Professional Documents
Culture Documents
method of dating
of measuring the passage of time
(Chapter4). Typology has also been used as a means Of
defining archaeological entities at a particular moment
in time. Groups of artifact (and building) types at a particular time and place are termed assemblages. and
groups of assemblages have been taken to define
archaeological cultures. These definitions are also
long established, having first been systematically
defined by Gordon Childe in 1929 when he stated that
"We find certain types of remains
pots. implements,
ornaments, burial rites, and house forms constantly
recurring together. Such a complex of associated traits
we shall term a 'cultural group' or just a 'culture'. We
assume that such a complex is the material expression
of what today would be called a 'people'
As we shall see in Part II, the difficulty comes when
one tries to translate this terminology into human
terms and to relate an archaeological culture with an
actual group of people in the past.
This brings us back to the purpose of classification.
Types, assemblages. and cultures are all artificial constructs designed to put order into disordered evidence.
The trap that former generations of scholars fell into
was to allow these constructs to determine the way
they thought about the past, rather than using them
merely as one means of giving shape to the evidence.
We now recognize more clearly that different classifications are needed for the different kinds of questions
we want to ask. A student oi ceramic technology
would base a classification on variations in raw material and methods Of manufacture. whereas a scholar
studying the various functions of pottery for storage,
cooking etc. might classify the vessels. according to
shape and size. Our ability to construct and make good
use of new classifications has been immeasurably
enhanced by computers. which allow archaeologists to
compare the association of different attributes on hundreds of objects at once,
In a salvage project in the late 1980s involving the
survey, testing, and excavation of some 500 sites along
the 2250-km (1400-mile) route of a pipeline from California to Texas
Fred Plog, David L Carlson, and their
associates developed a computerized system using a
video camera for automatic recording of different
attributes Df artifacts. Four to six people could process
1000 2000 artifacts a day, some 10 times quicker than
normal methods. The standardization of recording
methods allows rapid and highly accurate comparisons to be made between different artifact types.
12
Archaeology is partly the discovery of the treasures of
the past, partly the meticulous work of the scientific
analyst, partly the exercise of the creative imagination- It is toiling in the sun on an excavation in the
deserts of Central Asia, it is working with living Inuit
in the snows Oi Alaska. It is diving down to Spanish
vuecks the coast of Florida, and it is investigating
the sewers of Roman York. But it is also the painstaking task of interpretation so that we come to under-
stand what these things mean for the human storyAnd it is the conservation of the world's cultural heritage
against looting and against careless destruction.
Archaeology, then, is both a physical activity out in
the field, and an intellectual pursuit in the study or
laboratory. That is part of its great attraction. The rich
mixture of danger and detective work has also made it
the perfect vehicle for fiction writers and film-makers,
from Agatha Christie with Murder in Mesopotamia to
Steven Spielberg with Indiana Jones, However far
from reality such portrayals may be, they capture the
essential truth that archaeology is an exciting quest
the quest for knowledge about ourselves and our past.
But how does archaeology relate to disciplines such
as anthropology and history that are also concerned
with the human story? Is archaeology itself a science?
And what -are the responsibilities of the archaeologist
in today's world, where the past is manipulated for
political ends and "ethnic cleansing" is accompanied
by the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage?
Archaeology as Anthropology
Anthropology at its broadest is the study of humanity
our physical characteristics as animals, and our
unique non-biological characteristics that We call culcure. Culture in this sense includes what the anthropologist Edward Tylor usefully summarized in 1871 as
"knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any
other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society." Anthropologists also use the term
culture in a more restricted sense when they refer to
the culture of a particular society, meaning the nonbiological characteristics unique to that society which
distinguish it from other societies. (An "archaeological
culture" has a specific and somewhat different meaning, as explained in Chapter 3.) Anthropology is thus a
so broad that it is generally broken
broad discipline
down into three smaller disciplines: biological anthropology, cultural anthropology. and archaeology.
Biological anthropology. or physical anthropology
as it used to be called, concerns the study of human
biological or physical characteristics and how they
evolved.
Cultural anthropology
or social anthropology
analyzes human culture and society, Two of its
branches are ethnography (the study at first hand of
individual living cultures) and ethnology (which sets
out to compare cultures using ethnographic evidence
to derive general principles about human society).
Archaeology is the "past tense of cultural anthropology." Whereas cultural anthropologists will often
base their conclusions on the experience Of actually
living within contemporary communities, archaeologists study past humans and societies primarily
through their material remains
the buildings, tools,
and other artifacts that constitute what is known as
the material culture left over from former societies.
Nevertheless, one of the most challenging tasks for
the archaeologist today is to know how to interpret
material culture in human terms. How were those pots
Act of 1966.
