>That's a good one! Others may be convinced by these postmodern
>rationalizations but I still maintain that there *is* a difference between
>the person who excavates artifacts for the purpose of selling them and an
>archaeologist. Tell it like it is: treasure salvors are in it for the cash
>value that they can realize from the venture.
 
I won't sit here and blow smoke up your ass. The major drive for many is to
make money. But I have loved history since I was a little kid. When I
finished high school, I decided after alot of thought that I wanted to go
into the field of archaeology. About two years into college, $20,000 later
I realized I wasn't learning anything that I hadn't read or digested in
some form already. A friend of mine, working on his degree, sent me notes,
hand outs, tapes of pertinant lectures, etc. I read like a librarian on
stims. I still am a voracious reader. I would dare to say I have more
experience both in the field and in my head than some undergrads, Granted,
alot of that has come in the field. I have worked what some of you would
probably like to call "ligitimate" archaeology (which it was...but there
are other legitimate types as well). The first wreck I worked was purely
photographical. I loved it! I still love photographing wrecks. I always
will. Despite what some very thinly oxygenated minds might think, there are
some of us in it for the history as well. If you don't believe that than I
am truely sorry your are that closeminded.
 
Matt CIM