Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:57:40 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In Colorado we use trinomials for all site types. This is also true of Montana and Wyoming. That being said, we also have the issue of the two resource types being mutually exclusive and managed by two seperate groups within the same agency. This, I have been told, is due to ARPA, which requires that Archaeology locales remain confidential whereas architecture reports are open, public documents. It is frustrating to me that the end result seems to be that 1) The Archaeology is not even considered in determining site significance, 2) a division is created between the two disciplines, and 3) architecture is often viewed as only significant if developmentally stunted not as an evolving cultural space as one would view Archaeological sites.
Thank You,
Sean Doyle,
Historical Resources Specialist
SWCA Inc
"Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Archaeologists use the trinomial system to record archaeologists. Architectural historians use something else, at least here in VA.
Are there states that have one numbering system for everything? We have had archaeologists who can't deal with buildings and buildings are often recorded with no regard for the archaeological sites around them, although this is waning, thankfully.
But, with an idea towards looking to the totally computerized future and recognizing that architectural sites also have archaeological components, are there states who've taken the jump and if so how?
Thanks in advance,
Lyle Browning, RPA
|
|
|