Search

The article focuses on public archaeology within the U.S. National Park Service (NPS). The authors explain that archaeologists can work at parks under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), explores the first archaeological preserve created by U.S. President William Henry Harrison in 1892, and presents a case study of public archaeology by the University of North Carolina Greensboro (UNCG) at the Guilford Courthouse National Military Park (GUCO).

Archaeological looting on United States federal land has been illegal for over a century. Regardless, the activity has continued in the Four Corners region. This paper discusses how the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) can be viewed as sumptuary law, and within a sumptuary context, subversion can be anticipated. An analysis of 1986 and June 2009 federal raids in the Four Corners will exemplify this point by identifying local discourses found in newspapers both before and after each raid, which demonstrate a sumptuary effect. Ultimately, this paper concludes that looting just adapted, rather than halted, after each federal raid and that understanding this social context of continued local justification and validation of illegal digging is a potential asset for cultural resource protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the cultural resource management (CRM) legislation in the U.S. that was implemented for the management of cultural resources and heritage in the country. It explores the changes in the manner by which the CRM is implemented when professional archaeologists have been integrated into the business sector as private consultants. It also presents some examples of problems encountered after a CRM contract is in effect, and examines archaeologists' authority limitations. The author believes that in order for professional archaeological consultants to professionally represent their clients, they must enable clients to comply with the recommendations of the regulatory agency.

The author comments on the article "Professional Problem Domains of Consulting Archaeologists: Responsibility Without Authority," by Harry M. Piper. He advances some of the issues and problems raised by Piper related to cultural resource management (CRM) legislation in the U.S., wherein archaeologists act as consultant, and addresses problems centering on client-archaeologist relationship. The author believes that the foundation of CRM lies in the regulations that specify responsibilities.

The article presents a letter from the founder and archaeological director of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology which was written in support of federal legislation that passed the U.S. House, but died in the Senate. The legislation affects archaeologists, sport divers and treasure-hunters. The author directed the first complete excavation of a shipwreck on the seabed, and developed many of the mapping techniques which have made underwater archaeology a scientific pursuit. The article highlights issues relating to nautical archaeology.

Reports that a prosecutor in Colorado in May 2001 declined to use the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) to indict a couple alleged to have removed Native American skeletal remains. Comments from archaeologist Mark Varien on the failure to prosecute; Assessment of the role of ARPA statute; Case of Ian Lynch, who has been charged under ARPA for removing a skull from Heceta Island, Alaska.

The author reflects on the challenges faced by archaeologists in the U.S. in their integration into the market. He notes that while some survive the pressures in archaeological consultancy, many failed to continue their business. He also remarks on the introduction of the so called "three-party relationship,"wherein the federal or state agency is required by law to oversee the archaeological resources, the archaeologists, and the client who plans to pursue certain modification project.