Writing Assignment

Yvonne Marshall, (2002), What Is Community Archaeology

This article looks at where community archaeology is being conducted around the world from the viewpoint of a call for papers. Interestingly enough, community archaeology seems to be most popular in Australia and New Zealand (Marshall 2002, page 212). Marshall notes that community archaeology should involve seven key components; research question, creating project, field methods, data collection, analysis of data, storage of artifacts, dissemination and public presentation. It is involvement with those outside of archaeology in the steps of creating the research question and public presentation that sets community archaeology apart from regular archaeology. Archaeology that involves local communities according to the author can add a unique contribution to the field overall even though involving the community can be difficult at first. Citing various examples of community involvement, the author is led to the conclusion that the outcome can be positive.

Thomas F. King, Larry A. Lahren and William K. Macdonald, (1977), “More on Cultural Resource Management”

This paper is a response and commentary to the cultural resource management project of the Cache River Archaeological Project. Thomas King explains that the term cultural resource management is overused and “faddish” (King et al, 1977, page 749). It replaced the terms salvage or rescue archaeology with a more acceptable and less crisis driven connotation. However, it has come to mean archaeology where the term according to the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act encompassed other forms of management. One problem according to King is that the United States divides historical sites into those with and those without (prehistoric) writing. He believes this is racist and leads to an emphasis on prehistoric sites “thus allowing the research value of recent buildings and structures to go unnoticed” (King et al, 1977, page 750). Adding to this, the funding now available leads to a paradox for archaeologists, by using the funding available they may face federal control leading to more bureaucratic work and less intellectual pursuits. To get around this, King suggests that each state under the State Historic Preservation Plan (part of National Historic Preservation Act) act to establish methods for evaluating significant sites defined by preservationists working with archaeologists and these plans should be approved annually. Lahren and Macdonald echo his ideas noting that “part of this process must be the development of consistent and operational organizational structures which promote rather than derogate research and which must become the "models of fiscal soundness" that the Cache Project apparently was not (King et al, 1977, page 751)

Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and William R. Bowen, (1980), “Problems and Promises in Urban Historical Archaeology: The MARTA Project”

This paper discusses the problems of large scale urban archaeology. First, most of the time the site is covered with concrete and/or existing structures subject to lots of disturbance and often in continuous use, second there is high visibility leading to vandalism and theft and lastly there is a problem justifying excavation of what the public might see as more recent and therefore inconsequential remains. The 1970s Atlanta Georgia public transportation project yielded over 100,000 artifacts and was subject to financial and time constraints along with the problems listed above. An ideal research design would involve extensive stratigraphic excavation but for the MARTA project, archaeologists were asked to excavate and mitigate only those areas directly impacted directly by the transit lines. Within the excavation, specific features were designated and assigned to “site status” (Dickens et al, 1980, page 46). The process starts with documentary evidence, followed by walking surveys and then finally excavation where deemed necessary. According to the authors, value exists in the archaeology of urban sites including showing how present behavior relates to the archaeological record allowing for prediction of past behaviors.

Elia, Ricardo J., (1992), “The Ethics of Collaboration: Archaeologists and the Whydah Project”

This article discusses the ethical problems when treasure hunters collaborate with archaeologists and is framed within the context of the Whydah salvage project. The Whydah was a pirate ship that sank in 1717 off the coast of Cape Cod and is the focus of the “first major commercial salvage project involving the direct participation of professional archaeologists both those engaged in the actual salvage and those in state and federal agencies who participate in the regulatory process” (Elia, 1992, Page 105). As such, the author suggests that the Whydah will probably set precedents for future projects of this type. Initially the Commonwealth of Massachusetts tried to claim title to the site but it was overruled in a Supreme Judicial Court ruling giving primary rights to the salvage companies with the requirement that 25% of the value of the recovered wreck be returned to the state. According to the author, these types of salvage efforts “violate one of the major principles that have gained broad acceptance in the past 20 years of CRM archaeology namely the conservation ethic which treats archaeological sites as non-renewable resources that should be preserved whenever possible and only excavated if they are threatened” (Elia, 1992, Page 109). The author also notes that it is a fallacy that only private money is used on these projects; there are public expenses such as the salaries of archaeologists and public officials who must regulate these projects, “somehow it always seems to come down to money” (Elia, 1992, Page 114), because of the value of shipwrecks they are kept apart from other cultural resources under law and in public policy and interest.

