I have to agree with Barrett.  As someone intergrally involved in trying
(unsuccessfully) to save undeveloped portions, of the Williamsburg VA Civil War
Battlefield I have found archeologist only do things they have grants or $$ from
developers associated with them.  They need to make a living.

Relics hunters get a bad name from the small % of those that do illegal
things like relic hunting federal parlands and such.  However, often they are the
ONLY ones who will ever get anything out of the ground of a site to be
developed.  Anyone that knows what is required in terms of archeology for sites to be
developed knows that test pits every 50 yards does not find much.  The
standard archeological survey does not employ metal detectors.

Also, in working in Williamsburg you might be astounded of the anicdotal
practices of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation - they plow right through the
19th century layers, through it all away just to get to the 18th and 17th
century layers - which is what interests them. Its sad, but true.

So its a balance.  My one regret is relic hunters dont incorporate better
historical/archeological practices of recording where they find things,
photographing them, and disseminating the information.  As the well known example of
the little bighorn, the history left in the ground is the great untapped primary
source - one that is priceless for historians in learning and piecing
together the great stories of past epochs.

Tom

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html