Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:45:17.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William B. Butler
William B. Butler*
Affiliation:
National Park Service; Interagency Archeological Services, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

National Register of Historic Places criterion (d) for significance is based solely on the theoretical and substantive knowledge of the discipline. Archaeologists continue to misuse and abuse the term and do not understand its meaning in terms of the cultural resource management process. In so doing, archaeologists often place federal agencies and state historic preservation offices in a quandary as to proper management decisions. Misuse of the concept of significance in the formulation of a research design may seriously jeopardize or curtail making important contributions to the discipline. In addition, the failure to understand the concept of significance may not provide the basis for rational decisions concerning data redundancy, collection strategies, predictive modeling, and mitigation. Problems are compounded when archaeologists employed by federal and state agencies do not understand significance and the cultural resource management process.

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 820 - 829
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1987

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

References Cited

Butler, W. B. 1978 Some Comments on Contracting with the Federal Government : Types of Contracts. American Antiquity 43 : 741–746.Google Scholar
Butler, W. B. 1979 The No-Collection Strategy in Archaeology. American Antiquity 44 : 795–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, L. B. (editor) 1983 From Microcosm to Macrocosm : Advances in Tip Ring Investigation and Interpretation. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 19.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1984 The Ethics of Archaeological Significance Decisions. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Green, E. L., pp. 62–74. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fish, P. R. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification : A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43 : 86–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D. 1982 Cultural Resource Management. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–50. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Glassow, M. 1977 Issues in Evaluating the Signficance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 42 : 413–420.Google Scholar
Green, D. F. 1984 Ethical Dilemmas in Federal Cultural Resource Management. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Green, E. L., pp. 97–107. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Green, E. L. (editor) 1984 Ethics and Values in Archaeology. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
King, T. F., Hickman, P. P., and Berg, G. 1977 Anthropology in Historic Preservation : Caring for Culture's Clutter. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
King, T. F., and Lyneis, M. M. 1978 Preservation : A Developing Focus of American Archaeology. American Anthropologist 80 : 873–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvamme, K. L. 1984 Models of Prehistoric Site Location Near Pinon Canyon, Colorado. Proceedings of the New Mexico Archeological Council 6(1) : 345–370.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, S. A. 1983 On the Importance of the National Register of Historic Places. American Antiquity 48 : 358–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipe, W. D. 1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39 : 213–245.Google Scholar
Quigg, J. M., and Brumley, J. H. 1984 Stone Circles : A Review Appraisal and Future Directions. State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck.Google Scholar
Raab, L. M., and Klinger, T. C. 1977 A Critical Appraisal of “Significance” in Contract Archaeology. American Antiquity 42 : 629–634.Google Scholar
Raab, L. M., and Klinger, T. C. 1979 A Reply to Sharrock and Grayson on Archaeological Signficance. American Antiquity 44 : 328–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, A. C. 1983 Divided We Stand : Aspects of Archaeology and Information. American Antiquity 48 : 3–16.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., and Gumerman, G. J. (editors) 1977 Conservation Archaeology : A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sharrock, F. W., and Grayson, D. K. 1979 “Significance” in Contract Archaeology. American Antiquity 44 : 327–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, D. E., and Gauthier, R. P. 1981 Prehistoric New Mexico : Background for Survey. Historic Preservation Bureau, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Tainter, J. A., and Lucas, G. J. 1983 Epistemology of the Significance Concept. American Antiquity 48 : 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, G. R., and Sabloff, J. A. 1974 A History of American Archaeology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar