Dear noble scratchers,

Sounds alarmingly familiar - this is a global issue of course.  The Practice
note on archaeology issued by the Tasmanian Heritage Council (archaeological
significance) states "To merely confirm information available through
documentary evidence is not adequate demonstration of the project
relevance."  This scrambled piece of nonsense is actually UNDERLINED in the
document.  Basically it means that the THC can veto archaeological
involvement in development projects on sites where any historical
information exists, irrespective of how general.  This is what happens when
archaeological policy is written by architects and town planners.

Rise up in anger!

Greg Jackman
Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority

-----Original Message-----
From: praetzellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 4:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Just the facts, ma'am

HISTARCHERS,

While perusing the latest edition of Historical Archaeology (Vol 38, No 1),
I came across the following in an article by Kerri Barile. She begins with a
quote from the Texas Historical Commission [THC], which opines:

"If you provide a research design that. explains why archaeological data are
better than archival or historic sources for studying these questions, the
THC will support it."

Barile continues.

".this statement re-emphasized the tendency to separate archaeology from the
cohesive study of all historic cultural resources, including architecture,
archival research, and oral history."

How right you are, Kerri.

How sad it is that after I don't know how many years of historical
archaeology it's still necessary to make this kind of statement. It puts me
in mind of certain public officials who, in their scarily myopic
understanding of how historical archaeology works, ask me to justify my work
by lining up the "facts" that I have learned exclusively from the
archaeological remains.

Well, duh.

Adrian Praetzellis
Sonoma State University