PRESIDENT'S
MESSAGE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE:
STANDARDS, REGISTERS, CERTIFICATION AND YOU
One hot topic among archaeologists these days is quality control. Various
measures for setting standards for archaeological practice and assuring
public accountability for professional archaeologists have been proposed
and debated recently. There seems be a perception that archaeology, particularly
CRM archaeology, is not always done as well or as professionally as it
should be. Some archaeologists push for us to debate and discuss problems
in professional conduct more openly. The questions being asked in a wide
variety of quarters include: How can the profession make sure that inadequate
archaeology isn't being done by unqualified individuals? How can archaeologists
be held accountable for their professional actions? Can we agree on minimum
standards of performance? While we seem to be a long way from formal licensing,
the answers being proposed all involve methods of qualifying archaeologists
as professionals. PAC members need to be aware of all these debates. In
fact, I urge you to participate in reasoned discussions rather than complaining
about poor performance or unprofessional behavior informally.
Most PAC members probably know that at the national level, discussions
about the establishing a Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA)
have been going on for several years. However, if you are like me, you
don't always pay attention to issues like this until they confront you
directly. Thus, you may be feeling unprepared to discuss the pros and cons
of ROPA. You can find more information about ROPA on the web at www.saa.org
where web versions of the SAA Bulletin are available. Look especially at
the March, 1998 issue. There also will be a ROPA column in future SAA Bulletins.
ROPA developed out of a sense that the Society of Professional Archaeologists
(SOPA), which was established in 1976, had failed to attract a large enough
percentage of the professional community to be effective as a voice for
standards within the discipline. A task force was formed to look at the
issue of how to address standards and ethics within the discipline, and
it proposed the creation of ROPA. These discussions culminated with the
establishment of ROPA this spring. ROPA is sponsored by the Society for
American Archaeology (SAA), the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
and SOPA. It is hoped that the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)
also will vote to sponsor ROPA, but this process has not yet been completed.
All SOPA members automatically have become Registered Professional Archaeologists
(RPAs) under ROPA, and all SAA and SHA members are being urged to join
ROPA. The application form can be downloaded by going to the SOPA web site
at www.smu.edu/~anthrop/spaapp.html.
The concept of a register is based on agreement that public accountability
is at the core of professionalism. When you become an RPA, you agree to
uphold a specific code of conduct and to conform to research standards.
You also agree to participate in a grievance process if there is a credible
ethical challenge to work that you have done as a professional. Rather
than receiving a license to practice archaeology, or to practice a particular
type of archaeology, RPAs are stating that they will submit their performance
to scrutiny with respect to ethical and research standards. It seems to
me that being an RPA means taking a stand that you will behave professionally
and ethically as an archaeologist within commonly accepted standards of
conduct and research, part of which involves not undertaking work that
you are not qualified to do. This strikes me as in line with what most
of the archaeologists I have known are trying to do anyway. While I would
agree that there are instances of substandard and unethical work, most
archeologists really do try to do a credible job at the archaeology they
do. Our problem is not that there are lots of people trying to get away
with sub-standard work, but that we do not completely agree about qualifications
and standards, that there has been no way to debate and refine our standards
fully and that we have had no fair way to hold each other accountable.
ROPA is an effort to build a baseline consensus on qualifications and standards
and a way to give us a fair mechanism for handling complaints.
If you follow ACRA-L or other discussion lists, you know that lots of
people are dissatisfied with ROPA. The application procedures and requirements
have been criticized for rigidity and emphasis on "dirt archaeologists".
Some argue that SOPA's original system of qualifying people in specialty
areas needs to be instituted. Others argue that ROPA has no force of law
so it won't stop sub-standard work anyway. Still others seem to be saying
that it doesn't get at most of the problems in CRM practice today. I find
it hard to disagree with many of the points being made in these discussions.
I certainly think the application process needs refinement and that we
ought to revisit how to deal with specialization within archaeology. Still
I keep coming back to the simple concept, ROPA isn't a weak and doomed
form of licensing, but a mechanism which gives us a chance to stand up
for professionalism. Becoming an RPA means committing to work with our
peers on an orderly process of archaeological quality control. To me that's
a powerful and empowering idea, and I'm willing to give it a try. I urge
you to look carefully at ROPA too.
