Ned,

My recollection of Iceland is that is is a separate country and not subject
to Section 106 of America's National Historic Preservation Act. If that is
so, why speculate what a foreign nation might do to U.S. military buildings?

Another thought on the quonset huts in agricultural settings. When found in
an agricultural community under study, we need to divorce ourselves from the
original military use of the structures and concentrate on the historic
context of post World War II agriculture before we dismiss those buildings.
It is possible that post August 1945 to 1955 might be a significant historic
context for an agricultural community. Given that historic context, the
erection of quonset huts might actually be important. And, more importantly,
quonset huts might contribute to our understanding of that historic context.
Thus, in this historic context the original military historic context would
be irrelevant.

Back to my analogy of the Folsom point in the shoe box. If later Native
people removed a Folsom point from a bison kill site and used the Folsom
point in a medicine bag or on a shaman's wand, then (like the relocated
quonset hut in the hypothetical agricultural community) the Folsom point
could contribute to a new cultural context.

Finally, I would like to note that some prehistorians would say that each and
every Folsom point is important because they are so scarce. One day, quonset
huts, Nissen huts and Series 600-800 temporary buldings will be as scarce and
historians will bemoan their passing.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.