Archaeological Science Outside the Ivory Tower: Perspectives from CRM

By Duane Peter (DP Heritage Consulting and ACRA)

Ongoing communication between Dr. Andrew Zipkin of Arizona State University and Vice President for Social Media and Outreach for The Society for Archaeological Sciences (SAS) and Duane Peter, Chair of the American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA) Task Force for Promoting Synergy between the Academy and the Cultural Resources Management (CRM) industry revealed a common interest in promoting increased collaboration between academic and CRM professionals. As a result, Dr. Zipkin invited Mr. Peter to attend a Society for American Archaeology session, “Archaeological Science Outside the Ivory Tower:  Perspectives from CRM” (Zipkin and Leslie 2019) and provide a review of the session. SAS sponsored the session as a means of seeking partnerships with the CRM community. 

The purpose of the session, co-chaired by Dr. Zipkin and Dr. David Leslie of Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc., was to address these three questions:  (1) What do we know about the intersection of CRM and archaeological sciences?; (2) What don’t we know?; and (3) What questions have we not yet thought to ask?  Dr. Zipkin’s introductory review of available literature and data clearly demonstrates that we do not have reliable data regarding the intersection of CRM and archaeological sciences.  Everyone agrees that the use of archaeological science services has increased significantly over the past two decades, particularly geophysical prospecting, 3D modeling, and Structure from Motion photogrammetry. Dr. Zipkin’s review of RPA-certified training in archaeological science topics from September 2018 to February 2019 revealed these topics:  high density survey and measurement, photogrammetry, laser scanning, paleoethnobotany, experimental archaeology, integration of drones into fieldwork, forensic anthropology, and x-ray radiography of metals. Responses from the CRM presenters included these additional science services :  geoarchaeology, starch grain analysis, chronological dating, LIDAR, magnetometry, ground penetrating radar (GPR), dendrochronology, ceramic petrography, metal detection, and Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR).  A notable topic not addressed is the amazing advances in the sciences used to interpret and date rock art (Boyd 2016). 

Although certain presentations focused on specific techniques (e.g., ceramic petrography (Ownby 2019), metal detection (McBride 2019), ground penetrating radar (Leach 2019), and geoarchaeology (Scholl 2019)),  three presentations (Ranslow and Leslie 2019; Elquist 2019; and Peterson et al. 2019) stood out for their use of multiple scientific services and collaboration with academic professionals. Ms. Ranslow’s and David Leslie’s evaluation of the archaeological potential of a marine environment bordered by what was assumed to be urban fill used multiple techniques in addition to historical research to assess a complex stratigraphic environment.  The result was the detection of a Contact Period trading post as well as Archaic and Woodland period occupations and the development of a Sea Level Curve for southwestern Connecticut.  The study used a suite of scientific approaches (LiDAR, GPR, Vibracoring and Geoprobe data collection, and radiocarbon dating) to demonstrate that urban/developed does not mean a destroyed/disturbed context.  

Ms. Ora Elquist’s re-analysis of the North Shore site (RI 935B) that was previously investigated by De Leuw Cather/Parsons in 1981-82 indicates in part how far we have come since the 1980s. Paleoenvironmental reconstruction in the early 1980s involved thin-section analysis of shellfish, cementum banding analysis of deer teeth, soil flotation, and radiocarbon dating. FTIR, pollen, and phytolith analysis of ceramic residue, XRF analysis of lithics, and reanalysis of the charcoal samples originally processed by Dicarb Radioisotope Company (no longer in business) reveals a more accurate and complete picture of Woodland period seasonal use of the landscape.  The expertise of Brown University Environmental Chemistry Facility, Paleo Research, Inc., and Beta Analytic, Inc. was essential to this reanalysis.  

The relocation of Bethel Cemetery was managed by a team consisting of a CRM group within an environmental engineering company (Cardno, Inc.), two universities, and consulting specialists.  The project involved the use of geophysical prospection (GPR and electrical resistivity), Structure from Motion photogrammetry for the recording of the burials, and osteological analysis conducted by the University of Indiana and Indiana University – Purdue University, Indianapolis. The geophysical prospection revealed over 350 unmarked burials.  Documentation of the burials with Structure from Motion photogrammetry provided accuracy and detail not achieved efficiently by any other means. 

