Hello all,
I do hope that what I want to say will not throw too much of a spanner into
the conversation. I do not want to hijack it either -- only to point out an
inconsistency that could benefit from some internal disciplinary reflection.
Ian Burrow touched on this in one of the questions he raised, as I recall.
It has always struck me that the somewhat easy acceptance (by many) of
"catch and release" field strategies is at odds with the vehement objections
that most archaeologists raise to those who remove artifacts altogether
(whether for profit, or for "legitimate" fundraising).
Both practices -- whether conducted by "professionals" or "amateurs" --
result in the destruction of artifact contexts, and thus research potential.
Both practices -- whether conducted by "professionals" or "amateurs" -- are
subject to a "profit" motive. Contract archaeologists make an income.
Academics benefit too, though more indirectly. Individuals (or in our lingo,
looters) make a profit from selling artifacts.
Before the flames take over my computer, I do NOT argue FOR either practice,
and have argued against "catch and release" in other discussions. But I also
understand the practical reasons for it (mitigation contexts with piles upon
piles of so-called "non-diagnostic" artifacts, and overloaded repositories
with little state support for funding them, much less expanding them). Catch
and release is very, very common in Texas, at both prehistoric and historic
sites.
One could say that it boils down to a question of intent, but that doesn't
work consistently either. Certainly, in some of the indigenous contexts
described in this discussion, "catch and release" is entirely supportable
for ethical reasons. But, according to most (if not all) formal ethics
statements, it would not be seen as ethically supportable if (for example)
one of our client communities wanted to sell their own artifacts to fund
research archaeology on their own land. Members of the community I work for
have often asked why they cannot sell "redundant" ceramic sherds, nails etc.
to help fund our excavations. My explanations do not hold much water, if the
person asking happens to know that "catch and release" is a common practice
-- which they often do.
We need to be internally consistent, when we can. When we cannot, we need to
avoid sanctimoniously objecting to practices that are essentially the same
as those we readily accept. As Sarah Cowie noted, there is not a
one-size-fits-all solution. I just think we need to extend this idea to how
we frame (and enforce) our ethical mandates as well. Each context is
different.
Apologies to Ashley if this does not inform her original question. I also
need to be clear that I am speaking for myself only, not as a representative
of any group I happen to be a member of.
Carol
*****************************
Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc.
1638 Branard
Houston, TX 77006
www.publicarchaeology.org
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Branstner, Mark C
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 1:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Catch-and-Release Archaeology
Sarah,
I have a real world example ... A small CRM firm has been doing surveys here
in the Midwest and consistently finding large chert scatters that are said
to represent workshops, etc. Unfortunately, many of these sites are in
areas where there are large naturally occurring, weathered chert gravels in
the natural soil environment.
As the results (i.e., positive findings) were getting a little too frequent
for one of my clients, I suggested that it might be useful for them to bring
in an outside consultant to review the findings of the initial CRM firm and
determine whether or not they agreed with the validity of those findings.
When the original firm was approached, they responded "Sorry, we have
already returned the artifacts to the property owner and they are presumably
mixed in to the driveway fill by now."
There is a reason why collections - even Phase I collections - need to be
curated for at least a reasonable review period, even if it is determined
that they can be deaccessioned at some point in the future. Those are
decisions to be made in the lab, after the fact, not in the field, at least
IMHO. Further, it is hard to imagine a typical survey crew that would
include your best analysts ...
Warmest regards,
Mark
___________________________________
Mark C. Branstner, RPA, AARP
Senior Historical Archaeologist
Illinois State Archaeological Survey
Prairie Research Institute
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
23 East Stadium Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
Phone: 217.244.0892
Fax: 217.244.7458
Cell: 217.549.6990
[log in to unmask]
"When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only
for the others © It is the same when you are stupid." -- Anonymous
On 11/7/14 1:23 PM, "Pentney, Sandra P" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Hi Sarah,
>I am a bit late to this party, but I am dealing with a similar issue
>right now in southern California and wanted to weigh in.
>In my opinion, re-burying these collections, or even not properly
>curating, is contrary to the spirit of the resource protection laws.
>The laws were enacted to preserve cultural resources for those who have
>an interest in them. This includes a wide array of people from the
>general public, to tribal members, to archaeologists. We mitigate sites
>in order to collect the data that will otherwise be lost through
>project development. While varying amounts of analysis are completed
>after testing or data recovery, there is still a lot more data that can
>be gleaned from a collection, especially as technology progresses. The
>purpose behind curation is so that those with suitable interest can
>access the collections in the future and do further analysis and
>research. In essence, the law is saying to developers "...ok, you can
>build your project here, but you have to pay to evaluate and mitigate
>this archaeological site so that the data can be collected and the
>concerned community can st ill have access to this data potential." To
>rebury a collection, to my mind, is contrary to this as the collection
>is NOT accessible for further research.
>
>Sandra P Pentney, M.A., RPA
>Associate Project Manager/Archaeologist
>
>ATKINS
>Explore our world of opportunities www.atkinsglobal.com/careers
>
>3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 I Tel:
>+1 (858) 514 1083 I Fax: +1 (858) 259 0741
>Email: [log in to unmask] | Web: www.atkinsglobal.com|
>Careers: www.atkinsglobal.com/careers
>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/atkins|
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Sarah Cowie
>Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 11:13 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Catch-and-Release Archaeology
>
>Thanks to everyone for their input, both on- and off-list. There are
>obviously debates surrounding all sides of this practice, and so these
>thoughtful responses are much appreciated. There are numerous relevant
>variables and values surrounding best practices in scientific method,
>stakeholder input, legislation, and economic/pragmatic considerations.
>This discussion has been very helpful in framing some of the
>differences, and it's clear there won't be a one-size-fits-all
>solution. Thanks again for a fruitful discussion.
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 7, 2014 6:38 AM, Bill Green
><[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>
> In 1979 Bill Butler published a review of what was then referred to as
>the "no-collection" strategy for survey (nobody could conceive of such
>a strategy being employed in excavation) in *American Antiquity*
>(44:795-799). He considered "no-collection" in regard to site
>integrity, artifact analysis, pothunting, the irreplaceability of
>resources, and curation. He concluded the strategy was indefensible. It
>would be interesting to know how proponents of "catch-and-release"
>respond to these arguments and if new rationales have been developed.
>(Certainly curation issues are more acute now than they were 35 years
>ago.)
>
>Bill Green
>
>--
>William Green, Ph.D., RPA
>James E. Lockwood Jr. Director, Logan Museum of Anthropology Beloit
>College Beloit, WI 53511 USA http://www.beloit.edu/logan
><http://www.facebook.com/LoganMuseum>http://www.facebook.com/LoganMuseu
>m http://beloit.academia.edu/WilliamGreen
>608-363-2119
>Fax 608-363-7144
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>___
>_
>The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for
>viruses and other threats; however no technology can be guaranteed to
>detect all threats. Always exercise caution before acting on the
>content of an email and before opening attachments or following links
>contained within the email.
>
>This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright
>protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed
>in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding.
>
>The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc.
>Registered in England No. 1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove,
>Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins
>Group companies registered in the United Kingdom and locations around
>the world can be found at
>http://www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/group-company-registration-de
>tai
>ls
>
>Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you
>really need to.
|
