The State of
Scott Anfinson, 2/06
Protection of Sites
Good/Fair: DNR and DOT programs; federal programs at USFS, COE, NRCS,
NPS; federal laws; SHPO 106
Poor: SHPO 138/116 (no local EAWs, no state funded projects, no sale of state
lands); acceleration of urban sprawl and lakeshore development; continued agricultural erosion and over-collection of sites; state laws
Research and
Publications
Good/Fair: a few individual efforts (Michlovic, Gibbon, Mather, grad students);
MnDOT initiatives (MnModel, deep sites, farmsteads)
Poor: no recent archaeology pubs at MHS Press; dominance of business-only
CRM; lack of
books;
little progress on basic research questions in
IMA
Education
Good/Fair:
robust programs at
archaeology staff and new Heritage Management program
Poor: no field school at U of M; no replacement of programs at UMD and
Relationships:
Internal and External (public, avocational, Indians)
Good/Fair: Cooperative Stewardship Workshops (Indians and Archs);
Continued Archaeology Week(?);
Poor: decline in CMA attendance, decline in civility, decline in professional –
Avocational interaction(?); decline in MAS membersjip
Overall: Fair to Poor in every category; no Excellent ratings in any category
- a few positive actions in last 25 years:
- founding of IMA
- SHPO/LCMR surveys (shipwrecks, trails, logging)
- funding for State Archaeologist
- strengthening of 307.08
- DNR archaeological programs
- significant losses in last 25 years:
- MHS Archaeology layoffs and end of Statewide Archaeological Survey
- loss of IMA
- decline in membership and interest in MAS and CMA
- lack of archaeology support at statewide institutions (MHS, SMM)
- reduction in SHPO funding
- loss of several robust university programs
- elimination of field schools at U of M
- loss of cultural resource funding though LCMR
- lack of public reporting and a national presence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2004 - 2006 Council for Minnesota Archaeology, Inc.
Last
update 03-02-2006
Please direct comments on this site to the webmaster.