Hear, hear.  Not enough of us are in these positions, yet, and we're too
complacent about our concerns being addressed by the standard regulations.
How about word from some SHPO folks, about how this happens in their state?


At 09:57 AM 8/31/99 -0400, you wrote:
>This discussion is missing a link.  I personally think that the railroad
>berm example and cases like that are not issues of anthropology, not
>anthropology, but poor management on the part of the issuing agency.  Often
>problems in the field are a result of poor upfront project planning and a
>lack of experience or understanding by the point of contact within the
>agency responsible for the archaeological work.  Hence, my past comment,
>reiterated again, about the necessity for better education from historic
>archaeologists about what is important on sites.  I don't know, maybe it is
>just a dream, but someone has to educate fed. employees about the
>fundamental importance of history and our historic resources.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Babson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 6:05 PM
>> To:   [log in to unmask]
>> Subject:      Re: what we do
>>
>> Time for my weekly addition to this thread:
>>
>> I've asked for definitions of anthropology, because I see a problem
>> developing in this argument.  We seem to be advancing a position in which
>> we call anthropological archaeology bad archaeology, because it destroys
>> historic-period archaeological resources, as in the infamous railroad berm
>> example.  This can happen, and has happened; superposition places most
>> historic-period resources above most prehistoric-resources on sites having
>> both components, and, at times, the training, interests and "professional"
>> attitude ("if it ain't rocks, it ain't real") of some prehistorians leads
>> to a cavalier attitude (an overly-charitable description) towards the
>> things they find on top of what they're really interested in.  The fact
>> that a later, contiguous historic occupation can and often does disturb a
>> prehistoric occupation doesn't help.
>>
>> But, I do not see this bad archaeology, this unprofessional behavior, this
>> incompetence as being "anthropological."  The impression arises because
>> prehistorians are, and have been since Binford (er, since Willey and
>> Phillips; I already made that mistake) anthropologists, due to the
>> historical fact that, in America, anthropologists study "other people,"
>> and
>> the Native Americans displaced by European-, African- and Asian-Americans
>> over the past 500 years fit this definition quite closely.  Us Euros see
>> our heritage coming from Athens, Rome, London, not Cahokia, Tenotichlan,
>> Cuzco, etc.  Thus, prehistorians are anthropologists, and we are not, only
>> if we see anthropologists as studying "others," and if we see anthropology
>> as having little relevance to our desire to understand ourselves (our
>> history, our archaeology) more completely.
>>
>> I would still maintain that we are anthropologists, if we ask
>> anthropological questions.  There's also a thread here that denigrates
>> these questions as irrelevant, especially as being overly-concerned with
>> domestic sites.  Again, this is a question of practice, not of a
>> fundamental flaw in research design.  This time, the practice comes out of
>> the training, publication history, and, perhaps, the "usual site" in
>> historical archaeology as it has been undertaken in the U.S. since
>> Jamestown and Williamsburg.  We are trained on domestic sites, we know
>> domestic material culture, and we encounter domestic sites more often than
>> not (I'm out on a limb here, which someone may saw off--with data,
>> please),
>> especially in CRM.  So, we can write our own historical-archaeology horror
>> stories, such as that about the archaeologists at the millrace who
>> discovered that water flows downhill.
>>
>> I agree with the posting(s) from an earlier week which argued that
>> anthropological questions and research design can be applied in any sort,
>> or on any part, of a site.  It is obvious that you will not understand,
>> and
>> you will misinterpret, a blast furnace site if you know so little about
>> the
>> stack, charcoal burners, trip-hammer mill, races, etc. that you regard
>> them
>> as "ancillary structures."  You will also misinterpret this site if you
>> ignore the workers' housing for fear of some sort of over-concentration on
>> the domestic areas of the site.  The anthropological questions that can be
>> addressed from the information that the site contains can only be
>> addressed
>> by studying, by asking such questions, of the whole site, and all it's
>> resources.
>>
>> To me, that's both anthropology, and good archaeology.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 06:47 AM 8/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Lyle Browning wrote:
>> >
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> >Phase I is the critical level, requiring the broadest knowledge and the
>> >deepest experience. Phase I survey identifies sites and assigns them a
>> >potential significance. To cite David Babson's example, a curious linear
>> >feature with cinders found in a Phase I will never be examined if Phase I
>> >investigator writes it off.
>> >
>> >Therefore, I firmly believe that Phase I should never be assigned to
>> anyone
>> >but the most experienced investigator, who has a unique opportunity to
>> set
>> >the direction of future work.
>> >
>> >Phase I is (or should be) the exciting stuff, where we explore local
>> >history, look at the anomalies, and survey the whole historical/cultural
>> >landscape. I much prefer to do a Phase I.
>> >
>> >As I have said before, an archaeologist is a generalist or he is nothing.
>> >
>> >  Ned Heite           _(____)_   http:
>> >  Heite Consulting   /Baby '69|  //home.
>> >  Camden      _===__/88" Land || dmv.com
>> >  Delaware   | ___  Rover___  || /~eheite
>> >           o||| . \_____/ . \_|
>> > _____________ \_/_______\_/___________
>> >
>