Cheryl Ann Munson, Marjorie Melvin Jones and Robert E. Fry, (1995), “The GE Mound: An ARPA Case Study”

This article discusses the first case of the prosecution of looters under the ARPA (Archaeological Resources Protection Act). According to the authors this case “serves as a textbook” about conflict of interest between archaeologists and other interested parties (Munson et al, 1995, Page 130). In 1988, a Hopewell mound was uncovered on General Electric’s property near Mt. Vernon, Indiana. Since the project was for a new road, it was covered by federal funds and so the mound and its artifacts should have been immediately reported to the State Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology but it wasn’t. By the time the mound and its artifacts were officially reported, it had been heavily looted and its artifacts dispersed. The profits for this kind of endeavor can be huge and they are the “primary motive for pothunting” (Munson et al, 1995, Page 133). Once caught, the looters were prosecuted, most artifacts were recovered along with pictures and statements about where things were located however a lot of information was lost due to this illegal activity. When interviewed, one looter said “many fragile artifacts, such as pearls and bear canine ornaments, were simply ignored if they appeared damaged, as they searched for 'better' artifacts” (Munson et al, 1995, Page 138). The convictions in this case were precedent setting for the ARPA as they set rules for interstate trafficking that were obtained illegally and because of this case, the ARPA is “a stronger tool that can aid federal, state and local law enforcement in protecting archaeological resources, particularly those located on privately owned lands” (Munson et al, 1995, Page 154).

William B. Lees and Julia A. King, (2007), “What Are We Really Learning through Publicly Funded Historical Archaeology (And Is It Worth the Considerable Expense?)”

In this article which was compiled because of a forum at the 2005 Society for Historical Archaeology conference, the authors discuss why we should care about publicly funded archaeology and give a brief history of why the discipline can suffer from a lack of caring. Overall, the authors believe that historical archaeology is lacking a coherent plan of action. As a relatively new subset of archaeology (thirty years), it is still in its infancy and suffering from growing pains, to alleviate these pains, the authors urge a definition of the discipline including goals and redefined priorities and new leadership. In addition to internal struggles, the discipline suffers from an external fight of legitimacy as historical and therefore newer sites have not been traditionally given as much recognition and protection as prehistoric sites. Interestingly, for North America, the general public is more interested in historic sites, the authors note that the “Society for American Archaeology found, for example, that a whopping 97% of respondents in a survey on public perceptions of archaeology were interested in learning more about our field Interest in historic sites” (Lees et al, 2007, Page 54). For the future, public archaeology programs are being increasingly offered at schools and public archaeology is becoming a significant subdiscipline of archaeology. This is important as with increasingly diminishing public funds, government regulators are asking how we can learn about history with less expense. The authors urge these studies noting that “value is a relative concept” (Lees et al, 2007, Page 57) and must be explained to those outside of the discipline and that what we have learned “has been well worth the expense” (Lees et al, 2007, Page 59).

Cheryl J. La Roche and Michael L. Blakey, (1997), “Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground”

