Nice page Sean, and great photos from the multiple angles. Of course any page that fits in a “Robie Creek” reference is an automatic 4-star in my book. Thanks for posting.
SawtoothSean - Jan 13, 2006 6:09 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled Comment
Thanks- I thought you'd like the rare "Robie Creek" reference. I'm more into the technical stuff, but I've gotta add some of these local peaks, especially when I see them everyday!
Interesting. The arrowhead pictures appear a bit too much compressed though.
SawtoothSean - Jan 15, 2006 3:03 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled Comment
Thanks for the look at this page- the arrowhead pics are directly from a scanner bed. Debateable whether they belong on the page, but it's so rare to find something like those on a mountain ridge and they are 1000-3000 years old!
Wasn't meant as critique, rather a tip. If you look at the pictures (especially the broad arrowhead) you'll see "artefacts" close to the blades and shadow outlines further out. This is typical for jpegs stored with too much compression. I assume that your scanner scans into a picture processing program (photoshop or others). When saving from that program you probably can choose compression somewhere. 80% or 90% are ok, everything lower will produce artefacts.
Those sure are some nice artifacts! I'm a big collector of Indian Artifacts here in PA and was wondering what the rules are out there. Do they care if you pick them up? Did you find more than just those two artifacts? If so......I'm moving to Idaho! Take care!
-Britt
The Antiquities Act quote tells you what the law says. While that act covers any collecting on public land, it's realistically in place to keep known cultural sites from being dug up, and other test pits and excavations from taking place. While walking along a trail or off trail, you may find these items on the surface commonly. To leave them sit there for the next hiker or hunter to pocket, is unrealistic. A way to give back culturally, is to educate, report, and map your findings. If one is so inclined, they may donate collections and pieces to museums during or at the end of a lifetime. In addition, pieces found on private land is not subject to the Antiquities Act. There's lots of private land in this area, including my own.
There's the law, and there's the realistic world we live in. There's a difference between digging up ground in Chaco Canyon and finding the one in a million isolated hunting point on a remote ridge with no recognized cultural significance.
I understand both of what you guys are saying and I guess it was kind of a dumb question. I knew about the antiquities act, I was just wondering if the artifacts were found right on the trail or just within a short hike of the trail (whether or not they were found at a site). I'm a big collector here in PA and I can see both sides of the story. I always register the sites I find with the PA State Archeaology Site Survey, but don't stop collecting. When I pass away the artifacts which I collect, record, and protect will someday go back to the state anyways. I think it's better to pick them up than have them run over by the plow and broken into thousands of pieces.
The problem here in PA (which I'm sure is the case in many other places) is that there are so many sites along the major river drainages that it would take the state literally thousands of years to excavate all of the major sites that are reported and its better to have some record from amateur findings than none at all. Most of the archaeological information collected has been thanks in a large part to amateur collectors like ourselves. Many sites would in all likelyhood never be discovered if there weren't hobbiests out there. And so, as I said before, I can see both sides of the story. Thanks guys!
-Britt
IdahoSummits - Jan 12, 2006 7:40 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled Comment4 stars but it is Mount Heinen, not Heinan.
SawtoothSean - Jan 12, 2006 10:31 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks- My original Heinen entry into my personal mountain database in the 1990's had this misspelled. It then propagated to everything else I had.
SawtoothSean - Jan 12, 2006 10:48 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks- My original Heinen entry into my personal mountain database in the 1990's had this misspelled. It then propagated to everything else I had.
SawtoothSean - Jan 13, 2006 12:05 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks- My original Heinen entry into my personal mountain database in the 1990's had this misspelled. It then propagated to everything else I had.
BobSmith - Jan 12, 2006 11:24 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentExcellent post.
Johan Heersink - Jan 13, 2006 4:50 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentInteresting and complete page!
Super Dave - Jan 13, 2006 3:42 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentNice page Sean, and great photos from the multiple angles. Of course any page that fits in a “Robie Creek” reference is an automatic 4-star in my book. Thanks for posting.
SawtoothSean - Jan 13, 2006 6:09 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks- I thought you'd like the rare "Robie Creek" reference. I'm more into the technical stuff, but I've gotta add some of these local peaks, especially when I see them everyday!
dadndave - Jan 14, 2006 1:37 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentInteresting page.
Gangolf Haub - Jan 15, 2006 5:52 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentInteresting. The arrowhead pictures appear a bit too much compressed though.
SawtoothSean - Jan 15, 2006 3:03 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentThanks for the look at this page- the arrowhead pics are directly from a scanner bed. Debateable whether they belong on the page, but it's so rare to find something like those on a mountain ridge and they are 1000-3000 years old!
Gangolf Haub - Jan 16, 2006 3:02 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentWasn't meant as critique, rather a tip. If you look at the pictures (especially the broad arrowhead) you'll see "artefacts" close to the blades and shadow outlines further out. This is typical for jpegs stored with too much compression. I assume that your scanner scans into a picture processing program (photoshop or others). When saving from that program you probably can choose compression somewhere. 80% or 90% are ok, everything lower will produce artefacts.
See also my example here
mtwashingtonmonroe - Sep 19, 2006 1:54 pm - Voted 10/10
ArtifactsThose sure are some nice artifacts! I'm a big collector of Indian Artifacts here in PA and was wondering what the rules are out there. Do they care if you pick them up? Did you find more than just those two artifacts? If so......I'm moving to Idaho! Take care!
-Britt
SawtoothSean - Sep 19, 2006 10:59 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: ArtifactsThe Antiquities Act quote tells you what the law says. While that act covers any collecting on public land, it's realistically in place to keep known cultural sites from being dug up, and other test pits and excavations from taking place. While walking along a trail or off trail, you may find these items on the surface commonly. To leave them sit there for the next hiker or hunter to pocket, is unrealistic. A way to give back culturally, is to educate, report, and map your findings. If one is so inclined, they may donate collections and pieces to museums during or at the end of a lifetime. In addition, pieces found on private land is not subject to the Antiquities Act. There's lots of private land in this area, including my own.
There's the law, and there's the realistic world we live in. There's a difference between digging up ground in Chaco Canyon and finding the one in a million isolated hunting point on a remote ridge with no recognized cultural significance.
mtwashingtonmonroe - Oct 8, 2006 4:39 am - Voted 10/10
Re: ArtifactsI understand both of what you guys are saying and I guess it was kind of a dumb question. I knew about the antiquities act, I was just wondering if the artifacts were found right on the trail or just within a short hike of the trail (whether or not they were found at a site). I'm a big collector here in PA and I can see both sides of the story. I always register the sites I find with the PA State Archeaology Site Survey, but don't stop collecting. When I pass away the artifacts which I collect, record, and protect will someday go back to the state anyways. I think it's better to pick them up than have them run over by the plow and broken into thousands of pieces.
The problem here in PA (which I'm sure is the case in many other places) is that there are so many sites along the major river drainages that it would take the state literally thousands of years to excavate all of the major sites that are reported and its better to have some record from amateur findings than none at all. Most of the archaeological information collected has been thanks in a large part to amateur collectors like ourselves. Many sites would in all likelyhood never be discovered if there weren't hobbiests out there. And so, as I said before, I can see both sides of the story. Thanks guys!
-Britt