Brief history of U.S. archeology and curation
Archeology in the United States has changed significantly in the last century or more. The role that the management and care of material remains and associated records plays in the profession also has changed through the years. Unfortunately, curation typically has not been a core component of archeologists' work, except in the very early days.
Late 19th-Early 20th Centuries
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, archeology in the US was closely aligned with museums. Museums hired archeologists such as Cyrus Thomas, Arthur C. Parker, and Fredrick Ward Putnam to conduct fieldwork and bring their collections to the museums for research, conservation, storage, and exhibition. Major museums founded at this time included the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) and the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. These and other museums tended to consider anthropological collections as part of natural history rather than cultural history. Placement of anthropological collections in natural history museums reflected attitudes of the time concerning "primitive" peoples (e.g., L.H. Morgan's "Savagery, Barbarism, Civilization" classification scheme) and the idea that the past of non-European-based cultures was vastly inferior. /p>
The Smithsonian's Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) was particularly important in advancing American archeology at this time. Established in 1876, the BAE was originally concerned with determining the origin of Native Americans and resolving the Moundbuilder Myth. They were also at the forefront of defining archeology as a science, advocating a specialization and professionalism within archeology, and aligning archeology with anthropology.
The importance of managing historical documentation was realized early at the Smithsonian. The Institution's first Secretary, Joseph Henry, founded the SI Archives in 1891. The National Anthropological Archives and the Human Studies Film Archives were founded in the next century to preserve anthropological collections, including field records, personal papers, photographs, and related materials.
In the beginning of the 20th century, major changes began to take place in both museums and archeology. Museums (with the exception of museum archives) became somewhat less concerned with research and acquiring collections and more concerned with public education and exhibition. Archeology, on the other hand, became a better recognized profession that required university instruction. The teaching of archeology in colleges and universities meant that excavation and research were now conducted by these institutions to a greater degree than museums. As a consequence, the excavation and making of collections began to be separated from collections care and management. So, too, began a slow demise in the curation of archeological collections in general.
The late 19th and early 20th centuries also marked the start of the concern for cultural resources and historic preservation reflected in the passage of federal legislation. The Antiquities Act of 1906 was the first major cultural resources law in the United States. It was passed mainly to protect archeological sites from looting, which had become a serious problem in the southwest, and to control research on federal and tribal lands through a permitting process. The Act also addressed curation to a certain extent. It stated that objects collected under the Act were for "permanent preservation in public museums" and that "every collection…shall be preserved in the public museum designated by the permit and shall be accessible to the public." Unfortunately, it did not explicitly recognize the need for standards or guidelines on how to perform these functions and who was responsible for getting them done.
Interestingly, while concern for preserving sites and objects was peaking in this period, the materials used to document archeology began a significant decline in life expectancy. Papers, inks, copy processes, and other media began a steady decline around 1850. It turns out, however, that these materials have much better quality and durability than the short-lived digital media of the 21st century.
The '30s into the '70s
Public works projects and "salvage archeology" became significant types of archeological work, especially on federal and state land, from the 1930s into the 1970s. Without standards or mandates to guide archeologists, curation fell by the wayside. These projects were designed to quickly excavate and preserve the archeological record prior to its destruction by the development of roads, waterworks, buildings, etc.
The archeology of the 1930s was characterized by federal works programs. Initiated by Roosevelt under the New Deal to try to end the Great Depression, these federal projects provided work for the unemployed. Important New Deal programs that engaged in archeology included the Works Progress Administration (WPA), Civil Works Administration (CWA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
New Deal projects involved large-scale excavations with some concentration of effort in the southeast. Major projects included Marksville in Louisiana, Ocmulgee National Monument in Georgia, the Chickamauga Basin in Tennessee, and the Missouri Basin Project along the Missouri River. These projects were coordinated through cooperative programs between the National Park Service (NPS), BAE, and a number of university departments.
