FORUM

THE FOUR FIELDS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Charles R. McGimsey I11

The increase infinding associated with new legislation subseq~lentto the late 1960s and the introduction of Cultziral Resource
Management (CRM) research has changed archaeology in tnany ways. Not the least of these changes is the firstfullflowerittg of archaeology's four fields of endeavor (research and report writing, teaching, management, and outreach) to the
extent that it is now possible for individuals to devote majorportions of their career to a singlefield, and increasingly they
are doing so, though a career that entails some work in more than one field is still, and probably should remain, the rule.
Within the research field, academic research and research activities related to archaeological resource management (ARM)
should develop as complementary rather than as compartmentalized approaches to the database. The teaching field must
emphasize training students for service in all four fields. Management and public outreach should be recognized as legitimate fields offull-time archaeological endeavol; and public accountability should be embraced.
El azimento delfinanciamiento que se asocia con la nueva legislacidn posterior a fines de la d6cada de 10s 60 y la introdziccidn de investigaciones acerca del manejo de recursos cult~lrnles(CRM) han transfotmado la arqueologia de diversas maneras. Un cambio de particzdar importancia es que por primera vez se desarrollan plenamente 10s cuatro campos de accidn
de la arqueologia (la investigacidn y la elaboracidn de informes, la enseiianza, la administracidn y las relaciones publicas),
hasta el punto que ahora esposible que 10s individuospuedan dedicargranparte de su carrera a un solo campo, lo cual sucede
cada vez con mayorfrecuencia, aun cuando una carrera que incluya trabajos en mds de un campo todavia es la norma 4; prob
ablemente, debe seguir sie'ndolo. Dentro del catnpo de la investigacidn, la acadimica y las actividades de investigacio'n relacionadas con el manejo de recursos arqueolo'gicos (ARM) no se debe desarrollar como un enfoque dividido en categorias
fragmentadas, sino como complementario a la base de datos. En el campo de la ensetianza se debe hacer e'nfasis en el entrenamiento de 10s estudiantes en 10s cuatro campos. La administracidn y las relaciones publicas debett ser reconocidas como
catnpos legitimos justijcados en la invesrigacio'n de tiempo conzpleto y se debe abrazar la responsabilidadpublica.

nce upon a time, immediately after World

War Two (WWII), the entire discipline of
archaeology was madeup ofuniversity and
college professors, a handful of people employed
by the National Park Service to manage archaeological resources, and a few museum- or foundation-supported personnel. The vast majority of these
archaeologists, because of their higher-education
affiliation, had the Ph.D. There were individuals
with M.A.s, some of whom achieved professional
status equal to the Ph.D., but in general it was felt
that the M.A. did not confer full professional status, and most performed in a somewhat subsidiary
capacity. The professors taught during the school
year and carried out, or at least directed, field
research in areas and on topics of their own choosing during the summer months or during sabbaticals or other time off from teaching. Their research

support was drawn largely from their own institutions, private resources, foundations, and a few governmental programs. There were rarely time
restrictions on final reports, which yielded the
archaeologist the opportunity to address the interpretive issues raised by the field research as thoroughly as desired. Unfortunately, it also meant that
frequently such reports were considerably delayed
because of the archaeologist's other duties and often
an absence of funding for analysis and publication.
Aside from the occasional well-to-do individual
who chose to do archaeology as a vocation (e.g.,
Harold Gladwin, Watson Smith), almost no one was
engaged in full-time research. Individuals engaged
in conveying archaeology to the public on anything
like a full-time basis were essentially nonexistent.
The situation just described began seriously to
unravel about 1970 or a little before. Today the dis-

Charles R. McGimsey I11 Arkansas Archaeological Survey, 2475 N. Hatch Ave., Fayettevllle, AR 72704
American Antiquity, 68(4), 2003, pp. 61 1-618

