Ian and Histarchers,




These are all excellent questions, and I think Lucy’s descriptionof methods reflects what little I know about the practice, too.  There seems to be very little standardizationor even discussion of it, because it's comparatively new.  I don’t know the archaeological institutions’(SHA, RPA, SAA, ACRA, etc.) take on it; I have not seen them formally addressit.  





I learned about it when a THPO that we are collaborating with requested it.  Our SHPO informed us that it occasionally happens in California (any California HISTARCHers out there experiencedthis?), and Nevada SHPO approved it for my two projects.  Both were testing large, predominately 19th/20th-century sites (a hospital and a school) with very low-density lithic scatters. The THPO requested that we rebury lithics and flaked glass. We cleaned, cataloged and photographed (and sometimes illustrated) those materials (only about 10-20 artifacts per project) in the field lab, and then returned them to the units from which they were excavated, photographing them again in the bottom of the test units, in the datum corners. 


 

It sounds like a practice that is on the rise, and it wouldbe good to know more about it.  I imagine the methods and repercussions would vary depending on project phase, research design, period of the site, and stakeholders' input among others considerations.  I hopeothers might offer some references (gray literature or otherwise) for projectsthat have done this.

 

Best regards,

Sarah




Sarah E.Cowie
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
University of Nevada, Reno
1664 N. Virginia Street, MS 0096
Reno, Nevada 89557-0096
Office: 775-682-7524
http://www.unr.edu/anthropology/people/faculty/sarah-e-cowie


      On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:05 AM, Lucy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
   

 Hi Ian--

There has been some discussion at the SHPO level about instituting this practice in FL.  It was brought up at a SHPO--CRM community meeting.  This is what I gather from the discussion.
1.    It is largely due to the curation problem, but also a response to concerns of the Tribes.
2.     The archaeologists rebury after examination in the field--in the location where found presumably thus resulting in minimal     additional disturbance.  (I have huge problems with this:  A.  Can't get weights unless you're hauling a scale around while you dig     shovel tests.  B.  Artifacts not clean, so details may not be clear.  C.  No comparative data either in terms of type collections or     reference books.  D.  Not all crew/staff are familiar enough with material to properly classify--some have expertise in only one or     two types of material and newbies often know little about any of it.  E.  Don't have it to look at again when writing reports.      Seems to me huge potential for misclassification and poor analysis.)
3.    I think surface collections are to be treated similarly--analyzed in place and left (leaving lots for pothunters to collect). 
4.    Location would be documented in the field notes.  But since curation issue is apparently the impetus, I assume there are no plans     for future recovery.
5.    Hopefully this is just intended for Phase I surveys, but no one really said.
6.    ALL artifacts!
7.    No standards have been established, since it is so far just in discussion stage--at least I hope that's the case.

Personally, I think retirement is starting to look better all the time :-).

Lucy Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ian Burrow
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 11:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Catch-and-Release Archaeology

In response to Ashley Long's post, can anyone provide a little more information on this practice, which I am not familiar with. I appreciate her extensive reference list, but I'm hoping to get a quick, but a bit more detailed, overview of the matter.  I have several immediate questions:

What is the purpose behind reburying the artifacts?  Is it to address the curation problem?  Is it an accommodation to local community sentiment?
Who does the reburying, and where?
Is the area for reburial exactly the same as the recovery area?  How are extensive surface collections handled?
How is additional disturbance of archaeological resources avoided during the reburial?
Is the location of the reburying documented so that the artifacts can be recovered in future if necessary?
Is this just done for identification (Phase I) surveys, where more detailed work is anticipated in the same area in the future, or is it for all types of investigation?
Artifacts "such as lithics": what else?  All artifacts?
Are there agreed minimal recording standards? What are they, and agreed by whom?
How does this practice interface with SAA, SHA, ACRA, and RPA ethical and professional standards?


Ian Burrow, Ph.D. ,  Registered Professional Archaeologist Vice President, Hunter Research Inc.
Historical Resource Consultants
120 West State Street
Trenton, Nj 08608-1185
www.hunterresearch.com
609-695-0122 xtn 102
Fax 609-695-0147
Mobile: 609-462-2363
[log in to unmask]
(Past-President, Register of Professional Archaeologists; Past-President, American Cultural Resources Association)





-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ashley Long
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 10:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Catch-and-Release Archaeology

Hello everyone,

My name is Ashley Long, and I am a graduate student in archaeology at the University of Nevada, Reno. I have been working with Dr. Sarah Cowie and local tribal members and organizations on a collaborative archaeology project, and am extending this to some of my coursework. I am currently working on a paper reviewing the shift towards "catch and release"
archaeology in CRM today, where artifacts such as lithics are reburied at the sites as soon as possible.  This involves minimal recording in the
field and precludes more in-depth analyses like sourcing.  There are
certainly trade-offs for this practice.  My particular interest is in how these methods are changing the relationships between archaeologists and local communities.

Does anyone know of any other published or gray literature that addresses this practice? From what I understand it happens occasionally in California and is becoming more common in Nevada.

Any references or keywords you can point me toward would be most appreciated, as would any additional contacts that you think might help.

Here is a list of what I have found so far:

Gonzalez, Sara L. and Darren Modzelewski, Lee M. Panich, and Tsim D.
Schneider

2006 Archaeology for the Seventh Generation. *American Indian Quarterly*
30(3/4): 388-415



Lightfoot, Kent G., Rob Q. Cuthrell, Chuck J. Striplen, and Mark G. Hylkema

2013 Rethinking the Study of Landscape Management: Practices Among Hunter-Gatherers in North America. *American Antiquity* 78(2).



Maldonado, Doris Julissa

2011 *Reconfiguring Archaeological Practice: Lessons from Currust , Honduras*. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.



Modzelewski, Darren and Sara Gonzalez.

2007 Creating Trails Through Traditions: An Update on the Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail, Fort Ross State Historic Park. *Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 20: 23-26.*



Todd, L.C. and P.C. Burnett

2003 Archaeological Catch and Release: Expanding Data Capture for Archaeological Catch and Release: Expanding Data Capture for Non-Collection Survey. Poster Presented at the 61st Plains Anthropological Conference.



Voss, Barbara L.

2012 Curation as Research: A Case Study in Orphaned and Underreported Archaeological Collections.  *Archaeological Dialogues* 19(2): 145-169.



Best,

Ashley M. Long

Graduate Student

Department of Anthropology

University of Nevada, Reno

http://www.unr.edu/anthropology/people/graduate-students/ashley-long