|
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
I want to talk about Act 70 in this column. At the
spring PAC meeting in Williamsport, the board and members had a
lengthy discussion about Act 70, because the annual report on the
Act released by the Bureau for Historic Preservation of the Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission provides a detailed assessment
of what has happened to archaeological resources since it was passed
four years ago. If you haven't seen the report, it is on the PAC
webpage:
http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~bev/act70up.html
Act 70 is a state law which amended the History Code
and gave the PHMC responsibility for conducting archaeological investigations
of known sites in state permitted projects (like housing developments
and gravel quarries). The program receives about $300,000 a year
which is spent to support an in-house archaeological team, known
as the Commonwealth Archaeology Program, directed by Joe Baker,
and three consulting groups, Kittatinny Archaeological Research,
Inc., KCI Technologies, Inc., and ASC, Inc. The Act does not provide
the CAP archaeologists or consultants the opportunity to conduct
Phase I surveys to locate new sites, but only to investigate those
which are already recorded in the state site files.
The report makes several suggestions for improvements
to the Act. These include:
1. A change in the time limit for investigations and modification
of the requirement for landowner consent;
2. A disincentive or penalty for permittees who knowingly use the
provisions of Act 70 to avoid federal-level compliance;
3. Some provision for the consideration of archaeologically sensitive
(high probability) locations;
4. A tax-based incentive for developers and permittees to avoid
the locations of important sites.
5. Creation of a state-wide archaeological preservation trust fund
to buy easements or purchase exceptionally important sites to protect
them from development.
6. Some kind of official recognition or award for permittees or
developers who make substantial or exceptional contributions to
the preservation of sites on their properties.
While all of these are good recommendations, the board and members
instead voted to continue to support our longstanding position that
Act 70 should be repealed. The report makes it clear that significant
archaeological sites are being destroyed. Twenty-two sites have been
destroyed before any investigations were conducted. Only 23 sites
have been investigated and described in completed reports. Investigations
have been conducted at another 68 sites; the projects are not completed.
While the program is certainly successful in collecting a sample of
artifacts through controlled surface collections, each year a major
significant site, like a Monongahela village or a deeply stratified
floodplain site is destroyed or only subject to limited investigations.
Our position is that unless the program can be adequately funded,
it should be repealed. We believe that adequate funding would be approximately
$2 million dollars per year to cover the routine investigations and
to have enough funds available to investigate a major site. I urge
all of you to read the report and to give it to anyone who you think
might be concerned about the destruction of sites. PAC will be sending
letters to the PHMC and other agencies outlining our concerns about
the program. I think it is time to voice our concerns about the program
and I hope all of you will join in this effort.
Beverly ChiarulIi
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
ARTICLES
The Promise of Section 106: Departments of Transportation
and the National Historic Preservation Act
Introduction
In 1966, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) in part to establish a program for the preservation of
additional historic properties to those already preserved throughout
the Nation. For state highway programs using federal-aid funds, Section
106 has been its most pertinent provision.
Thirty-five years later, by what measure should we gauge
the success or failure of this Act with reference to archaeological
resources? Should it be gauged by the $5-10 million annually that
PennDOT and the Federal Highway Administration spend each year on
archaeological studies, a figure that approaches the total annual
amount of grants by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission?
Should it be gauged by the number of documents annually generated
(around 500) and reports produced (around 150). If measured by the
original promise of the Act, to preserve these irreplaceable archaeological
sites - to ensure future generations an opportunity to appreciate
the heritage of our country - the NHPA must be judged a failure.
Prehistory and Protohistory
Was it inevitable that Section 106 archaeology evolve
to this current state, and, must the implementation of 106 continue
on its present path? Ten years prior to the passage of the Act, Congress
passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which contained provisions
for archaeological and paleontological salvage. In the first four
years of this legislation, 160 highway salvage projects were conducted
in 26 states; however, two-thirds were concentrated in five states,
none further east than Illinois. In 24 states, no highway salvage
projects were initiated, despite the availability of federal funds.
Generally speaking, participation by DOTs in archaeological
salvage and research work did not begin in earnest until well after
the passage of the NHPA in 1966. Implementation was hampered by a
number of things, not the least of which was the original requirement
that a site be listed on the National Register to be considered for
protection. By 1974, the climate had changed, due to passage of the
Archaeological Data Preservation Act (Moss-Bennett) and the Advisory
Council issuing the first version of 36 CFR 800.
In Pennsylvania, although fieldwork related to the NHPA
was initiated by PennDOT as early as 1973, consistent application
of Section 106 did not occur until the 1980s.
