northern Illinois on this side of the Indian Boundary, that is the beginning of "colonization" and that spot itself represented a unique opportunity to see how things were. Of course the area dig get graded and developed which was the reason for my interest in hitting ti at the time. There was no official interest or any other academic interest in the area and it was a chance discovery but based on my understanding of the trails into the area at during that period.
I would find it hard to live near BLM land down there, those places where people have collected pottery shards forever. Not that I would do that, I wouldn't understanding it's the law, but not even picking one up to look at kind of makes we wonder. Does it mess with context that I picked it up? I 'spose but among littered ground it makes me wonder. We've been farming old native sites up here for 150 years at least. Been paving over many more since then and more recently.
Just down the road from me there was a house being built last spring and several skeletons were found, all native and old. The archaeologists who ventured out to investigate made some determinations, removed as much as they found and the house went in. Across the street from there about half a mile back on the edge of a creek I found an entry into the early plats from this area noting "27 ancient mounds" in about a 10 acre site. None are visible and that small footnote is our only record of it's existence. Early farmers apparently flattened them mounds and farmed it out. Didn't tell the academic folks who checked out the house site about that, didn't see a need, no context I'spose. Wonder how many skeletons were removed from them mounds then taken over to the area of that house site and buried there, it would have been pasture at that time if anything.
It's not the historical context, the knowledge of a site or the archeologist or academic I disrespect, it's the potential of law in a ever-creeping, morally and logically misguided growth. Cancerous. That don't mean I break the law. But I don't have to like it.
But while casually detecting an area on the south end of my town, I found a collection of items all dated to a very brief period in the early 1840's and left behind by someone who spent at least one season on that spot. Here in Northern Illinois on this side of the Indian Boundary, that is the beginning of "colonization" and that spot itself represented a unique opportunity to see how things were. Of course the area dig get graded and developed which was the reason for my interest in hitting ti at the time. There was no official interest or any other academic interest in the area and it was a chance discovery but based on my understanding of the trails into the area at during that period.
I would find it hard to live near BLM land down there, those places where people have collected pottery shards forever. Not that I would do that, I wouldn't understanding it's the law, but not even picking one up to look at kind of makes we wonder. Does it mess with context that I picked it up? I 'spose but among littered ground it makes me wonder. We've been farming old native sites up here for 150 years at least. Been paving over many more since then and more recently.
Just down the road from me there was a house being built last spring and several skeletons were found, all native and old. The archaeologists who ventured out to investigate made some determinations, removed as much as they found and the house went in. Across the street from there about half a mile back on the edge of a creek I found an entry into the early plats from this area noting "27 ancient mounds" in about a 10 acre site. None are visible and that small footnote is our only record of it's existence. Early farmers apparently flattened them mounds and farmed it out. Didn't tell the academic folks who checked out the house site about that, didn't see a need, no context I'spose. Wonder how many skeletons were removed from them mounds then taken over to the area of that house site and buried there, it would have been pasture at that time if anything.
It's not the historical context, the knowledge of a site or the archeologist or academic I disrespect, it's the potential of law in a ever-creeping, morally and logically misguided growth. Cancerous. That don't mean I break the law. But I don't have to like it.

so no one's going to go boasting of worse 

Send all your "looted" goodies to me for proper handling, and I will absolve you of all guilt, making sure it gets to the "proper authorities". 









