In a message dated 8/28/1998 8:01:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
 
<< Clearly archaeology has benefitted very greatly from the "golden age" of
 CRM (which, I really believe, is quickly passing). Perhaps we are too
 close, too much involved in it. But a historical perspective would be
 helpful. We certainly have become fragmented. The professionalization of
 archaeology--the very things which lent success to many private firms
 (and, I would add, Tom, many business-wise university-based research
 centers) has also exacted a very great toll. We now have lots of people
 earning their livings as very competent archaeologists (by the standards
 of professionalism), but I wonder how much we are truly adding to
 knowledge and to public discourse as a result. History might help us
 understand our role and chart our future more wisely. Or not. >>
 
From a somewhat narrow perspective (which one could take from any number of
points of view), you are probably right Dan.  In this case, from the academic
perspective one might argue that certainly a lot less true "knowledge"  has
been added to the field of archaeology.  I do question the idea of public
discourse, though.  I believe it is because of CRM that we have the explosion
of interest in the field that is present today.  Virtually every state now has
an "archaeology week" or some equivalent and that is not a direct result of
government dogoodism.  CRM dollars have helped increase the numbers of
archaeology personnel in government and academia, CRM dollars have helped make
our field much more visible to the public as a result of our intervention in
project after project.  Occasionally we find a gem that excites the public's
imagination -- the interest, the public's hunger for more information about
archaeology has been fueled by this business.
 
Now, in response to another point, there is much more to "professionalism" in
our field than academic excellence.  Even universities require that their
professors do community service of some sort or other in addition to teaching
and publishing.  One example of a broader definition of "professionalism" in
CRM is the current trend among some agencies to develop video and other media
materials about archaeology projects for public consumption.  This is laudable
and certainly should be considered a part of professionalism.  In fact, there
are probably many projects where the main product should be a video or a
popular brochure or book, rather than a technical report read by 6 people, if
that many (and those 6 people probably read it only because they are being
paid to do it).  There are agencies beginning to require just this sort of
thing.  I think we should broaden our scope of understanding about
"professional".  It is to our peril and livelihoods if we do not.  Perhaps the
"golden age" of CRM has yet to appear, if only we have the will and the
creativity to make our field more "user friendly" to the public at large.
 
Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah