Dr. Deni J. Seymour asked me to forward her email below to the lists in my “To:” line.
Allen Dart, RPA, Executive Director (Volunteer)
Old Pueblo Archaeology Center
PO Box 40577
Tucson AZ 85717-0577 USA
520-798-1201
[log in to unmask]
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] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [AAC-L] RE: [UPAC] what we record and why
I strongly disagree with Mr Rood's suggestion. While I understand his point (having practiced CRM in the private, federal, and state sectors for a long time), there are several issues that intersect with this topic that must be considered.
First, we have not yet defined all of the culture groups that made up the prehistoric and historic past and therefore we cannot dismiss sites, isolates, etc that we cannot know fit into as yet undefined categories. Case in point, I have spent the last many of years defining "new" "protohistoric" and historic culture groups. My latest was defining the Jocome, a non-Apache mobile group noted by 17th-18th century Europeans as being present but invisible until last year (Seymour 2016). Many of the sites now attributable to this group were or would be collapsed into other groups, considered deflated, recorded as isolates, and so no. Importantly these attributes that allow sites to be devalued by archaeologists and agencies are characteristic of this period and this type of adaptation, which is why I have argued that we must accept these sites on their own terms and figure out ways to extract and value the information content they do have (Seymour 2010). We are just now defining many of these groups and there is a long way to go (Seymour 2016).
Mr Rood's suggestion is based on the assumption that the record is redundant, fully defined, and not nuanced at all. Moreover, the practice in each state of keeping outside archaeologists out through the permitting and review process that is biased toward locals (hometowning) only exacerbates this problem by not allowing new ideas and perspectives in, even ignoring new types of evidence because they are not standard or recognized locally, or because they contradict the findings of a locally respected practitioner or make the agency's job more difficult. These CRM worlds become small and insular and so it is no wonder we generally think we are at the point where new resources can be dismissed and that we have sucked the orange dry (e.g., Kidder).
There are a number of other issues but the only other one I will mention here is our use and understanding of the issue of what is diagnostic. We must reconsider what constitutes diagnostic because many sites that are recorded as existing without temporal and cultural affiliation are actually dateable (another relevant topic) and attributable to culture group using different techniques (luminescence dating) and using different considerations than are the norm (Seymour 2010, 2016, etc). For example, flaking attributes and style are highly diagnostic in the periods I study, within-site differences in patenation can be telling, feature morphology, landscape selection, and a range of other aspects of sites and artifacts have temporally and culturally diagnostic information that is not being tapped (and not consistently considered) by the majority of field archaeologists. In many instances CRM has become formulaic in its implementation and assessment and only when we break this mold will we realize the full value of what we see and record and only then will we see to record the myriad of light footprint manifestations that contribute to a rich, complex, and dynamic record of past human landscape use.
So Mr Rood's assumption is based on the premise that we know and understand the full universe of site types and culture groups we are tasked with recording and evaluating. Because the groups I am defining are in the historic record and have only recently been defined or still have yet to be defined, and certainly are not recognized or understood by the vast majority of field archaeologists, it is premature to dismiss them without even recording them or without further consideration. We are expecting some of the ancestral Apache to have gone through Utah and Wyoming, and as of yet, these ancestral sites have not been recognized and they are going to be precisely the types of sites that would be dismissed. I just spent the past three years revisiting sites that were either blown off, recorded as something else, or situated in highly deflated contexts that turned out to be stellar examples of protohistoric sites or components. I resurveyed areas where no sites were recorded and in the process found Apache, Jocome, and Sobaipuri sites, including in one stretch where I identified a dozen new sites from this period in a 1-mile stretch of previously surveyed land. Some of the previously recorded sites with "no additional information value" were "fully collected" but not really, others were evaluated as possessing no dateable material (no buried cultural deposits) but I found burned rock indicative of single-use features typical of these groups, evidence of multiple components, recurring use, and so on.
I suggest that instead of degrading the record we record how about adding training and cross fertilization between regions that increases the types of information recorded about these finds and sites so that their residual information value can be tapped. We are quite set in our ways about what constitutes and does not constitute information of relevance and significance and also how much information is recorded by the field archaeologist when the consider the recording sufficient to evaluate. I have worked in Wyoming, Utah, and adjacent states and implementation of their evaluation criteria differ substantially from those we use in the southern Southwest and elsewhere. In fact, each state, and each region and agency within each state use different recording and evaluation approaches, which means that by tweaking these we might actually realize the greater value and potential of these sites rather than writing them off.
