Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:02:40.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Critical Appraisal of “Significance” in Contract Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

L. Mark Raab  and
Timothy C. Klinger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Comment
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 1977 , pp. 629 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Goodyear, Albert C, III 1975 Hecla II and III, an interpretive study of archaeological remains from the Lakeshore project, Papago Reservation, south central Arizona. Arizona State University Department of Anthropology Research Paper No. 9.Google Scholar
Gumerman, George J. (Editor) 1971 The distribution of prehistoric population aggregates. Prescott College Anthropological Reports No. 1.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1972 The methodological debate in contemporary archeology: a model. In Models in archaeology, edited by Clarke, David A., pp. 61–107. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
John H., House and Schiffer, Michael B. 1975 Significance of the archeological resources of the Cache River basin. In The Cache River archeological project: an experiment in contract archeology, assembled by Michael B. Schiffer and John H. House, pp. 163-86. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Research Series No. 8.Google Scholar
Klinger, Timothy C. and Baker, Charles M. 1975 Contract archeology: salvage or science? Anthropology Newsletter 16:2.Google Scholar
MacLeod, Donald 1975 Peddle or perish: archaeological marketing from concept to product delivery. Canadian Archaeological Association, Research Report No. 6.Google Scholar
McGimsey, Charles R., III 1972 Public archeology. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
McGimsey, Charles R., III 1975 Peer reviews. In The Cache River Archeological Project: an experiment in contract archeology, assembled by Michael B. Schiffer and John H. House, pp. 325-326. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Series, No. 8.Google Scholar
McGimsey, Charles R.n.d. Guidelines for archeology: the Airlie House report, special publication of the Society for American Archaeology, (in press, m.s. 1976)Google Scholar
Moratto, Michael J. 1975 On the concept of archaeological significance. Paper presented at the Annual Northern California Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Fresno State University, Fresno, California.Google Scholar
Morse, Dan F. and Morse, Phyllis A. (assemblers) 1976 A preliminary report of the Zebree Project: new approaches to contract archeology in Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Report No. 8.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. and House, John H. (assemblers) 1975 The Cache River Archaeological Project: an experiment in contract archaeology. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Series No. 8.Google Scholar
Schindler, D. W. 1976 The impact statement boondoggle Scienc 192:509.Google Scholar
Scovill, Douglas H., Gordon, Garland J. and Anderson, Keith M. 1972 Guidelines for the preparation of statements of environmental impact on archaeological resources. Arizona Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tucson.Google Scholar