The large-scale federal projects initiated under these programs brought a large volume of artifacts and associated records into repositories and other facilities in a short span of time. These collections often were not housed in archival quality or long-lived materials (cigar boxes, tin cans, and paper bags were the norm for storing artifacts) and received a minimum of research, analysis, and interpretation. The documentation was usually not produced using long-lived media or stored in long-lived containers. While these projects were important in advancing our understanding of the culture history of the United States, there was little to no thought given to long-term care of the collections. Laboratories weren't even a necessary project element until the late 1930s (Sullivan and Childs in press). Research and site reports were also sporadic in their quality, quantity, and scope (Haag 1985). The sad state of collections care for these projects has meant that many of the material remains and associated records are still unprocessed, are poorly known, and/or are lost. Furthermore, their life expectancy into the future is endangered.
Archeology all but stopped during World War II. After the war ended salvage archeology once again became important as large-scale federal construction projects were initiated or continued. One of the largest salvage projects at the time was the NPS and BAE's River Basin Survey (RBS). The RBS program was initiated to save sites that were going to be covered by water through the construction of major dams and reservoirs, mainly by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The largest part of this program was in the Missouri River Basin, where destruction of cultural resources at the main stem of the basin was estimated at 100% (Jennings 1985).
The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 helped to continue funding for the salvage of archeological sites. The Act did require proper curation of "relics and specimens" from these projects, although there was little thought or funding given to the long-term care of the very large collections amassed from reservoir salvage projects. Many of these collections ended up in non-federal repositories. The majority of these repositories cared for the collections, which still belonged to the federal government, without charging the government a dime for their care.
From the 1950s to the 1970s, similar salvage archeology programs developed in association with other major federal construction of highways and for oil, gas, and electricity transmission lines.
As noted, work done on many of these federal projects was often supervised by university departments, including professors and graduate students. Academic archeologists were also involved in fieldwork all over the world and large collections came into this country from other areas of the globe. Often, it was the individual professor or researcher who was responsible for the care of their material remains and associated records. This meant that much valuable research material sat in offices or closets, not in adequate repositories.
Anthropology and archeology departments placed an emphasis on research, fieldwork, and theory, not on collections management. While some large universities have established their own archeology museums (e.g., University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Tennessee, University of California at Berkeley) very few have directly linked their archeology programs with collections care and curation.
The disentanglement of museums and archeological excavations, the rapid increase in salvage archeology, and the changing academic professionalism of archeology have all contributed to problems in curation today. There also continues to be an attitude in archeology that fieldwork is much more important than collections care. Another common attitude is that collections management is what museum and archival staff do, not what archeologists do. Archeologists usually were not (and still are not) taught about curation or collections management and its importance in graduate school. Furthermore, many curators and archivists of archeological collection know relatively little about archeology.
From the '70s to Today
Archeology changed significantly again in the 1970s and '80s. Concern about historic preservation issues and the management of cultural resources, including archeological resources, led to passage of various laws (see Section III). Implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 led to the development of what is now known as contract or cultural resources management (CRM) archeology. The majority of fieldwork in the US today is done through contract archeology and is not always tied to academia. As with earlier salvage programs, these programs have been mandated to save significant archeological sites from destruction by developers or to document sites before destruction. These often small-scale, hurried inventories, evaluations, or excavations continue to bring a large number of objects and associated records into repositories. The sheer number of items in those collections was something that few were prepared for, and many repositories have been unable to maintain their care.
Furthermore, many contracts for such work on federal, tribal and state land did not address copyright issues. Museums and archives, therefore, now hold and manage collections that they may not publish, reproduce, exhibit, or produce alternate versions of, except for fair use purposes, for long periods of time.
Some contract work, including survey, testing and excavation, has been criticized for producing inadequate analysis for colleagues or interpretation for the public. The majority of these projects produce a site report or "gray literature". Gray literature is usually defined as the unpublished project report(s) from CRM assessment or fieldwork. The problem with these reports is that few people see or have access to them due to the limited numbers that are printed and their rare appearance in libraries. It is very difficult to get a complete picture of the archeological resources in a region if information on where sites are (and are not) and details of their content are not readily available to the archeological community.
Curation of archeological collections has gradually increased in importance to the profession. The passage of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) in 1979 helped define and prioritize curation once again as an essential aspect of planning and implementing archeological projects. Regulations for the curation of federally owned and associated collections, 36 CFR 79, were finally passed in 1990. Archeological curation also has been aided by the strengthening professionalism of the museum field and the passage of related legislation such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA has, in fact, significantly assisted collections management by forcing agencies and repositories to conduct inventories and grapple with the issue of deaccessioning.