should i or not?

[rambler]

The clash will be, to disturb some people's history, or to ban someone from using the present/future.

Myself, I have no problem with digging it out. Wouldn't really bother me if you owned a white folks burial plot & dug that up either - if it's your land. But I'm in the minority on that one.

In the current political climate, I think you have a serious liability on your hands. That is something other people will want to claim, and as others said, you will be over run with people claiming it, wanting to study it, wanting to control it. Disturbing it will cost you if anyone finds out you disturbed a historical site.

That is what happens 'here'. Hope things are different 'there'.

I wwould let sleeping dogs lie, or I woulda dealt with it without asking or telling anyone. Now, you are in a situation.....

--->Paul

 

[PineRidge]

My 2 cents in this matter is that Eddie gave you some good advice. It's up to you whether or not you use it. I know what I would do if the mound was in our way.

 

[have_blue]

It's all up to you!

Eddie's post is pretty much the direction I would go.

Eastern Indian artifacts are not as rare as you may think. It's the desert indian artifacts that are rare and important. Those arrowheads are impressive, but I have a friend that can whip out a pile that size in 1 afternoon. So can many other hobbyists.

Would I level the midden mound? I don't know. I'm glad you have to decide and not me!

OK OK, so as not to cop out on you, if it were on a remote corner of my land, I would call the authorities... a university or something. If it were right by my house, I would level it quick... sift the dirt and donate the artifacts if anyone actually wants them.

 

[tjkadar]

As has been said, it depends on what type of reaction a burial mound like this would provoke. In SC we have a database of these types of sites, but it is so secret one government agency will not share it with another. So, we are often unaware if one of these sites might be on one of our projects or not.

Currently, I have a pre-historic campsite that is buried underneath a mountain of waste rock from an open pit mine. The site is literally under 70 feet of rubble. Nobody will ever be looking at that particular area again. The site was of only limited value, so the waste rock was allowed to be placed on top of it.

Still, I can see involving any government agency as a potential nightmare. It might be worth putting out a few feelers and some 'what if' scenarios. Based on that feedback, I would dig in or allow an archeological team to look at the site first.

Just go slow and proceed with caution.

 

[strokerduster]

bob, i know theres a lot of this stuff in your area too. i grew up not to far from you. it's not like it's poverty point or anything. these are quite common around here, probably half dozen or so within a mile downstream from here. like i said origionally, NOT a burial mound but what they call a cooking mound. it was a longtime used campsite. the state frequently runs into em when doing road/bridge building. to most around here they're neat but no big deal. i've seen boxes of arrowheads the old ranchers here have collected. old rancher i know here taught himself how to make em like the indians did (leather flap on your leg and a deer antler) and can make em from the local flint as fast as he wants. fun to think of how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of time.

 

[beenthere]

Curious, but does one tell if it is 'burial' or 'cooking' mound? What would the differences be?

 

[Highbeam]

Not a cemetery? Then blast it away as though it were any pile of garbage in your way. I clear out modern people's garbage too. What's the difference?

I work in government and we have a saying...."Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer".

 

[strokerduster]

obviously they wouldn't bury their dead where they ate and slept. it is adjacent to a springfed creek that has always been there and there is an abundance of game (then and now). everything needed for survival. the mound is full of stone that is about 2"x2" and i am told that they are the remains of larger stones put into the fire to radiate and retain heat. it has some what appears to be ashes at different levels on the creek side where it is exposed. typical of campsites around here so i have been told.

 

[beenthere]

Could be you are right, but it is different from my limited experience, and what I learned when in Western New Mexico. There, the dead were believed to be buried in the ashes within the dwelling. The ashes came from spreading warm coals on the floor at night. The dwellings were abandoned when the ashes became too deep.
My experience includes digging up a dwelling and unearthing bones buried under the ash with pottery and a well-worn grinding stone turned over on top of the body. Learned most of this from an archaeologist working for the state at the time (1959). Not happy what we found, but it wasn't a Federal offense at that time either. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Interesting, the similarity with the ashes.

 

[strokerduster]

keep in mind that where you are speaking of they had dwellings. here it was supposedly tents or under open skys. a shade tree, an open fire and spring water would have been like a lazy boy and a beer, beside the fireplace. i guess the night sky could have been the 60" plasma screen.