The SAA style guide is fairly standard in this biz. You would think that if the SHPO is going to complain that they dont like your citation method that they would at least provide an example that they do like. Nothing like a small person in power trying to play the King.

Best of luck

(BTW I'm sure you know this but here's the Section 106 Reviewer's email address. I would bug the hell out of her until you got a satisfactory answer - ksanders@crt.state.la.us).

The reviewer directed me to the SAA style guide, which is what I used in the first place. It doesn't contain an actual example of an NHRP citation unfortunately. I originally interpreted it based on 3.4.13, which discusses the reference as a primary source.

Note: Primary-source citations appear only in the text and are not duplicated in the References Cited section.

Apparently, that was wrong... :cry:

I'm not looking to pick a fight with the mighty SHPO, just aiming to please! :)

Redleg, obviously I wouldnt suggest a fight (lol), but certainly would request clarification - they after all are requesting a specific change, so they should suggest a specific example.

Redleg, what happened with this issue?

The SHPO reviewer dinged me on it for putting it in the body of the report rather than placing it with the References. And referred me to the SAA style guide. Which is what I used to make my initial choice. :roll:

Everything is subject to interpretation in this biz! :lol:

No big deal. I have plenty of other revisions to make anyways. :lol:

If you put it in the body of the report, you were not following the SAA style guide as I know it. Unlike many other fields in Amer Antiq. (Journal of the SAA) all items referenced need to be in the endmatter. The text should only inlcude (name year:page).

I suspect that you got dinged because NR nominations are considered public records and publishable - rather than primary source records like family papers or archived material. Additionally, either the format you used was so out of the norm that it stood out like a sore thumb, or because the reference was a specific one that the reviewer took the time to look up for some reason. In my experience, SHPO reviewers are usually so swamped with work (i.e >1000 reports a year to read plus everything else they do [consultation, public education, advise state and fed agencies as well as the public...] with only 3-4 reviewers for many years) that they do not take the time to correct every little mistake in a report - and almost every report has at least a few misteaks ( :D ) in it. I know that personally I spend a lot more energy trying to get good maps, photo information (even artifacts photos) inlcuded rather than looknig at grammatical errors. I do on occasion see references that NEED to be addressed because they are so clearly wrong - but honestly it is low on the list of concerns.

No, it's not a big deal, but....

Did you at least, by chance, tell them what the style guide says for primary sources? If they are going to require a hard-line stance on use of a style guide, they should at least know what it says. SHPOs are reviewers; they make sure that things are in conformance, but they are not gods that need propitiation and require supplication, despite what they may think.

Cheers,
Richard


(No, I dont always play well with others....)

[quote:="FireArch"].... SHPOs are reviewers; they make sure that things are in conformance, but they are not gods that need propitiation and require supplication, despite what they may think.

Preface - I am entering my fourth decade doing archaeology and have been on one side of the consultant/SHPo fence or the other -writing or reading reports since 1985 - so I know of what I speak.

these comments are a perfect example of not understanding someone else's position. Do you realize that everytime a SHPO review lets something go it is bound to come back to bite them later. Often when another consultant starts to complain about the quality of someone elses work. I suspect this is a universal law scratched in stone somewhere.

I have seen complaints against SHPOs for almost everything they ask for, from insisting on Geomorphological info in potentially deep, stratified deposits; to not accepting reports where seasonal wetness (snow melt) is considered evidence of a wetland (to bad the corn stubble from the year before was poking through the water); to asking that maps actually include keys so that they can be deciphered.

Usually (at least in my experience) when something is requested it is because the report (or intrepretations or methodology) do not make sense to the reviewer - or something is missing that does not allow a concurrence with the report's finding. Often this is because the author knows exactly what they want to express, is familiar with every aspect of the site and proejct, and is sure that what they wrote makes sense and should answer aye questions. But the reviewer, having only what is in the report to go on, is at a major disadvantage and needs more complete or better information to reach the same conclusion.

Just like any postion - I am sure that there are some pinhead SHPOs out there (to match the pinhead consultants that we often share anonymous stories about here at AFW) but both sides need to be careful about making sweeping generalizations - especially until you walk a mile in someone elses shoes. I have often wondered how much of an effect it would have on report writing if every consultat had to spend a month in a SHPO review position. I know that every reviewer I have ever spoken with has had the same experience - "I never knew what I did not know until I started working at the SHPO" - it gives you a whole different perspective on the industry.

Uh, where did I say something should be let go?

Didnt the SHPO make the request for a change whereby the author was using the source which the SHPO cited. Catch-22 anyone?

What sweeping generalization? OK, not all think they are gods... :); however, is it not the job of the SHPO to ensure that the project proponent's project is in conformance with the regs?

BTW, I have nothing against any SHPO anywhere. However, we are speaking to a particular incident. I addressed my comments to that incident. It also happens to be a universal problem; people making requests for changes to something without really addressing the issue or giving a clear example or guidance. Happens in every field of endeavor.

I suspect dmack is correct with his interpretation. Public record v, primary source. I thought it was a primary source and treated it as such, but I was wrong. (If the style guide had happened to use an example of a NR nomination, it would have been helpful.:roll:) My copy is at the office, so I'll wait to review my understanding on the matter, but one of you will probably point out some oversight. :lol: You guys are good, and this has turned into an interesting discussion.

I don't want to SHPO bash, however. In this case, the reviewer did a very good and thorough job. I only disagreed with his conclusions a couple of times and most of his comments were constructive, so, no complaints here. It is probably somewhat unusual to have a NR structure on top of an unrelated (sort of) site. Usually the NR work happens after the fieldwork, doesn't it? (It was/is complicated...) :)

Redleg,

you wouldn't by any chance be working at the Poydras building?

Classarch,

Not any more.

:lol:

Algiers. :D