Differences between Maryland and Pennsylvania Highway
Programs
The differences between Maryland and Pennsylvania are
instructive. In Maryland, fieldwork through the State Archaeologist's
office began in the early 1970s, with a highway archaeology program
being established in that office by 1974. Maryland established its
program early through a neutral party, the State Archaeologist, enabling
the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) to have a cost-effective
program, using state employees, and a neutral and independent professional
who would monitor the work. The latter fostered a good working relationship
between the Maryland Historic Trust and SHA.
PennDOT relied exclusively on the advice of the SHPO
at the beginning, when at all, and used outside consultants for the
conduct of the studies. Also, PennDOT management was slow to embrace
the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as other environmental
legislation. PennDOT recast the role of the SHPO into that of a permitting
agency, and created what in psychology could be called a co-dependent
relationship. The main feature of co-dependency is turning over the
responsibility of one's own actions to others, in this case to the
SHPO.
Co-dependency may be dysfunctional, but offers some
powerful attractions. First, co-dependency let PennDOT avoid responsibility
for its actions, since control could be viewed as being in the hands
of the SHPO. Lack of responsibility also implied lack of accountability
by PennDOT (i.e., "it was the SHPO's fault"). There was little disincentive
for the SHPO to play along. FHWA, as the agency, could not actually
delegate ultimate responsibility. Also, in the beginning when agencies
did not have in-house cultural resource expertise, the SHPO was often
the only source of that expertise.
That there would be conflict was inevitable. SHPO and
DOT goals are necessarily different, a point on which Section 106
consultation rests. The SHPO is there to advocate for the preservation
of historic resources. This makes the SHPO ill-suited to be the sole
advisor to a DOT which has as its mission the maintenance of a transportation
system. Furthermore, DOTs must balance all environmental concerns
not just historic preservation. Logistically, the SHPO's staff can
never fully serve the needs of a DOT because DOT needs are large and
SHPO resources are small. The SHPO is outside the DOT and can never
be fully integrated into the DOT's business practices, meaning frequent
external transactions such as letters, meetings, etc., that are necessarily
more cumbersome than internal transactions.
A New Direction
Beginning in 1985, with the hiring of a staff archaeologist,
PennDOT began to move away from complete dependence on the SHPO. Four
events mark that shift. In 1993, an Engineering District hired its
own archaeologist. PennDOT proved that its district-based design operations
could be more effective by tapping into District professional expertise.
In 1996, Pennsylvania endured severe flooding, which washed out a
number of bridges and roads statewide. That emergency resulted in
the execution of a flood programmatic agreement to quickly and efficiently
handle disaster-aid work. The success of the flood programmatic led
PennDOT staff to execute a minor projects programmatic agreement that
relied heavily on the proven value of field views and project guidance
by qualified professionals. The statewide decentralization of cultural
resource expertise was seeded by the 1996 floods, but began in the
summer of 1996 and culminated this month.
The premise of this decentralization is that each Engineering
District belongs to a region. Each region has a work team - an archaeologist
and an architectural historian - who are responsible for scoping,
document review, and the qualified professional responsibilities under
the minor projects PA. The pilot for team-based 106 used management
consultants for staffing. This is being replaced by four state employees
from new PennDOT hires and from a 3-year agreement with Indiana University
of Pennsylvania (IUP) to provide five more. In two years at the end
of the agreement in Year 2002, PennDOT has agreed to have hired the
five IUP professionals.
Inserting these 15 - nine new hires plus the six existing
positions - into the design process and empowering them will give
PennDOT the best opportunity to act responsibly. In addition to the
duties described above, the teams will be entering into a dialogue
with the engineers early in the process at the scoping field views,
with the chance to minimize project impacts by influencing design.
Finally, each professional will serve as a District preservation officer,
providing training and guidance beyond the individual project. This
last role is possibly the most important insofar as the internal advocacy
of an historic preservation ethic must be ongoing. The ability to
reach those who are responsible for the design decisions and make
a case for historic preservation that is neither watered down nor
wooly-headed will be the ultimate factor in the success or failure
of this program.
New Regulations, Reviving the Promise
Due to recent changes in 36 CFR 800, we as archaeologists,
in PennDOT, in Pennsylvania, and in the Nation, are at a crossroads
where we will choose which direction historic preservation will take.
The old no adverse effect finding meant that a site could be destroyed
twice - once by data recovery excavation and once by the project -
yet from a regulatory standpoint, the project did not have an adverse
effect upon the resource. This brought a certain pragmatic efficiency.
