This comment of the month is from Dr. Hester's Medina County Paper:

"Contrary to wide spread rumors, archaeologists respect private property rights and confidentiality – and we do not “seize” or “confiscate” collections or the land on which sites are located!"

Dr. Thomas Hester

Last month's comment comes from archaeologist Andy Malof:

".... an issue that really bugs me and one I hope becomes more widely 
discussed.  In particular, why does ANY trace of human presence on the landscape deserve to be relegated to a finding of "Insignificant"?  Just because we presently cannot understand how to deal with disturbed sites, how does that justify blowing them off in favor of narrowly defined "significant" sites defined by our present state of knowledge?   People have been imprinting themselves on the present landscape for at least 10,000 years.  It seems that ignoring any portion of that denies them their history and ourselves the opportunity to learn from them."

Andy Malof
 

This comment of earlier merit came to us from Dr. Mike Gramly:

"I would be happy to communicate with you (for the benefit of your 
readers), to keep you abreast of activities, and to occasionally dispel some of the misconceptions or misinformation foisted upon us by the opposition. Contrary to the current government wisdom, I feel that archaeological sites are not rare. Rather, what is rare are archaeologists to explore and report upon them! There is no redeeming value in saving the past for the future without persons to interpret it. 

The past is a construct of living people; it does not exist by itself -- the past cannot be saved. The past comes into being only when it is studied and consumed. 

In my opinion, the only value of the archaeological record is an educational one, and it should be used without fear of loss. In some respects the act of studying the archaeological record is more important than the actual record itself., etc., etc."

Sincerely,
MIKE GRAMLY 
You can email Dr. Gramly by clicking here.