This article discusses the problems and successes with the New York African Burial Ground Project. Before it was finished, archaeologists were involved with the public, ancestors, the federal government and local politics. Because of it, new offices such as the Office of Public Education and Interpretation, many films, books and documents were created. It was according to the authors an intense learning process both for the descendent population and for those that wanted to exploit it and those that wanted to study it. The intense response to the burial ground put a spotlight on the ongoing misunderstandings between Euro American based beliefs and African American based beliefs and showed that archaeology is not “value-free” and can be “politically charged” (LaRoche and Blakey, 1997, Page 84). Overall, the benefits that have been created because of the burial ground are immense from increased dialogue between interested parties, to increased educational experiences for students and these benefits are in part due to the “relentless determination of the African-American descendant community to exercise control over the handling and disposition of the physical remains and artifacts of their ancestors” (LaRoche and Blakey, 1997, Page 84). The project began when the United States General Service Administration (GSA) put out a contract for a building to be built on a site that according to old maps had been a Negro cemetery. Once work started, more than 400 burials were found and work was stopped and a task force was formed by New York State Senator David Paterson. After various debates, Howard University was given the task of investigation and formation of a multi-vocal team with especial consideration for Africanist scholars. Many persons on the team had been involved with other similar projects and had experience in public archaeology and community interaction, therefore it was urged that the team would follow “an anthropology of public engagement” (LaRoche and Blakey, 1997, Page 86). Team members were not only engaged for competence they were expected to be specialists in African American sites. The authors note that while whites recognized this need for sensitivity, overruling stereotypes and misunderstandings still were involved, “In a society imbued with racist stereotypes of blacks as overly emotional, irrational, and hyperpolitical, however, even liberal white concerns for ‘sensitivity’ easily can be based upon a patronizing attitude whose assumptions are racist” (Page 96). The culmination of the African Burial Ground project has been that the descendent population has seen their ancestors put on the map of New York City and recognized as an important, historical and integral building block of the city. To further this knowledge and because of the project, the office of Public Education and Interpretation (OPEI) was opened as an information source for ongoing news about the African Burial Ground Project (LaRoche and Blakey, 1997, page 97). The author ends with “our history is in the bones and in the artifacts excavated from the African Burial Ground. It is tangible, it is real, and it lives through the dead: "Black people see those remains from the Burial Ground as life and death and as part of the continuum of our experience rather than a data pool to be objectified" (LaRoche and Blakey, 1997, Page 100).

Andrew Gulliford, (1992), “Curation and Repatriation of Sacred and Tribal Objects”

In this article, the author paints a picture of empty museum displays that previously held Native American artifacts and he discusses why so many museums are removing these items. The National Museum of the American Indian in Manhattan has (at the time of this article) just such a case and it rather than the impressive collection of artifacts is what garners lots of attention (Gulliford, 1992, Pages 23 and 24). In 1990, Bush signed into law the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act which “specifically requires all museums and institutions receiving federal funds, including national and state parks and historical societies, to inventory their native American collections within five years and identify funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony which would have specific ceremonial or religious significance for tribes. Museums must make a "good-faith effort "to inventory and identify their holdings of associated funerary objects as well as Native American human remains and to contact tribal leaders who may possess cultural authority over the disposition and exhibition of the artifacts” (Gulliford, 1992, Page 26). One example of this are medicine bags who are personal to their owners and believed by the tribes to possess their own force and so to publicly display one is not only considered disrespectful but can be harmful to members of the tribe. Grave robbers of Anglo origin rarely according to Gulliford recognize that the unmarked and different Native graves are sacred, they see the buried pots and offerings as abandoned property and so this “’finders keepers’ philosophy negates centuries of tribal tradition and respect for the dead” (Gulliford, 1992, Page 28). Another problem according to the author is that museums are a “uniquely Western tradition, the objects displayed in museums are there only because of the history of Western Imperialism and colonial appropriation and that the only story such objects can tell is the history of their status as trophies of imperial conquest” (Gulliford, 1992, Page 32). Today there is a concerted effort by Native Americans to preserve their own artifacts and in some cases display them within their own museums. According to them, the artifacts benefit by contextual and respectful display with an emphasis on heritage and history as spoken by the ancestors of their owners.

W. Bruce Masse and Linda M. Gregonis, “The Art, Science, and Ethics of Avocational Archaeology”

In this article, the authors defend Avocational archaeologists. First, they explain that they are popular as archaeology is fascinating for many and also attainable. Most people can’t attain an avocation of chemistry but archaeology can be a weekend hobby without a lot of preparation. Adding to this according to the authors is the “inability of most professional archaeologists to present their work in meaningful and interesting ways, including information about changes within the discipline” (Masse and Gregonis, Page 367). Avocational archaeologists bring additional skills to the table such as writing and can assist professional archaeologists in informing the general public about sites. The history of Avocational archaeology is buried in the Southwest with Indiana Jones pothunting individuals who acquired large collections of Native American artifacts to sell or for museums. The implementation of the NEPA and NHPA which brought cultural resource management into the field decreased the now illegal work of these collectors with many of them turning their historical interests to avocation. According to the authors, nearly all current professional archaeologists “sooner or later reach a point, usually very early in our careers, when we decide to protect and preserve the archaeological record to the fullest extent possible rather than collect for personal gain. Most current practicing professional archaeologists, especially those trained after the mid-1970s, likely never participated in any sort of subsurface excavations outside of their professional responsibilities”. (Masse and Gregonis, Page 375) Since the passage of rules and regulations that cover artifact hunting, Avocational enthusiasts have turned to certification programs, volunteering and laboratory work. Many programs will certify Avocational archaeologists when they consistently show that they have volunteered for places like the U.S. Forest Service and some privately owned companies also offer certification. There are other Avocational archaeologists who work to preserve sites, nominating them for the National Historic register or other protections (Masse and Gregonis, Pages 379 thru 381). According to the authors, Avocational archaeologists with “the proper association with professionals” (Masse and Gregonis, Page 382) can add to the field while doing what “they like to do best – discover old, ordinary and extraordinary things and speculate about who made them and why” (Masse and Gregonis, Page 382).

Ywone Edwards-Ingram, (1997), “Toward "True Acts of Inclusion": The "Here" and the "Out There" Concepts in Public Archaeology”

In this article, Edwards-Ingram talks about public education specifically African American public education as it relates to archaeology and expresses the need for archaeologists to truly include African Americans in African American archaeology. Archaeologists are traditionally socially responsible but have difficulties disseminating their knowledge to recipients of public education. There should be according to the author a practice of interrelations and education and ways should be devised to make archaeology a frequent discussion, “although African Americans form a diverse group, at times, public archaeology focuses on the distinctive or highly visible members of this population. It is no wonder that there is generally disappointment when African Americans do not rush to archaeological functions or interpretations held in their honor” (Edwards-Ingram, Page 28). The problem is that African Americans are sometimes seen as a singular person, with similar backgrounds and experiences but this is a narrow view that leads to a lack of understanding when treating ancestral remains. While archaeologists struggle to interact with the public while meeting financial restraints and timelines, it is important that they try to include the public as this enhances their own perceptions and interpretations and in turn enhances public perception. A starting place is to make public education “an integral aspect of projects” (Edwards-Ingram, Page 31). The authors end with this comment; “extensive consultation and collaboration with the public will help to produce archaeological studies that should be more intelligible to the public and to other archaeologists” (Edwards-Ingram, Page 34). Continual contact and reconciliation of ideas enable archaeologists to assure that their findings will be containing complete knowledge, correct assumptions and will be received positively by the public.

Carol McDavid, (1997), “Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation”

In this article, Carol McDavid discusses the problems incurred in trying to put forth an inclusive approach to the research behind the Levi Jordan plantation in Brazoria County, Texas. Many of the ancestors both African American and European still live in the area which is described by Carol as still being somewhat racially segregated. In her attempt for inclusiveness, the histories and attitudes of the descendent communities complicated her research. McDavid set up two phases for the project, the first to see “if it would be feasible to interpret archaeology to the public” (McDavid, 1997, Page 114) and the second phase was to involve the public including descendents of the original inhabitants of the plantation. The Jordan plantation had been sold to the State of Texas with the hope of it being a museum and so McDavid was faced with the fact that a museum set within the still divided Brazoria County would be “uncomfortable for the descendants of the people who lived with the realities of slavery and tenancy. (McDavid, 1997, Page 115) McDavid turned to critical theory as expressed by Spencer-Wood using an approach that would express both sides of plantation history without denigrating either. It was important for the project to incorporate the local community’s ideas of how the issue of slavery should be shown and taught. McDavid gives the example of a shackle found embedded in a brick wall; it is obviously emotional but in a multivocal expression, it could be both white oppression and African American resistance. McDavid ends with, “the only way that these kinds of situations will have any hope of being resolved is for the planning group to have credibility within the local communities of both African-American and European American descendants…for it to be publicly recognized as an organization in which power and control are genuinely shared”. (McDavid, 1997, Pages 126 and 127)