No memorandum of agreement (MOA) was needed and most of the brokering
of the data recovery could be done between two parties: the DOT and
the SHPO. The research exception became a Faustian bargain, carrying
a clear message that archaeological sites are not as important as
other historic resources. The other message, more subtle but equally
damaging, was that data recovery excavation could be the only appropriate
way of mitigating impacts to archaeological resources. Destruction
of an archaeological site is now an adverse effect. With this change
in the regulation , the way mitigation of that adverse effect will
be decided will be more open and multiparty. Not only will the SHPO
and the DOT be at the table, but there is a higher likelihood that
other consulting parties will participate, including local governments
with jurisdiction over the affected site, and other groups that have
a demonstrated interest in the site. The views of the public will
also need to be solicited.
Federally recognized tribes that attach religious and
cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected
also can be consulting parties, and must be afforded the opportunity
to participate and consult. Under the new regulations, these sites
need not be on tribal lands. This augurs well for cultural and other
non-research values being included in the larger discussion over what
should be done.
Making the resolution of adverse effects a multi-party
and public activity is a good thing. Archaeological excavation is
labor intensive and expensive. With the lower end of archaeological
data recoveries around $100,000 and the upper end now around $8 million,
public accountability becomes very important. The following questions
must be recited mantra-like, until there is an answer everyone can
be comfortable with: "Is this mitigation the best expenditure of public
funds, and if not, what is?" In the last 3 years, FHWA and PennDOT
have spent or will have spent $8 million each on two projects for
archaeological data recovery -Meyersdale in Somerset County and Route
15 at Liverpool in Perry County. Did we do the right thing? Probably,
but consultation for both projects for data recovery was done under
the old regulations. The public and other groups that might have been
consulting parties were not substantially involved, so we may never
truly know.
In his post-mortem to the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act
archaeological salvage provisions, Charles McGimsey stated:
All they (FHWA) ask in return, and they have a right to ask it,
is the submission of reliable, readable reports which adequately
communicate the results of the work to the layman as well as to
the scientist, reports which will further the program itself by
demonstrating that such research is important.
Those words were penned 30 years ago, and ring true today. For results
to be communicated, they must be written more clearly and must reach
the wider public. For the research to be valued, it must be set into
a context that states what we know and what we want to know next.
Changes at PennDOT are now beginning to close the deficiencies in
context development and dissemination of information. Public dissemination
is requested of each data recovery work plan. Each of the new regional
professionals are preparing summary statements of the history and
prehistory of their regions, for use as a training tool and as a management
tool. Using the IUP agreement, PennDOT will be establishing a cultural
resource web site, which will be managed by the 9th position recently
hired. In addition, IUP held the first "Byways to the Past Conference"
this past March.
Creative Mitigation
Does Section 106 require that adverse effects to archaeological sites
be mitigated through data recovery excavation? In a word, no. Creative
mitigation is a term that is increasingly coming into use by 106 practitioners.
An operative definition is any mitigation that does not follow the
dig, document, and destroy path. Creative mitigation in being defined
by what it isn't, is necessarily unbounded. The opportunity for creative
mitigation has always been available for archaeological sites. The
acceptance of creative mitigation in lieu of traditional on-site excavation
represents an evolution from Mosaic law - an eye for an eye - to a
Code of William S. Gilbert, where the Mikado argues for letting the
punishment fit the crime.
Examples of creative mitigation could include excavating a site other
than the one being affected because the non-affected site has better
research value; the acquisition of an easement or outright purchase
of a site to be preserved; a fuller synthesis of a region using existing
collections and data. A cash buy-out, an attractive option for both
the DOT and the SHPO, should be an option of last resort. The potential
for conflict of interest exists if the funds are under the direct
control of either agency. Use of creative mitigation carries with
it one additional responsibility for the DOT. Once the genie is out
of the bottle, and there are as many options as can be imagined, program-wide
planning is needed.
Conclusion
For 35 years, our "compliance" with Section 106 has resulted in skyrocketing
costs and decreasing returns to a public that has not awaken to this
policy failure. Let us pray that it is not too late for radical change.
That modest promise of historic preservation still awaits redemption.
What the above proposes is a package of increased internal professionalization
within PennDOT, more delegation to PennDOT qualified professionals,
more public involvement in archaeological decisions, and more flexibility
in mitigating archaeological impacts. The alternative is more of the
same.
Ira Beckerman
Note: I would like to thank Wayne Kober, Kate Quinn, Jay Smith, and
Linda Ries for assistance on this paper. The views and statements
presented in this paper represents my opinion and do not necessarily
represent the views of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
or the Maryland State Highway Administration.
COOPERATION COLUMN
There were no submissions for this edition.
CURRENT RESEARCH
In an effort to shine some light onto the "gray" literature, the
editor requests submissions for the Current Research column. These
should be short descriptions of on-going or recently completed work.
