Landscapers ― how to treat (small) archaeological finds?

Attitudes have changed over the years, but I'll bet just about everyone doing this as a career scientifically began when their curiosity was piqued and they pocketed something.
Public lands need protection, but once enforcement gets heavy-handed, none of the amateurs will talk. Owners of private collections are paranoid of their artifacts being confiscated, even though many of these things were picked up long before protective laws
were even in effect, and when this kind of thing was routine and viewed as a healthy activity for kids. Such amateur interest can often be nurtured into volunteerism on the
side of science, if properly coached. The key is public education. Commercial looting is a
whole different subject, but was itself the cradle of much American archaeology.

Quote:

---

That is, at what point does good, legal behavior begin prohibiting the layperson’s sense of magic & deeper appreciation of a vanished culture?

---

Yes this is a good point and one that I've thought of often. This is an issue that is not unique to archaeology, in many of the sciences (both social and physical) there is a strong disconnect between the general public and the scientists that actually collect, analyze, and interpret data. This gap is further promoted by the inaccessibility of researchers findings in expensive scientific journals and general a lack of public outreach programs. I feel that archaeology is somewhat different however, in that most people can relate to it simply because it is the study of human behavior (based on material remains). With that said, the problem then becomes how do you get the public interested in archaeology without promoting the destruction of archaeological resources? This is not easy to answer. A good analogy is our national park system, we've set aside large tracts of wilderness in an attempt to preserve and study it but at the same time we encourage millions of people to visit the national parks so they can understand and appreciate why wild places are important. Anyone who's ever been to Yosemite or Smokey Mountain NP can see the damage that is being done by so many visitors. Personally, I strongly encourage everyone to participate in the science of understanding our common prehistoric/historic heritage but as someone who works in the field I am ethically bound to protect all cultural resources so they can be more fully understood by professionally trained scientists. Its essentially a paradox. I can only encourage people who are interested in archaeology to contact one of the many amateur archaeology groups lead by professional archaeologists or join a professional archaeological association that is open to the public. There are many avenues people can explore that do not involve the destruction of cultural resources.

There are local venues here where high school kids and others can be coached as helpers
in "urban archaeology". Some older stuff inevitably turns up. It makes me sick when I go
into a traditional museum diorama and see some formerly beautiful animal which was killed
just so it could be stuffed. But that was education back in those days. Ornithology began
with birds getting shot, etc. And archeologists are beginning to understand the importance
of not only studying certain sites, but of leaving others alone for an era of improved technique. When I was a kid the foresters would take us on field trips to teach us the importance of flora and fauna and good sense lumbering (before the corporate pirates took
over). Today it would be nice to see a certain amt of historical or archaeological funding
go to appreciation of the past. But never underestimate how fast someone with the right
skills can read any landforms in the background of a shot and put two and two together
where it was taken. Photograph our treasures, but be cautious about their context.

Many years ago my job took me and my family to Athens, Greece. We had a few opportunities to visit some of the antiquities. One trip took us to Mykonos with a side tour to the island of Delos. This last is a now un-inhabited archeological site. A portion of the island has been cleared and restored or stabilized, much like the ruins at Mesa Verde. Probably 95% has not been touched.

We listened to our guide and saw the mosaic floors of 2,500 year old houses. Later we walked over to see several toppled monuments and I stubbed my toe in the over-grown gravel. Bending down, I picked up a potsherd—a curved handle shape ending in an intact ring. My wife bent down where we both stood and held up a matching piece of the handle ending in a portion of the bottom of what must have been a jug or pitcher. Our eyes met and we both stooped again to replace these fragments. As we set them down again I realized that we were standing on an unretired mosaic floor. We carefully walked away.

Take nothing but pictures—leave nothing but footprints.

Kind of problematic, ain't it?
Would you pick up a Doublemint gum wrapper?
Would you pick up DeSoto hubcap?
Would you pick up an empty freeze dried mac n cheese envelope?
Would you pick up a rusty old bean can?
Would you pick up a piece of pottery?
Would you pick up a woven basket?
What is litter and what is a historic artifact? And isn't litter going to be an historic artifact to be studied someday?
The question of what to leave seems equally important as what not to take.

Well John, you make a good point. Its a little like defining "Art" though isn't it?


The "Take nothing but pictures . . . " iquote is a long time Sierra Club slogan that is more a phylosophy for the modern visitor to our wild places than it is a strategy for living independently at a subsistance level.

As a Boy Scout, and later as an adult leader, we always tried to leave a campsite pretty much as we found it. If there was litter there when we arrived, we picked it up before we left.

I'm sure that we can all make the "right" choices when in the back country.

Umm . . .that should read, philosophy. Sorry, I got to thinking ahead of my ability to type.