Carol McDavid, (2002), “Archaeologies That Hurt; Descendants That Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology”

In this paper, Carol McDavid discusses a Web Site Project for the Levi Jordan Plantation. The idea according to Carol is to have a place for interactions between the public, the descendent communities and scholars with the hope of disseminating and collecting information. McDavid as the project leader and a public archaeologist sees the website as “an attempt to see whether 'the Net' can provide a way for the descendants of the original residents of this plantation (both African-American and European-American) to conduct critical dialogues with archaeologists, with each other, with people elsewhere - and with 'the past'” (McDavid 2002, page 304). McDavid’s process was to conduct interviews with the descendent populations in which she requested permission to put these interviews and other information such as census, death, birth and marriage records onto the website. Technically, she didn’t need permission to place public records on a public site, but her goal was to develop a multivocal, interactive site and to encourage full participation. In addition to this, she recognized that some of those that would like to see and interact with the website didn’t have computer access, so she assured that they would have access to computers. To this end, she notes that the intention of the “Levi Jordan Web Site Project has been to help create a more democratic, socially relevant archaeology. Indeed, that is probably a major objective for any community archaeology, By using the Internet to expand our local conversations to worldwide ones, we may be able to use archaeology to help create a more relevant, democratic world, where we all can discover what 'truths' about our pasts - and our presents - are most meaningful and relevant”. (McDavid, 2002, page 312)

Moser, Stephanie, Glazier, Darren, Phillips, James E., Nasser el Nemr, Lamya, Mousa, Saleh Mohammed, Aiesh, Rascha Nasr, Richardson, Susan, Conner, Andrew, Seymour, Michael, (2002), “Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt”

In this article, the authors discuss the community archaeology project in Quseir, Egypt. This project stands apart from many others that focus on multivocality and community input as it takes the marketing and merchandising of the project including training of employees for stores into account. The project which began in 1999 was part of a large excavation of an ancient Roman harbor and the subsequent inhabitations of the area now known as Quseir al-Qadim. The idea was to create an interactive heritage center to bring tourism to the area in the style of those currently done in Europe and the United States and to step away from the old style of non-interactive excavation resulting in artifacts in museums or for scholarly consumption only. According to the authors, “the underlying premise of the project is that it is no longer acceptable for archaeologists to reap the material and intellectual benefits of another society's heritage without that society being involved and able to benefit equally from the endeavour. We endorse the general goal of 'community archaeology' to replace the traditional colonial model of archaeological practice with a socially and politically self-conscious mode of research, aiming ultimately to incorporate different cultural perspectives in the interpretation of the past”. (Moser et al, page 221) This community archaeology project however goes farther than its Western counterparts by training and employment of the surrounding community so that they are educated and can play parts in the presentation to the general public, “the passing on of skills related to archaeological study, heritage management and museum display is fundamental as it enables local people to co-ordinate the presentation of the site or the running of a visitors' centre or museum once established. The benefits of employing local people on the Quseir Community Archaeology team are many; not only does it ensure that there is continuity in project work when the European members of the team are absent, it also enables members of the community to play a critical role in making decisions about what will be displayed”.(Moser et al, page 232) In addition, the project looks to tourism with merchandising efforts also controlled and maintained by the community as they are the ones most positively affected by possible economic gains and negatively affected by mass tourism. The authors argue that modern mass tourism in Egypt has enforced negative stereotypes and forced the nation “to become a parody of itself” (Moser et al, page 241). They are trying to avoid by community involvement hotels and bazaars filled with “quasi-Pharaonic trinkets” (Moser et al, page 241). The leaders of the project also are highlighting and marketing the project with team logo t-shirts and merchandise so that the project itself with its goals of community involvement becomes a focus along with the excavations and history. By highlighting the project, the leaders hope that it will be used as a model for other projects in Egypt. All profits from the sale of project merchandise are going to fund the site.

