Optimizing Strategies for Evaluating Archaeological Significance

Moratto, Michael J.; Kelly, Roger E.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-003101-6.50007-x

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Through the 1970s there was a great deal of debate and discussion, especially in the pages of American antiquity , on exactly this issue of ‘significance’. Raab and Klinger (1977) suggested that in determining significance archaeologists should assess the contribution of the material heritage to explicit problem-oriented research designs, and make these assessments prior to the determination of the financial burden or investment possibilities of the archaeological material (ibid., 631; see also Moratto and Kelly 1978, 18; Glassow 1985). Adding to this, Glassow (1977) and Sharrock and Grayson (1979) argued that future research designs should also be included in significance determinations, since resource management understands resources to be limited and therefore in need of preservation for the future.…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 97%

Value and significance in archaeology

Samuels¹

2008

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of value increasingly fills archaeological debates. An examination of how value works within the diverse practices of archaeology (reconstructions of the past, heritage management and self-reflexive critique) provides an integrating factor to these debates. Through a genealogy of value in the management of material heritage, I highlight how 'significance' has been institutionalized from contingent forms, and the 'the past' rendered an object. Moreover, I follow the translation of these management procedures from the national to the global stage to highlight the emergence of economic significance in international heritage management. Providing an alternative approach to significance, the anthropological work of Weiner and Graeber locates value within practices that manage material heritage. These theories provocatively suggest that archaeological practice and heritage management are one and the same, both capable of producing value. This requires archaeologists to reconsider their discipline, and the contemporary contexts and situated ethical conditions of their work.

show abstract

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 97%

Value and significance in archaeology

Samuels¹

2008

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One important example of how problem-oriented research can be augmented and improved is the recommendation that archaeologists move away from the lone wolf and elitist tradition of scholarship by developing research designs that incorporate elements such as: a. A commitment to research at a regional level (Moratto and Kelly 1978;Schiffer and Gumerman 1977b).…”

Section: Explicit Problem-orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What is significant is not legislated in precise terms (Moratto and Kelly 1978). Much of the concern expressed in the literature focuses on the resourceful application of the latest theories, methods and techniques within the constraints of time and funding (Lipe 1984).…”

Section: Innovative Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography

Briuer¹,

Mathers²

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a contract student at WES, contributed significantly to this work as a research assistant, compiling annotated citations, preparing graphs and tables, and resolving a variety of technical problems. Mr. Hebler's participation in the project has provided him with the opportunity to develop ideas and research experience that relate directly to his Master's thesis on archaeological resource management at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. Research assistance in collecting sources and compiling annotations was also provided by Mr. Evan Peacock at Mississippi State University and Mrs. Natalie Maillho at Tulane University. Mr. David Redd, an anthropology student at the University of Southern Mississippi, worked closely with the authors to proof the manuscript and assist in general editing and clerical tasks in the final stages of writing. We would also like to extend our thanks to Mr. Richard Waldbauer and Ms. Beth Savage at the Archaeological Assistance Division of the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., for their help in supplying information concerning various National Register Bulletins.

show abstract

“…Contract archaeologists increasingly recognize the problematic nature of archaeological significance (Raab and Klinger 1977;Moratto and Kelly 1978;King and Lyneis 1978:878-879;Goodyear, Raab, and Klinger 1978:168). Assessment of significance is required by law and directly determines the disposition of threatened resources.…”

Section: Archaeological Criteria Of Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Clients, Contracts, and Profits: Conflicts in Public Archaeology

Raab¹,

Schiffer²,

Klinger³

et al. 1980

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Optimizing Strategies for Evaluating Archaeological Significance

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Value and significance in archaeology

Value and significance in archaeology

Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography

Clients, Contracts, and Profits: Conflicts in Public Archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About