Dan, I wasn't calling you an elitist... I know folks who DO know you, and I
think they would support that. I was just making a general stupid comment.
Nothing new for me. My apologies.
We historic archies always are encountering problems with those early "man"
folks, who literally shovel off the Russian stuff and throw it out. After
all, its just "historic crap." And that's a quote someone actually said in
my presence.
Margan

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel H. Weiskotten [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 55 gallon drums et al.


Wow, I've never in my life been called an elitist!  Quite the opposite in
fact. Those that know me know that there is little that does not interest
me.  As for being a snob of the early human world, 20th century material
culture (besides Federal) is one of my loves, and my wife and I have a spent
a considerable part of our income acquiring books and studies on innumerable
facets of modern life.

My primary point, and to respond to Bob's comment that the public does not
know what CRM is, is that the public does know about $$$$ and if they found
out what CRM was doing with it they would have a coniption fit beyond
comprehension and ALL OF US would be sunk.

106 is about determining significance, not reporting as if everything over
50 years is significant.  CRM folks should know best of all how to most
effectively and efficiently use their resources, financial and otherwise.
If we cut off our head in the process, is that worth it?

        Dan W.


At 10/17/02 07:35 PM, you wrote:


hoo raa!
always been part of the challenge of working in Alaska has been elitist
attitudes. Partly because the historic "stuff" is only a 200 years old - at
best. Mostly WWII.


-----Original Message-----

From: Ron May [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:23 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: 55 gallon drums et al.



This diatribe against research on 20th century archaeology is an eletist
challenge that will certainly sour relations among practitioners. I feel
this to be an unhealthy thread that most certainly will lead to hurt
feelings. Thesis and dissertation research develop raw data into bodies of
knowledge, regardless of the century of creation. I feel too much emphasis
is placed on the archaeology of the wealthy in this discussion and not on
the other class and ethnic strata that were engaged in the great themes of
American history. In parts of America where European Americans arrived in
the 19th century or developed industries in the 20th century, comparison
with 17th and 18th century colonial sites and plantations is not
appropriate. I recommend we work towad open mindedness and see what our new
practitioners can develop.



Ron May

Legacy 106, Inc.