Barnes, Mark R., (1981), “Preservation of Archaeological Sites through Acquisition”

In this article, the author examines all of the ways that sites can be preserved through acquisition. He makes the case that acquisition of sites will provide more opportunities for research for archaeologists and will stop the destruction of major sites. Since the early 1970s, there have been many federal laws aimed at the management and preservation of cultural resources but these haven’t always furthered the aims of scholarly research including data recovery. Archaeologists however have been forced to work with federal agencies and State preservation agencies to be able to work at some of these sites regardless of the contribution of the site to an understanding of human history. One problem is that an archaeologist working at a site within federal or state guidelines seldom has an opportunity for wide scale investigation to see how the site fits into the landscape to “develop a regional understanding” (Page 610). A second problem is that of a focus on mitigation so that it is only those sites threatened by imminent destruction that are focused on without a larger research plan being in place. The reason for this is lack of funding, “Archaeologists, like historic preservationists, are realizing that the public can afford to support just so many historical monuments” (Page 611) and so they are turning to alternative research opportunities such as private easements, nonprofit funding such as the nature conservancy. One example of private easement is the Corotoman site in Virginia which is privately owned but used by the state of Virginia through easement. The site is where “King” Carter’s House was located and burned in 1729 and is currently being evaluated for public interpretation and excavation. Another example is Tahquitz Canyon that has been purchased by the city of Palm Springs, California as it contains lots of archaeological sites, it is being investigated with grants supplied by the State of California, work by the University of California at Riverside and community involvement. The nature conservancy is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preservation of natural areas. The nature conservancy is well known for its purchase of several important archaeological sites in Florida, Kansas and Maine and for nominating many sites for the National Historic Register. Although the federal and state governmental agencies along with nonprofits have added to the list of archaeological sites available for research, they generally according to the author have focused on those sites with visible above ground remains. It is a start in the right direction but according to the author we have a long way to go and so will need to turn to new sources of funding for research.

Scham, Sandra, (2001), “The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised”

In this article, Sandra Scham says that multivocality as applied to archaeological projects hasn’t been achieved. She calls these alternative opinions, the archaeology of the disenfranchised and discusses four different models that have been used for multivocality; the archaeology of the colonialized, the heritage pride model, the heritage recovery model and the reaction/resistance model. She says that this emphasis on the archaeology of the disenfranchised or multivocality is a result of the postmodern world “where many localized narratives of the past, present and future struggle for supremacy” (Scham, page 185) and create a “chaotic situation” for archaeologists (Scham, page 185). She closes her article with a discussion of affirmative action in academia and with the effect of affirmative action on funding, selection of manuscripts for publication and projects assigned. Affirmative action according to the author created fears of dwindling standards but this hasn’t really occurred. Where postmodernism has led to multiple theories, archaeological research has profited, “ the inclusion of other views in archaeology not only enhances our own understanding of the past but will also eventually help us to move from opposition to collaboration with respect to "majority and minority" archaeological interpretations” (Scham, page 199).

Staski, Edward, (1982), “Advances in Urban Archaeology”

In this article, Staski discusses each area of urban archaeology, area by area. For example, he looks at older neighborhoods with single family dwellings as possibilities for preservation of prehistoric remains as they are usually put onto land that was previously unused except for farming and they don’t contain very deep support structures. He contrasts this with commercial development such as skyscrapers that have deep support structures that effectively can destroy previous settlement remains. Urban archaeology is defined as “as a permanent location in which the density of settlement and the amount of human energy expended per unit of land area are considerably greater than in the surrounding region” (Page 97). Urban archaeology suffers from a lack of sampling opportunity because of the intense amount of structures and is frequently rescue archaeology and therefore limited to specific areas or structures.

