Contemporary Cultural Resource Management in Canada: Labor Market Dynamics and Challenges

Cultural Resource Management: A Collaborative Primer for Archaeologists

<i>New Perspectives in Cultural Resource Management</i>, by Francis P. McManamon, ed.

Application Cultural Resources Management in Archaeology as a Discipline. Cultural Resource Management (CRM) attempt to manage the related cultural resource in respect with the interest of many parties. In broader sense, CRM positioned the people as an integral part of the process of managing archaeological resources. In order to be able to wisely accommodate such interest and prevent the eruption of conflicts, it is necessary to involve many parties--in planning, implementing until evaluating--in the CRM perfonnance. Therefore, the CRM performance tends to stress on the effort of problem solving and to seek the best and the most reasonable solution. In regard to the above context it is obvious that there is a difference between the performance of CRM and archaeology in general. The performance differences between the two are noted on new dimensions developed in the CRM perfom1ance which cannot be found in that of archaeology. The new dimensions are related to external aspects of archaeological interests such as economy, education, tourism, community, politics and regulation. In other words, the CRM performance concerns with the heterogenic interest of stakeholders. Such concept of performance is not observable in the broad-spectrum of archaeological pe1 ormance, which is likely to focus on the aspect of material culture preservation. Hence, the performance of CRM does not terminate at the preservation of material culture instead it also involves the benefiting of material culture in respect to the ability to disclose the social significance of cultural heritage in the life of the people, which is the essence of perfonnance CRM.

Cultural resource management (CRM) work accounts for most of the archaeology conducted in the United States. A diverse and somewhat fragmented field, CRM has nonetheless achieved a degree of institutional and organizational maturity. CRM archaeology has produced important contributions to archaeological methodology and has established and refined knowledge of regional cultural-historical sequences and settlement and subsistence patterns. The current florescence of historical archaeology is attributable to CRM. Yet the maintenance of high quality in CRM is a pervasive and enduring problem. Academic institutions need to reestablish alliances with the CRM community. The future viability of CRM archaeology depends on factors both internal and external to the discipline: regulatory and statutory “reform,” agency funding levels, looting and other destructive forces, and Native American and other public involvement.

Remote Sensing: A Handbook for Archeologists and Cultural Resource Managers. Thomas R. Lyones and Thomas Eugene Avery. Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1977. viii + 109 pp., illus., biblio., glossary, index. Paper. - Remote Sensing: Practical Exercises on Remote Sensing in Archeology. Supplement No. 1. Thomas Eugene Avery and Thomas R. Lyons. Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1978. iv + 32 pp., illus., selected answer key. Paper. - Remote Sensing: Instrumentation for Non-destructive Exploration of Cultural Resources. Supplement No. 2. Stanley A. Morain and Thomas K. Budge. Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1978. vi + 53 pp., illus., biblio. Paper. - Remote Sensing: Aerial Anthropological Perspectives: A Bibliography of Remote Sensing in Cultural Resource Studies. Supplement No. 3. Thomas R. Lyons Robert K. Hitchcock, and Wirth H. Wills Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1980. 25 pp. Paper. - Remote Sensing: A Handbook for Archeologists and Cultural Resource Managers Basic Manual Supplement: Oregon. Supplement No. 4.. C. Melvin Aikens William G. Loy, Michael D. Southard and Richard C. Hanes Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1980. v + 37 pp., illus., biblio. Paper. - Remote Sensing: Multispectral Analyses of Cultural Resources: Chaco Canyon and Bandelier National Monument. Supplement No. 5.. Thomas R. Lyon. editor. Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1981. iv + 63 pp., illus., biblio. Paper. - Remote Sensing: Archeological Applications of Remote Sensing in the North Central Lowlands. Supplement No. 6. Craig Baker and George J. Gumerman Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1981. vi + 53 pp., illus., biblio. Paper. - Remote Sensing: Aerial and Terrestrial Photography for Archaeologists. Supplement No. 7. Thomas Eugene Avery and Thomas R. Lyons Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1981. viii + 48 pp., illus., biblio. Paper. - Volume 48 Issue 1

ABSTRACTField safety is being taken more seriously across the cultural resource management (CRM) industry as CRM companies seek to be in compliance with their clients’ health and safety programs and to keep employees safe. Many universities also have organizational health and safety programs designed to protect students and employees, but academic archaeology is routinely conducted without adequate risk management planning. Risk management will be a workplace concern for aspiring archaeologists after graduating from college, which is why it is important for academic archaeology to meet industry standards. Archaeology can learn a great deal about fieldwork risk management from the outdoor recreation industry, which emphasizes building leadership skills rather than following proscribed rules and regulations to mitigate the myriad hazards in the field. This article provides some suggestions that academic archaeologists can use to apply risk management concepts from CRM and the outdoor recreation industry to academic projects in order to comply with university requirements and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as well as to teach students how to be safe in the field.

