>>2432234>That's both subjective and retardedNot when there's a very real and pragmatic conservation crisis. Museums and universities don't have the space or the funds to conserve everything, which is why we try to only conserve and excavate what can render us more data. I've been on many sites where excavation is not necessary, because all the data can be collected while things remain in situ.
hence your interpretation:
>that archaeologists don't give a flying fuck about artifacts that are found out of contextbecause we very much do, just not stray finds that don't indicate a larger site. That's only subjective to collectors or sellers, both of which can perpetuate bad habits (the latter being unethical) especially if it increases the number of unconcerned and uncommunicative treasure hunters.
>Everything I find is surface collected. If you think people picking up points in creeks is ruining archaeology, I hope you never find out what roads, rails and agriculture did to itYou're absolutely right about that, which is why a lot of states now require cultural resource management firms to do surveys before major construction projects. The first note I gave was in the event that anons find 20 points, rock art, human remains, or really trippy pottery, because I guarantee you that archaeologists want to hear about it. This isn't your grandpa's archaeology, there's an increasing number of communicative and interested archaeologists who engage in outreach with the public about this kind of stuff, especially the people I work with.
I'm not tryin to argue fella, I'm one to take a metal detector out on the beach and go rock hunting, I'm just making sure people are aware that cool finds sometimes need to be brought to attention.
