David Babson wrote:

> Any research design that is used as an excuse to destroy "other"
> archaeological information that a site contains, or may contain, is misused.

We're in agreement so far.

>  I also do not see how "anthropology," included as part of a research
> design, will necessarily lead to "putting on blinders," thus to site
> destruction, lost data, and so
> forth.

Not necessarily, but often enough to be a trend.

> Do anthropological designs usually, often,
> or ever lead to loss of data?

If it focuses on anthropology to the detriment of the info the site has to
offer and if it's applied rigorously and detrimentally, very definitely yes.
Horror stories aren't horror stories by virtue of being mis-named.

> My sneaking suspicion, alluded to elsewhere in these postings, is that the
> horror stories may come out of the general practice of CRM.

Well, yes. Back in the "olden days" academic archaeology had far fewer
practitioners and who were also blissfully ignorant of most of what is now
considered standard CRM practice. Most of them certainly knew it too!

> The one posted by Ned Heite is a case in point--prehistorians had no
> business dealing with that important railroad site; they possessed neither
> the expertise, or, perhaps more importantly, the interest, to deal with it
> as anything other than a disturbance to the information toward which their
> interests had biased them.

One fine summary argument for incompetence. We agree again.

> Yet, it's a human situation--you're the archaeologist for a CRM firm.  You
> have areas of knowledge and ignorance, undoubtedly following
> your professional interests quite closely.  You have to become an "instant
> expert" (excavations start next week, and you have to hire a crew and
> arrange for field logistics) on a site/part of a site/a survey tract where
> your company has landed a contract.  And, there's not enough money to hire
> consultants, or that money comes right out of the budget that pays your
> salary, funds your crews, contributes to company overhead (profits) from
> your division.
>

Here we disagree totally. I cannot see how any reasonably sentient
archaeologist would bid a project about which they knew nothing and blithely
assume they could handle it all. Phase I surveys to locate sites are one
thing. Phase II and III work which focuses on specific sites is quite another.

Underbidding a project based on ignorance of a site is no excuse. Failure to
recognize that one's own expertise may be lacking is no excuse. If there's
enough money to hire a CRM firm in the first place, there's enough money to do
it right. Arrogance and ignorance are the handmaidens of bad CRM.

> Yet, if anything, the SHPOs are worse off than the
> contractors

SHPO staffs may be overworked and under staffed, under funded, and all that,
but that doesn't mean they can't think. The former 106 and the current 106
procedures have interested party participation at the MOA level and it would
be prudent of anyone to bring in expertise before then if needed. Where
there's a top-down, "we're here to tell you what's best for you" style of
management, outside expertise is feared and avoided. Where there's a circular
process involving SHPO, clients, consultants and the occasional outside
expert, the process works a whole lot better.

Lyle