Anselm Hook wrote:
On 3/7/07, Bill Kearney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why don't archeologists ever actually supply longitude and latitude?
That's not hard to explain. They're not interested in J.Random Idiot
trampling the site and stripping it of archeological value.
100% true. Obfuscation of locations of significant sites is a common
and highly respected practise in archeology. Pot Hunters have destroyed
more sites than you might imagine The State of California, for
example, has an archeological map repository at Cal State Sonoma in
Cotati, Filled with maps that you and I might find fascinating, but are
ornly available o bonafide researchers.
I have personally created and recorded a 'secret' map of an
archeological site in Northern California , and have worked with native
Hawaiians to protect sites on Maui of early Polynesian temples (
Heiaus) from hordes of marauding tourists.
- Mike
Or just hiding
it from their fellow researchers so they can publish first.
I thought that but in this case the earthworks are so large. I was
hoping to see it from space basically.
Perhaps it is just a kneejerk policy at this point. Some of the best
fossil beds on the burgess shales in Alberta are not precisely
published, nor say Rats Nest Cave; or the hot spring cavern near
Banff, although everybody whose lived there knows where they are.
Well, maybe I am wrong on the shales case - I see more links to them:
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/burgess/
- a
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
