Hello Colleagues, 
 
On November 10, Ronald Rood posted the email below to the Utah Professional
Archaeological Council (UPAC) listserve. In it he presented the Wyoming
State Historic Preservation Office's guidelines saying that certain kinds of
historical features do not need be recorded in great detail when found
during cultural resources surveys in that state. Ron suggested that
archaeologists should not spend so much time and taxpayer money recording
certain kinds of archaeological sites and features, including the kinds of
properties identified by the Wyoming SHPO.
 
A few days later I reposted Ron's "[UPAC] what we record and why" post to
the UPAC, Arizona Archaeological Council (AAC), Colorado Council of
Professional Archaeologists (CCPA), New Mexico Archaeological Council
(NMAC), and Historical Archaeology (HistArch) listserves to request
responses. Because so many replies were received, but not all of them were
posted to all five listserves, I have assembled them all into a pdf file
that I can send to any of you who may be interested in seeing all of the
replies. I also can provide copies of the Rood (2012) and Yoder (2014)
references cited by Ron Rood on November 10, and five files that were
attached to Minette Church's November 15 response on the CCPA listserve.
 
 
Happy Thanksgiving, 
 
al
 
Allen Dart, RPA, Executive Director (Volunteer)
Old Pueblo Archaeology Center
PO Box 40577
Tucson AZ 85717-0577  USA
         520-798-1201 
          <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] 
          <http://www.oldpueblo.org> www.oldpueblo.org


Disclosure: Old Pueblo Archaeology Center's Executive Director Allen Dart is
a USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service cultural resources specialist
who volunteers his time to Old Pueblo. Views expressed in Old Pueblo
Archaeology Center communications do not necessarily represent views of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture or of the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
From:    [log in to unmask] on behalf of Ron Rood 
[log in to unmask] [UPAC] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent:     Friday, November 11, 2016 12:20 PM
To:          UPAC
Subject:               [UPAC] what we record and why
 
November 10, 2016
UPAC Members,
For a long time I've been thinking about our profession as archaeologists
and specifically - as public archaeologist.  Most of our work in the CRM
industry is ultimately funded by the public and that fact illustrates the
significance of public outreach and education.  I think we're doing an o.k.
job on that but we will always need to do more.  As long as what we do is
significant and important to the public at large, I think our profession
will remain strong.  Right now, I'm not sure the public, and that includes
our clients in the CRM industry, are getting their monies worth.  Frankly, I
think we are spending much time and money on things that overall, are not
important (e.g. Rood 2012).  I also believe we've become overly concerned
with an arbitrary moving target of 50 years driving what we end up recording
(Yoder 2014).  
 
When we are out in the field, we record a lot of sites and isolated finds.
We believe are contributing to the science of trying to better understand
the past - and we are.  The mandate under which we work has us evaluate
sites based on the National Register Criteria.  Some sites meet those
criteria, some do not.   Our whole approach to CRM is based on a simple
template; some sites are important to understand the past and some are not.
Some sites are "eligible" and some are "not eligible."  Some sites may live,
some sites will die!  (maybe a bit dramatic but essentially true). 
 
In some places where we work, professionals have taken this a step further
in making sound and rational decisions that take this simple template one
step further.  Sites can be "eligible" or "not eligible" and there are some
sites that simply offer nothing that will contribute to a better
understanding of the past and for that reason, there is no need to record
them or expend funds recording them.  
 
The costs can be staggering.  Yoder (2014:351) points this out and even
using conservative estimates, an estimate of $2,019,150 was spent between
the years 2000 and 2009 recording historical sites with no features in the
state of Utah.  Most of that was spent recording sites that were not
recommended as eligible to the NRHP.  Did that expenditure of 2 million
dollars contribute to our understanding of Utah's past?  His projections for
the near future are frankly mind-blowing!  Can we seriously justify this
type of expenditure to the public we work for?  If you have not read David
Yoder's piece, I strongly encourage you to do so.  
 
Just to get this out of the way, I am not "anti-historical archaeology." I
would add to the list Wyoming uses some prehistoric resources as well; yes
prehistoric resources...isolated finds, small sites in deflated contexts and
probably others. 
 
