• What's New?
• About SAA
• Careers, Opportunities,
  & Jobs in Archaeology
• Education
  • Archaeology for the Public
• Government Affairs
  • Repatriation
• Meetings
• Membership
  • Members' Section
• Publications
  • The SAA Press
• Public Relations
• SAA Marketplace

Final Report of the Task Force on Renewing Our National Archaeological Program

Renewing the National Archaeological Program: Final Report of Accomplishments

A Report to the Board of the Society for American Archaeology from the Task Force Chair

Francis P. McManamon
National Park Service

December 2000

Background and Introduction

In the mid-1990s, political conditions in the United States led archaeologists to consider how the public administration of archaeology and other cultural resource management programs was being conducted. Conservative political proponents threatened to eliminate or reduce the enforcement of laws and regulations protecting archaeological resources and requiring the consideration of these resources in the planning and execution of public projects (Lipe 1995). Other related issues also receiving attention at this time included the relationship between archaeologists and archaeological research and Native Americans and the relationship between academic archaeological programs and the practice of archaeology as part of public development and resource management programs.

At the 1995 annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), a panel discussion was held to consider these issues. Representatives from the various major perspectives within the disciplineCacademic, private consulting, government, and Native American settingsCparticipated and identified a number of concerns and trends in the field (Cameron and Anyon 1995).

One of the means of pursuing the ideas and issues raised at the 1995 panel discussion and of addressing concerns raised by the national political developments was a small conference held in 1996, hosted by the Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University and sponsored by the SAA and the Society of Professional Archeologists (SOPA) and funded in part by the National Park Service (NPS). The conference participants developed a set of recommendations aimed at "Renewing Our National Archaeological Program." These recommendations identified actions that would be effective in dealing with the administrative, policy, and political developments facing the discipline of archaeology.

The recommendations were the subject of an open forum held at the 1996 SAA Annual Meeting in New Orleans. The report of the conference and comments from letters and at the open forum were presented in the SAA Bulletin (Lipe and Redman 1996). Following the conference and forum, the participants continued as a task force of the SAA, charged with reviewing comments on the draft report and forum discussions and preparing a final report and recommendations (Lipe and Redman 1996:14).

In February, 1997, the co-chairs of the Renewing Task Force, Bill Lipe and Chuck Redman, organized a second conference with task force members to review comments from the open forum meeting and other comments received about the original recommendations. Out of this meeting came final recommendations proposing actions that would improve the practice of archaeology in the United States, in particular archaeology done by or for public agencies.

The report of this second conference on "Renewing Our National Archaeological Program" (Lipe 1997) was published in the SAA Bulletin and also is posted on the SAA www site at www.saa.org/Society/Ethics/renew.html. The actions recommended by the task force were grouped under five general topics:

1. improving archaeological resource stewardship and study under the National Historic Preservation Act;
2. dissemination of information to the public;
3. recognizing multiple interests;
4. training and professionalism; and,
5. information management.

The implementation plan from the second conference was presented to the SAA Board at the 1997 Annual Meeting. Bill Lipe was asked to continue as chair and develop a schedule and strategy for executing the implementation plan. In 1997 and 1998 further discussions about the execution of the implementation plan occurred. Some of the recommended actions were undertaken by other organizations and existing SAA committees.

In 1999, Frank McManamon was appointed as chair of the Renewing Task Force. Consultations were held with Bill Lipe, Vin Steponaitis, and Keith Kintigh about how to implement the actions recommended by the task force report. Out of these discussions, it was agreed that many, perhaps all, of the recommended actions developed in the Task Force report would most properly be carried out by existing SAA committees or perhaps other organizations. For example, some actions already were underway by the NPS and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). It was agreed that the way to conclude the Task Force mandate and to ensure effective implementation of the action plan would be to review the recommendations, establish priorities among them, and work with other SAA committees or other organizations to move ahead on accomplishing the actions recommended.

In order to review the Renewing action plan and evaluate what additional work was appropriate to implement the recommendations, all task force members were asked to review the 1997 plan and offer any suggestions or thoughts on the recommendations. In particular, task force members were asked to comment on priorities for carrying out the actions, modifications of the actions as originally described, and, who or which organization(s) would be best to carry out specific recommendations. Several sets of comments were received from task force members and others who were asked to review the recommendations.

To efficiently and systematically evaluate the recommended actions in light of developments since 1997 and considering the new comments from the task force members, a small meeting was held in Denver, Colorado, on 11 and 12 October 2000, immediately prior to the already-scheduled meeting of the SAA Executive Committee. Attendees included: Keith Kintigh (SAA President), Bob Kelly (SAA President-elect), Barbara Little (SAA Secretary), Bill Doelle (SAA Board Liaison for the task force), Tobi Brimsek (Executive Director, SAA), Bill Lipe (original Chair of the task force; Past-President, SAA), and the current task force chair, F. P. McManamon.

Out of this meeting the following decisions were made regarding further actions on the Task Force Report recommendations. These are listed below following the order of the recommendations in the second task force report (Lipe 1997).

1. Improving Archaeological Resource Stewardship and Study.
   
   
   1. Programmatic Quality Improvement
      
      
      1. SAA leadership, possibly in concert with other organizations, will continue to work for the appointment of an archeologist as a member of the ACHP.
         
         
      2. This recommendation has been achieved, a position for a permanent, full time archeologist on the staff of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), NPS, has been created and currently is filled. SAA should continue to work with the NRHP to ensure that archeological properties are appropriately considered and archeological issues taken into account.
         
         
      3. The establishment of professional archaeological advisory panels to provide professional assistance and advice to SHPO and staff continues to be a good idea, examples exist in several states. These successes should be promoted and the SAA leadership will look for opportunities to do so, for example, articles in journals or newsletters.
         
