Dan: I don't believe anyone has expressed an anti-archeological sentiment.
I also guess I am in a small minority that believes any expenditure of
taxpayer dollars requires a reason and justification, not simply statements
like: in a hundred years we will have to go searching for these 1930s-1940s
landfill (good grief I hope that is not the only thing that will be
representative of the twentieth century); that "we will find a lot of very
old and intact bottles" (actual line from a submitted research design; or,
'as the professional archeologist we need to be able to recover this data
from this landfill in order to interpret it for an interested public' (I
have some serious doubts that the public, if presented with a plans and
costs for archeologically excavating a 30s-40s landfill in a public meeting,
would support it).  I think the larger point was, what makes this 30s - 40s
landfill a National Register property (if this is triggered by a Section 106
requirement)?  What is the research design and what is the excavation
seeking that is simply not part of the written (or oral) record?  What will
be discovered about this property that contributes to a significantly
increased understanding of human history?  Critically, if this is Section
106, what has the consulted parties had to say about this effort?
Obviously, if it has gotten this far, it has gone through a review process,
testing to confirm eligibility, and had the required MOA established for
mitigation (which includes the opportunity for the ACHP to participate).  If
the agency, the SHPO, or anyone else is not willing to prepare a national
register nomination form on this property and send it forward, then is it
meeting the criteria of data potential?  I believe I would make the same
argument even if the project was to consider its impacts on State
archeological (historic) resources per Utah Statutory requirements.  I am
one of those "folks...employed by publicly funded agencies," but I don't
believe I have an "anti-archeological sentiment."  Believe me, it is a
difficult task to have to present to your agency a study effort and costs
that identifies numerous archeological sites that will require mitigation in
order to construct a flood control structure and the added costs exceed the
Federal funding cap for such projects, effectively killing the project.  It
is even worse having to tell the impoverished community downstream that the
project cannot be built because the archeology is more important than their
homes or lives.  We must consider an effective balance.

Stephen P. Austin


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Mouer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 7:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Landfill Site Reference Request


Robert L Schuyler wrote:
>
> WILL THE REAL PREHISTORIANS PLEASE STAND UP...
>
...I think most people like archaeology because it is fascinating and
adds
> something to their lives. Within that context a historical archaeological
> investigation of the Great Depression era would be quite interesting to
> the general public as well as to scholars in several fields.
>
> Historical Archaeology will expand in the near future to include not only
> the archaeology of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centures but also
> the 20th Century. As an unidentified Frenchman during World War I yelled
out
> from the crowd when General Pershing said 'Lafayette We Have Come' ----
> "It's About Time!"
>

Amen, Bob, Amen. What really worries me is to see folks, whose training
and interests suggest that their principal interest should be exploring
and interpreting the archaeological record, worrying and fretting over
some other archaeologists spending  "public money" on projects they
don't find interesting. It particularly worries me when these same folks
are employed by publicly funded agencies and apply their
anti-archaeological sentiments in the service of their employers who,
after all, don't want to be "wasting" their money on archaeology.


--
Dan Mouer
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dmouer/homepage.htm