Contemporary cultural resource management (1986)

1998

Cultural resource management (CRM) work accounts for most of the archaeology conducted in the United States. A diverse and somewhat fragmented field, CRM has nonetheless achieved a degree of institutional and organizational maturity. CRM archaeology has produced important contributions to archaeological methodology and has established and refined knowledge of regional cultural-historical sequences and settlement and subsistence patterns. The current florescence of historical archaeology is attributable to CRM. Yet the maintenance of high quality in CRM is a pervasive and enduring problem. Academic institutions need to reestablish alliances with the CRM community. The future viability of CRM archaeology depends on factors both internal and external to the discipline: regulatory and statutory "reform," agency funding levels, looting and other destructive forces, and Native American and other public involvement.

Cultural Resource Management: a Primer for Archaeologists, 2019

Preface to textbook on "cultural resource management" scheduled for publication fall 2019.

2009

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.

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.

Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, 2020

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.

Antiquity, 2018

The authors respond to the recent debate piece in Antiquity by González-Ruibal et al., which they claim misrepresents public archaeology by ignoring the dominant practice of cultural resource management (CRM).

2018