         
      4. Using existing legal authorities (e.g., Sections 110, 202(a)(6), and 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]; and the Archeological and Historical Preservation Act [AHPA]) for professional review in order to improve the quality, effectiveness, and consistency of federal agency and SHPO programs related to archaeology continues to be a good idea. SAA and other organizations should look for opportunities to take advantage of it. No specific actions are planned.
         
         
      5. The development of programmatic agreements for NHPA Section 106 compliance with adequate public participation and mechanisms for periodic review, evaluation, and modification that include outside professional involvement continues to be a good idea. SAA and other organizations should look for opportunities to take advantage of it. No specific actions are planned.
         
         
   2. Standards
      
      
      1. Since the task force recommendations were completed, the SAA and other archaeological and historic preservation organizations have reviewed and commented upon the ACHP proposed NHPA Section 106 regulations.
         
         
      2. Since the task force recommendations were completed, the SAA has worked with the NPS, ACHP, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO, and the American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA) in a review of formal national archaeological guidance for identification, evaluation, and treatment of archaeological resources. The NPS is preparing a summary report of the work so far with recommendations and plans for future work.
         
         
   3. Peer Review
      
      
      1. & b. Considerations of how peer review of public archeology projects and programs can be used to improve archaeological resource investigation, interpretation, preservation, and protection will be considered as part of plans to develop new archeological guidance, as described in 2.b. above.
         
         
2. Dissemination of Information to the Public.
   
   
   1. Encourage public outreach as a product of research
      
      
      1. Letters on this topic were sent by the SAA president academic departments. SAA should put this letter on its www site.
         
         
   2. K - 12 education efforts
      
      
      1. SAA committee efforts in this area have been continued.
         
         
   3. Develop guidance to incorporate public benefits in public archaeological projects
      
      
      1. The SAA staff for public education is working with the Public Education Committee on such a document.
         
         
   4. Evaluate public participation in the practice of archaeology
      
      
      1. The Public Education Committee will make recommendations concerning the assessment of the benefits and costs of volunteer participation (in all aspects of archaeology) for archaeology and the resource.
         
         
      2. The guidance review, access, and development project described in I.2.b. above will include the development of guidelines for public participation in archaeology (to address the whole range of participation opportunities, not just excavation) under the consideration of different kinds of treatments of archeological resources.
         
         
3. Recognizing Multiple Interests.
   
   
   1. Develop information regarding consulting and other matters related to American Indian issues
      
      
      1. The SAA currently is developing with NPS, under an agreement with the US Air Force, guidance for consultation with Indian tribes. Following this guidance, an article will be developed recommending how to conduct appropriate consultations with Indian tribes; how to incorporate Native Americans and their viewpoints in archaeology (at the research design, fieldwork, and interpretive stages) and in long-term resource management; how to develop professional education and training for managers, private sector consultants, academics, and Native Americans.
         
         
   2. Develop similar information regarding other interest groups
      
      
      1. Following the development of the guidance regarding Indian interests, other guidelines will be developed for other audiences.
         
         
   3. Develop information concerning the benefits of archaeology for industry and developers
      
      
      1. The Committee on Consulting Archaeology will be asked to develop information, including good examples, showing the benefits of archaeology for industry and developers. The Media Relations Committee will assist in publicizing such information.
         
         
4. Training and Professionalism.
   
   
   1. Promoting registration of individuals, field schools, and firms through the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA)
      
      
      1. The SAA will continue to support (ROPA) and to encourage its professional members to register with RPA.
         
         
   2. Actions IV.2. to IV.4.
      
      
      1. These activities should be reviewed and, if appropriate, undertaken by RPA. The SAA President will write to the President of RPA forwarding the Renewing report and recommendations for consideration by RPA.
         
         
5. Information Management.
   
   
   1. Consider the status of development of state and regional archaeological databases
      
      
      1. The NPS will conduct a survey of existing regional, state, and local archeological databases and share this information from which further actions or reviews might be developed.
         
         
   2. Managing curation and collections data
      
      
      1. The SAA Committee on Curation and the Publications Committee will be asked to review the principles and recommended actions in the Renewing report and recommend to the SAA board how to proceed.
         
         
   3. Disseminating technical reports and data
      
      
      1. The SAA Curation and Publications Committees will be asked to review the principles and recommended actions in the Renewing report and recommend to the SAA board how to proceed.
         
         
   4. Providing information syntheses
      
      
      1. The SAA Committee on Consulting Archaeology will be asked to review the principles and recommended actions in the Renewing report and recommend to the SAA board how to proceed, particularly regarding the possibility of an annual symposium at the SAA meetings that would focus on synthesis of a particular region each year and be structured to promote the prompt publication of the symposium papers.
         
         

Thanks and Acknowledgements

Task force members contributed their energy, expertise, and time to this effort: Roger Anyon, Ron Anzalone, Catherine Cameron, Ed Friedman, Tom Green, Bill Lees, Bill Lipe, Frank McManamon, Michael Moratto, Chuck Niquette, Charles Redman, Lynne Sebastian, Donna Seifert, and Gary Stumpf. Those who commented on the task force final report and worked on the final set of actions described in this final report also are acknowledged: Lynn Sebastian, Ron Anzalone, Terry Childs, Keith Kintigh, Bob Kelly, Barbara Little, Bill Doelle, Tobi Brimsek, and Bill Lipe. All of us concerned about the issues considered by the task force owe Bill Lipe special thanks for his consistent, long term, intelligent, and dedicated work on these matters. Bill first raised many of these issues and focused attention upon them, and he pursued them, encouraging others also to try and find better ways of addressing them, culminating in the actions described in this report.

References Cited