Furthermore, this is not just a national issue. Not only has CRM and
archaeological practice in Pennsylvania received national attention through
presentations at the SAA meetings and debate in the SAA Bulletin (15(1)),
but there has been considerable attention on email discussion lists as
to whether certain Pennsylvania compliance projects were correctly conducted
and reviewed. Now this issue has come home to us in Pennsylvania even more
directly. At PAC's Spring Business Meeting, the BHP informed us that the
PHMC was seriously discussing a certification or pre-qualification process
for archaeological consultants. Although the details of this process were
not yet clear, it was stressed that members of the Commission are concerned
about the quality of archaeological work within Pennsylvania. At this point
we have been notified that the PHMC has voted to institute a process of
pre-qualification and directed the BHP to develop a draft of such a process
before their September meeting.
The nature of pre-qualification is not at all clear. At this point some
sort of yearly review of consultants on the BHP list is anticipated rather
than a one time certification. Consultants would have to submit credentials
showing that they meet 36CFR61 as well as summary plans for how archaeological
investigations would be conducted. Other than this we have very little
information about what the process might look like. Will firms or individuals
be pre-qualified? Can a blanket pre-qualification for all archaeology be
useful or should pre-qualification be done by specialty? How much time
can the BHP staff realistically devote to this task? How will annual renewal
of pre-qualification work?
Obviously we cannot be complacent about the issue of quality assurance
nor can we envision that developments on the national level like ROPA will
suffice. We are being forced to address this issue here in Pennsylvania,
and we are being forced to address it now in very practical and concrete
ways. PAC has been asked to provide input and I have appointed a task force
to meet with the BHP. This task force consisting of Dan Roberts, Pat Miller,
Rick Geidel, Phil Neusius, and Lori Frye will be meeting with the BHP on
August 4. Please direct your input to members of this task force or to
myself. In addition, all PAC members should take advantage of an open meeting
for consultants about this process, which I believe will be scheduled for
the end of August. In the mean time, we all need to consider what problems
in archaeological practice need to be controlled as well as what mechanisms
will work best to make sure that work is being done as professionally as
possible.
One hot topic among archaeologists these days is quality control. Various
measures for setting standards for archaeological practice and assuring
public accountability for professional archaeologists have been proposed
and debated recently. There seems be a perception that archaeology, particularly
CRM archaeology, is not always done as well or as professionally as it
should be. Some archaeologists push for us to debate and discuss problems
in professional conduct more openly. The questions being asked in a wide
variety of quarters include: How can the profession make sure that inadequate
archaeology isn't being done by unqualified individuals? How can archaeologists
be held accountable for their professional actions? Can we agree on minimum
standards of performance? While we seem to be a long way from formal licensing,
the answers being proposed all involve methods of qualifying archaeologists
as professionals. PAC members need to be aware of all these debates. In
fact, I urge you to participate in reasoned discussions rather than complaining
about poor performance or unprofessional behavior informally.
Most PAC members probably know that at the national level, discussions
about the establishing a Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA)
have been going on for several years. However, if you are like me, you
don't always pay attention to issues like this until they confront you
directly. Thus, you may be feeling unprepared to discuss the pros and cons
of ROPA. You can find more information about ROPA on the web at www.saa.org
where web versions of the SAA Bulletin are available. Look especially at
the March, 1998 issue. There also will be a ROPA column in future SAA Bulletins.
ROPA developed out of a sense that the Society of Professional Archaeologists
(SOPA), which was established in 1976, had failed to attract a large enough
percentage of the professional community to be effective as a voice for
standards within the discipline. A task force was formed to look at the
issue of how to address standards and ethics within the discipline, and
it proposed the creation of ROPA. These discussions culminated with the
establishment of ROPA this spring. ROPA is sponsored by the Society for
American Archaeology (SAA), the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
and SOPA. It is hoped that the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)
also will vote to sponsor ROPA, but this process has not yet been completed.
All SOPA members automatically have become Registered Professional Archaeologists
(RPAs) under ROPA, and all SAA and SHA members are being urged to join
ROPA. The application form can be downloaded by going to the SOPA web site
at www.smu.edu/~anthrop/spaapp.html.
The concept of a register is based on agreement that public accountability
is at the core of professionalism. When you become an RPA, you agree to
uphold a specific code of conduct and to conform to research standards.
You also agree to participate in a grievance process if there is a credible
ethical challenge to work that you have done as a professional. Rather
than receiving a license to practice archaeology, or to practice a particular
type of archaeology, RPAs are stating that they will submit their performance
to scrutiny with respect to ethical and research standards. It seems to
me that being an RPA means taking a stand that you will behave professionally
and ethically as an archaeologist within commonly accepted standards of
conduct and research, part of which involves not undertaking work that
you are not qualified to do. This strikes me as in line with what most
of the archaeologists I have known are trying to do anyway. While I would
agree that there are instances of substandard and unethical work, most
archeologists really do try to do a credible job at the archaeology they
do. Our problem is not that there are lots of people trying to get away
with sub-standard work, but that we do not completely agree about qualifications
and standards, that there has been no way to debate and refine our standards
fully and that we have had no fair way to hold each other accountable.
ROPA is an effort to build a baseline consensus on qualifications and standards
and a way to give us a fair mechanism for handling complaints.
If you follow ACRA-L or other discussion lists, you know that lots of
people are dissatisfied with ROPA. The application procedures and requirements
have been criticized for rigidity and emphasis on "dirt archaeologists".
Some argue that SOPA's original system of qualifying people in specialty
areas needs to be instituted. Others argue that ROPA has no force of law
so it won't stop sub-standard work anyway. Still others seem to be saying
that it doesn't get at most of the problems in CRM practice today. I find
it hard to disagree with many of the points being made in these discussions.
I certainly think the application process needs refinement and that we
ought to revisit how to deal with specialization within archaeology. Still
I keep coming back to the simple concept, ROPA isn't a weak and doomed
form of licensing, but a mechanism which gives us a chance to stand up
for professionalism. Becoming an RPA means committing to work with our
peers on an orderly process of archaeological quality control. To me that's
a powerful and empowering idea, and I'm willing to give it a try. I urge
you to look carefully at ROPA too.
Furthermore, this is not just a national issue. Not only has CRM and
archaeological practice in Pennsylvania received national attention through
presentations at the SAA meetings and debate in the SAA Bulletin (15(1)),
but there has been considerable attention on email discussion lists as
to whether certain Pennsylvania compliance projects were correctly conducted
and reviewed. Now this issue has come home to us in Pennsylvania even more
directly. At PAC's Spring Business Meeting, the BHP informed us that the
PHMC was seriously discussing a certification or pre-qualification process
for archaeological consultants. Although the details of this process were
not yet clear, it was stressed that members of the Commission are concerned
about the quality of archaeological work within Pennsylvania. At this point
we have been notified that the PHMC has voted to institute a process of
pre-qualification and directed the BHP to develop a draft of such a process
before their September meeting.
The nature of pre-qualification is not at all clear. At this point some
sort of yearly review of consultants on the BHP list is anticipated rather
than a one time certification. Consultants would have to submit credentials
showing that they meet 36CFR61 as well as summary plans for how archaeological
investigations would be conducted. Other than this we have very little
information about what the process might look like. Will firms or individuals
be pre-qualified? Can a blanket pre-qualification for all archaeology be
useful or should pre-qualification be done by specialty? How much time
can the BHP staff realistically devote to this task? How will annual renewal
of pre-qualification work?
Obviously we cannot be complacent about the issue of quality assurance
nor can we envision that developments on the national level like ROPA will
suffice. We are being forced to address this issue here in Pennsylvania,
and we are being forced to address it now in very practical and concrete
ways. PAC has been asked to provide input and I have appointed a task force
to meet with the BHP. This task force consisting of Dan Roberts, Pat Miller,
Rick Geidel, Phil Neusius, and Lori Frye will be meeting with the BHP on
August 4. Please direct your input to members of this task force or to
myself. In addition, all PAC members should take advantage of an open meeting
for consultants about this process, which I believe will be scheduled for
the end of August. In the mean time, we all need to consider what problems
in archaeological practice need to be controlled as well as what mechanisms
will work best to make sure that work is being done as professionally as
possible.
Sarah W. Neusius
Department of Anthropology
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
COOPERATION COLUMN
It has been suggested that the PAC Newsletter could provide a medium
in which requests for information regarding research questions / problems
could be posted. If you have such requests, please forward them to the
editor (see below) for inclusion in the next Newsletter.
NO SUBMISSIONS FOR THIS ISSUE.
CURRENT RESEARCH
In an effort to shine some light onto the "gray" literature,
the editor requests submissions for the Current Research column. These
should be short descriptions of on-going or recently completed work. Reference
to the full report should be included, if available. Please forward such
items to the editor (see below). Many thanks to those who contributed to
this issue.
GAI Consultants, Inc.