Reference to the full report should be included, if available. Please
forward such items to the editor (see below).
***
Coverts Crossing Site (36Lr75) Update, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania
Archaeological excavations at two sites in Lawrence County provide
insight into the prehistoric occupation of the Mahoning River Valley
in northwestern Pennsylvania. In 1999, GAI Consultants, Inc. of Monroeville,
Pennsylvania, under contract with Frank B. Taylor Engineering, conducted
Phase III data recovery excavations at the Coverts Crossing Site (36Lr75)
for PennDOT District 11-0 in advance of a bridge replacement project.
Excavations yielded thousands of lithic artifacts, including triangular
points, tools, and debitage, produced mostly from locally-available
Mahoning Chert, as well as Onondaga and Gull River cherts. Small amounts
of Upper Mercer, Flint Ridge, and Uniontown cherts indicate a southern-oriented
settlement pattern. Ceramics from the site were exclusively grit-tempered
Mahoning Ware, consistent with other early Late Woodland sites in
the area. Ethnobotanical remains included wild berries and fruits,
but few nuts, suggesting occupation during the late summer. A small
number of maize fragments were also recovered from two features. We
await the results of radiocarbon dating on several hearths that were
identified during archaeological excavations. The low number of domesticates,
as well as the lack of storage features or post molds, suggest that
the Coverts Crossing Site may have been used seasonally as a short-term
camp, rather than as a village.
GAI has also completed Phase I excavations at another site, 36Lr228,
located on the opposite (south) side of the Mahoning River. Upcoming
Phase II fieldwork will define site boundaries, test for intact features,
refine the site's culture history, and determine its information potential.
Deep testing at both 36Lr75 and 36Lr228 will attempt to identify deeply-buried
archaeological remains at the sites. The final reports for both projects
are scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. GAI requests
information regarding current research at other Late Woodland sites
in northwestern Pennsylvania. Please contact Doug MacDonald at: d.macdonald@gaiconsultants.com
or Ben Resnick at: b.resnick@gaiconsultants.com
if you have information or questions regarding GAI's work at either
site.
Douglas H. MacDonald, Ph.D., RPA, Co-Principal
Investigator, GAI Consultants, Inc.
Monroeville, PA.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
(See Committee Reports)
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Survey Priorities Committee -
At the end of April, 1999, PAC submitted a revised Historic Preservation
Grant proposal addressing comments from the 1998 proposal that was
not funded. The funds requested in the revised proposal have been
awarded and work began early this year. To provide additional support
for the study, we submitted a proposal to the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation to be funded under the Transportation Enhancements
Act (TEA-21). Notice that this funding has also been approved was
recently received.
The funded project will study the existing site data within three
of the 19 watersheds identified in The Development of Prehistoric
Settlement Pattern Research Priorities in Pennsylvania (PHMC 1996)
as having a low priority for future survey. The goal of the study
is to identify information needs and to precisely define environmental
settings with a high probability for containing sites that would address
these needs. A Principal Investigator, each of which is a PAC member,
will lead the study of each of the three watersheds, assisted by one
or more Research Assistants. The team for each region will include
at least two peer reviewers who will be consulted during the course
of the study and who will provide comments on the final report. In
addition, Dr. Dean Snow, Chairman of the Pennsylvania State University's
Department of Anthropology, will serve as an outside reviewer. The
end product will be a report for each watershed describing the results
of the study relevant to the project goals. The reports will be submitted
to the PHMC with recommendations regarding survey priorities for upland
terrain that could be generalized to adjacent watersheds.
Pat Miller
Site Stewardship Committee -
State Archaeological Council Presents First Stewardship
Award to
Allegheny Valley Trails Association and Venango Museum of Art, Science,
and Industry
The first Pennsylvania Archaeological Council (PAC) Archaeological
Site Stewardship Award was presented to Jim Holden, President of the
Allegheny Valley Trails Association (AVTA) and Barbara Perlstein,
Executive Director of the Venango Museum of Art, Science, and Industry
in Oil City for their outstanding efforts in the preservation and
interpretation of the Indian God Rock Petroglyph Site in Venango County,
Pennsylvania. Beverly Chiarulli, PAC President presented Mr. Holden
with his award at the Annual Meeting of the AVTA in Franklin on May
3, 2000 at the Franklin Club. Both recipients were also recognized
at the Awards Banquet during the Annual Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology
Meeting on Saturday May 6, 2000, which was held in Williamsport.
Petroglyphs are rock carvings created by Native American peoples.