In Wyoming, the State and BLM have developed what they call "Defined
non-sites and Property Types requiring no Formal Documentation."  I believe
the Wyoming approach is a good approach and the purpose of my note to UPAC
today is to recommend that UPAC strongly consider adopting a similar
protocol and encourage state and federal agencies in Utah to adopt a similar
approach to Cultural Resource Management work in our state.  The Wyoming
document can be found at  <http://www.wyoshpo.state.wy.us/>
www.wyoshpo.state.wy.us and I have copied it here:  
 
DEFINED NON-SITES AND PROPERTY TYPES REQUIRING
NO FORMAL DOCUMENTATION
The appropriate lead agency cultural resource specialists must review and
approve any
deviation from this list. In most cases, formal documentation of the
property types listed
below is not required. Existence of these defined non-sites and property
types
within the survey area, and justification for their exclusion, must be
discussed in
the project report. If any of these property types exhibit significant
architectural or
engineering features, or are associated with a National Register-eligible
site or district
(either within the boundary, or clearly related to the significance of a
NRHP-eligible site
or district), they should be recorded on a Wyoming Cultural Properties Form.
Professional judgment and common sense should be applied. In general,
Smithsonian
numbers will not be assigned to the following property types:
 
1. Utility lines (i.e., power lines, towers, telephone lines, fiber optic
cable, etc.)
2. Pipelines (i.e., water, gas, etc. This does not include early wooden
pipelines.)
3. Isolated stock dams, troughs, spring boxes, and associated windmills.
4. Elevation, bench, and section markers (i.e. all survey or cadastral
markers).
5. Car banks (i.e., the use of abandoned cars, farm machinery, appliances,
etc. to
stabilize riverbanks, stream banks, or drainages.
6. Rip-rap (i.e., the use of cobbles, rock, or wood to stabilize riverbanks,
stream banks,
or drainages)
7. Isolated abandoned motorized vehicles, appliances, and mobile homes.
8. Fences and exclosures (i.e., barbed wire, chain link, buck-and-pole, or
other types of
pasture fence.) This does not include corrals, roundup or load-out
facilities.
9. Unnamed two-track roads (i.e., ranch roads, seismic roads, etc.). This
will require
standard historic research to determine if the roads are named. Named roads
need to
be formally recorded; generally, unnamed roads do not need to be recorded.
Discuss in
the report the historic research conducted (i.e. GLO check, county records,
historic
maps, etc.)
10. Recent trash (i.e., highway trash, etc.)
11. Producing oil/gas wells and dry hole markers.
12. Water control channels, laterals, spreaders, canals, and ditches that
are not
designated by name on the USGS Topographic maps. (Water records can be found
on
the SEO's website at https://seoweb.wyo.gov/e-Permit/ or in the "tabulation
of
Adjudicated Surface Water Rights of the State of Wyoming: Water Division
Numbers
One-Four.")
13. Samples of defined lithic landscapes. Approval from the lead agency
cultural
resource specialist must be obtained for the cultural resource permittee to
apply this
exclusion.
14. Short-term camps associated with stockgrazing and recreation that
provide no
significant information.
15. Temporary sawmill sites, slash piles, and isolated woodpiles.
16. Prospect pits associated with mineral exploration or mining with no
associated
features, cribbing, and/or less than 50 associated historic artifacts.
17. Roads that have been reconstructed within the last 50 years do not need
to be
recorded. Abandoned segments that are not associated with an eligible road
do not
need to be recorded.
 
I think this topic is important enough to warrant a discussion at the next
UPAC meeting.  The way the wind is blowing there may be a bunch of important
discussions for the next UPAC meeting and we should all be proactive,
thoughtful and serious about the future of publicly funded archaeology. 
 
I commend the movement toward the creation of context documents for the
state of Utah but I don't believe that in itself can address the larger
issues of what we record and why, and the ultimate justification of costs.  
 
I had the opportunity to work with several current undergraduate and
graduate anthropology students this past summer.  It amazed me how smart
these folks are and the cool things they are doing - a lot of it based in
CRM derived data -  for honors theses and MA's and PhD's and the amazing
technology they have to work with.  They'll greatly contribute to the
discipline.  But, while digging, screening and drinking beer after work, the
discussion usually turned to the future of CRM and their future as
archaeologists.  
 
I would like to suggest the UPAC leadership include a discussion on these
topics for the next UPAC business meeting.  I would also like to propose
some draft language for UPAC members to vote encouraging/urging state and
federal agencies in Utah to adopt a protocol similar to that in Wyoming that
would require no further recording of certain property types. 
 
I encourage feedback and thank you for your time.
Ron
 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] 
 
 References
Rood, Ronald J.
            2012       The End of Cultural Resources Management:  Is There
Time to Save It?  Paper Presented
at the 2012 Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Stateline, Nevada 
Yoder, David T.
                2014       Interpreting the 50-Year Rule:  How a Simple
Phrase Leads to a Complex Problem.
Advances in Archaeological Practice 2(4), pp. 324-337.
__._,_.___
  _____  

Posted by: Ron Rood <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >