No flames and mud here, David, however the CRM archeologists I have met are
not adequately trained to "do history." It isn't just the compliance issues
(Sec. 106, 4f, and all), it is that archeologists lack the historiography to
make the best recommendations. If I know nothing of geoarcheology should I
make statements in a report about the soils and sediments without consulting
an authority? No!

I could go on, but I have no time today to do so.

Laura West
Project Manager

M&S Engineering, Ltd.
Spring Branch, TX.

-----Original Message-----
From: davidsr01 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: archaeologists and history


Although there are many archaeologists who are more than adequately trained
to do history, the sad fact is that with CRM and corporate bean counters,
etc., there are many more who aren't. As Ned so aptly pointed out, this is a
pathetic state. Last December I wrote to the Register of Professional
Archaeologists board to address just this very issue. I requested that RPA
revise its grievance procedures to cover archaeologists who use their
credentials to do history, architectural history, etc., when they are not
qualified to do so and there is a resulting impact to a non-archaeological
resource. This might include "writing off" a significant building in a
Section 106 study to adversely affecting a rural community by facilitating
the construction of a communications tower by not taking into account
cultural landscapes, rural historic landscapes, etc. I have been assured by
new RPA president Chuck Niquette that the issue will be taken up at the next
board meeting (April, I think; I'm in he field and my notes ar

Let's see how RPA runs with this one. I know, let the flames and mud start a
flying'.

David Rotenstein