An advisory council packed with Trump allies voted to weaken federal oversight of construction projects affecting historic sites. Critics ar

seen from Belarus

seen from Latvia
seen from Nepal
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from China

seen from Japan

seen from Germany

seen from China

seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Kenya
seen from Morocco
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
An advisory council packed with Trump allies voted to weaken federal oversight of construction projects affecting historic sites. Critics ar

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
An overview of the proposed changes to Section 106 and the impact it will have on archaeology, historic preservation and the public.
NEW EPISODE!
Join Chelsi, Emily, Kirsten and guests Dr. Holly Norton (Colorado State Archaeologist and the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer at History Colorado), Dr. Maureen Meyers (Director of Archaeology for New South Associates, Inc.), Sarah Love (Professional and PhD student), Katie Tipton (Cultural Resources Practice Lead for Catalyst Environmental), Kassie Rippee (Tribal Liaison, SACHP: State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) and Gretchen Eggiman (President, Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists) for an emergency recording about the proposed changes to Section 106. We cover the history of the law, what the changes are, what they mean for archaeologists and the public, and how you can make your voice heard during the consultation period.
Due to the quick turnaround between notification of the proposed changes and voting this episode was recording asynchronously with our different guests (not our usual approach), edited, and posted within 3 days. If you notice a difference from our normal podcasts this is why.
overtedification
replied to your link
“After 87 Years At The Smithsonian, Bones Of Alaska Natives Returned...”
My question is this: How have cases like this changed how archaeology is conducted? Does digging & studying just progress without the removal of remains? If no one claims the burial, can removal for study happen, on the grounds that remains will/may be returned, if later claimed? Where does archaeology "stop" and "desecration" begin? I realize this is an extremely fine line. Digging burial sites seems wrong but humans have learned a tremendous amount from this practice.
Most of the time, we try to avoid disturbing possible burial sites at all. The vast majority of archaeology in the U.S. happens because someone is planning on developing the area, and they are legally obligated to perform a cultural survey first. The developing company is on the hook for any costs involved, and the time and expense involved in dealing with burials (especially Native burials) is often prohibitive, so some developers will opt to relocate their project, rather than deal with the expense and logistics involved.
Where Native burials are concerned, local tribes are always involved in determining what will happen -- in the areas where local tribes still exist, which is sadly not everywhere. When I was excavating burials in downtown Miami, we worked with the Seminole tribe, though the burials themselves were Tequesta, who unfortunately no longer exist. Because the site was in the middle of downtown Miami, there was no option to just leave it undisturbed; the real estate there is too valuable. We came to an agreement with the Seminole that the burials would be removed, we would have two years to study the remains, and then they would be repatriated to another location.
You can read more on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which are the two pieces of legislation that govern most archaeology in the U.S.
A council packed with Trump appointees wants to rewrite historic preservation rules. Critics say that could help him build his D.C. arch fas
The Women in Archaeology co-hosts, Chelsi, Emily, and Kirsten, discuss the impact the second Trump presidency is having on the field of arch
New episode! The Women in Archaeology co-hosts, Chelsi, Emily, and Kirsten, discuss the impact the second Trump presidency is having on the field of archaeology and heritage across the United States. From the impending impacts of “The One Big Beautiful Bill”, DOGE effects, and others, archaeologists have been hit like other scientists impacted by the presidency. Listen and explore these greater issues from an archaeologist’s perspective.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Last week, we examined the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP) proposed rewrite of the Section 106 regulations and why it rep
I'm an American archaeologist and I am fucking terrified about what's going on with executive orders, ACHP votes, and general scale back of historic preservation. Keep an eye on the news on the opening of Chaco Canyon to drilling, the reduction of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, and the ACHP proposal to dramatically change Section 106 regulations. I will continue to post news articles and links on how to make public comments on the Federal Register and where to contact representatives.
The Department of Interior is giving only 14 days for the public to weigh in on a proposal that could devastate the landscape surrounding Ch