GAI recently completed Phase I-III archaeological investigations of
the well-preserved, late 18th-20th century Cubbage Pond Mill Site (Site
7S-C-61) near Lincoln, Sussex County, Delaware. The work was performed
for the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) in response to the
unexpected discovery of a mortared brick foundation during replacement
of Bridge 3-936, carrying Road 214, over Cubbage Pond. Field investigations
resulted in the excavation of 29 shovel test pits, 6 (5 by 5-foot) test
units, 7 machine trenches, and 20 (5 by 10-foot) collection units. In addition
to the brick foundation, several mill-related architectural features were
identified including a series of brick piers (lean-to addition), a large,
hand-hewn, corner-timbered log foundation (ostensibly, predating the brick
foundation), and multiple timber courses representing, at least, two water
power systems. Based on historical and oral documentation, it appears that
the site functioned primarily as a gristmill during its roughly 160+ year
history.
Archaeological investigations conducted along the interior of the brick
foundation produced multiple, sealed contexts as revealed by the remains
of at least two construction/demolition episodes. Data recovery work was
focused primarily on the mill's water power system which was preserved
relatively intact directly below the existing road within the existing
right-of-way. A possible tandem wheel pit was exposed beneath the turbine
pit along the eastern side of the water power area. Preliminary site interpretations
suggest that a/the wheel at Cubbage Pond was an undershot wheel(s), possibly
one of the few in the area at this time. Results of archival and archaeological
investigations suggest that a turbine was installed, or possibly improved,
at the site during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
At the conclusion of fieldwork, following the dismantling of the mill's
water power system, structural timbers were removed to the Dayett Mill
by George & Lynch, Inc. and the Delaware SHPO. Dr. Herman Heikkenen
(Dendrochronology, Inc.) is presently conducting an analysis of wood samples
from the mill by using the key-year technique, a method of aligning tree-ring
patterns developed by Heikkenen. Results of this analysis will provide
crucial information for interpreting the sequence of construction at the
site. A public presentation of the results of this project is scheduled
to be delivered at the Milford Senior Center as part of Delaware Archaeology
Week.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
[In order to encourage the very important task of developing public
support of and involvement in archaeology, members are asked to submit
short items describing how they, and their firms, institutions, and organizations
are interacting with the general public.]
NO SUBMISSIONS FOR THIS ISSUE
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Survey Priorities Committee
The Survey Priorities Committee was directed at the Spring 1997 PAC
meeting to develop a methodological approach for synthesizing data and
improving the survey priorities policy by better defining high probability
areas within low-priority watersheds. The basic outline of the approach
developed by the committee was presented at the Spring 1998 business meeting
and involves studying a sample of low-priority watersheds focusing on the
following questions:
1) What do we know about the prehistoric use of uplands in each watershed?
The study will examine the existing data base for each watershed, focusing
on results of systematic surveys and site excavations, as well as assessing
the amount and reliability of the information in the Pennsylvania Archaeological
Site Survey files.
2) What do we need to know that we cannot learn from the existing data
base? This step would involve identifying temporally specific research
issues that cannot be adequately addressed with existing data.
3) What type of data do we need to address these issues? Is more systematic
survey data needed, or only more excavation and analysis of existing data?
These information needs could be incorporated into PHMC decisions regarding
the need for additional survey in low-priority watersheds.
To provide support for the study PAC has submitted a Historic Preservation
Grant proposal. The proposed project would study the existing site data
within three of the 19 low-priority watersheds to identify information
needs and to precisely define environmental settings with a high probability
for containing sites that would address these needs. The three low-priority
watersheds will include one each from the eastern, central, and western
parts of the state. A Principal Investigator, each of which is a PAC member,
will lead the study in each region, assisted by one or more Research Assistants.
The end product will be a report for each watershed describing the results
of the study relevant to the project goals. The team for each region will
include at least two peer reviewers who will be consulted during the course
of the study and who will provide comments on the final report. The reports
will be submitted to the PHMC with recommendations regarding survey priorities
for upland terrain that could be generalized to adjacent watersheds.
Submitted by Pat Miller
NCPTT GRANT SUBMISSION
In January, 1998, PAC submitted a National Center for Preservation Technology
and Training (NCPTT) grant proposal for a project entitled "Pennsylvania
Archaeology Online: A CRM Report Database". If funded this project
will place select information from CRM reports, such as the report abstract,
title, author, county, and township, on the Internet in a searchable format.
