Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:26:20 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 10/27/2006 12:51:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Like any policy, a blanket discard policy can be abused. A more complicated
one may prevent discard where it is not justifiable but may not be used
because it is too confusing. Or misused with the best of intentions. But
ignoring the problem just accelerates the inevitable. And this isn't just
about historic artifacts although they get all the heat. How many tens of
thousands pieces of lithic debitage do we need to keep? Or all that fire
cracked rock?
Just last year, I had a fiery discussion with a member of the City of San
Diego, Historical Resources Board about their proposed discard policy from
collections recovered to mitigate the impact of tearing down have the business
district to build Petco Park for a major league baseball stadium (which
bankrupted the City of San Diego). His position was that every flake was "unique"
and had to be preserved, but bottle glass, construction material, and all
things not interesting to him (ceramics were not considered) could be tossed in
the dumpster. To justify his position, he (totally non-sequitor) cited an
archaeologist who preserved old refrigerators and broken stoves from the
monitoring. I then sent a letter to the City Attorney and the entire issue has been on
hold since then.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
|
|
|