I am sure that archeologists who meet all non geographically specific
qualifications requirements have been denied BLM use authorizations
based on lack of regional experience.  In fact some of the
authorizations issued specify limited geographic regions.  I will, I am
sure, regret disagreeing with my good friend Bill White about the ethics
of working in an area without previous experience.  I think there is an
upside in having archeologists without previous local experience work in
an unfamiliar area.  There can be great advantage in bringing a
different geographic, theoretical, practical or applied perspective.
Having had to "break-in" to a new area myself a couple of times in my
career, I know how much work it can be to get one's bearings.  Not too
long ago I was called to work as an archeologist in a wildfire in
California.  I was definitely challenged by working in a different
region and may not have done as good a job as some others who had
regional experience, but because I have "fire" experience there was some
expectation that this was more important than geographic experience.  I
think this could be the case for other applied contexts-knowledge of the
application outweighing geographic knowledge.  Over the years I have
felt part of the job of government archeologists (and I include SHPOs)
is to help the archeologists doing the research to do a better job.
That can be help with geographic knowledge, or the particular research
questions that are current in an area.  Even though my academic
credentials may be challenged, I thought I learned in school that the
basic methodology and theory of doing archeology applied anywhere.  If
we clear the fog of territoriality and monopoly economics don't you
think that a competent archeologist can be competent anywhere? I sure
hope so, because someday I might want the challenge in working in a
different region because of an interest in a theoretical or applied
question or just the excitement of a different perspective. -Mark
Mark Henderson
Ely, Nevada

William White wrote:

> List:
>
>
>
> I am not aware of any person or firm being denied a BLM permit based on
> a lack of regional knowledge or experience.  However, I am aware of a
> few out of state CRM contractors that have worked in the southern Nevada
> region, for example, and ended up in trouble with the state SHPO and
> BLM.  Not because of bad archaeology, but simply because they did not
> understand the cultural history, historic contexts, and the nature of
> the archaeological sites found in the region.  What is important to a
> local archaeologist in addressing regional, state, or local problem
> domains may not be important to an out of state contractor, or
> just simply unaware of significant issues.  Although the methodologies
> we practice are relative consist within the profession, our knowledge of
> a particular area/region is limited to our specific interests.  And
> rightly so, or why else would we be called "experts."  Based on my
> experience and knowledge (limited as it might be) of the Great Basin,
> I wouldn't feel comfortable about nor would I pursue a contract in the
> mid-West or the Eastern states, simply because the learning curve would
> be too great both in time and costs.  This concern can be seen expressed
> in job announcements - "seeking an archaeologist with Southeastern
> experience", for example.  Regional knowledge and experience may not be
> a stated qualifier in the Federal guidelines, but I think it is a valid
> concern by local BLM officials issuing the permit, and it certainly
> should be a concern of a project proponent who has to pay the bill.  I
> also believe it good business sense not to work on projects outside your
> area of experience; isn't there something in the ethics about this
> topic?   Just some thoughts.........