I just
can't hold my tongue any longer on this 55-gallon drum thing (it's getting sore
and I can't drink my coffee).
I
don't think anyone has yet mentioned context. If the
drums have an association with a site and the site is interesting, then record
it as part of the site and work the details on "eligibility" out later.
Eligibility is a determination, not a knee jerk reaction. We can still
record sites without putting them on the National Register. How many of us
in CRM have the skills required to assess every site we find in the field just
by walking around pontificating? I rely on contractors, university
archaeologists, underwater and shipwreck experts, historians, etc. These
folks are very willing to give you their opinion, sometimes without
even having been asked. Probably the most important pieces of
advise I would give to a new public service archaeologist have to do
with decision making, and one of those nuggets of insight would be "don't
make decisions in a vacuum, get other opinions."
If no
one knows where the drums came from, when they got there, what was in each one,
who put them there, or why, then you are going to have to make an argument for
them being important in their own right, like "the design of these drums is
totally unique and has never been documented."
Richard "now my coffee is cold"
Kimmel
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]]
- 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.