26
That retired geology professor told me to check the local soil maps before digging
Dr. Hamilton over at the county historical society said I'd find more artifacts in the old floodplain than on the ridge, so I spent two Saturdays digging test pits in the muck. He was dead right, I pulled three arrowheads and a broken clay pipe from 6 feet down in the silty layer near the creek. Has anyone else had luck following advice from old field maps or soil surveys instead of just going off visible surface finds?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
carr.lee13h ago
Tbh soil maps are usually more reliable than surface finds.
4
rubyshah12h ago
Totally agree, soil maps saved me from a wasted dig last month.
4
wendyprice2h ago
Man, soil maps are the real deal for sure. @carr.lee nailed it about them being more reliable than surface finds, because where I dig in the Piedmont, the topsoil is all washed-out gravel that looks promising but never holds anything. I found a complete 1800s trade axe head by following an old map's "old channel" notation and digging four feet into a sandy layer the surface showed no sign of. The maps tell you where people actually lived and worked, not just where the rain pushed stuff around.
4