Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:10:33.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some thoughts on cultural resource management archaeology in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

J.M. Adovasio  and
Ronald C. Carlisle
J.M. Adovasio
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
Ronald C. Carlisle
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relations between rescue and research have been a lively issue in those many countries where salvage work has become the context for much, or most, funding for archaeological fieldwork. Nowhere has the debate been livelier than in the USA, where the last decade has seen the growth of cultural resource management (CRM), in part ‘as a rebellion against the connotations of the term “salvage archaeology”’ (Knudson 1986:400).

The University of Pittsburgh is one of the most active anthropology departments in the field; here the CRM issues are explored, with examples from the Pittsburgh programme.

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 62 , Issue 234 , March 1988 , pp. 72 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1988

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

Adovasio, J.M. (compiler). 1982. The prehistory of the Paintsville Reservoir, Johnson and Morgan counties, Kentucky. Pittsburgh: Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. Ethnology Monographs 9.Google Scholar
Bareis, C.W. & Porter, J.W. (ed.). 1984. American bottom archaeology: a summary of the FA1–270 project contribution to the culture history of the Mississippi Hiver Valley. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1976. Forty-seven trips: a case study in the character of some formation processes of the archaeological record, in Hall, Edwin S. (ed.), Contributions to anthropology: the interior peoples of northern Alaska: 299–351. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. Mercury Series 49.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1983. Working at archaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1986. In pursuit of the future, in Meltzer, et al: 459–79.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. & Sabloff, J.A.. 1982. Paradigms, systematica, and archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38: 137–53.Google Scholar
Brose, D.S. 1985. Good enough for government work? a study in ‘grey archaeology’, American Anthropologist 87 (2): 370–77.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R.C. 1985. Archaeology at the Gateway Center Station of the Pittsburgh Light Rail Transit System; an overview. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Boston, Massachusetts, January 9–13, 1985.Google Scholar
Casteel, R.W. 1980. National Science Foundation funding of domestic archaeology in the United States: where the money ain’t, American Antiquity 45 (1): 170–80.Google Scholar
Clark, C.M. 1987. Trouble at t’mill: industrial archaeology in the 1980s, Antiquity 61: 169–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorfman, A. 1984. Digging up a city’s past, Science Digest 92(4): 21.Google Scholar
Drennan, R.D. 1987. Sampling to estimate whether in situ features are present, Appendix IV in Draft Revisions, Guidelines for cultural resource surveys and investigations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg (PA): Bureau for Historic Preservation.Google Scholar
Fowler, D.D. 1986. Conserving American archaeological resources, in Meltzer, et al.: 135–162.Google Scholar
Friedman, R. 1983. Digging up the US, American Heritage 34(5): 35–47.Google Scholar
Haag, W.G. 1985. Federal aid to archaeology in the southeast, 1933–1942, American Antiquity 50(2): 272–80.Google Scholar
Jennings, J.D. 1985. River basin surveys: origins, operations, and results, 1945–1969, American Antiquity 50(2): 281–96.Google Scholar
Jennings, J.D. 1986. American archaeology. 1930–1985. in Meltzer, et al.: 53–62.Google Scholar
King, T.F., Hickman, P.P. & Berg, G.. 1977. Anthropology in historic preservation: caring for culture’s clutter. New York: Academic Press. Studies in Archaeology.Google Scholar
Knudson, R. 1986. Contemporary cultural resource management, in Meltzer, et al.: 395–414.Google Scholar
Meltzer, D.J., Fowler, D.D. & Sabloff, J.A. (ed.). 1986. American archaeology past and future. Washington & London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Morris, D.P. 1986. Archaeological investigations at Antelope House. Washington (DC): National Park Service.Google Scholar
Plog, S. (ed.). 1986. Spatial organization and exchange: archaeological survey on northern Black Mesa. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Popham, H. 1987. The past and the pipeline, The Lamp 69(2): 22–5.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J.A., Binford, L.R. & McAnany, P.A.. 1987. Understanding the archaeological record, Antiquity 61: 203–9.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1976. Behavioral archaeology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. & Gumerman, G.J. (ed.). 1977. Conservation archaeology: a guide for cultural resource management studies. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scovill, D.H., Gordon, G.J. & Anderson, K.M.. 1977. Guidelines for the preparation of statements of environmental impact on archaeological resources, in Schiffer, & Gumerman, 1977: 43–62.Google Scholar
Taylor, W.W. 1948. A study of archeology. Menasha (WI): American Anthropological Association. Memoir of the American Anthropological Association 69.Google Scholar
Teitelman, R. 1984. Indiana Jones should have it so good, Forbes 134(3): 118–119.Google Scholar
Willey, G.R. & Sabloff, J.A.. 1980. A history of American archaeology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Yellen, J.E. & Greene, M.W.. 1985. Archaeology and the National Science Foundation, American Antiquity 50(2): 332–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar