In the contract world, ineligible sites are obliterated normally so the artifacts are the only record of them having existed. One needs to do statistics on the number of "write-off" sites versus those recommended for Phase II (again leaving aside those semantic issues). Therefore, it is essential that identification wherever done, be done accurately. In-field examination is fine, except that washing isn't typically accomplished there (leaving aside the issues of whether to wash or not to wash in some areas). In-field cataloging is now possible due to electronic devices, provided it's accurate.
Or do we bring them back to the lab, wash/process/analyze them and then dump them back into a hole in the site or do we put them back into the STU from whence they came or what?
No contract archaeologist has anything to do with selling artifacts as that is absolutely verboten by ethical standards. Period.
As a practical aside, catch and release is a response to "what do we do with no storage space" problems. 30 years ago the Brits were proposing to bag entire artifact assemblages and to bury them in designated archaeological landfills as the repositories were then bulging. Nowadays, the SHPO storage facilities I've dealt with seem also full to bulging and cost is always a factor in storage.
So back to what happens to the site is to me the issue. If it is to be preserved, or whether it is to be obliterated, those are the bifurcating path. And that leaves entirely out of the discussion the possibilities that scientific analysis of those artifacts at some later date when funding or opportunity allows. One lives in hope that some benighted soul with a PXRF machine will see an opportunity.
Lyle Browning, RPA
On Nov 7, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Carol McDavid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.
|