The database will allow archaeologists in a variety of settings to determine
if CRM reports on file at the SHPO are relevant to their research interests.
By making it easier for archaeologists to identify and locate relevant
CRM reports, the project has the potential to stimulate creative research
within Pennsylvania. The proposed project will involve the design and installation
of web-server software capable of text searches over a database of several
thousand abstracts. The web site will be constructed and tested at the
University of Pittsburgh and transferred to the Indiana University of Pennsylvania
(IUP) at the end of the grant period. It is anticipated that all abstracts
generated between January 1997 and December 1998 will be entered into the
database during the grant period. Basic information about previous archaeological
CRM reports (such as report author, county, township, year, and type of
study) will be imported into the database from the existing SHPO Paradox
database. As part of the project an ongoing procedure will be established
for updating the online data on a periodic basis following the end of the
grant period. It is anticipated that the database will be updated on a
quarterly basis. Project co-Principal Investigators are Gary Coppock and
Patricia Miller. Noël Strattan, of the Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, Bureau of Historic Preservation, and Donald Chiarulli,
of the Department of Computer Science, University of Pittsburgh, are project
co-Investigators.
FORUM
[Members are invited to submit comments on issues of current concern.
With luck, varying points of view will be presented.]
NO SUBMISSIONS FOR THIS ISSUE
COMPUTER USER'S
COLUMN
by Mark A. McConaughy
The Bureau for Historic Preservation (BHP) of the Pennsylvania Historical
and Museum Commission (PHMC) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) are developing a Cultural Resources Geographical Information
System (CR/GIS) to be used on various levels by the respective agencies,
other governmental agencies, consultants and the public. This column will
present information about the status of the CR/GIS project and its future
goals.
The BHP reviews over 7000 proposed projects that could potentially impact
cultural resources every year. Several people must manually check up to
four different data files for information about cultural resources that
might be impacted by proposed projects. Consultants also have to visit
the BHP offices in Harrisburg to manually check cultural resource archives
for information about their projects. This type of research is time consuming
and expensive to conduct. Nevertheless, new regulations require faster
reviews of proposed projects by the BHP staff, but additional staff or
resources have not been provided to conduct speedier reviews. Thus, there
is pressure to adopt a more cost and time efficient method for reviewing
projects.
Several years ago, the BHP and PennDOT, one of the agencies requesting
faster processing of project proposals, recognized a high tech solution
to this problem was needed. PennDOT provided funding in 1992 to conduct
a feasibility study of the development of a CR/GIS that would integrate
all existing BHP cultural resource data and make them available as a layer
for use with PennDOT's GIS system. Louis Berger and Associates conducted
this study and determined a CR/GIS system was feasible. Gannett-Fleming
and Associates was hired in 1994 to develop an integrated CR/GIS plan and
design the database. An interdepartmental state agency task force was formed
in 1995 to direct development of the CR/GIS system.
By 1996, sufficient progress was made that a test of the CR/GIS plan
and database design could be undertaken. Two pilot projects were started,
one conducted by Penn State using data from Fayette County and another
run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employing information from York
County. The pilot projects were completed by the end of 1997, and both
demonstrated the feasibility and functionality of the CR/GIS plan and database.
Work to input cultural resource data from the rest of Pennsylvania started
in 1998. Baseline data are currently being digitized and should be available
for the entire state by June, 1999. Baseline data consists simply of any
archaeological and historical sites currently plotted on USGS topographic
maps in the BHP's files. In addition, existing Paradox databases will be
integrated into the system and data linked to their respective sites. Baseline
data will get the CR/GIS system running, but it will not be as powerful
as the planned enhanced system. Data will still need to be checked for
errors, historic properties not currently plotted on USGS maps will have
to digitized and data will be augmented as listed below.
How long it will take to fully implement the CR/GIS depends largely
on obtaining sufficient funds to complete the full system. There is sufficient
funding committed to continue work on the CR/GIS through 1998, but not
enough to enter all enhanced cultural resource data. It is estimated that
only about a fifth of the funds needed to completely implement the CR/GIS
system have been obtained. A fully enhanced system will cost around $5.1
million dollars, and there currently are commitments for $1.4 million from
PennDOT, the Baltimore Corps of Engineers, PHMC, Lancaster County Planning
Commission and the Department of Economic and Community Development of
Erie County. There currently is no line item in the state budget dedicated
to the development of the CR/GIS system. An interdepartmental state GIS
group will be attempting to get money placed in the budget that would complete
the development of the CR/GIS. However, there is no guarantee that they
will be successful. If not, then the BHP and PennDOT would have to raise
development money from outside sources. It is estimated the former method
would result in a fully implemented and operational CR/GIS in about three
years, the latter method in around six years.
