IX. Contemporary Issues

In the contemporary world of academics and politics, managerial techniques are applied to everything, including archaeology sites and artifacts. These activities fall under the overall category of resources and culture resource management (CRM). Fundamentally there are natural resources and cultural resources. Archaeological sites, artifacts and any data collected are cultural resources. In turn these must be managed for preservation and conservation. Numerous institutions have been established to do this, such as universities/colleges, museums, culture centers, information centers, special repositories, etc. In actuality culture resource management (CRM) really starts with the research design with plans for storage of data and artifacts; in conjunction with site assessment or mitigation. This may be followed by preservation (stabilization or protection without modification) or conservation (stabilization with repair or interpretive rebuilding) of sites or artifacts with projected study or exhibition. Unfortunately this takes extensive resources and the investment of such is often a low priority. Evidence indicates that cultural heritage conservation provides numerous benefits for people, especially in areas of self esteem and education. The Palomar College courses in archaeological survey and archaeology lab deal with the specifics of CRM. In terms of North American archaeology the universities and museums were the first institutions to take on the cultural heritage of American prehistory. In the 1980's many local museums, cultural centers and historical societies found that improvement of exhibits and activities celebrating America's past were good for tourism. At the same time development of the land and destruction of sites continued with professional contract archaeologists doing the brunt of assessment and mitigation generated by the deluge of environmental laws. All of this activity helped to preserve cultural information about prehistoric and historic cultures, but produced extensive amounts of artifacts and data. Information centers and repositories had to be expanded. Then in 1990 NAGPRA (see below) added further procedures to preservation and repatriation. This provided funds for Native American groups to develop their own culture centers and museums. Also, gaming provided some tribes with the resources to develop their own CRM programs. Finally, on the last space of the Washington D.C. mall a museum (NMAI) was built to feature the American Indian, this nations first people. The following is a list of some of these organizations/ institutions:

In the United States a series of laws developed from the Antiquities Act of 1906 to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 represent a long conflict between various elements over the ownership of Americas' past and cultural heritage. This has led to the current status of repatriation issues. Currently, archaeologists and Native American groups have been working together a good deal. In any site dealing with Native American cultures it is required that a Native American Observer be designated and present during excavation procedures. This aspect has greatly improved with better education of Native American Observers and archeologists. Native American communities as a part of NAGPRA have developed cultural committees that have developed understandings of procedures in archaeology and concerns from traditional perspectives.

America's heritage also includes 500 years of non-Indian cultures (European American, African American and Asian/Pacific Islander American) on the continent and in the United States. The field of historical archaeology generally deals with the evidence colonial history and  history of the American Republic. Excavation techniques are similar to prehistoric sites, but considerable historic research must be done to compare the field data. In some cases the clash of Native American and non-Indian cultures are involved in archaeological sites. Early Spanish explorations such as Desoto's Expedition in 1539 and the English in Jamestown 1607 provide archaeological data that involves both cultures. The implications of these contacts has led archaeologists and ethno-historians to conclude that initial population figures projected for pre-contact Native Americans, especially in North America, were way too low.

In California the contact of the Spanish and California Indians produced extensive historical archaeological data. Excavations have been conducted at San Juan Capistrano Mission and one can visit on going excavation. In San Diego's Old Town and other sites excavations have revealed evidence of Hispanic and Anglo American cultures.

Copyright © S. J. Crouthamel 2013