Yes, I have done Prehistoric archaeology, however, my graduate degree is in
Historical archaeology and regardless of the rhetoric that has been bantered
about, I am still concerned that there is simply too much waste at the
taxpayer's expense spent digging up sites of limited or marginal value.
Sure every site can tell you something about past lifeways, however, is it
always important information?  Would any of us really consider nominating
this landfill to the National Register of Historic Places?

My earlier notion about "information potential" came from Criterion D for
properties being considered eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.  This Criterion is the one most often used by
archaeologists as the reason for doing site evaluations and data recoveries.
I have read some interesting ideas and theories from some who have commented
on this thread about what could be gained from digging this 1930-1940s
landfill.  However, I remain curious as to what are the research questions
developed by the consultants and most likely approved by the Utah SHPO with
the hopes of their being answered by this dig.  One should not have to wait
until the final report comes out to find out what kinds of questions were
considered and whether or not any even could be answered by those data.

I remain concerned that far too many sites go to data recovery because they
contain intact deposits.  I would venture to guess that most historic sites
contain intact deposits, so what?  In the past, many archaeologists assumed
that if you had intact deposits, the sites automatically were eligible for
the National Register.  I am glad to see at least some SHPOs are moving away
from that resolve and more are leaning toward trying to determine what
important information will be gained from that site.  I hope that in the
review of the data recovery plan, the folks in Utah were able to ascertain
what that important information might be.

In my nearly 25 years of cultural resources management and archaeological
research, I have seen quite a few data recovery reports which talked about
stuff found but really did not add any important information to cultural
history and process.  I am not ready to throw in the towel.  I would like to
think we are capable of more than simply digging up sites be they 1,000
years old or 50 years old.  As someone who is paid through tax dollars, I
would like to think that what I do is at least playing a small part in
contributing to a more thorough understanding of human history.  I am sure
that the Sagebrush Consultants will do a fine job as would any other
cultural resources firm, research organization, or university.  My questions
are more a concern as to when should we consider using other sources of
information, what will archaeology tell us that we cannot obtain from other
sources, and are those who are paying for the research getting their monies
worth?

I agree with those who have added comments that we need to do a better job
of informing the public about archaeology.  Many strides have been made in
the last decade or so, more still need to happen.  Will digging such sites
as 1930-1940s landfills validate in the eyes of the public the worth of
archaeology?  I am skeptical at best.

No doubt I have stirred up the hornet's nest, but isn't that what makes
these discussions so interesting?

Mark Wittkofski

(The comments above are the author's alone and do not represent his
employer.)
-----Original Message-----
From:   Robert L Schuyler [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:38 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: Landfill Site Reference Request

WILL THE REAL PREHISTORIANS PLEASE STAND UP.

If it makes no sense to excavate a site from the 1930s why does it make
sense
to excavate one from 1830 or even 1730? This is the same old argument
used against historical archaeology since the 1930s (ironicially) when many
believed Jamestown was a "too recent site" to be wasting resources on.

The 'Archaeology of the 20th Century' is an exciting and new area for a
complete historical archaeology and we can certainly learn much by combining
archaeology, documentary and oral (while they are still alive) sources to
explore the last century.

I think the Sagebrush Consultants project is not only valid (although it
will
certainly involve questions of sampling) but I for one would love to have a
copy of any preliminary or final report. Indeed, what will archaeology tell
us about Salt Lake City during the Great Depression. Dig on Mike and save a
report copy for me.

As far as wasting federal tax monies, if that is your real concern, quit
archaeology. American society, or any other, does not need archaeology to
survive so in some absolute sense all of our profession is a waste of tax
money as is most of social science and historical scholarship, not to
mention
the humanities. Just ask the business community, the central
administrators of many universites and, unfortuantely, many politicans.

I think most people like archaeology because it is fascinating and adds
something to their lives. Within that context a historical archaeological
investigation of the Great Depression era would be quite interesting to
the general public as well as to scholars in several fields.

Historical Archaeology will expand in the near future to include not only
the archaeology of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centures but also
the 20th Century. As an unidentified Frenchman during World War I yelled out
from the crowd when General Pershing said 'Lafayette We Have Come' ----
"It's About Time!"

                                        Bob Schuyler