HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Laura West <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:59:34 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
It is sometimes the case (I will not say always) that the various SHPOs are
much more concerned with (or told to be concerned with?) *compliance* than
with preserving the information that might be gained from the sites...even
if they are aware that the possibility is that important information will be
gained from field investigations and interpretations. In part this attitude
derives from the "gotta get it done for the least amount of $$" that is a
major part of large and small public and private projects. We can,
ultimately, blame ourselves for this short-sighted view because the tax base
cannot support the work that can (I want to write *should*) be done at sites
like those you describe, Ron. As I think you might be aware, it is going to
remain a frustrating and difficult situation. Sigh.

Anyone want to chime in on solutions to this rather tragic situation?

Laura West
Project Manager

M&S Engineering, Ltd.
Spring Branch, TX.
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron May [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am


The National Park Service history crew sent a letter to the United States
Navy concerning the need for archaeology testing at the Ballast Point Light
House
at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, San Diego, in 1991 advising that
sufficient
historical information exists that there is no need for archaeological
testing. This letter was used by the SHPO to advise the Navy there would be
no
adverse effect because the property would be ineligible for NR. The Navy
command at
that time was involved with the Fort Guijarros Museum Foundation and allowed
us to apply for a ARPA permit. With the permit issued, FGMF conducted
extensive testing (trenches and large block excavations) and repeatedly
telephoned the
SHPO reporting architectural features, Chinese fishing camp features, Yankee
shore whaling features, and thousands of artifacts. The SHPO continued to
rely
on the NPS letter and never once reconsidered their recommendation. In 1993,
the Navy erected a club and parking lot on this truly signficant
archaeological site.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2