At 10:54 AM -0600 3/16/04, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Unfortunately, this also happens in real life where the site preservation
>stakes are much greater, in which you have strictly anthro-trained folks
>lacking any historical knowledge or background making pronouncements on the
>significance of historic period sites all on their own. This is what I too
>often see on my side of the business.

Okay, Carl: How often do you review and reject CRM reports that
clearly are inadequate in the historical area? The fact is that
government folks could raise the level of reporting by the simple
expedient of requiring professional competence.  Don't hold your
breath.

I'm also the editor of our state archaeological journal, which
publishes excerpts from CRM reports. In a recent article, the CRM
person consistently misspelled the name of our state's leading family
(who owned the site) and then mis-stated the name of the family firm,
which happens to be the largest business in the state! Clearly the
CRM firm made no effort whatever to place their very expensive dig in
anything resembling historical context.

And this draft came from a report that supposedly had been accepted
by the sponsoring agency and by the SHPO. Was I the only one in the
whole sequence who knew the basic facts of our state's history?

I won't specify the consultant or the abysmally negligent state
offices that accepted the report.

But I will say that these same bureaupundits are quick to jump on any
minor infelicities in a site plan or an artifact catalogue, no matter
how irrelevant to the job at hand.
--
[log in to unmask]