A singular presentation on a specific technique, GPR, was of particular note.  Mr. Peter Leach of GSSI demonstrated results of GPR prospection, including that of a new compact system.  Using the compact system at grid intervals of a few centimeters, Peter Leach was able to identify the location of the skull of a historic period burial.   Ongoing developments within the GPR industry may prove very useful to excavation efforts.  Remote sensing prospection was once hit or miss, but experience and technological advancements indicate that prospection should allow intensive archaeological excavation to focus on primary activity areas, resulting in better data contributing to an understanding of human adaptation. 

Another presentation, “What Next? The Pivotal Role of Archaeological Science in Heritage Management,” by Dr. Joseph Schuldenrein (2019) focused on the use of historical and archaeological data and 3D reconstruction of the historic landscape.  Joseph’s emphasis was the use of science and technology to make prehistory and history relevant to the public. The most unique presentation, “The Science in Small Business: A Small Business’s  Process and Problems with Archaeological Science Techniques,” by Ms. Jana Morehouse (2019) addressed the challenges of a small business acquiring specialized equipment and attracting and retaining an employee qualified to operate the equipment.  This is reality for many small CRM firms.  A small firm either becomes noted for such services, or they rely on collaborators, either other CRM firms or university-based researchers, for such support.   

So, what do we know about the intersection of archaeological sciences and the CRM industry?  We know that the CRM industry is looking for new methods that will allow more efficient collection and analysis of data important to understanding human behavior.  The industry is also working in collaboration with academic professionals; however, increased collaboration would benefit the profession as a whole.  From the presentations it was not obvious that the archaeological sciences specialists were involved in the research design phase of the projects.  An integrated team approach from the research design phase on is essential for the development of meaningful questions, proper data collection, and the eventual understanding of human behavior.  Secondly, the archaeological sciences services should be viewed as valuable tools and not as an end in themselves.  

Addressing the current challenges of the CRM industry and that of the archaeological profession in general requires the development of new methods and the identification of solutions.  Collaboration of the CRM and academic perspectives should enhance the chance of success. The CRM industry frequently has large projects that provide opportunities for collaboration and is a valuable source of data and samples.  We do not know the real scale of investment in archaeological sciences within the industry currently, but the potential for gathering such data is very good if SAS and the industry partner in that effort.     

The session provided an important step in fostering communication between SAS and the CRM community.  The session provided initial answers to the first two questions posed in the session introduction; however, it did not address “What questions have we not yet thought to ask?”  This effort will develop from increased collaboration between CRM and academic professionals, some of which should be outside our traditional fields of study.  It is incumbent upon all of us as individuals to make the effort to reach out to our fellow professionals to enhance our research and compliance efforts.  

References
Boyd, Carolyn A., 2016.The White Shaman Mural:  An Enduring Narrative in the Rock Art of the Lower Pecos. University of Texas Press, Austin. 

Elquist, Ora, 2019. Old Site, New Data: Challenges and Success in the Re-Analysis of the North Shore Site, Providence Cove Lands Archaeological District. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Leach, Peter, David Givens and Robert Boisvert, 2019. The Current State and Future Possibilities of Ground-Penetrating Radar in Cultural Resource Management.  Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

McBride, Kevin, 2019. The Utility of Metal Detector Surveys in CRM. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Morehouse, Jana, 2019. The Science in Small Business: A Small Business’s Process and Problems with Archaeological Science Techniques.  Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Ownby, Mary, 2019. Ceramic Petrography as a Service for CRM Firms and Beyond. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Peterson, Ryan, Alex Badillo, Joshua Meyers, and Jeremy Wilson, 2019. The Bethel Cemetery Relocation Project: Academic Collaboration, Archaeological Science and CRM. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Ranslow, Mandy and David Leslie, 2019. Not Your Average Shovel Test Pit Survey: Archaeology at the Walk Bridge, Norwalk, CT. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Scholl, Nathan, 2019. Tuners Falls Gorge Geoarchaeological Investigations: Modeling Landscape and Archaeological Developments within the Connecticut River Valley.  Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Schuldenrein, Joseph, 2019. What Next? The Pivotal Role of Archaeological Science in Heritage Management.  Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Zipkin, Andrew and David Leslie, 2019. Archaeological Science Outside the Ivory Tower: Perspectives from CRM.  Symposium presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.