The CR/GIS will greatly facilitate peoples' ability to work with cultural
resource data once it is completed. It will offer immediate access to information
that has accumulated in PHMC and BHP files over the years. Much of these
data are currently locked in paper files accessible only to the most industrious
and persistent researchers who must travel to Harrisburg to examine them.
The fully enhanced CR/GIS will provide:
- a comprehensive and current inventory of archaeological resources,
National Register properties, properties currently listed as eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places and any other historic properties
identified by during regional surveys made for the BHP.
- site boundary information where it has been determined;
- boundaries of previously conducted surveys and projects;
- abstracts of reports generated by projects;
- existing photographs of historic structures, artifacts and archaeological
projects;
- line drawings of artifacts, site maps, etc.;
- BHP database files linked to the sites;
- predictive models based on all integrated data.
The CR/GIS system will permit users to view site locations, mouse click
on the site and hypertext links to the above types of data will be provided
on a pop up menu. Users would click on the particular type of information
they wish to access (i.e., a photograph of a structure) and it would be
displayed.
Various environmental layers will be provided by PennDOT, PADEP and
PADCNR for use with the CR/GIS. These will include geographic, geologic,
hydrologic, and many other environmental layers. Also, digital ortho quad
photographs for all of Pennsylvania should be available as a layer by the
time the CR/GIS is completed. A fully enhanced CR/GIS integrated with GIS
systems from the other state agencies will be a very powerful research
tool for archaeologists and historians.
The CR/GIS will be made available to the public through the Internet.
However, locations of archaeological sites will be provided only in fuzzy
location models that indicate how many sites are present in a square map
unit. The size of the unit has not been decided, but it could be set at
a square mile, square kilometer, etc. Historic structure data are not as
sensitive, and the public would be able to fully access those data. Schools
with Internet access would be able to use the CR/GIS to augment their Pennsylvania
history classes. Students could call up images on all the National Register
sites in their area, search for all the recorded Victorian-style houses
in a region, etc., and easily get those data from the system. Use of the
CR/GIS as an education tool is a secondary function, but one that opens
the BHP's files to a greater user base. This secondary use may be an aid
in obtaining funding for the CR/GIS from the state. It shows that use of
the CR/GIS will not be confined to a limited number of professional historians
and archaeologists.
The CR/GIS will greatly benefit consultants and various agencies required
to monitor project impacts to cultural resources. They will be able to
easily access, via the Internet or direct connection to the state server,
information currently locked in paper files at the BHP. Consultants will
not have to send a researcher to Harrisburg simply to check existing data
and files. They will be able to call up that information on their office
computers. The CR/GIS will have access to and process many more variables
than are currently available to human reviewers to develop objective, and
probably more effective, predictive models for identifying high probability
areas for archaeological sites. Thus, project planners will be able to
identify areas that are culturally sensitive early in their design phase.
Engineers will then be able to design projects that minimize impact to
those resources. Even if they cannot avoid those resources, they will know
much sooner in the review process that mitigation will be required and
plan accordingly.
The CR/GIS will also speed reviews of proposed projects by the BHP.
Plans could be submitted electronically, and a single reviewer could quickly
access all existing data about the project area to determine if some type
of survey or other mitigation is required. Proposals currently have to
be checked by at least three different people who control various paper
files to determine potential impacts to cultural resources. This is very
labor intensive and time consuming. The CR/GIS would eliminate the need
for paper searches by several different BHP reviewers.
Reviews of mitigation projects would also be aided by the CR/GIS. Data
and reports could be filed electronically via the Internet. PASS site forms
would be submitted in an electronic format that could be immediately integrated
into the CR/GIS. Electronic filing of site data would make that information
almost instantaneously available to other researchers. Reviewers would
be able to comment on the reports, mark them up electronically and send
them back to consultants via the Internet, eliminating time lost to the
process of shipping manuscripts via the U.S. Postal Service. Ultimately,
the goal of the CR/GIS system is to provide an automated permitting and
review process.
