Unearthing History
In today's Washington Post, there's an article on organized relic hunters searching for artifacts from the American Civil War.
The buzz began in the chow line. "Did you hear?" asked one relic hunter.
"Yeah. A Mississippi plate," said another. "Absolutely perfect."
The proud new owner of the Confederate belt plate embossed with an eagle held out his treasure on his dirt-caked palm.
Looking on, a man with a long beard and flannel shirt whistled low. "That's $12,000 right there."
It was the prize find of a three-day relic hunt called Diggin' in Virginia, one of a new breed of organized digs in the history-rich state. More than 200 relic hunters in camouflage hauled metal detectors up and down the hills of a Culpeper County farm one weekend this spring. They'd paid a couple of hundred bucks each — and cleaned up.
Archaeologists are rather upset with these commercial relic hunts saying that they are losing all the historical context when the relics are removed. Some of the relic hunters are extremely careful to fully document exactly where they find something, even using GPS to mark the positions. Others are not as scrupulous and sneak into protected sites at night.
I understand the concerns the archaeologists have, but the reality is that these sites may have been hopelessly disturbed by years of farming. There's also little if any chance that there will ever be any efforts to scientifically excavate them. Rather than fighting for legislation to outlaw the hunts, as opponents have been doing, it would seem a better idea to get the relic hunters on board to cooperate with trying to maximize the amount of historical context gathered. In other words, use that Army of Davids approach as Glenn Reynolds calls it and get at least some gains rather than lose everything by leaving the artifacts to rust away to nothing.
Just a thought.
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Isn’t This What We Suggested? — Tuesday, 2 May , 2006 @ 11:09 am
By washingtonstatevirginian, Sunday, 16 April , 2006 @ 10:58 am
I think the state ownership clause is the one that killed the better part of the bill. GPS documentation of objects and a place of residence for them is all that is needed. It would be a boon to future generations of Historians in my mind. Rather than have them return to the soil/rust. I don’t think the plow talk washes. They would hit the blade and turn over or break. Maybe move a foot or so. No big deal. Archeologists as whole may be condescending to groups with names like “Git Her Done” (LOL), but I’d give good odds that many artifact hunters are more knowledgable about that particular war than most archeologists could ever hope to be. And maybe the American Revolution as well for that matter. I moved a set of heavy iron stairs with my landlord yesterday. He’s a retired engineer. Unreal. You would think the guy had never heard of “line of least resistance”. Personally I would opt for a cup of common sense (with a dash of curiousity or imagination) over gallon of “contemporary” education any day. Deo Vindice.
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 16 April , 2006 @ 11:53 am
I think it would really be better all the way for the archaeologists to work with the relic hunters rather than to oppose them - after all, it’s been all these years and the archaeologists still haven’t gotten around to these sites.
Plowing may very well have caused a fair amount of damage, especially in the years before more scientific plowing methods evolved. Farmers used to be pretty destructive - lots of erosion.