Hester, Thomas R., (1981), “CRM Publication: Dealing with Reality”

Admittedly, the author of this article only had a few days to put it together (Hester, page 496) as it is a response to the review article by William Longacre published in this issue of the Journal of Field Archaeology. Although put together in an immediate fashion, it is a summary of CRM documents, how they are created and the types of constraints put upon them. Hester argues that fieldwork is not complete unless it is published and that CRM reports however presented are important parts of scholarship. Even though they are produced under contract, they can be useful for archaeologists especially those working in south Texas or other large areas because without them some areas may not be surveyed or published, “Even reports of small surveys that resulted in the discovery of a few hunter-gatherer sites and provided information on material culture, environment, and other items of archaeological interest, were published, these were then mailed around the state to archaeologists and libraries” (Hester, page 494). Some CRM reports are needed to explain the expense of taxpayer documents and they are legally and contractually required. Hester notes that a lot of CRM publications within the state of Texas have provided data that has allowed scholars to synthesis and publish on large areas of regional archaeology.

King, Thomas F., (1983), “Professional Responsibility in Public Archaeology”

In this article, King discusses professional responsibilities versus conflicts within the field of archaeological research. He suggests professional balance so that we further our own goals while protecting or banking resources and archaeological data for future generations. He urges mutual respect between archaeologists, between archaeologists and the public, between archaeologists and their clients and between archaeologists and legal controlling entities. He recognizes that archaeologists are faced with competing priorities and feels that our ethics rules as stated by various organizations should be more unified especially when we have to place an order on responsibilities.

Karamanski, Theodore J., (1980), “History as an Empowering Force in Cultural Resource Management”

In this article, Karamanski talks about the insignificance of historians in determining what is culturally significant to Americans because anthropologists have beaten historians “to the punch” (Karamanski, page 72). He says that while historians displayed a lack of interest in cultural resource management, the field of anthropology was used to working with government entities and fell naturally into the role establishing an applied part of anthropology specifically dedicated to cultural resource management. This role of anthropology was established in 1974 when the Moss-Bennet bill was signed into law which dictated that all agencies of the government are responsible for cultural resource management not just the Department of the Interior and partly because the bill was put forth by archaeologists, it is to archaeologists that these departments usually turn. During the 1930s and 1940s, the national park system also reached out to archaeologists to look at historical sites as most historians didn’t want to learn additional training. Now most departments within the system contain anthropologists who don’t have the intense historical training but fill the jobs as history departments don’t train their students in three-dimensional objects. For the future, the author sees that most people don’t care what type of person is responsible for cultural resource management; they just want historical sites preserved. According to the author, anthropologists will remain heavily involved as material remains are the basis for most cultural resource management, “Historians entering the field of cultural resource management must be prepared for the irony of seeing their discipline as merely the auxiliary science of archaeology… history will not become an empowering force in cultural resource management until history as a profession demonstrates its concern for historic resource preservation… we will be able to put the history back into historic preservation” (Karamanski, page 76).

Knudson, Ruthann, (1982), “Basic Principles of Archaeological Resource Management”

In this article, Knudson comments on the four statements of archaeology that were put into an amended National Historic Preservation Act as set forth by the SAA Executive Committee. The four statements were intended to clarify some things relating to ethics, methods and training for professional archaeologists. Working with all interested parties including timber and cattle industries along with the National Trust, the statements reflected the trend of multivocality and inclusivity, “It did the job for which it was intended-it presented to nonarchaeologists a concise statement of the Society's interest in public management of our archaeological resource base” (Knudson, page 165).