AMENDMENT TO THE RESERVOIR SALVAGE ACT, 1974
This amendment authorized all federal agencies to provide funds for the
preservation or salvage of sites endangered by federal projects.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT OF 1979
(AR PA)
The ARPA gave more stringent protection to archaeological sites over one
hundred years old on federal land. People removing archaeological materials
from federal lands without a permit are committing a felony: they can be
fined up to $10.000 and sentenced to a year in prison. The penalties rise
sharply when more valuable finds-are involved. This legislation is aimed at
commercial vandals: it does not forbid individuals from removing arrowheads "located on the surface of the ground." Unfortunately. it gives no
protection to archaeological resources on privately owned land.
..
AMENDMENTS OF THE NEPA,1980
These amendments had made Executive Order 1 1593 law, rather than just
an executive order. and also made provisions tor the pass-through of some
funds for historic preservation to certified local authorities. They also recognized that Indian tribes should have preservation programs and relationships
with the National Park Service and State Historic Preservation offices.
Amendments to ARPA in recent years have tightened the definition of
what constitutes an "archaeological resource" and have legislated far more
severe penalties for violations of the original law.
ABANDONED SHIPWRECKS ACT OF 1988
This act extended protection to shipwrecks and defined ownership of abandoned vessels in state and federal waters more clearly. It is an important
weapon in the fight against unauthorized locting of shipwrecks, looting that
all too often masquerades as "underwater archaeology."
OTHER LEGISLATION
In 1989 important laws established a National Museum of the American
Indian and charged the Smithsonian Institution both with setting up this
museum and with developing policies for the repatriation of skeletal remains
hold by the institution. The reburial sections of this legislation are likely to
have long-lasting effects on North American archaeology.
In Addition. significant legislation covering the protection of archaeological sites on private lands and the reburial Of Native American burials has
been passed or is pending in many states.
long-term cultural resource management in American archaeology. This
compliance process on even a medium-sized federal project is an attempt
to see that cultural resources threatened by the project arc properly
managed recorded, evaluated, protected, or, if necessary, salvaged
(Fowler, 1982). Conflicting interests and regulations can lead to unforeseen problems, as, for example, when the local Indians insisted that
the Chimney Rock Mesa skeletons disturbed by vandals be reburied. The
archaeologists wanted to conserve and study the human remains, but they
were overruled by the federal land manager on legal grounds. (For an
admirable discussion of the complexities of management, see Eddy and
(YSullivan, 1986.)
The procedure of identification and management in the compliance
process has three phases
l. An overview of cultural resources in an area is compiled, ideally a
description of the environment and the ethnographic background,
a history of previous research, and a description of the known
culture history of the area. Then the authors assess the research
.
potential of the area, identify important research problems, and
make management recommendations.
2. An archaeological assessment report involves further inventory
and assessment, including reexamination of known sites and surveys for new ones. These reports are especially important for areas
where substantial modification of the land is likely to take place as
a result of strip mining, dam building, and other such developments. The finished document discusses known cultural resources
in the area and recommends additional research needed to evaluate their significance, to determine their eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places, and to establish suitable mitigation measures to protect them. assessment report often forms a preliminary environmental impact report on the area.
3. A management plan proposes measures for protecting, preserving,
interpreting, and using cultural resources. This is a formal part of
the final environmental impact report. To be effective, a management plan should be regarded as a onstantly evolving document,
maintained and changed as archaeologists continue to manage and
monitor the area.
The compliance process, even on simple projects, can be a nightmare,
involving the archaeologist as it does in both recommending management
strategies and conducting delicate negotiations with several government
agencies at once. One of the most interesting examples of a management
plan in action is that for the San Juan Basin in the Four Corners area of
the American Southwest.
The San Juan Basin has been occupied since around 10,000 B.C right
up to modern times. Not only Anglos and Spanish-Americans but also
several pueblo groups and Navajo, Apache, and Ute live in the region,
which has been subjected to extensive energy development, including
strip mining. Still more exploration and mining are planned. Not only that,
but large numbers of people will start depending on the area for recreation and archaeological sites are part of that recreation. At least seven
federal, state, and local agencies have some CRM jurisdiction in the area,
and several of them have joined in a cooperative management effort. The
National Park Service carried out a preliminary assessment study in 1980.
At the time, a database was compiled that contained more than 15,000
sites, with 15 categories of information on each one. An additional 4000
entries made up a survey file (Plot and Wait, 1982). At the time, it was
estimated that this now mactive database contained about 70% of the
known sites in the San Juan Basin. The database was conceived of as a
management tool, with categories of information in it limited to those
conceived of as having management potential.
