Fields VS Creeks

[Fluff effect]

Been Thinking about making a thread about this subject for a while. Not sure if one like it exists already though. So not sure how to create the poll but here is How Field could be looked at. Not only farm fields but construction sites and gardens. Creeks, well I guess River Valleys lakes that are on old creek land thats been dammed.

Generally which of The 2 types (if You can seperate) of Land yields more Artifacts?

I see them producing about Equally.

[comanche]

I generally follow the creeks to the Camp,,,,First I find evidence of Worked flint in the creek,,,and then start scouting the edges,,,Usually finding the source,,,,
Definitely the field///jmo

[Fluff effect]

Hmm, never Seen evidence of a camp above the bank or gravel (more than 1 artifact) in immediate creek area on surface yet. I see, so in field area WELL above modern time creek area.

[Cluton]

Feild!!! Creeks have moved drastically! In my experience!

[marksimerson]

Fields.....Next to creeks or rivers. Ive had very little luck hunting creek bottoms.

[neralich]

Well, if they plowed like they use to back in the day.......
I never would have discovered digging and creekin.

I find more in the creeks than anywhere, But that's because lack of "productive"
feilds to search, and construction (new development) has been slow the past couple of years so I haven't had much luck with that either lately...

The feilds are loaded in the surrounding counties, Josh !

As far as dammed lake sites, I haven't given it a try yet, but PLS and I are making plans
to give it a go one of these days.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I find way more in creeks, but the feilds retain way more quantities of artifacts...

Imagine what remains in all the farm feilds below the plow zone!!? I can't even begin to imagine. One thing I always do when I'm headhunting, is,, I daydream and imagine every arrowhead that is in the ground suspended in mid-air directly above where it lays buried

[Scotto]

Originally Posted by neralich

One thing I always do when I'm headhunting, is,, I daydream and imagine every arrowhead that is in the ground suspended in mid-air directly above where it lays buried

Kind of like when you're fishing, and you wish you could make the water invisible and see where the big bass are?

Or you wish you had some sort of "Arrowhead detector" that worked like a metal detector?

Or some device that would show a big red arrow over where the arrowheads are buried?

Or some screen-type thing, that when you walked over the ground it would show the outline of the rocks under it?

Nope, I never imagine anything like that.

[Mud Hawk]

Well... perfect example:

The member Ghost Recon (hope ya' dont mind ghost and it is a compliment...) finds more in two river hunts than I have in my entire (field) collection. Just depends on time period and density IMHO. Terminal Archaic saw a decrease in migrational patterns. They started to settle and establish crops and farming. Seems like it was also the period where cultures got REAL territorial thus farming had other benefits... less conflict for example... but less wandering also leads to a higher concentration of artifacts.

[CDEAN]

Originally Posted by neralich

Imagine what remains in all the farm feilds below the plow zone!!? I can't even begin to imagine. One thing I always do when I'm headhunting, is,, I daydream and imagine every arrowhead that is in the ground suspended in mid-air directly above where it lays buried

Haha, I do that too.

[drdave514]

Depends on the area. Some creeks are just limestone chunks and finding points is almost impossible. Other regions have creeks with awesome conditions and loose gravel. Similarly, some fields have artifacts which are within the depth of the plow zone and have items turned up with plowing. Other areas have fields where everything is likely below the depth of the plowing.

I think the chances of finding wholes of decent size is better in a Missouri creek than in a Kentucky field.