Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 18 Jul 1996 13:07:32 MST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Recently I conducted testing at a site in Arizona where both prehistoric
and historic resources were found. The historic cultural resources included a
portion of an Illuminating Gas and Electric Works, which supplied the city with
electricity in the 1880s and 1890s, residences built between 1875 and 1885,
and commercial structures such as a stone/monument works, a trunk factory, and
car lots from the early 1910s and 1920s. Based upon the large number of features
documented (95 total), their excellent preservation, and the history of the bloc
k, it was decided that the site was likely to be eligible under National Registe
r
Criterion D, as the archaeological resources can providesignificant information
on the prehistory and history of the city. The City archaeologist and AZ SHPO ag
reed
with the recommendations.
A reviewer from a federal agency (described as a staff archaeologist but unnamed
in the letter) disagreed and wrote:
"The whole discussion of research significance as applied to the archeological
leavings of the early [residents] is an example of a widespread and unfortunate
tendency in federally supported historical archaeology that might be defined as
"the Hillary Syndrome" (after the climber of Mt. Everest). Historical archeologi
sts seem often to propose that a source if information is important )and therefo
re
eligible for the National Register under Criterion "d") simply because it is the
re. Again, the mere fact that one can study a phenomenon does not justify a Fede
ral
agency in spending money to support one in studying it....I suggest that for eve
ry topic that the authors think should be addressed through research at the site
, they
should explicitly answer the following questions: "Why is this topic worth
studying?" and "Why is this a good place to study it?" "If it turned out that
there was an undocumented ethnic minority in the area, what would this tell us t
hat would be of lasting value?" [other comments in similar tone left out]
[The Gov't agency]'s plan of action, I believe, needs to go beyond archaeologica
l
studies and provide for monitoring during site work to recover and repatriate
Native American cultural items."
Basically, the agency does not want to fund archaeology on two city blocks, but
will fund a monitor in case human remains are found.
Two questions: 1). Has anyone else received this opinion about archaeology on
Federal projects? Is this common?
2). How does one inform the government agency that their opinion is wrong? In th
is case, the agency had already received written comments by the City archaeolog
ist
and AZ SHPO agreeing with our recommendations that the site was probably eligib
le.
Any comments would be appreciated.
|
|
|