Introduction: Cultural Resources Archaeology
in the United States
(two-week module)
Description: Introduction to the course; archaeology and cultural resource management as public interests; how cultural resource archaeology is organized in the United States.
Learning Objectives:
• Identify themes for the course.
• Assess the public interest in archaeology and its implications for the field of cultural resource management.
• Review the current structure of cultural resource archaeology.
Readings:
M. Ramos and D. Duganne, “Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology,” Harris Interactive, Inc. for the Society for American Archaeology. Feb. 2000. Available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/pubs/harris/index.htm [HTML] and http://www.saa.org/pubEdu/nrptdraft4.pdf [PDF].
William D. Lipe, “A Conservation Model for American Archaeology,” The Kiva 39, no. 1–2 (1974): 213–243.
Charles R. McGimsey III and Hester A. Davis, eds., The Management of Archeological Resources: The Airlie House Report. Special Publication of the Society for American Archaeology (1977).
Francis. P. McManamon, “The Protection of Archaeological Resources in the United States: Reconciling Preservation with Contemporary Society," in Francis P. McManamon and Alf Hatton, eds., Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past. London: Routledge (2000), 40–54.
Neumann and Sanford, Cultural Resources Archaeology, 1-26.
Ricardo J. Elia, "U.S. Cultural Resource Management and the ICAHM Charter," Antiquity 67 (1993): 426-438.
I. Introduction to the Course
A. Assess student experience in archaeology and cultural resource management.
1) Because I have designed this course for intermediate and upper level majors in archaeology and anthropology, I assume that the students will have had some previous coursework in archaeology, and maybe even some field experience. The opening part of the class is a good time to learn about the variety of classroom and field experience, and to see if any of the students have worked on cultural resource management (CRM) projects.
2) Assess student familiarity with the concepts of cultural resource management in general and with the U.S. system of cultural resources archaeology specifically. This discussion may be stimulated through a series of questions in class or by asking the students to fill out a questionnaire prepared in advance, with class discussion following. Some of the pertinent questions include:
• Are there laws for protecting archaeological sites in the United States?
• Can you name any?
• What kinds of protection do they offer?
• Are sites on private lands protected the same as those on public lands?
• Are certain categories of sites or objects given preferential treatment (e.g., human burials)?
• Are there federal, state, and/or local authorities that are charged with preservation?
• Can you name two or three nationally significant archaeological sites in the United States.
• Can you name two or three U.S. archaeological sites of regional, state, or local significance?
B. A Matter of Terminology: During the previous discussion, students probably introduced a variety of terms for archaeological sites and objects. This is a good time to review the panoply of terms, including antiquities, relics, artifacts, data, cultural objects, sites, monuments, cultural resources, etc. Next, introduce and discuss the variety of terms used for doing archaeology, especially archaeology in a preservation context. They are broadly similar but have important nuances of meaning that can profitably be analyzed:
• salvage archaeology
• rescue archaeology
• cultural resource management
• archaeological heritage management
• cultural resources archaeology
• archaeological resources archaeology
• contract archaeology
• public archaeology
II. Archaeology as a Public Interest
A. Discussion Topic: Why preserve archaeological resources? What are the values of archaeological sites and objects? Do different groups (ethnic, religious, regional) have different values for archaeological resources? The big question: Is archaeology a public interest—in other words, of concern to the public generally, not just to students and professionals? Because if it is not, then what claim can we put on the public for resources to preserve archaeological sites and objects (i.e., through laws, policies, money for research, etc.).
B. Discussion Topic: Assessing the public's interest—The Harris Survey (2000): Students should read this document and be prepared to discuss its import. The Harris Survey was sponsored by the Society for American Archaeology with support from several other organizations. It was a detailed telephone survey of American adults and has an accuracy level of +/- 3% (95% level of confidence). The survey showed a generally high level of awareness and interest in archaeology as well as widespread support for preservation and legislation. The respondents ascribed multiple values to archaeology, including educational and scientifc; aesthetic or artistic; personal heritage; spiritual; monetary; and political. Of particular relevance to the class discussion, the survey also revealed a high level of support (96%) for laws to protect archaeological sites; for laws to prevent the general public from selling artifacts found on someone else's property (82%); for laws to prevent the general public from selling artifacts found on their own property (69%); and for the use of public funds to protect archaeological sites (69%).
