Historical Archaeology in the Next Millennium: A view from CRM

Abstract

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