Local Archeological Mysteries!

Pookums, gosh dang it! You promised not to tell!

Roxie, thanks for the explanation. Frankly, I think it's a bit silly to be angry at V1 due to the irreverent tone in the article. I suspect they'd be just as irreverent if someone was digging in some local cemetery, especially if it was for the purpose of zany necrophilia and not just boring old grave robbing. (at least, I hope they'd be)

That said, people who do this stuff are just gross. Can you imagine? Digging up dead people? That's just icky and likely to give you cooties!!

Toddy, see, we're not so different. Especially since the secret injection I gave you is now taking effect!

I just realized that pookums and I seem to be on the same page here. Would someone please check my temperature?

Okay, I was pointing out that the people who came in after the trained archaeologists and tried to dig up grave goods were committing a felony. I did not write an opinion, I was stating facts. In that part of the state the remains are probably Chippewa. It is very true that archaeologists hate inadvertantly digging into a burying place. When I worked for the Ho-Chunk we identified burying places with ground penetrating radar. We did not dig to verify locations.

It is also true that it does not MATTER who they were. What matters is that we have a list of statutes which protect burying places from digging. Like I said on Facebook, if people started digging in Forest Hill Cemetery in Eau Claire there would be a huge outcry. True, this is not a traditional cemetery. True, this was discovered because of erosion. That does not exonerate the people who dug after the fact.

I hope that my remains are so impressive that in a millenium or so people compete to dig them up.

It's just degraded proteins and minerals, people. Wouldn't it be nice if people stopped looking for reasons to portray themselves as victims?

The full article says that foot traffic ruined grass on the island which caused erosion which revealed the remains.

This is disturbing on many levels and if people were digging in one of our local cemeteries, no one would be flippant about it.

I dunno, I'd probably be flippant. I can think of no greater waste of space than cemeteries.

I'm curious, is your anger due to the fact that they're disturbing an an intellectually interesting archaeological dig or an apparent burial ground with the spiritual connotations involved with it?

That's interesting. I've taken a bunch of classes in archaeology at the university, and I've heard a lot about looting in the SE part of the state, but not a ton around here.

Were the archaeologists digging because of the site itself, or was it a mandated survey because they're building a walmart or road or something? I think most archaeology around here is done because it is mandated by the state before building something.

I also know that archaeologists hate finding human remains, because of all the stinking paperwork it causes. The bureaucracy that goes in to this stuff is crazy. Are these Ho-Chunk remains, Roxie? It doesn't really get into specifics in the article besides "pre-historic" whatever that means. Pre-western, written history?

Geek hat off... now.

Sorry if the tone offended, Roxie! At the very least, the more people that know about the crime, the better!

I'm sorry Mike but I am not a bit amused. On Facebook I posted the list of statutes being violeted by these people. I worked in burial site preservation for several years as the Ho-Chunk tribal historian/archivist/archaeologist. This is disturbing on many levels and if people were digging in one of our local cemeteries, no one would be flippant about it. Don't forget the baby who was disinterred in northern Wisconsin last year. Not a bit funny.

Have curious puppies been ruled out?