C. The Conservation Ethic in Archaeology: By the early 1970s, a shift in thinking about archaeological practice was taking place. The traditional professional and academic focus on viewing sites only as targets for research and excavation was giving way to the realization that sites were both finite and non-renewable and seriously threatened by development, looting, and neglect. If archaeological sites and objects were, in fact, cultural resources with multiple values to professionals and public alike, then the rationale for digging them up could not be based solely on academic interests. Perhaps archaeologists should spend more time preserving sites in place for the future instead of excavating non-threatened sites to answer their own research questions. Gradually a conservation ethic for archaeology began to emerge that redirected the profession, or at least an important part of it, towards the public interest.
Two seminal documents illustrate the spirit of the early days of public archaeology. They repay close reading even today as their issues continue to resonate:
1) Discussion Topic—Lipe's seminal article in The Kiva (1974). Although commonplace today, Lipe's ideas in “A Conservation Model for American Archaeology” had an immense influence on archaeologists and students. It helped change the direction of the field.
2) Discussion Topic—The Airlie House Report (1977). This is a remarkable document, a reflection of the state of the burgeoning field of public archaeology in the mid-1970s. It offers a unnique glimpse of how mainstream archaeologists were grappling with the uncertainties of a new field and how they struggled to ensure that ethical and professional standards would be maintained in a new discipline of archaeology whose dimensions and future were still unknown. Equally remarkable is how prescient the participants in the 1974 Airlie House seminars were, for the issues raised at the Airlie House continue to dominate concerns in the field 25 years later: legal issues; the practice of cultural resources archaeology; the "crisis in communication"; archaeology and Native Americans; and the need for certification and accreditation (which led directly to the founding of the first professional accreditation organization for archaeology, the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA), the predecessor of today's Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA).
III. The Organization of Cultural Resources Archaeology in the United States
A. Background: Why preserve archaeological resources? What are the values of archaeological sites and objects? Do different groups (ethnic, religious, regional) have different values for archaeological resources? The big question: Is archaeology a public interest—in other words, of concern to the public generally, not just to students and professionals? Because if it is not, then what claim can we put on the public for resources to preserve archaeological sites and objects (i.e., through laws, policies, money for research, etc.).
B. The development of a new, applied field of cultural resources archaeology emerged in the early 1970s following passage of federal laws like the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and the National Environmental Policy Act (1969). The federal mandate to consider cultural resources for a wide variety of land-altering projects meant that there was a pressing need for archaeological evaluations that could not be handled by traditional academic and museum archaeologists. Federal agencies needed to hire historic preservation officers, as did the SHPOs. There arose a new, private sector, entrepreneurial approach to conducting the required archaeological investigations under competitive contracts to the agencies. Contract archaeology had been born.
IV. Themes to Consider in the Class
I conclude the introductory module by inviting the students to keep in mind a number of interrelated themes that will become apparent as the class proceeds.
A. "Trickle-down Archaeology": Owing to our federal system and its legislation, preservation is strongest at the federal level and less so at the state and local levels. Weakest of all is preservation of sites on private property. On the other hand, one of the real strengths of the U.S. system is the way that the federal program influences, stimulates, and helps to fund preservation at the other levels.
B. Private Property Rights: Many countries of the world claim sovereign control of cultural resources even if they are located on private property. In the United States private property rights have traditionally held a powerful place in the national consciousness. Are we ever likely to imagine private landowners yielding property rights to cultural resources for the sake of the public interest?
C. Cultural Resources Archaeology as Triage: In this country, cultural investigations generally require the identification and evaluation of cultural resources to determine if they are significant. Not all sites are equal, and not all sites are protected. Only significant archaeological sites that are threatened by impending federal projects warrant mitigation.
D. Significance as Consensus: The country's most important cultural resource management vehicle, the Section 106 process, mandates a process of review, not preservation. It also aims to achieve a decision as to which sites are significant (and which are not) through the generation of consensus rather than authoritative prescription.
Suggested Oral Report/Paper Topics