So, are you saying never pick up an arrowhead? Why? Because if I don’t, you will since you are walking right behind me. What makes it right for you but wrong for me? My lack of a degree in archaeology? C’maaaahn.
I’m not talking about desecration or looting. I’m talking about being out walking and there’s an arrowhead or an old small something or other sitting there in plain view.
If you want to understand Syria’s past, don’t waste your time in European museums, or in dusty old libraries. Get your ass to Palmyra. If you want to understand Afghanistan’s past, all the literature in the world pales in comparison to gazing on the glories of Bamiyan.
Given that proper archeology stresses the context of a find over the find itself, you can attack this guy’s actions without invoking the spectre of cultural imperialism. These are 30,000 potential finds, stripped of the information that makes them important to archeology as an academic practice.
The law.
What law? We are just out walking. Wait, are you carrying your Archaeologist Club card?
Better hope he’s not carrying his Archaeologist Card club…
I’m wondering what else he is carrying and whether we should be out in a remote area on a walk together… Maybe I’ll sit this one out. Go ahead, Michael. Can you please take FFabian on his walk today? Thank you.
My earlier comment explicitly said:
“Landfills of the day are the archaeological sites of the future.”
I also said:
“Go ahead, find an arrowhead, call up the authorities, and then wait for them. Hint, bring whatever you want future generations to find of yours, because you’ll be waiting there forever.”
Or, since you’re the expert, are you going to come rushing out yourself?
But yeah, maybe I should have left this in the forest instead of making off with it in my “grubby mittens”:
(And since we’re name calling, you’re talking with your idiot cock.)
I’m imagining future archaeologists trying to figure out context from someone’s lost geocaching treasure box. There is a whole spectrum of context and uniqueness that comes into play; in the Midwest, pothunters ask permission of farmers to search their fields for arrowheads after they’ve been plowed for spring planting. A similar arrowhead in a different place might be much more significant.
Everything will be illegal by then, and everybody will be sitting at home plugged into their computers.
found another arrowhead/can
I’m not defending the asshat in the article. I’m saying picking up an arrowhead is not the same and equating the two diminishes the seriousness of the former.
Protecting specific archaeological sites is an obvious win and makes sense. But we cannot just say everywhere is hallowed ground and that every arrowhead sitting on top of soil on the entire land mass of North America is protected and to be left undisturbed. I don’t even know if we disagree with each other…
That bottle is from 1934-1965 (possibly a bit later) based on the writing on it. It is old trash, historical, and cool. And I made off with it with my grubby mittens!
I’m going to put a time capsule in my coffin. I think I might fuck with the future and come up with some crazy lie about the past.
Another story, this guy I went to church with was an amazing artifact collector. He literally had bucket fulls of arrow heads and partially worked flint.
I spent 2 days with him once, one looking at his collection and showing some amazing things, and the other going in the field. Literally a field. Nearly everything he found was from walking farm fields in Kansas. Tilled soil, especially after rain, would unearth all sorts of stuff.
I learned a lot from him in that short time. Mainly how to ID a war vs hunting point, and how to recognized a worked stone vs just a triangular or scraper shaped rock.
I take your point, but it is hard to make predictions. I mentioned above how Stonehenge was nearly destroyed by stone thieves. Decontextualising Palmyra and Bamiyan by carting them off wholesale to European museums because they might be destroyed by madmen - well, how do we know that similar madmen might not blow up the V&A or the Fitzwilliam museums? And wouldn’t such decontextualising be itself vandalism?
The argument for an extremely detailed stereoscopic photographic record of all archaeological sites along with ground mapping by every technique available is, I think, unassailable. But these are nondestructive methods.
Indeed. Guilty as charged. However, I contend that most people do that. At least, people who consider themselves progressive and don’t approve of all kinds of conservativism do, by definition.
Yes, I can easily give conservatives what they want if it won’t harm anyone. That doesn’t mean I always have to approve. I have a right to hold opinions on what people in other countries and cultures do. It’s just that I shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t do what I want.
And all that doesn’t mean I’ll approve of someone breaking existing laws to steal some artifacts.
You are really not grasping the basic concept of “leave artifacts in place” law.
Presumably no one spent centuries trying to exterminate your past, your people, and your culture, with considerable success. I imagine that makes one defensive of what little remains.
I feel like this is akin to a dude saying “I just don’t understand why women don’t like being catcalled. I would take it as a complement!” Put some effort into understanding where these people are coming from, and it might make more sense.
