Seems to me that there was a turning point in the history of contract
archaeology, when the money started flowing.
 
There have been contracts here and there, I am sure, since Pitt-Rivers
hired his first shoveller. The River Basin model, and a few enlightened
states, allowed universities and museums to fund "digs" that met their own
research needs. If an important site was threatened, some university type
would bring some students and maybe the sponsor would pay for arrangements.
Amateur societies helped, too.
 
Then came the money. Maybe the watershed was 1974, when construction money
was actually set aside for archaeology in the law. Executive Order 11593
woke up some federal agencies.
 
But it was the advent of filthy lucre that changed contract archaeology.
 
Before that turning point, contracts responded to research needs and
resource conservation needs. Today, we too frequently do our thing because
the law requires a survey, or because there is money for testing, or
because the agency just wants to check off the "archaeology" box on the
project implementation checklist.
 
The nature of archaeology has changed. While we do lip service to the idea
of research design, regional research questions, and all the other
trappings of academic archaeology, we are in fact in the business of
providing "clearance" for somebody to build a wharf or a sewer line.
 
Success in this business is not measured by published monographs, but by
fees from an accumulation of developers and other permit-seekers. We are no
longer in the business of scholarship, so much as we are traders in the
commodity of regulatory compliance.
 
This isn't bad. Graveyards are being moved in a much more civilized way. We
have preserved vast quantities of raw data. Important sites are being
documented that would have been swept away. The Boston special issue of the
SHA journal that arrived yesterday is a stellar example of contract
archaeology contributing to civilization at its best.
 
The Delaware Route 1 project (my bread and butter for years) has encouraged
real innovation, but not because of compliance. The DelDOT program is such
a success because the SHPO insisted on quality, and the state agency had no
choice but to comply. When it became apparent that they would be required
to comply, they resolved to do a really great job of it. The DelDOT program
is one of the success stories that have resulted from the regulatory
programs.
 
I'm not complaining about the coercion or the money. But with money comes
waste, and with government waste comes a political backlash. Dan Mouer is
right.
 
We have licked the all-day sucker.
 
Someday the pipeline companies are going to notice that they have paid for
zillions of pointless interval test pits. Someday a politician looking for
budget cuts will notice a state curation facility. The bad dreams go on.
 
There has been too much pointless survey mandated not by research needs and
legitimate archaeological concerns, but by the need to punch another item
on the punch list. Too much of the basis for contract archaeology is a
house of cards that will collapse, destroying with it the legitimate
archaeological concerns. The coming recession, which will tighten
everyone's purse strings, will undoubtedly lead the private developers to
look at ways to change the rules to eliminate costs. It is my fear that
archaeological and environmental regulations will be the first victims of
this belt-tightening.
 
 
    _____
___(_____)                When all is said and done,
|Baby the\                there is too frequently
|1969 Land\_===__         more said than done.
   ___Rover   ___|o
|_/ . \______/ .  ||
 __\_/________\_/________________________________________________
Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html