I had started to write a lengthy reply to raise a few issues with the "100
year old" date, but I think Rich has pretty well covered it. Over the
years I have been involved in farming, home building, and excavating, and
can see a multitude of problems with that. Making everything man-made
over 99 years old "artifacts" borders on rediculous.
And then the explanation:
"With a change in the definition, it would be possible for local historic
organizations to notify the state when, for example, someone is planning
to bulldoze a Pioneer homestead or mill site for a construction project.
The project developer could be required to modify the construction plan to
not impact the associated artifacts, or to first document and recover the
significant artifacts prior to land alterations."
There are thousands of houses, barns and sheds here in rural Gibson County
built around the turn of the century, or sites where they once stood, that
fall under your "protection", and more in the cities and towns. I could
single-handedly stop progress in Gibson county by notifying the State every
time someone wants to disturb an old building or site?
I think we can find a better way to protect cemeteries, historic
structures, and archaeological sites.
Ernie
At 01:22 AM 01/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
INPCRP Listers:
I think it may also be critically important to determine exactly what a
pioneer and or industrial site really is. By Munson's proposed standard,
Indiana would commit the vast resources of the DHPA, and it's 2004 budget,
(sarcasm intended) to determining, for example, the differences between
the remains of a 1904 "pioneer" farmstead or factory debris site, with one
from say 1908? Or 1914? A bit like picking fly shit out of pepper I
think. This is just one possible example (I can think of many more) that
could realistically result from reaching too far with too few
resources. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, our State has not
recently provided the kind of funding an agency like the DHPA needs to
function at it's best. While Mrs. Munson glosses over this a bit in her
testimony, there are others on this list who have found it frustrating to
work with an agency that is understaffed and under funded.
And since I've mentioned the subject to farming, how will the new date
impact farmers? Literally hundreds of farmers could be in violation of
this statute as they level grandpas unsafe and dilapidated early 20th
century farm house and barn or plow through the remains of farm structures
(and artifacts) predating the century mark. As an archaeologist with
considerable experience in Indiana archaeology, Mrs. Munson knows good and
well that this happens each and every day in rural Indiana. And each new
year we'll have a new set of standards to work with? I'll bet the Farm
Bureau lobby will be interested in this particular facet of the proposed
amendments.