I could say more but I am still on my first cup of coffee so I will leave it here.
2010 Contextual Incongruities, Statistical Outliers, and Anomalies: Targeting Inconspicuous Occupational Events. American Antiquity 75(1):158–176.
2016 Defining the Jocome and Their “Gifts of Little Value”. Kiva 82(2):137-172.
2016 2016 Fierce and Indomitable: The Protohistoric Non-Pueblo World in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2017 Perceiving the Protohistoric: When Weak Signatures Represent the Strongest Cases. Chapter 11 in The Strong Case Approach in Behavioral Archaeology, edited by M.B. Schiffer, C.R. Riggs, and J.J. Reid. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Go here for copies of the articles: https://independent.academia.edu/DeniSeymour
Deni
Deni Seymour, PHD
-----Original Message-----
From: 'Al Dart' [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [AAC-L] <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
To: UPAC <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Cc: Arizona Archaeological Council <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >; 'NM Archaeological Council' <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >; Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >; HISTARCH <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Sent: Mon, Nov 14, 2016 9:04 pm
Subject: [AAC-L] RE: [UPAC] what we record and why
I am copying Ron Rood’s Utah Professional Archaeological Council post below to other professional archaeology listserves in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, and to the Historical Archaeology list, to seek comments from archaeologists in the Southwest and beyond about Ron’s suggestion that we waste too much time and money recording and writing about historical archaeological sites and features that have no potential to contribute to a better understanding of the past. If any of you would like to contribute your opinions and are not currently a member of all of these listserves, I encourage you to become a member of each before replying (see below*) and to post your opinion to all of the lists so we can broaden this discussion.
Personally, I agree with Ron that we waste huge amounts of time and money recording and writing about the kinds of “non-sites and property types” that the Wyoming SHPO and BLM suggest should require no formal documentation because, in my opinion, these property types have no potential for meeting our most basic guidelines for being significant, i.e., National Register eligibility. Spending time recording them and, in some cases, insisting that they be avoided by ground-disturbing practices or subjected to archaeological mitigation reduces our credibility to members of the public who wonder why their tax dollars have to be spent on such frivolities.
I don’t necessarily agree with Ron’s suggestion that we also shouldn’t have to record prehistoric isolated finds and small sites in deflated contexts, because even a single diagnostic artifact (e.g., a prehistoric projectile point) can be used to identify the extremely rare locations that were utilized during the Paleoindian and, in southern Arizona, protohistoric (post-Hohokam) periods. If we don’t at least thoroughly examine scatters of prehistoric artifacts – especially flaked stone scatters – we risk missing evidence of those occupations regardless of whether the sites may be determined ineligible for the Register.
* I believe these are the current email addresses to contact for inclusion in or removal from the lists cited above:
Arizona Archaeological Council: Walter Duering <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists: Greg Williams <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Historical Archaeology: <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
New Mexico Archaeological Council: David Phillips <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Utah Professional Archaeological Council: <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
Regards,
Allen Dart, RPA, Executive Director (Volunteer)
Old Pueblo Archaeology Center
PO Box 40577
Tucson AZ 85717-0577 USA
520-798-1201
[log in to unmask]
www.oldpueblo.org <http://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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:20 PM
To: UPAC <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
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 www.wyoshpo.state.wy.us <http://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
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
_____
Community email addresses:
Post message: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subscribe: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Unsubscribe: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Link to AAC-L Home Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAC-L
Link to AAC Home Page:
http://www.arizonaarchaeologicalcouncil.org/
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97476590/grpId=361641/grpspId=1705942505/msgId=8475/stime=1479315849>
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AAC-L/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbGV1ZWVwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM2MTY0MQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU5NDI1MDUEc2VjA3Z0bARzbGsDdmdocARzdGltZQMxNDc5MzE1ODQ5> Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJjN252N2pwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzM2MTY0MQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDU5NDI1MDUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDZ2ZwBHN0aW1lAzE0NzkzMTU4NDk->
• <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy • <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Unsubscribe • <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of Use
__,_._,___
|
