Hello,
 
I musta been sleepin when this thread about the South
passed over the nets!  Actually, for many years only
the SHA seemed to care for "historic" archaeology.
 
But hey, what is this stuff about the old folks in their 40s?
We folks in our 40s do not consider ourselves in the sage
age bracket as the real "old folks" and anyway, it would be
real hard in any one's book to convince someone that a 1950s
archaeology site is worth a thesis.
 
Aside from thse remakrs, we historic archaeologists always have
a fight on our hands to convince policy makers that historic
archaeology is important.  AT the SHA Conference in Baltimore
a few years back, Pat Garrow and a few others stunned the audience
with the fact that Massachusetts only considers pre-1840 sites
as possibly significant; this from their State Historic
Preservation Officer.
 
I have been fighting to convince my employers at a local County
government that archaeology sites that are 50 years old ought
to be excamined for historic archaeology value.  This, in Cali
fornia where excellent laws exist to require land developers to
dig archaeology sites ... or preserve them for future generations.
There will alwyas be some mysteiqu about prehistoric sites, of
which we have over 14,000 in this small county, but no one buys
old farmsteads without a real dog and pony show.
 
Ron May
c/o [log in to unmask]