Mike- Our office (Ely Field Office, BLM) completed data recovery (yes, Section
106 driven) fieldwork on a principally 1910-1940s surface trash scatter on the
outskirts of Pioche, Nevada.  The research questions were driven by interest in
comparison of consumer and geographic networks from this "third mining boom"
period in the Pioche Mining District.  I too will be interested as Anita
Cohen-Williams suggested in the relative proportions of alcohol and tobacco
containers from your study and to compare with our sample of trash from Pioche.
One of our research questions also linked to changes in these classes of items
in comparison with changes in Church membership in Pioche.
    I also would like to excercise bragging rights on the relevance of this
project to engage the community in historical archeological research.  The
project was undertaken prior to transfer of about 5 acres to the Lincoln County
School District for the construction of a new elementary school.  We
successfully employed all the 5th and 6th graders from Pioche and Panaca (about
60) for two days of fieldwork, mapping, identifying and sorting trash.  This was
determined to be a safe enterprise by the administrators of the School district
and our agency with some precautions (gloves).  It would probably not have
worked in deep excavations.  There were no accidents.  Subsequent to the field
work the BLM Archeological Project Manager, Brenda Reed, presented preliminary
results to the students in a show and tell session.  The project was well
received by the students, faculty, administrators and community.  The school is
nearing completion, as is the technical archeological report and the display of
materials for the public school.  I worry about waste of public money on missles
and subsidies for large corporations, not so much on archeology. -Mark
Mark Henderson
Ely, Nevada

"Austin, Stephen P SWF" wrote:

> Dan: I don't believe anyone has expressed an anti-archeological sentiment.
> I also guess I am in a small minority that believes any expenditure of
> taxpayer dollars requires a reason and justification, not simply statements
> like: in a hundred years we will have to go searching for these 1930s-1940s
> landfill (good grief I hope that is not the only thing that will be
> representative of the twentieth century); that "we will find a lot of very
> old and intact bottles" (actual line from a submitted research design; or,
> 'as the professional archeologist we need to be able to recover this data
> from this landfill in order to interpret it for an interested public' (I
> have some serious doubts that the public, if presented with a plans and
> costs for archeologically excavating a 30s-40s landfill in a public meeting,
> would support it).  I think the larger point was, what makes this 30s - 40s
> landfill a National Register property (if this is triggered by a Section 106
> requirement)?  What is the research design and what is the excavation
> seeking that is simply not part of the written (or oral) record?  What will
> be discovered about this property that contributes to a significantly
> increased understanding of human history?  Critically, if this is Section
> 106, what has the consulted parties had to say about this effort?
> Obviously, if it has gotten this far, it has gone through a review process,
> testing to confirm eligibility, and had the required MOA established for
> mitigation (which includes the opportunity for the ACHP to participate).  If
> the agency, the SHPO, or anyone else is not willing to prepare a national
> register nomination form on this property and send it forward, then is it
> meeting the criteria of data potential?  I believe I would make the same
> argument even if the project was to consider its impacts on State
> archeological (historic) resources per Utah Statutory requirements.  I am
> one of those "folks...employed by publicly funded agencies," but I don't
> believe I have an "anti-archeological sentiment."  Believe me, it is a
> difficult task to have to present to your agency a study effort and costs
> that identifies numerous archeological sites that will require mitigation in
> order to construct a flood control structure and the added costs exceed the
> Federal funding cap for such projects, effectively killing the project.  It
> is even worse having to tell the impoverished community downstream that the
> project cannot be built because the archeology is more important than their
> homes or lives.  We must consider an effective balance.
>
> Stephen P. Austin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Mouer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 7:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Landfill Site Reference Request
>
> Robert L Schuyler wrote:
> >
> > WILL THE REAL PREHISTORIANS PLEASE STAND UP...
> >
> ...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!"
> >
>
> Amen, Bob, Amen. What really worries me is to see folks, whose training
> and interests suggest that their principal interest should be exploring
> and interpreting the archaeological record, worrying and fretting over
> some other archaeologists spending  "public money" on projects they
> don't find interesting. It particularly worries me when these same folks
> are employed by publicly funded agencies and apply their
> anti-archaeological sentiments in the service of their employers who,
> after all, don't want to be "wasting" their money on archaeology.
>
> --
> Dan Mouer
> http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dmouer/homepage.htm