[ARC5] A Letter from the pCAF

[William Donzelli]

> I don't condone "pot hunters."  That's why I call for standards and
> training before turning someone loose on a military park.
> The museums and archaeologists would rather see the artifacts rot
> than have anyone else on "their territory."

There is truth to this, but you paint it in a bad way. Yes, they would
rather the stuff rot, than have someone else excavate the goods. If
something sits in the ground and rots, it can still yeild all of the good
information (who used it? how was it used? what was it used with? where
was it? And on and on...). If excavated improperly, much of that
information goes away forever. It is extremely easy for a non-professional
to trip up, and some information is lost. Of course, there will be more
than a few people that trip up more than not, without a care.

> Well if they're so unimportant, why do they protest their recovery?

Because removing an artifact from a site without proper procedure
pretty much COMPLETELY destroys its value.

> The bottom line is this:  Unless unfunded volunteers recover them,
> they will never, ever be recovered.  Period.

Maybe. Probably, for much of it. You, me, and all of the museum folks sure
don't like this, but this is the real world.

> And why not?  I'd spend my money and time doing my part.
> I know of hundreds, if not thousands, who would do the same.

I think you would probably retract that offer if you knew what would be
involved for a proper excavation of a B-17 wreck, for example. We are not
talking hundreds of dollars or a long weekend - we are talking thousands
and thousands, and many weeks of very boring work. Excavating a site is
not like what you see on the Discovery Channel - for every minute of
camera time there is a number of hours of drurgery. Both my cousin and
brother were on digs, and it basically sounds slightly more fun than
working on an assembly line.

Also, today's "proper" procedure, no matter how sound, will probably look
like a hack job to the next generation. Today's archaeologists look at
what was done in the 1950s with disgust, and what was done in the 1800s as
a horror show, even though they were "proper" at the time. A site can
almost always sit for the next, better excavation philosophy years
away. The good information, as note above, will still be there - and may
be more yielding, as new technology and knowledge comes along.

> No- it's really about ego and "turf," not history.

Not a flame, but you need to look into how museums work. It is not as
obvious as it seems to the layman. There is a lot to consider - procedure,
science, ethics, and so on. There are a few books on the subject (that I
can't remember right now).

> There is no logical, valid reason that a force of volunteers
> with simple standards and training can't do valuable historical work.

There is a problem. "Simple" is bad. Doing a proper excavation is very
complex and very time consuming. They really do extract dirt by the
quarter inch and take pictures and drawings of everything.

Do I sound "over the top"? Does it seem unrealistic to "excavate" a B-17
wreck? Not to the museum folks and archaelogists. The point of archaeology
is to learn history by filling in holes of unknown information. Pardon the
puns, but they work here. Everytime a site is excavated, proper or not,
some holes get filled, yet some get left open forever. History is mostly
holes, so even a small one filled is a big victory.

William Donzelli
aw288 at osfn.org