Are you referring to the state and regional archaeological management plans developed by state historic preservation offices under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), which contractors usually deal with as part of the Section 106 compliance process?  Or, something more specific to individual cities?

D. Babson 


Dear Fellow Histarchers

I have a query relating to doctorate research I am undertaking at La Trobe
University in Victoria, Australia. The major aim of my thesis titled: THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE MODERN CITY, "Managing the Archaeology of Central Sydney
and Melbourne, Australia, is to revise and rethink the strategies used in
archaeological management plans (AMPs) that currently exist for the Central
Business Districts of Melbourne and Sydney.

Brief explananation of management plans is given below to assist
understanding of my query :
Archaeological zoning and management plans were developed overseas in the
early 1970s and have been used in Australia since the 1980s. Like their
counterparts in the UK, initiative to create the plans came from local
council planners who wanted a simple guide that identified potential sites,
to assist with archaeological issues arising from development proposals.
Heritage legislation and practise in Sydney and Melbourne is considered the
most progressive of all Australian states. Yet little material is available
within Australia that evaluates the management principles that guide
archaeological policy and procedure for city centres. A significant component
of the research is detailed research into international best practices for
managing the archaeology of major urban centres for their relevance in the
Sydney and Melbourne AMP revisions.
I have spent some time researching various methods, practices and
archaeological management plans (AMPs) in the UK, where AMPs were first
conceived. The first of these was The Future of London's Past: A survey of
the archaeological implications of planning and development in the nation's
capital, 1973, Martin Biddle, Daphne Hudson and Carolyn Heighway.
My attempts to identify exemplary issues and approaches for cities such as
Washington, New York, Auckland, Cape Town and Quebec have been unsuccessful.
From initial enquiries it appears that comparable models do not currently
exist for these cities. In particular it seems that there is no equivalent of
what we call 'Archaeological Management or Zoning Plans' in the USA, Canada
or New Zealand.

It seems reasonable to assume that if archaeological investigations such as
those at Five Points, New York, The Boots Mill in Lowell Massachusetts and
Hookers Division in Washington etc are carried out then there must be some
sort of planning mechanism that allows such projects to occur within each
American State?  I have not been able to find any internet sites or contacts
that can clarify the existence of management plans or related heritage
mechanisms in the US. Perhaps archaeology is not included in relevant US
state and local development and planning schemes? This seems unlikely for a
country that has provided so much in the development of best practise
historical archaeology and related theory. So I would like to clarify this
issue before I reconsider this aspect of the research.

If any histarch members could assist me with this query by directing me to
reference material, relevant contacts or internet sites within the US etc I
would be most grateful. I am also happy to provide further information that
may clarify this query. On or off list replies are most appreciated.

sincerely

nadia iacono

Nadia Z Iacono
PhD Candidate,
La Trobe University
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
Mail: 3/25 Beaconsfield Parade
LINDFIELD NSW 2070
Ph: 61 2 9880 7494
Mobile: 0425 303061
email: [log in to unmask]