The compliance process involves both federal and state agencies in
other management duties as well. They have the responsibility for protect.
ing sites against vandalism, a major problem in some areas. Then the value
of each individual resource has to be assessed, either on account of its
scientific value, established within the context of a valid research design,
or because it merits preservation in situ. Agencies also have to consider
how a site can be utilized for the public good. This responsibility means
interpreting it for the public, who may either visit the location, as they do
at, say, Mesa Verde, or learn about it through books, television programs,
popular articles, and so on.
The main goal of cultural resource management in the United States
has been preserving sites and artifacts for the information they have
yielded or may yield. Experts in the field have confronted a number of
management problems:
Because archaeological sites are a nonrenewable resource, which of
them should be saved for future research rather than being investigated now?
Should data from sites acquired for conservation and planning be used
for purc research as well?
How is the significance of archaeological resources to be established
professional qualifications. The SOPA has drawn up basic ethical guidelines that focus on training and qualifications for archaeologists. But these
ethical guidelines have drawn fire, partly on the grounds that they do not
reflect the reality of carrying out archaeology under commercial conditions (Fitting and Goodyear, 1979). The SOP A guidelines appeared at a
time when the academic discipline of archaeology was busy adjusting to
a completely new environment, in which most financial support came
from federal and state agencies and private companies involved with
projects on government land (Wendorf, 1979).
With CRM now the dominant force in archaeological fieldwork in
..
North America, the problem of ensuring quality research is of major concern.awo basic strategies are used in CRM work:
The conservation approach regards preservation and protection of
the archaeological record for humanistic and scientific purposes as
the first priority (Lipe, 1970). This is a relatively theory-free and
descriptive approach wherein management decisions are based on
a representative sample of resources in an area.
The problem-oriented approach regards CRM as part of contemporary archaeology with all its sophisticated theoretical apparatus for
studying and evaluating the past. In other words, the researcher
relies on contemporary knowledge, belief, and concepts in archaeology to make management judgments about the content of the archaeologieal record in the future (Dunnell, 1985))
The debate about which of these approaches is the most appropriate
rages at a high technical level. Much of the argument centers on the
conflicting interests of management and pure research. Is one justified in
using statistical models that predict the distribution of archaeological sites
as a basis for deciding which areas are to be flooded and which are not?
Could not one's predictions be so false that they might leave our descendants with a completely skewed archaeological record?
For all the debate about conflicting approaches, and, to be frank, a
great deal of dubious research, CRM has brought extensive methodological benefits to basic research, among them a much greater emphasis on
prehistoric settlement patterns, sampling procedures, computer applications, and, above all, remote sensing (Drager and Lyons, 1983). The San
Juan Basin project and others are excellent examples of how sophisticated
research designs and theoretical constructs are blended into a multitude
of small contract projects. But among contract archaeology's worst products is that some agencies and contractors are even today quietly accepting second-rate reports and claiming that even minimal surveys are fulfilling both the requirements and the spirit of the law. Work of such poor
quality led both the Society for American Archaeology and the SOPA to
prepare ethical guidelines and certification procedures for archaeologists.
These steps have helped mitigate the problem of quality somewhat. But
the problem is so large and the amount of activity so great that the only
long-term solution to the crisis of quality lies in a close relationship between the goals and research techniques of a sophisticated scientific arch neology on the one hand and the realities and demands of cultural
management and contract archaeology on the other. (For discussion at a
technical level, see Dunnell, 1984.)
The crisis of quality has taken a new twist in recent years. Proliferating
contract archaeology and CRM have caused an explosion not only of raw
data but also of publications and reports on completed projects (see Hester, 1981; Longacre, 1981). The essence of publishing archaeological data
..
is, of course, to make them available to as wide an audience of archaeologists as needs access to them. This distribution is achieved with many
books and national or international journals, even with regional periodieals such as Plains A nthmpologist, most of which are little concerned with
CRM. But most contract archaeology reports are cither restricted-circulaHon documents buried in the files of government agencies or private
companies or, at best, photocopied publications that have a severely limited circulation. Sometimes within months they are forgotten, even destroyed, and the vital data in them are as good as lost to science. The
problem of failure to publish is enormous. Although efforts have been
made to abstract CRM reports, the results have been patchy at best. The
National Park Service's Archaeological Assistance Division is developing
a national archaeological database, after intensive lobbying by the Society
for American Archaeology. Ironically, now that awareness about destruction of tbc archaeological record is greater than ever before, the results
of much of this anxiety are being buried, almost as effectively as if they
had been destroyed, in inaccessible or temporary publications. The only
solution appears to be some form of organization like a national microfilm
archive, where copies of all reports are required to be deposited by law.