They are often found on large stone cliffs or boulders and may have
been used to mark territorial boundaries or trails. Although there
are more than 17,000 recorded archaeological sites in the state, there
are fewer than 100 petroglyph sites. Many of those that once existed
have been destroyed by construction or mining or vandalism in which
the carvings have been obscured by graffiti or destroyed. The Indian
God Rock Petroglyph is a large stone slab on the edge of the Allegheny
River in Venango County. When first discovered in the 19th Century,
it was seen to be covered with dozens of animal, human and geometric
figures. Through time, this artwork was defaced with paint and graffiti
until few of the figures could be seen. As part of the designation
of the Allegheny River as a scenic waterway, local organizations and
the National Forest Service and other local agencies began efforts
to preserve and interpret important features along the River. The
AVTA and the Venango Museum worked to preserve and interpret the Indian
God Rock site and obtained funding to stabilize the site and create
interpretative signage explaining the importance of the site.
According to Rick Kandare of the Allegheny National Forest and Chair
of the Council's Award Committee, since this effort, little vandalism
has occurred at the site. The only exception is that one of the interpretative
signs was stolen, but has since been recovered.
This award fits with PAC's goal to actively encourage the preservation
of archaeological and historic sites in the Commonwealth and to increase
public awareness and understanding of the state's 14,000 year history
through the dissemination of information about archaeological sites.
It also has a web page called Discovering Pennsylvania's Hidden Memories,
that provides brief descriptions of archaeological sites throughout
the state. The site can be accessed through: http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~bev/memories.html.
The site stewardship award can be presented each year, depending
on nominations. If you would like to nominate someone, contact Rick
Kandare for details on the nomination process.
For more information about the AVTA, contact Jim Holden, CIS Department,
Clarion University Clarion, PA 16214, Holden@clarion.edu. For information
about the Venango Museum, contact, Barbara Perlstein, Executive Director,
Venango Museum of Art, Science and Industry, 270 Seneca Street, Oil
City, PA 16301. For more information on the award or the Allegheny
River project, contact Richard P. Kandare, Heritage Resources Program
Leader, Allegheny National Forest (814) 723-5150 Ext. 178.
Beverly Chiarulli
Education Committee -
The PAC Education Committee Traveling Trunk and Project Archaeology
display were represented at the PA Science Teachers Conference in
Hershey on 2 December 1999. The teachers were pleased to learn how
to integrate archaeology into the science curriculum without "digging".
Valerie B. Perazio
FORUM
[Members are invited to submit comments on issues of current concern.
With luck, varying points of view will be presented.]
NO SUBMISSIONS FOR THIS ISSUE
PAC COMPUTER USER'S
COLUMN
by Mark A. McConaughy
Recent virus attacks over the Internet have been the
most important user-related news that may affect PAC members. Denial
of Service attacks on large networks earlier in 2000 and the more
recent "I Love You" virus that hit both networks and individual
users around the world are worth noting. They may not have impacted
you directly, but they could have. Additional virus attacks are
almost certain to occur in the future. Thus, it is worth looking
at programs designed to limit such impacts to you and your computer(s).
First, it seems Apple/MAC users believe they are immune
from viruses, etc. True, the latest attacks were confined to IBM
compatible computers running Microsoft (MS) operating systems. However,
the belief that Apple/MACs cannot be attacked because their operating
systems are too well designed is a fallacy. It is due to the fact
that malicious people, usually called hackers, who write viruses,
etc., want to create the most havoc they can. Apple/MACs are a distinct
minority among computer users. IBM systems using MS operating systems
are the largest user group in the world. Hackers attack MS systems
because they can cause the most damage by doing so, not because
they are wary of the Apple/MACs operating systems.
Apple/MAC users should not be lulled into some false
sense of security. If Apple/MACs run partitions that interface with
IBM compatible systems, those sections may be infected by the same
viruses that attack MS systems. Also, viruses specifically designed
to attack Apple/MACs are out there. The last major one to spread
occurred in 1998 and was known as the Hong Kong Virus (a.k.a., Autostart
9805 virus and it technically is a "worm"). An article about this
virus may be found at: http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,916656,00.html
The Hong Kong virus can overwrite data on your hard
drive causing corrupted files, unexplained crashes and other nasty
things to happen on Apple/MAC systems. The Hong Kong virus can be
introduced from just about any medium. Information on other Apple/MAC
viruses is at: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2564833,00.html
Thus, Apple/MAC users cannot assume they will never
be attacked by viruses. Viruses, worms and Trojan horses are problems
all computer users, regardless of operating system, should take
seriously.