McManamon, Francis P., (1991), “The Many Publics for Archaeology”

In this paper, McManamon outlines five educational opportunities for archaeologists, they are: the general public, students and teachers, legislators, public administrators and Native Americans. By focusing on all of these different areas, McManamon believes that archaeologists can create an “appreciation for archaeology” outside of archaeological circles (McManamon, page 121) and possibly decrease “looting and vandalism through public education (McManamon, page 122). Focusing on the general public, McManamon urges increased marketing, advertising and public relations through mass-media. This type of outreach should be “positive, short, and sweet” (McManamon, page 124) so as to reach the most people. For students and teachers, workshops and accreditation could be offered and access for teachers to field schools and summer archaeological courses. For the congress and the executive branch, McManamon urges that quantitative information is needed so that governmental officials can act according to the facts. Also, a plea to the patriotic side of governmental officials such as “linking archaeology with stewardship and patriotism may be an effective strategy for expanding political support” (McManamon, page 125). Native Americans are a sensitive part of the public side of archaeology. Past problems varying from oversight to outright abuse and racism have led to legislation protecting this group. Archaeologists working with Native Americans have to be open and inclusive about their work.

Patten, Drake M., (1997), “Cheers of Protest? The Public, the Post, and the Parable of Learning”

In this article, the author talks about his experiences while excavating a site that was originally owned by a woman listed as Mulatto in records whose descendents see themselves as white. However, the site is also seen as a traditional African American site that had been sold off by descendent generations. The Washington Post first broke the story in 1994 that a white archaeologist was going to excavate an “African American” creating a debate over who had the right to tell the story of African Americans. In a parable, changing names and crucial details, the author looks at his experiences noting that many historical archaeologists choose to walk away from these types of situations rather than face the political and public accusations and scrutiny. In this case, the case becomes muddled because the original occupant of the site was a Mulatto woman with a descendent population that considers itself white, “locally, in Charlottesville's African During our second season, the public learned what we had begun to find out in the months after our first season. Catherine's descendants were white or at least they are understood to be white in today's world. They had "passed" sometime early in this century. None of them had any knowledge of having an African-American ancestry” (Patten, page 137). Now able to look back at his experiences, the author explains, “our relationship with the local public suffered initially, not only because we were white, the reason widely given by the press but because we were not immediately thoughtful about the meaning that the label ‘African American’ meant to that public. In our disciplinary haste to give voice to the ‘inarticulate’, we have also sometimes succeeded in marginalizing them even more than their historic identities might suggest” (Patten, page 136). He notes that “Catherine” became translated and relabeled as African American in today’s society, her original 18th century categorization of mulatto not translating to everyday conflicts concerning race and being further confused by her obviously African American heritage conflicting with her “white” descendents. The author offered up her identity as fluid without categorization instead of her mulatto identity being automatically categorized as modern African American. According to the author, “I was met with accusations of academic ignorance and personal racism” (Patten, page 136). Muddying the waters were modern stereotypical ideas about African American women such as the obvious problem of her being free and landowning with no obvious man around. Many believed that this independence would have been impossible without a white man and pointed to her white ancestors. Others looked to racial stereotypes of oversexed black women turning into prostitutes and becoming dependent on the state, something that would have been impossible at the time but equates to modern ideas of black welfare recipients. However “Catherine” was redefined, one thing remained true, and most African Americans involved in the debate condemned the author and his students for being white, “likened by one African-American anthropologist to Nazis being allowed to dig a Jewish site” (Patten, page 137). The author feels that as a public archaeologist in many ways he failed his students and the public because he and other scholars are unable to divorce themselves from current views of race. He urges that to divide the world into different types of sites; African American, woman’s, Anglo is to not see the complete picture, possibly missing important details. He doesn’t urge that labels should be dismissed; he simply states that at many sites, labels are not appropriate because they are ambiguous and hurt the interpretation of the site. This site and “Catherine” defy modern labeling and by trying to force “Catherine” into a subunit of culture, we infuse our interpretations with modern ideas about race and gender and miss the fact that these things are “cultural constructions whose meanings change over time and space” (Patten, page 138).

Page 1 of 33 May 2nd, 2012