As yet, there is no sign that such an organization will be created.
Then there is the issue of what is called curation, the careful management of artifacts and other data recovered in the course of CRM activities.
The National Park Service, for example, has issued regulations for the
curation of federal collections, as required under the amendments to the
NEPA of 1980. But curation is expensive, and the costs of providing permanent conservation and storage are prohibitive. Many museums and
other designated repositories are grappling with seemingly insurmountable curation problems for the mountains of archaeological finds that pour
in from CRM projects. There are simply not enough funds to pay the real
costs of curation.
Protection and the Public
Although expenditures on contract archaeology may no longer be at the
levels of the late 1970s, arguments rage about the worth of even a tenth
of such expenditure. Though one can argue that knowledge in itself is
valuable and is worth spending money on, one has to show at least something for the money beyond an abundance of technical and often inaccesSible reports. To begin with, one has to convince people that the sites are
worth preserving. Archaeologists may wax lyrical about the scientific signicance of a site within a specific research design, but the public is much
more interested in sites with humanistic significance. Gettysburg has a
supreme place in our national heritage, as does Mesa Verde. Both are
visited by tens of thousands of people each year. The protection afforded
by the National Register of Historie Places covers both sites as in the
.
'significant" category, a significance that provides a basis for management
decisions about cultural resources.
Protection of archaeological sites proceeds through legislation, but
until 1979 the United States had no laws forbidding the export of antiquilies. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 gives federal
resource managers and prosecutors access to stringent criminal and civil
penalties that may slow the destruction of sites on public lands. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1988 has finally extended a degree of protection
10 shipwrecks in U.S. waters, though not before incalculable damage was
done by professional treasure hunters and amateur divers,
Legislation is not the only protective tool available to archaeologists.
The power of eminent domain, zoning, easements, and even tax incentives are tools that may be used to protect cultural resources on private
land.
The Archaeological Conservancy is a bright hope, a privately funded
membership organization that was formed in the early 1980s to purchase
threatened archaeological sites and manage them as permanent archaeological preserves on hundred-year management plans. The sites that this
organization has purchased include the Hopewell Mound group in Ohio;
Savage Cave in Kentucky, a site with human occupation from Paleo-
good or take the easy way out and abandon the archaeological record to
extinction.
SUMMARY
In this chapter we surveyed the destruction of archaeological sites
in the United States and outlined some of the federal legislation
designed to protect antiquities.
The 1960s saw the development of the concept of cultural resource
management, overall strategies for conservation priorities and management of a finite resource, the archaeological record. New federal
legislation, notably the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, laid down
regulations for land use and resource policies and also defined archaeological resources as any artifact more than a century old.
These new laws had a dramatic effect on archaeology and led to a
vigorous expansion of cultural resource management activity all
over the United States.
Much CRM activity is on a small scale. However, larger-scale projects often provide opportunities for major archaeological excavations and surveys that have important bearing on the development
of archaeological methods and theories. CRM is having an increasingly important impact on the future direction of American archaeology, on account of both its large budgets and its unique opportunities for large-scale field and laboratory research. There are two basic
approaches to cultural resource management: a conservation approach that is basically descriptive and a problem-oriented one that
uses the latest methods of contemporary archaeology to make management decisions about the past. These approaches are the subject
of much controversy.
..
As a result of these conflicts, and of the crisis in general, the Society
of Professional Archaeologists has developed a set of ethics for people engaged in field research. These guidelines have drawn criticism, especially from people who have failed to realize that archaeology, as an academic discipline, is adapting to completely new
conditions; under these conditions, most research in North America
is funded as part of a cultural resource management project.
In recent years, Native American groups have demanded that many
Indian skeletons in public and private collections be returned to
them for reburial. This controversy has pitted native peoples against
scientists not only in North America but in other parts of the world
as well. In the future, American archaeologists will have to work
closely with Indian communities when excavating sites where burials are likely to be found.
GUIDE TO FURTHER READING
Contract archaeologists and resource managers are still wrestling with the
basic issues OF their work and have yet to generate an extensive methodological and theoretical literature. Many of the best field reports are, for all
intents and purposes, inaccessible to the general reader. Listed here are
useful signpost publications to a complicated literature.
Cleere, Henry, ed. Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage A Comparative
Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. A series of essays on CRM in different countries
under radically different governments. A fascinating comparative exercise.
Fowler, Don D. "Cultural Resources Management," Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, 5 (1982): 1-50. A superb essay on the basic issues of CRM
in the early 19805. Recommended also for its clear exposition and comprehenSive references.