Mornin' Ron -

Yup, you're absolutely right.

I know Tom King. He was certainly an "irritant" to BLM, and perhaps to many
others as well, like the tiny grit that you get in your eye and that you
can't
remove.  ;o)

But, never fear, I beat up on Historians, too.

I lay plenty of public blame at the feet of the historical profession who,
when the NHPA was passed, just sat back and did nothing to insert
themselves into the CRM arena once they felt that their big name historic
sites were addressed.  (To their credit, the SAA saw the job potential in
NHPA, and the historians didn't, or didn't seem to care.)  So, the outcome
of this failure by the historical profession is that, in my experience,
prehistoric archs have a stranglehold on the CRM profession, and they seem
to feel that they can decide for historians what historic sites are
historically important. Obviously, I object to this state of affairs.  Just
take a look at who the federal agency FPOs or the heads of the SHPO
agencies are if you doubt me. In my own agency, I see historians driven
away or utterly marginalized by these types. Makes one wonder why we have
History Departments in colleges/universities at all if the anthro types
already know it all.  But, I digress from your point.  (I'm still waiting
for some NPS knight in shining armor to ride up on a white charger and
rescue me, so I can live out my days in some quite and poorly visited
historic site unvexed by all of this CRM stuff!  ( But. who knows about
that either. NPS seems to have lost interest in historians and CRM.
"ologists" seem to be in the driver's seat these days. Historians seem to
be prime candidates for outsourcing)

I chuckle when I'm approached at professional historian meetings by these
so-called "Public History" (whatever that is - I think its limited to
training archivists or urban building surveyors) professors who ask me how
their students might get jobs in the CRM arena.  I ask them if their
students can read a topo map. This is usually followed by a period of
silence and a 'deer in the headlight' kinda look.  But, Ron, can you
believe this - I even recommend to these guys that they suggest to their
students that they take an intro to Hist Arch class (!!), that is if they
can find one taught by a real Hist Arch, not some prehistorian masquerading
as one.

I try to put my money where my mouth is, however.  I've organized sessions
at the SHA and the WHA were I've brought in speakers from the other side of
the aisle to try and show the great benefits that can be realized from true
interdisciplinary scholarship.  In both venues, these sessions always seem
to be lightly attended by the "big names" in each field.  Does this mean
that the "big names" are intellectual dinosaurs in terms of
interdisciplinary thinking, unable to find their way out of their
anthrocentric jungle and not just running off to promote attendance at the
SAA or AAA meetings?  I do take some heart, however, in that those who have
attended these cross-party sessions seem to have very young faces.  Perhaps
the seed may take hold in spite of the academically constricted odds
against it, and maybe they might come away with messages that their
professors don't seem to be willing to see or hear and take action on.

So, my friend, is there a solution to this state of affairs, or is it just
me? Like Tom, I see too much at stake for the historic-era resources that I
hold dear to always be silent.

But, I am getting old and weary of the contest, so now I focus my energies
on my disorganized and chaotic stamp collection! Maybe some seriation might
work there!  Know of any good stamp shops in Sac?  ;o)

Thus endeth the lesson...

Carl Barna
Regional Historian and Assist. Oceanographer
BLM Colorado State Office






Carl,

To be fair to the archaeology profession, I can tell you that in 1969-1971

there were no historians stepping up to the plate to help federal
development
agencies deal with old buildings, bridges, roads, railroads, and buried
historic  and prehistoric sites. Archaeologists like Tom King, who became a

firebrand at  federal public meetings began advocating all those sites be
protected
under the  evolving federal laws, policies, and regulations. Oh sure, over
time
historians,  demographers, and their ilk came forward to claim a piece of
the
pie by the late  1970s. In fact, that is when public history arose to the
fore
because so many  other disciplines woke up to the enormous public interest
in
old relics and  ruined buildings.

There is an even more ugly side to this dilemma. These are the lobbyists
who
float around the federal, state, and local agencies pawning themselves off

as purveyors of expertise in everything from biology to old buildings and
archaeology. Many of the lobbyists are lawyers who take advantage of the
fact
that agencies do not require qualifications for project managers. These
lobbyists have the ear of agencies and often advise on what they consider
historic. A
case example is the Coronado Railroad, which passes through the  cities of
San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado and spanned 1888  to
1943.
The lobbyist/attorney/purveyors of expertise hired the best consultants
money
could buy to dismiss the archaeological remains of the railroad as "not
historic." They even managed to convince the State Historical Resources
Commission
to delist the site from the National Register because the buildings  are
gone
and segments of the rail are missing (hence lacking in integrity, but
then...isn't that industrial archaeology?). Save Our Heritage Organization
defeated
the Port of San Diego and then the City of San Diego in lawsuits over  the
historical importance of the Coronado Railroad and won this past summer. In

truth, few archaeologists are as sharp and clever as those lobbyists and
their
lackey consultants who would destroy America's heritage.

Sorry about the rant, Carl, but there are reasons older archaeologists are

not in step with the new historical organizations that have come into the
fold
in the past 25 years.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.