Notes for the Next Century

1987

One of the most significant contributors to the separation of universities have chosen not to become involved in CRM projects at the "ivory tower" and "real world" archaeologists has been money. all. In 1974, Congress passed the Moss-Bennett Bill or the Archaeo-Now that CRM/contract archaeology is disappearing we must logical and Historical Conservation Act. This bill provided federal ask if this dilemma was resolved. And, if so, what has CRM funds for numerous legislatively-mandated CRM projects which archaeology ultimately contributed to our understanding of the followed. past? Judge (1982:24) comments in this regard, In the following discussion the implications of the research! The effect of this was almost revolutionary. Due to the management dilemma for American archaeology is examined. As a rules of federal procurement, all procedures of competiresult, the concept of "research programme" is suggested as a tool tive bidding were suddenly introduced into scientific applicable for assessing the ultimate success of CRM in resolvin~ archaeological research. "'Contract archaeology' was the research/management dilemma. A research programme born, much to the horror and doomsday predictions of developed for the investigation of prehistoric adaptations in the the traditional (academic) archaeologists" (McGimsey Great Plains is presented as an illustration of the analytical and Davis 1982:19). concepts and management potential. Cultural resource management projects, unlike proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation or Wenner Gren, were "Real World" Versus "Ivory Tower" Archaeology frequently awarded based on cost effectiveness; scientific research in the context of such archaeological projects (CRM) was frequently The emergence of CRM/conservation archaeology has created accorded secondary status. In fact, CRM proposals for the a schism in the discipline of archaeology which has separated a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers were not supposed to include any number of archaeologists involved in management and industry frorn references to scientific research. Such CRM projects were deemed those involved in academia. Fowler (1982:36) has referred to thil as service archaeology. schism as one involving "real world" (management/industry) versUl Fowler (1982) describes the evolutionary development of North "ivory tower" (academic) archaeologists. Patterson (1980) ha~ American archaeology in response to the advent of CRM chosen to exacerbate this situation further by characterizin~ archaeology. He (1982:35) discusses the emergence of "agency" and archaeologists as "full-time" versus "part-time" professional "corporate" archaeologists who were to soon predominate in the archaeologists. This rather absurd dichotomy separates archaeo• discipline. Prior to the late 1970s, "perhaps 98% of all practicing logists into CRM field archaeologists who then "do archaeologi archaeologists (those who earned their living 'doing archaeology') year-round versus academicians who "do archaeology" during their were in an 'academic' setting (i.e., universities and museums)" summer vacations! (Fowler 1982:35). Fowler (1982:36) also states that there is " ••• a latent Federally-funded contract archaeology in the United States (i.e., verbalized, but not printed) antagonism toward agency and has been estimated to have cost $100-200 million dollars per year corporate archaeologists by some 'elitist' academics ••. ". There are (Comptroller General 1981 :47; d. Judge 1982:28-29). If we assume, some who would perhaps not be willlng to accept this dichotomoUl as the inductivists and empiricists do, that our knowledge and interpretation of contemporary archaeology in the United States, understanding of the past is a direct function of the number of sites However, this divergence of interests in North American investigated and number of artifacts found, then we must have archaeology involves much more than just semantic wrangling, certainly learned a grea t deal about the past during the last decade. Significant changes have occurred within our society that have led Fowler (1982:19) espouses the traditonalist view of the to the appearance of management, corporate/industry, and archaeological record and states, "Cultural resources may be academic versions of conservation archaeology. These changes have thought of as 'containers' of information, or potential information, come about as a result of a surge in funding, shifts in professional about past human activities." demographics, and a corresponding quantum increase in archaeo• Hill (I972:64) discusses the broader theoretical and methodological information. logical implications of such an empiricist perspective and states, 8 9 The implications of this view for archaeology is that based research problems. The inanimate record of the past was now artifacts and features (and even artifact associations) to be given meaning in the context of questions about human are regarded as discrete independent entities, each behavior and its variation. having a single meaning to be discovered. • •• It is then, Archaeologists and anthropologists have become increasingly our task to perceive this inherent meaning. In a sense, aware of the essential importance of scientific research design(s) then, our inferences about the data are contained in the (e.g.

2018

CRM has been a very mixed blessing for the practice of archaeology. How did it get that way and how might we fix it?

SAA Archaeological Record, 2004

Archaeologies, 2015

In this paper, I explore linkages and dis-linkages between academia, Cultural Resource Management, and Tribal Historic Preservation programs. The vast majority of archaeological field work in North America involves recording and interpreting Indigenous material culture, ceremonial sites, sacred sites, community sites, and burial sites. Over the last century, millions of American Indian, First Nations, and Hawaiian cultural artifacts, and thousands of human remains were collected by Western academies, museums, and governmental institutions. These human remains and cultural artifacts have been used to interpret and define Indigenous histories and peoples, most often without any input from Indigenous peoples or communities. There are a few exceptions to this notably in the Southwest; however, the vast majority of American archaeologists have not traditionally consulted Indigenous communities regarding their ancestral sites. Indigenous people who were included in discussions or archaeological field work were treated as native informants: the power to define and interpret the past was not shared. Tribal Historic Preservation offices and archaeological projects have risen to challenge non-Native control of heritage and interpretations of the past and present. Although archaeology has grown and changed since the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990, core issues negatively affecting the field remain undiscussed. In this article, I discuss problematic issues within Cultural Resource Management field work. I argue that some of these issues require changes to current academic programs in American anthropology. ________________________________________________________________ Résumé: Dans cet article, j'explore les liens et les ruptures entre les universités, la gestion des ressources culturelles et les cursus de préservation des sites historiques des tribus. La grande majorité des fouilles archéologiques en Amérique du Nord consiste à enregistrer et interpréter la culture matérielle autochtone, les sites cérémoniels, les lieux sacrés, les sites communautaires et les lieux de sépulture. Au cours du siècle dernier, des millions de restes humains et d'objets culturels des Amérindiens, des Premières Nations et des autochtones d'Hawaï ont été collectés par les

As it moved into the 21st century, the National Park Service embarked on an ambitious program of public involvement and civic engagement explicitly geared to the use of heritage sites to inform the public on contemporary issues. Meanwhile, although Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates the recovery and dissemination of the information recovered from important archaeological sites in the name of public benefit, the contribution of the cultural resource management sector to the public or to civic engagement and education has not achieved its potential. This article explores some of the reasons behind this failure and provides two case studies showing how such an endeavor might work, along with suggestions for the future.

2018

As if surveying a live bombing range isn't difficult enough, Statistical Research accepts challenges beyond standard CRM work, such as mediating conflicts between development and historic preservation.

The SAA Archaeological …, 2004