The CR/GIS system will also be a very powerful research tool. Comparison
of the CR/GIS layer with other ecological and environmental layers should
reveal settlement pattern correlations that have not been considered in
the past. The CR/GIS could be queried to quickly discover where all of
a particular diagnostic artifact, raw materials, building style or sites
of a particular phase or period have been recorded in Pennsylvania. A graphical
representation of these queries would be presented along with the numeric
data for statistical treatment.
A fully enhanced CR/GIS will benefit everyone. It will save time processing
permits, conducting research and mitigation work. The biggest problem facing
the BHP will getting the funding to complete the system and then funding
to maintain and update information once it has been completed. The BHP
is looking for partners who might be able to commit funds and/or in-kind
services to help complete the CR/GIS. Regional planning agencies, state
and federal agencies, grants and other funding methods are all being approached
or examined as possible sources of funding. Depending on funding sources,
the BHP expects to have the enhanced CR/GIS online three to six years after
completion of the baseline data coding, scheduled for June, 1999.
PAC members who have questions about the CR/GIS system can contact Noel
Strattan (717-772-4519 or myself (724-527-5585 x103). We will be happy
to talk to you about it.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
NEW APPOINTMENTS
FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGE
Franklin and Marshall College announces the hiring of two new Assistant
Professors of Anthropology, both specializing in archaeology. They are
a married couple who will be sharing the position.
MARY ANN LEVINE: Mary Ann is a native of Quebec who specializes in the
prehistoric archaeology of the Northeastern U.S. and Canada. She received
her B.A. from McGill, her M.A. from the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst, and her Ph.D. in 1996 also from UMass. Her dissertation title
was "Native Copper, Hunter-Gatherers, and Northeastern Prehistory."
She has
co-edited a volume entitled "The Archaeological Northeast," and
has published articles on copper procurement in the northeast, ethnographic
analogy in archaeology, and women's contributions to archaeology. Prior
to coming to F&M, Mary Ann taught at UMass, Tufts, and Ithaca College.
JAMES A. DELLE: Jim is a Massachusetts native who specializes in the
historical archaeology of the Caribbean and the comparative archaeology
of colonialism. He received his B.A. from Holy Cross, his M.A. from William
and Mary, and his Ph.D. in 1996 from the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst. His dissertation title was "An Archaeology of Crisis: The
Manipulation of Social Spaces in the Blue Mountain Coffee Plantation Complex
of Jamaica, 1790-1865." His book, "The Archaeology of Social
Space," is due out in the summer of 1998, and his co-edited volume,
"Lines that Divide: Historical Archaologies of Race, Class, Gender,
and Ethnicity" will soon be published as a special double issue of
the International Journal of Historical Archaeology. He has published articles
on the archaeology of colonialism, spatial archaeology in Ireland and the
Caribbean, the archaeology of commodity production, and the archaeology
of race and gender. Prior to coming to F&M, Jim taught at UMass, Clark,
and NYU.
submitted by Fred Kinsey
MEETING AND EVENTS
CALENDAR
Pennsylvania Archaeological Council
Date: November 13, 1998
Place: Gettsburg at the Eisenhower National Historic Site
Eastern States Archaeological Federation
Date: 29 October - 1 November 1998
Place: East Mountain Inn, Wilkes-Barre
** Please send notices of upcoming events to the editor.
PLEASE NOTE
The PAC Constitution requires that PAC members also belong to the Society
for Pennsylvania Archaeology. It is important to foster communication between
professional and avocational archaeologists. Moreover, membership in SPA
supports Pennsylvania Archaeologist in which PAC members often publish.
SPA annual dues are $14.00 for individuals and $16.00 for families,
which should be sent to: Archaeological Services, P.O. Box 386, Bethlehem,
CT 06751-0386.
EDITOR'S NOTE
Materials for the PAC Newsletter should be sent to: Philip A. Perazio,
KAR, Inc.,
P.O. Box 1117, Stroudsburg, PA 18360
Phone: 717-620-2591; FAX: 717-620-0186
EMAIL: kittarch@sunlink.net
Please send contributions on disk (Wordperfect 6.1 preferred), accompanied
by a hard copy. You may also attempt to send submissions as email attachments.
However, not all systems are compatible, so this does not always work.
Short items, 1 page or less, may be submitted in hard copy or by FAX.
Deadline for next issue:
1 November 1998.
******************************************
NOTE: Please make sure PAC has your current FAX and/or Email addresses
so that we may distribute urgent information as quickly as possible. Send
updates to Mark McConaughy. |