> Date sent:      Tue, 8 Aug 1995 08:32:07 EDT
> Send reply to:  HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
> From:           Charlie Ewen <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:        Re: HISTARCH Digest - 6 Aug 1995 to 7 Aug 1995
> To:             Multiple recipients of list HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]
EDU>
 
> Mike Polk raises an important point when he asks whether there are sites
> that are not worth excavating and points out that CRM archaeologists deal
> with this question all the time. I'd like to hear some opinions concerning
> the treatment of late 19th early 20th c. homesteads.  Most federal land
> managers (especially the national Forests) have tens of thousands of these
> to deal with. How much consideration should they be given? How much info
> are they likely to yield? I, too can think of many research questions that
> could be framed around particular homesites, but what about the other 10,000?
>
> Charles R Ewen Associate Professor
> East Carolina University
> Anthropology
> Brewster A-209 Greenville, NC 27858 (919) 328-1071
> Bitnet: ANEWEN@ECUVM1 Internet: [log in to unmask]
 
 
 
Charlie,
 
I believe a  multiple property approach to determine National
Register eligibility is appropriate in this case.  This would be
followed by a Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, the Federal agency, and the State Historic
Preservation Officer.  The PA would address appropriate mitigation
measures for those properties determined eligible.  In addition to
farmsteads, I can see this approach being taken on other property
types such as World War II foundations on military installations,
CCC and WPA bridges and culverts, and "Archaic lithic scatters."
With the winds of change in Washington, D.C., I think this is one
direction we will be heading in CRM archeology.
 
Sincerely,
 
George
 
George H. McCluskey
Senior Archeologist
Department of Arkansas Heritage
Little Rock, Arkansas
[log in to unmask]
 
P.S.  How are things in Carolina?  We miss you here in Arkansas.