No abstract

Four current approaches to assessing archaeological significance in contract archaeology are reviewed. It is argued that three of these approaches are inadequate bases for assessing significance. Explicit, problem-oriented research designs seem to provide the most promising approach to the problem of archaeological significance.

The recent research activity of contract archaeology is reviewed from the perspective of research design and its essential features. Some of the difficulties currently encountered in contract research are attributed to vague notions of research design, lack of general models and methods in the science of archaeology, and ineffective research organizations. It is argued that American contract research offers an unprecedented opportunity to test theories of human behavior, provided the profession can make the necessary organizational shifts in research orientation and structure. Some examples of various applied research designs are examined to indicate the kinds of successful adaptations being made in the contract sphere, as well as outright scientific contributions to the discipline. We conclude that contract archaeology has already provided at least three benefits to the profession (1) by forcing researchers to cope theoretically and methodologically with heretofore unexplored and unexplained archaeological remains, (2) by promoting a scientific merging of historical and prehistoric archaeology, and (3) by stimulating archaeologists to probe the resource base in new and explicit ways for all possible dimensions of significance.

T h e client-oriented approach to contract archaeology is a technical service rather than genuine scientific research. Such a n approach f a i k to meet the requirements of the law, f a i k to satkfy the needs of archaeological science, and frequently fails to Protect the client i interests. A ANTHROPOLOGISTSARE AWARE THAT ARCHAEOLOGY in the United States is booming because of a demand for archaeological involvement in environmental-impact studies. It is less apparent, perhaps, that that demand has created conflicting private, professional, and public interests (Holden 1977;Wendorf 1979). Client-oriented archaeology (Fitting 1978) is an instructive case in point. Examination of the client-oriented (CO) approach, its causes and consequences, raises important questions about professionalism, standards of scientific performance, ethics, and the role of anthropology and archaeology in public policymaking. CLIENT-ORIENTED ARCHAEOLOGYCO studies can be distinguished by their emphasis on providing a technical as opposed to a research service. The statutes and directives under which most contract work is done require that federal agencies and federally assisted projects determine the existence of archaeological remains in a proposed project area, determine the probable impacts of the project on these resources, assess the significance of the affected resources according to the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, and provide recommendations regarding the disposition of archaeological remains on the basis of the assembled facts and interpretations. Major preservation statutes include the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requiring that archaeological remains be considered in making environmental-impact statements; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, requiring that archaeological resources deemed eligible for the National Register be given consideration in planning; Executive Order 11593, requiring all federal lands to be inventoried for archaeological remains; and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, establishing a mechanism for salvaging archaeological remains threatened Raab, Klinger, Schiffer, and Goodyear] CLIENT ARCHAEOLOGY 54 1 by federally supported projects. This list is only part of a complex body of law and policy that has come to control the management of archaeological remains in the public domain (see King, Hickman, and Berg 1977:199-302 for a compilation of pertinent laws). In practice, however, there is great latitude in how legal requirements may actually be met. The statutes are silent as to the professional or scientific standards that may be employed to fulfill management information needs. Procedures of federal agencies are often more specific (e.g., King and Lyneis 1978:879), but it is frequently possible to approach contract archaeology either in a relatively technical way or as a genuine research service. A brief discussion of the two approaches may clarify this important distinction.From a superficial interpretation of the law and arc...

No abstract