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:
Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:32:42 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
YES INDEED, Mary, and sorry for the shouting!

Section 106 was not simply placed into our legal system to soothe us into
saving a few out of the many, it can serve as a way to galvinize us into
action should we choose to use it in that way. I realize this seems quite
naive, but we have to work within our present framework unless additional
changes to laws are made.

Many eligible buildings, archeological sites, and landscapes are not
supported by those that determine them to be "possibly eligible" when
presenting them to the SHPO. The SHPO may not have time to visit your site
or may not support it without enough supporting documentation to prove its
importance (or, most distressingly,  occasionally even with enough
documentation). It falls into our laps to be aware and active in our efforts
to seek not only compliance, though the reality is, at this time, that much
will be lost in the effort to keep up our infrastructure that we  all enjoy.
This dicotomy of this issue frustrates at many of us.

Laura West
M&S Engineering, Ltd.



;-)
Laura West

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Beaudry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Just the facts, ma'am


Can't help myself even though I swore I wouldn't post on this thread.
I may have missed some of it, but what struck me when I read Adrian's
first posting is that the actions taken by some SHPOs seem to
contravene, if not the laws, the regulations aimed at enforcing laws
like the NHPA.  Nowhere in the National Register criteria does it say
that sites are considered eligible only if they contribute
information that can be gleaned solely through excavation, and
nowhere does it say that any part of American history has been
eliminated from consideration because it is too recent, too bland,
too uninteresting to some folk, etc., etc.  It strikes me that the
spirit of the 106 review process is consistently violated by
broad-brush statements that dismiss any given class of resource out
of hand.

MCB
--
Mary C. Beaudry, PhD, RPA
Associate Professor of Archaeology & Anthropology
Boston University
675 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215 USA
tel. 617-358-1650
fax 617-353-6800

email:  [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2