Archaeology Magazine - September 1977 - 65

Eligibilityfor the National Register of Historic Places.
These standards demand that the archaeologist go
through a specific set of steps to develop an
argument for or against the value of the site in
question.
The majorityof archaeologists still do not realize
that times have changed in this way. Those who are
interested in prehistoric sites often ignore material
representing periods after the European invasion;
many make bald statements about the significance
or insignificanceof sites without any effort to
substantiate their judgments. Some conduct quick,
sloppy surveys when detailed, careful ones are
needed, and many fail to describe their survey
methods sufficientlyin their reports to enable
reviewers to understand what was done. When these
things happen, the archaeologist has essentially
failed to give the sponsor agency enough information
to fulfillits legal responsibilities.
Since archaeology is now at least partially
integrated into the project planning process, salvage
work no longer begins as soon as the survey is
complete. Survey data must first be put together
with other environmental,social, economic and
engineering data to help the agency decide whether
or not to proceed with the project. During this
process, efforts should be made to preserve rather
than merely salvage the discovered sites if possible.
In order to do this, the agency is required to consult
the State HistoricPreservation Officerresponsible
for the area and contact the President's Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. Often the National
Park Service and other agencies, as well as
concerned professionals and private citizens, are
also involved in this consultation. Archaeologists
unfamiliarwith the legal requirements have been
known to short circuit this important step and seek
salvage contracts immediately after, or even before,
completing a survey. If successful, they place the
sponsor agency in a tenuous legal position and
often end up conducting incomplete salvage projects
that are detrimental to the sites. At times, some
archaeologists spend a good deal more money than
the sites are worth, wasting tax dollars that would
have been saved had the project undergone the
complete scrutiny provided for by the law. Moreover,
the sponsor agency can also cause problems in the
planning process. Some sponsor agencies, for
example, insist on placing tight limitations on the
archaeologist's field methods, even to the point of
specifying what screen size willbe used, and others
often pressure archaeologists into "writingoff"
significant sites. The solution to these problems lies
in the insistence by both the sponsor agencies and
the archaeologists on full compliance with the
consultation processes provided by the historic
preservation laws. Full consultation should ensure
that research designs are carefully formulated, that
contract terms are reasonably written, and that
archaeological projects are economically responsible.
Once a site is.destined for archaeological
salvage under contract, the task of findingthe best
archaeologist to do the job must be faced. One of the
hottest controversies in contract archaeology today
surrounds the methods by which archaeological

services are procured. The most obvious way is
simply to find the archaeologist who knows the most
about the area to be studied and give him or her a
contract. This so-called "sole-source" method was
almost the only solution until a few years ago. There
are several problems inherent in the method. One
is that there may be several archaeologists- or
none- who know "most" about an area. Another
is that this type of procurement usually selects
established local institutions and rejects alternatives,
such as younger, newer institutions, institutions that
may be distant from the project area but highly
qualified, or qualified non-institutions such as private
firms. Not only is this widely regarded as unfair, it
can also lead to intellectual atrophy when one
institution with a single point of view dominates an
area's archaeological research. At the opposite end
of the spectrum, are the federal agencies which
procure archaeological services by advertising for a
project and selecting the lowest bidder. As one might
expect, these agencies often get what they pay for;
in a field like archaeology, where the exact product of
research cannot be fullydefined, cheapest is by no
means always best.
The National Park Service's Interagency
ArchaeologicalServices, which coordinates
contract work under terms of the Moss-Bennett Act,
recommends "negotiated" procurement. Under this
system, an archaeological project is advertised and
a detailed request for proposals is provided to
interested parties. The resulting proposals are then
evaluated by a panel of professional archaeologists
and one or more adequate proposals are selected.
Only then is cost taken into account, and
negotiations for a reasonable price begin. Some
archaeologists object to this approach because of the
difficultyof preparing proposals; they argue that only
large consulting firms with full time proposal writing
staffs can afford to develop detailed research designs
for many projects. Many contract archaeologists have
suggested some form of "preselection" which would
involve judging potential contractors on the basis of
their technical qualifications and requesting proposals
from a select few. While the problem that the
preselection advocates point out is real, their
solution has some of the same dangers as
does the sole-source procurement.
There is no single or simple solution to all the
technical and administrative problems of contract
archaeology. A start could be made, however, if
federal agencies would coordinate their procedures
and if archaeologists would learn them. When thirty
different agencies are obtaining archaeological
services using at least ten different systems, when in
many cases contractors are being selected by the
single, often poorly trained archaeologist on the
agency's staff, and when the contractors often do not
know what they should deliver, confusion and conflict
are inevitable. What must be kept in mind amid all
the problems is the original purpose for institutingthe
legislation and administrative procedures - the
preservation of this country's cultural and historic
heritage.
Thomas F. King
National Park Service
353
Archaeology Magazine - September 1977

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - September 1977
