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]>
      Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists:  Greg Williams <[log in to unmask]>
      Historical Archaeology:  <[log in to unmask]>
      New Mexico Archaeological Council:  David Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
      Utah Professional Archaeological Council:  <[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


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: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:20 PM
To: UPAC <[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: Ron Rood <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > 
  _____  


 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/UPAC/conversations/messages/2395;_ylc=X3oDMTJwY2lwbmRnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzE4MDIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQyNTA1BG1zZ0lkAzIzOTUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxNDc4ODkxOTcz?act=reply&messageNum=2395> Reply via web post 
•
 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Reply to sender 
•
 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Reply to group 
•
 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/UPAC/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZG9xbW5yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzE4MDIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQyNTA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQ3ODg5MTk3Mw--> Start a New Topic 
•
 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/UPAC/conversations/topics/2395;_ylc=X3oDMTM0Nzc3OHFmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzE4MDIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQyNTA1BG1zZ0lkAzIzOTUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNDc4ODkxOTczBHRwY0lkAzIzOTU-> Messages in this topic (1) 
  _____  

  <https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON> 
 <https://yho.com/1wwmgg> Have you tried the highest rated email app? 
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
  _____  

 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/UPAC/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXF2MjcyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzE4MDIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQyNTA1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQ3ODg5MTk3Mw--> Visit Your Group 
 <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdmlkaHJzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIxNzE4MDIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQyNTA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDc4ODkxOTcz> 
•  <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 



.
  <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2171802/grpspId=1705942505/msgId=2395/stime=1478891973> 
  <http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=10001310322279&js=no&resp=img&cf12=CP> 
__,_._,___