Culture is the spiritual foundation of society, because cultural values are created by humans and accumulated through the process of historical development. Therefore, culture also plays an important role as a resource for national development - a source of tangible and intangible strength, promoting social development towards human happiness and the happiness of the social community. And so, cultural resource management is associated with the state management tasks of central and local governments, which is meaningful in promoting social development management. This study analyzes cultural resource management at the local level with its constituent contents, which are also factors that directly affect cultural resource management, including: Human capital; Indigenous culture; Cultural policy. Based on the theoretical framework, the author surveyed the opinions of 540 managers of 270 government agencies and cultural organizations in Hanoi (North), Da Nang city (Central) and Ho Chi Minh city (South). These are localities with developed economic, cultural and social conditions in Vietnam. The survey results show that managers assess the development of all three factors of human capital, indigenous culture and cultural policy as necessary, but human capital development is important and plays a central role. Because, cultural values are ultimately human capital, created and accumulated by humans through the historical process. From the results of that research, the author discusses the content of innovation in cultural resource management in Vietnam today and in the future.

ABSTRACTIn the next 10 years, the US cultural resource management (CRM) industry will grow in terms of monies spent on CRM activities and the size of the CRM labor force. Between US fiscal years 2022 and 2031, annual spending on CRM will increase from about $1.46 to $1.85 billion, due in part to growth in the US economy but also to an added $1 billion of CRM activities conducted in response to the newly passed infrastructure bill. The increased spending will lead to the creation of about 11,000 new full-time positions in all CRM fields. Archaeologists will be required to fill more than 8,000 positions, and of these, about 70% will require advanced degrees. Based on current graduation rates, there will be a significant MA/PhD-level job deficit. Accordingly, there is a compelling need to (a) stop the trend to close or decrease the size of current graduate programs, (b) reorient academic programs to give a greater emphasis to the skills needed to be successful in CRM, and (c) better integrate academic and applied archaeology to leverage the vast amount of data that will be generated in the next decade to best benefit the public.

Cultural heritage resource management, including archaeology, heritage-based education, and decision making in the public sphere, is a major concern in Brazil. This chapter reviews the historical and legal background of cultural resource management (CRM) development in Brazil, as well as some recent achievements and perspectives. To understand the current situation in Brazil, this chapter examines some positive consequences of the multiplication of CRM studies, turning to the problems archaeologists face in dealing with heritage management today.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management: Visions for the Future, by Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lipe Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management: Visions for the Future, edited by Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lipe. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School for Advanced Research Press, 2009. 345 pp.; paperbound, $34.95. Patrick D. Trader Patrick D. Trader Gray & Pape, Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar The Public Historian (2011) 33 (2): 116–118. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2011.33.2.116 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Patrick D. Trader; Review: Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management: Visions for the Future, by Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lipe. The Public Historian 1 May 2011; 33 (2): 116–118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2011.33.2.116 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Public Historian Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2011 by The Regents of the University of California and the National Council on Public History. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

In the article "Historical Archaeology in the Next Millennium: A Forum," Donald L. Hardesty outlines his views on the future of his torical archaeological research and professional development. Upon reading the article, I discov ered much that I could agree with, several top ics that I had not previously thought about, and a few points on which my opinions differ signifi cantly. Also, I have my own observations about the future of historical archaeology that were not discussed in Hardesty's article. Most impor tantly, I was somewhat disappointed that he did not expand his article to include his views con cerning the role of public policy in shaping the future of historical archaeology. I agree that cultural resource management (CRM) will con tinue to play a pivotal role in the evolution of our discipline, especially in the United States, but also in other parts of the world, and because CRM is, by its nature, a product of public policy, I cannot divorce the role of policy from my own observations about professionalism and research in the archaeological community. I will try to limit my remarks, however, to the opin ions professed in Hardesty's article, and will only invoke comments about the role of policy in the future development of the profession when nec essary. I agree with Hardesty in his assessment that environmental studies in historical archaeology could and should be one of the foremost research topics of the new millennium. Prehistoric ar chaeologists have most often looked at the lim its placed on culture change by the environment, as well as ways that culture has adapted to en vironmental limits and/or changes. Historical archaeologists, on the other hand, have a poten tially rich source of research topics in the ways by which the environment has been affected by modern technology and culture. Hardesty has listed a few of these events (fires, floods, defor estation, etc.) and processes (climatic cycles) by which environmental change has been spurred by human intervention. I would add to this list the study of environmental change resulting from terraforming, consumerism, and, more basically, the environmental changes that have been associ ated with a rapidly increasing population during the modern period. As Hardesty so aptly points out, landscapes are a prime source of data about modern human interactions with the environment. Unfortunately, a potential problem affecting an increase in land scape studies within the historical archaeology of the next millennium lies in the way archaeology is now conducted. Especially in the United States and Canada, but increasingly in other ar eas of the world, field investigations of archaeo logical sites are conducted primarily within the confines of CRM, or its equivalents. By its na ture, the CRM currently being conducted in the United States as a response to the demands of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is inherently particularistic. Only that portion of the landscape affected by a pro posed undertaking is generally available for study. Within that "area of potential effect," archaeological sites are identified, evaluated, and, if determined to be significant, more thoroughly i vestigated on the bases of their own merits than in their relationships with the larger whole, i.e., the landscape. Only in certain circum stances, when a project covers a large area, is it possible to use the relationships between the en vironment and the humans occupying it as a ba sis for a research agenda. In the 1994 "Save the Past for the Future II" Conference, held in Breckenridge, Colorado, a significant topic of discussion within the Inte grated Resource Management Workshop was the policy of "ecosystem management" within United States federal land-holding agencies (Nick els 1995:41-46). Traditionally, this approach has ignored the relationship between humans and the environment, or at most, has viewed humans as

