I left such a CRM firm last summer after ten long years for similar reasons
(along with lack of benefits and low pay).  Cross-trained as an
archaeologist and historian, I believe the root of this evil springs from
greedy CRM employers who like to trim the fat (history) so to speak, and the
old standard of the Secretary of the Interior's recommendations for
qualification which required a Masters degree for archaeologists, but only
an undergraduate degree for qualified historians. The firm I left depends on
a late-19th century vanity work with biographies added for a price,
"Goodspeed's Histories" for all historical background and never rises above
broad, general statements even when working a historic site.  And, the
problem is compounded because those reviewing the work for the taxpayers
rarely have any historical training either and will accept just about
anything as "history" no matter what the source or the reason the source was
written.  To make a long story short:):):), I had to bite my tongue for ten
years and the damn firm drove me crazy every time they released a report.  I
finally gave up and left, no longer wishing my name to be attached to such
Tom-foolery, hung out my own shingle, resolved to the possibility that I may
have wasted ten years of my life on crapola:)

Life is so much easier now:)

Dan Allen
Middle Tennessee State University
Cumberland Research Group, Inc.





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Heite" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:39 AM
Subject: Just the facts revisited


> As one who originally trained as an historian, I am frequently
> appalled at the way CRM archaeologists mistreat the historical
> evidence.
>
> You see them every rainy day at the state archives.  Some kid without
> a clue is sent by the field director to "look up" the site history at
> the state archives.  Historical background is what you do when you
> can't do fieldwork.  Inevitably, if I'm in the building, some
> frustrated archivist will come to me and ask what's going on with all
> these dumb questions and stupid misinterpretations.
>
> Historical research connected to archaeological investigations is a
> specialized branch of the history profession, which is unfortunately
> opaque to most trained historians, to say nothing of trained
> archaeologists.  History departments can't teach it, because college
> history departments are largely populated by a bunch of academics who
> wouldn't distinguish a probate inventory from a first and final
> account. The kids simply don't come out of college knowing how to do
> the particularistic research we need.  Having tried to hire this work
> done, I have largely given up.
>
> Moreover, the CRM industry has never been able to assimilate
> historians into the largely archaeological and anthropological upper
> echelons of the pecking order.
>
> In the first place, historical research should not be merely the
> background to the dig. It is part of the mosaic that the PI must
> eventually put together, and it requires no less skill and training
> than, say, faunal analysis or flotation.  You can't send the field
> crew to do the background on rainy days, but lots and lots of firms
> do exactly that.
>
> In the second place, a researcher must be well-versed in the local
> political and social conditions, in order to understand the
> conditions that created the document he is examining. Not
> infrequently, CRM firms will send their historians to write the
> background history for places they can't even pronounce.  You just
> can't leap from state to state and expect to understand the nuances
> of local history. Heck, it's sometimes difficult to change counties.
>
>
> --
> [log in to unmask]
>