Before continuing, it probably is best to define the
differences between Trojan horse, worm, and true virus since these
terms often show up in articles about programs generically called
viruses. A Trojan horse usually is disguised as a program that does
something useful. It might be a screen saver you received from someone
or any number of other useful computer programs. However, once the
Trojan horse program has been installed on the computer, much like
the mythical one, it opens up and attacks your computer from the
inside. The only "good" thing about Trojan horses is that they usually
only infect the computer on which they are installed. They do not
send unsolicited copies out to other computer users. However, the
other two categories are much more dangerous because they are self-propagating.
Worms are programs that reproduce themselves without altering other
computer programs. They usually are found on computer networks where
they reside in active memory, duplicating themselves by using parts
of the operating system that usually are invisible to users. They
become known when they reproduced fast enough to use up all the
network's resources, causing the network to crash. A true computer
virus is a program that attaches itself to another computer program,
usually some type of executable program (although, due to macros
used in newer software, data files may now also act as hosts or
become infected). A computer virus works much in the same manner
as a real virus that takes over a host cell and uses it to produce
more viruses which then spread the infection. A computer virus makes
duplicate copies of itself and attaches them to other programs on
that computer. If the user sends or places one of these infected
files to or on another computer, the virus can then infect the new
computer. The virus continues to spread as long as it is moved from
computer to computer.
How does one protect their computer from these types
of infections? Since Trojan horses are part of a program that is
seemingly useful, never accept a free program from an unknown or
unscanned source. Various types of virus protection programs are
available to computer users to protect computers from infections,
and I highly recommend that computer users have some type of virus
protection software on their systems. Virus protection programs
generally check executable programs and files to see if they have
been altered in order to detect true computer viruses. Virus protection
programs check the file against a database of known viruses and
their signatures in order to detect the viruses. These databases
must be periodically updated as new viruses are continuously written
by hackers and spread. New virus protection programs also can check
to see if something is functioning in the operating system that
should not be there in order to detect worms. Firewalls are another
type of program used to prevent worms from entering and using the
operating system by denying access to the network by unauthorized
programs and users. From this point on in the discussion, unless
specifically stated, I will use the term "virus" in its more generic
sense that encompasses Trojan horses, worms, and true viruses.
Unfortunately, no virus protection program can ever
insure that your computer will never be infected by some type of
virus. Hackers develop new viruses on almost a daily basis and they
find new delivery systems to spread them. A new type of virus with
a previously unrecognized method of propagation may easily spread
through systems with virus protection programs. Hackers always have
some advantage over people developing antivirus software because
they are looking for ways to circumvent those protection programs.
The best defense a user has is to be wary of unsolicited Email and
programs. Delete files and any Email with attachments from unknown
senders, especially ones with executable file extensions in the
names of the attachments, without opening them. That will insure
any viruses attached to them will not be executed on your computer.
Finally, since you are not going to delete everything coming into
your computer, purchase a good antivirus program and periodically
update the virus data files. These programs may not catch a really
new virus, but many old ones are still making the rounds and will
be caught by antivirus programs.
Several good antivirus programs are available. McAfee
and Symantec produce probably the two most popular programs, but
there are many other companies who sell antivirus programs. McAfee
and Symantec sell stand alone antivirus programs, bundled programs
that include antivirus programs, system "cleaning" utilities, update
utilities, etc. McAfee Virus Scan 5.0 Delux costs $39.95 retail
(and often can be found discounted) and is equivalent to Symantec's
Norton Antivirus Enterprise Solution at $39.95 (again, retail --
look for discounted prices). These programs come on CD Rom and you
will have to install the programs.
McAfee also has an online version of their Virus Scan
program that can be downloaded directly from their web site. It
is part of a suite of programs called McAfee Clinic. Subscriptions
to McAfee Clinic were $19.95 when I subscribed. However, I do not
know if that price still is in effect. It includes the online web
version of Virus Scan, a version of Virus Scan (what used to be
called McAfee Virus Shield) that is installed on your computer to
detect incoming viruses, a systems clean utility that can remove
unused web files and free up space, a program that goes out and
checks to see if updates are available for all (i.e., not just McAfee's
programs) of the user's programs, and a systems resource utilization
program. Users can also set things so McAfee automatically notifies
them when there are updates for the virus data files. Users then
can go to the web site and download the updates (usually an under
5 minute download with a 56K modem). McAfee Clinic does have a yearly
subscription fee, and users have to pay for the ability to use McAfee
Clinic each year (i.e., $19.95/year right now). Users must have
web access to get and use McAfee Clinic. A similar program available
on CD Rom from Symantec is Norton System's Works 2000, but I was
not able to find out how much it cost.
Online reviews of the two companies' CD-versions of
antivirus programs usually favors the Symantec software, but not
because it is significantly better at detecting and eliminating
viruses. Comments indicate Symantec CD-based software programs generally
are easier for a user to install and use on a system than those
from McAfee. However, I have not seen a review of McAfee's online
Clinic program, and it installs very easily. Subscribers download
the program and it sets itself up. McAfee Clinic's Virus Scan automatically
updates itself when new virus data files are downloaded (although
you might have to reboot the system to have the updates fully installed,
it depends on what was downloaded with that update). Outside of
clicking on the download buttons or buttons to use the online programs,
users don't really have much to do. I currently subscribe to McAfee
Clinic and use it on my home computer. Thus, I may be a little prejudiced
in favor of that program. However, both companies produce excellent
antivirus programs.
The other type of protection users should consider
obtaining is a personal firewall program. Firewalls usually keep
hackers from sneaking into an online computer without the user's
knowledge, and prevents them from installing some type of virus
on the computer. This may not be necessary for stand alone, modem
(dial up) connections, that are not online all the time. Conversely,
it is often recommended for users who connect to work networks from
remote locations (check with your network administrator to see if
they recommend getting a personal firewall for use with that system).
Nevertheless, a firewall program should be obtained by anyone who
has an Internet connection that is always available or online.
DSL (Digital Subscriber Lines) lines are now available
in many areas. DSL connections use an existing telephone line connected
to a special modem and software. They permit normal voice operation
of your phone while providing an Internet connection that is on
all the time. DSL connections speed access to the web, the amount
of increase over a 56K modem connection depends on the speed you
agree to pay for with the service. However, even the "slowest" DSL
connection is usually about 11 times faster than a 56K modem and
usually costs around $50/month for private users.
Unfortunately, a connection that is never closed is
the type of port hackers try to exploit when sending viruses. Personal
firewall programs (most networks have network firewalls that do
essentially the same thing) act as gatekeepers that check incoming
and outgoing files on that computer. Someone trying to gain access
from outside usually has to be given direct permission to access
the computer by the user. Users, depending on the software, can
set which sites they wish to access without a check when they consider
them "safe." This may be your Internet service provider's (ISP)
site or a network you access and trust. Firewall checks may slow
down Internet connections and that is the reason trusted sites usually
can be set so they are not checked. Nevertheless, if you do permit
access to an ISP or network without it going through the firewall
check, those ports may act as conduits for hackers to exploit if
those sites do not have their own firewall programs.
McAfee and Symantec also sell personal firewall software.
McAfee has a personal firewall program that can be added to the
Clinic program for a yearly subscription of $19.95 ($39.95 if the
user is not a Clinic subscriber). Symantec has Norton Internet Security
2000 1.0 available at $39.95 for Norton Antivirus users and $59.95
without it. Symantec's program offers some extras not found with
the McAfee program. Norton Internet Security acts as a firewall
and also has the ability for users to restrict access to certain
web sites (e.g., lock out "adult" sites so kids can't access them,
etc.). There also are other firewall software on the market. A couple
of web sites that provide information about firewalls and links
to companies that sell firewall programs are:
http://www.firewall.com/
http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO.html
Symantec and McAfee have web sites where their software
is described and can be purchased directly from the companies. Their
sites are:
Symantec - http://www.symantec.com/
McAfee - http://www.mcafee.com/
I recommend obtaining and updating some type of antivirus
program for your computers. They may not catch every virus out there,
but they can keep the common ones from infecting your system. Personal
firewalls are not as critical, but may be of increasing use as more
users regularly connect to the Internet and other networks. Minimally,
the recent rash of viruses that have spread around the Internet
should encourage users to regularly backup critical data on removable
media (whether floppies, read-write CDS, tape, etc.). The backups
should be stored and maintained away from the computer. Then if
the computer is ever infected with a virus, those files can be reinstalled
from a clean source. It pays to be safe!
Mark A. McConaughy
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Archaeology Month 2000 Excavations on City Island, Harrisburg
In September and October 2000, PAC will once again assist the PHMC
with their Archaeology Month activities on City Island. As most of
you are aware, the PHMC, in association with the City of Harrisburg,
has held public excavations at this stratified prehistoric site every
October since 1994. In addition to the excavations, other activities
performed on City Island during this event have included demonstrations
about prehistoric gardening, and the methods used to make dug-out
canoes, dwellings, lithic tools, and baskets. Each year the event
has been attended by thousands of families and numerous school children
there on organized field trips. Because it was such a success last
year, the award ceremony for the winners of the PAC student essay
contest will again be held in conjunction with the 2000 City Island
excavations.
The PHMC has indicated that they could use volunteers during preparation,
operation, and shut down stages of the project. During set up (9/11
to 9/21) and shut down (10/7-13), they will require manual laborers
to erect and tear down shelters and other equipment. When the demonstrations
are in full swing (from Friday, 9/22, to Friday, 10/6) they could
use 3-4 experience volunteers (Principal Investigator, Field Director,
or Crew Chief-level) each day. These volunteers would be asked to
talk to groups of school children about the excavations, and to engage
in impromptu discussions with visitors about Pennsylvania archaeology.
These PAC volunteers would also assist the PHMC staff in instructing
visitors and inexperienced volunteers (students, scouts, etc.) in
basic excavation skills. As they did last year, the PHMC is planning
to set up a temporary laboratory next to the excavations. PAC volunteers
may be asked to help out in the lab and/or talk to visitors about
laboratory procedures. As in the past, free lodging will once again
be available at one of the local State Parks on a first come, first
serve basis. During the promotion of this event the PHMC will mention
PAC, and the names of organizations that pledge to participate, in
one or more press releases. Out-of-pocket expenses involved with volunteering
(e.g., mileage, lodging) may be tax-deductible.
If you or your company/institution are interested in volunteering
your efforts toward this valuable educational program, please contact
Gary Coppock (email: coppock@uplink.net;
phone/FAX: 814-349-5321). By volunteering 3 or 4 people, an organization
(company or institution) can host one or more specific days. In your
correspondence please indicate the specific dates that you (or your
organization) would like to volunteer, and the number of people from
your organization that will be participating. Also indicate if you
are interested in utilizing the free State Park lodging.
Finally, PAC and the PHMC would like to thank those companies/institutions
that generously donated time and labor to the 1999 Archaeology Month
excavations at City Island. In alphabetical order, they include: Christine
Davis Consultants, GAI Consultants, Heberling Associates, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, KCI Technologies, Kittatinny Archaeological
Research, and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (I apologize
to any individuals or organizations that may have been inadvertently
left out of this list). We would also like to thank any PAC members
who may have volunteered their own time to this project.
Gary Coppock
Legion Ville
Efforts are still underway to preserve the 1792-1793
training camp of Major General Anthony Wayne at Legion Ville, Pennsylvania.
Senator Rick Santorum, R - Pennsylvania, has offered his assistance
with the preservation efforts. The Legion Ville Historical Society
has been busy rallying support from local and state government. A
display of artifacts and the scale model of the Legion Ville site
can be seen at the Sewickley Public Library in Sewickley, Pennsylvania
in early July. The re-enactment unit is featured in a Scottish documentary
about the Scots and their role in American history. http://tristate.pgh.net/~bsilver/legion.htm
submitted by ASC Group
Delaware Archaeological Forum
Archaeologists in Delaware have recently formed a council
similar to PAC called the Delaware Archaeological Forum. One of its
features is an online discussion link by which any of the members
can bring up subjects on line for discussion or to be trashed by others.
It has been active and works well for those signed up.
Ron Thomas
MEETING AND EVENTS CALENDAR
Eastern States Archaeological Federation
Date 2-5 November 2000
Place: Solomons, Maryland
** Please send notices of upcoming events to the editor.
PAC MEMBERSHIP
Inquiries regarding membership in PAC should be made to: Daniel G
Roberts John Milner Associates, Inc. 535 North Church Street West
Chester, PA 19380 Work Phone: 610-436-9000 Work FAX: 610-436-8468
EMail: droberts@johnmilnerassociates.com
PLEASE NOTE
PAC encourages its members to join the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology.
It is important to foster communication between professional and avocational
archaeologists. Moreover, membership in SPA supports Pennsylvania
Archaeologist in which PAC members often publish.
SPA annual dues are $20.00 for individuals and $25.00 for families,
which should be sent to: Archaeological Services, P.O. Box 386, Bethlehem,
CT 06751-0386.
EDITOR'S NOTE
Materials for the PAC Newsletter should be sent to:
Philip A. Perazio, KAR, Inc.,
P.O. Box 1117, Stroudsburg, PA 18360
Phone: 717-620-2591; FAX: 717-620-0186
EMAIL: kittarch@sunlink.net
Please send contributions on disk (Wordperfect 6.1 preferred), accompanied
by a hard copy. You may also attempt to send submissions as email
attachments. However, not all systems are compatible, so this does
not always work. Short items, 1 page or less, may be submitted in
hard copy or by FAX.
Deadline for next issue:
1 November 2000.
******************************************
NOTE: Please make sure PAC has your current FAX and/or Email addresses
so that we may distribute urgent information as quickly as possible.
Send updates to Mark McConaughy.
In order to control costs, instead of being printed in the Spring
Newsletter as has been done in previous years, the PAC membership
list will be distributed to members via email, fax, or mail, as available.
The Editor
|