Through a novel approach for cultural resource management, more than 3,000 artifacts collected 100 years ago near a North Slope village are back in Alaska as a result of a collaborative effort among the local community, archaeological researchers, the University of Alaska Museum of the North, and industry. Rather than assess indirect project effects on widely dispersed sites around a remote project area, a multi-year program addressed local community concerns in a reciprocal approach. This reciprocal mitigation can act as a model to be considered for similar cultural management strategies. Following regular and consistent communication with community leaders and residents, we learned about a long-standing desire to reconnect with a collection of artifacts that were excavated from the area in 1914 by the pioneering Canadian archaeologist Diamond Jenness and curated at the Canadian Museum of History. The collection includes antler arrowheads, ivory harpoon heads, traditional copper and slate knives and other remarkably preserved artifacts that represent a way of life extending back 1,000 years. The project's multi-year cultural resources management program culminated in the return of this collection to Alaska for the first time in over 100 years. As part of a museum-to-museum loan, the iconic collection was sent to the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks, where local community cultural experts were invited to visit and assist researchers in the documentation and analysis process. The program evolved into a cultural exchange where village residents were able to reconnect with the collection, helping bolster local elementary and secondary education programs which preserve and advance their rich Iñupiat cultural heritage. The collection played a key role in the growth and basic knowledge of circumpolar archaeology in North America in 1914 and was an early example of scientific collaboration with local experts. The current project's melding of science and traditional knowledge is in keeping with the collaborative nature of the initial excavation and has brought new life and understanding to a 100-year-old collection while satisfying cultural resource management requirements for an oil and gas development project.

Cultural resource management, normally referred to as “CRM,” may be defined as cultural heritage management within a framework of federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage, in terms of cultural resource management, may be defined as those places, objects, structures, buildings, and evidence of past material culture and life that are important to understanding, appreciating, or preserving the past. CRM is similar to heritage programs in other countries, but the term and practice of CRM as defined here is unique to the United States. America’s concern with cultural resources was reflected early in the 20th century with passage of the American Antiquities Act of 1906, which authorized the president to establish national monuments of federally owned or controlled properties, and for the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and the Army to issue permits for investigations of archaeological sites and objects on lands they controlled. The National Park Service was created in 1916 and assumed responsibility for cultural resources associated with national parks and monuments. Archaeology played a prominent role in the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and other relief programs during the Great Depression, and large-scale investigations that employed thousands were conducted across the country. Cultural resource management, as it is currently practiced, was a product of the environmental movement of the 1960s, when federal cultural resources were given the same level of protection as elements of the natural environment, such as wetlands and protected plant and animal species. Cultural resource management deals with a range of resource types, and the breadth of the field will be reflected in the discussions that follow.

Landholding agencies in the United States are under increasing pressure to integrate cultural and natural resource management approaches at a landscape level and to do so earlier and more comprehensively in planning processes. How to integrate management practices is poorly understood, however. An impediment to integration is that the laws, methods, and tools used in cultural and natural resource management differ significantly. Natural resource management protects or rehabilitates habitats and ecosystems that support endangered species, while cultural resource management focuses on identification and protection of individual sites. Agencies need to shift the focus from managing sites to defining cultural landscape elements and their relationship to natural resource management units and concerns. We suggest that agencies use archaeological predictive modeling, resource classes, and paleoenvironmental and cultural historical information to geospatially define cultural landscapes, predict resource distributions and values, and identify opportunities and protocols for collectively managing cultural and natural resources. As the United States faces increasing deregulation and limited preservation funding, we believe an integrated approach will be critical in preserving and protecting both cultural and natural heritage.

Off Course? A Career in Archaeology Outside of the Academy