Copyright0 2003 by the Society for American Archaeology

61 2

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

cipline consists of four easily recognizable fields

of endeavor: research and report writing based on
or directed toward interpretation of archaeologically derived field data, university and college
teaching, administration and management, and
public outreach. The four are closely interrelated,
yet each is as distinct, in its way, as are the traditional four fields of anthropology. Most important,
it is now possible to devote a major portion of one's
entire professional life largely to any one of the four
fields. We have long had full-time teachers but now
increasing numbers are being employed to do
essentially full-time research, management, or public outreach. Nonetheless, multiple-field careers
are still the rule. But now, in addition to the traditional situation of teachers who undertake some
research, we have, for example, archaeological
managers or persons primarily involved in public
outreach who also sometimes undertake some
research, essentially full-time researchers who frequently are involved in some management, and
others who participate actively in each of the four
fields in the course of a year. Almost any combination can be found. This is as it should be. But
widespread awareness of the four fields and the
important role that each has to play, as well as the
assurance of easy movement among them, is essential if the discipline is to remain vibrant.
But how did this change come about? In the late
1960s and early 70s the public in general had developed an environmental and conservation aware
ness, and archaeologists became increasingly aware
of and alarmed by the rapid destruction of the
archaeological resource base (Davis 1971 , 1972).
The reasons for these increased concerns (primarily the greatly increased use of heavy machinery
and population expansion since WWII resulting in
massive earth disturbance) are well known. One
major result was new federal legislation (e.g., the
National Historic Preservation Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Archaeological Data
Protection Act, i.e. Moss-Bennett, etc.). Some states
followed through with similar legislation. The
resultant upsurge in archaeological activity, for
those of us experiencing it, was hard to believe.
There was a difference to this new wave of
archaeological research. Up to then archaeological
reports had been directed to other archaeologists
and, ultimately, the public. Now there was a third
audience, intermediate between the other two: the

[Vol. 68, No. 4,20031

manager of the project or agency funding the

research. Initially designated "salvage" or "contract" archaeology,the research efforts funded under
the new legislation have come to be called cultural
resource management or, in archaeological circles,
CRM. However, it would be more accurate if
archaeologists would use ARM (archaeological
resource management) when referring to strictly
archaeological concerns, reserving CRM for the
broader resource management activitiesthat encompass historic and architectural preservation, Native
American heritage, etc., as well as archaeological
ones. Of course, increasingly, contracts are being
let by agencies that truly entail CRM research, but
that is not the concern of this paper and, for clarity,
I will utilize the more restrictive ARM herein.
ARM research differs in several important ways
from the research undertaken earlier by the professorial ranks. The funding agency determines where
the research is to be done and, taking into account
the nature of the threat or destruction likely to result
from the agency's actions, establishes the level and
intensity of the research that is undertaken. Archaeologists were rapidly made aware of other differences as well. A truly major innovation was that a
full project budget needed to be prepared up front
(from scope of work through to final report and,
much later, in the late 1980s, curation), and a time
schedule was established for the completion of all
portions of the research. Furthermore, it was
expected, indeed required, that both budget and
schedule be strictly adhered to. This meant that no
longer did reports linger "in process" for years. The
data became available almost immediately. With
the introduction of ARM, the rules of the research
game changed dramatically in another way.Archaeologists, for the first time, found themselves having
to submit competitive bids for research projects.
ARM has now become well established (Polk
2002), so well, in fact, that there is evident a tendency, by some ARM researchers as well as some
university-based researchers, to view ARM as a
world apart from other more traditional archaeological research. For example, Neumann and Sanford, in their book on cultural resource archaeology,
state that "the events of the last 150 years helped
mold the relationship among the three archaeology
realms-the academic sector, the private sector [I
presume they are referring to the interested and
involved amateurs and collectors here], and the

FORUM

government/public sector-as well as establish

how and why things are done the way they are
now" (Neumann and Sanford 2001:2). In a footnote on that page they are even more specific about
dividing the archaeological world into "academics"
and "professionals," citing the practice of the Registry of Professional Archaeologists as one example justifying their doing so.
In fact, the Register provides that all qualified
individuals, regardless of their area of specialization or source of employment, are considered professionals. I believe that yielding to any tendency
to dichotomize archaeological research activity into
"academic" (research done by those employed by
universities and colleges) and "professional" (that
done by those employed in business or government) creates an inappropriate compartmentalization within archaeological research, building fences
where none should exist. Such usage also fails to
encompass within the discipline's folds those who
perform and contribute in the newly established
nontraditional fields of management and public
outreach, fields that, in the total picture, are as
essential to archaeology as research and teaching.
Finally, it serves to distract us from the very real
career choices that have come into being.
Let us look more closely at who and what is
involved in each of these four fields.
But before doing so I should stress that identification of an individual's activity with a particular field depends entirely upon what activity that
individual is currently engaged in, not upon who
or what sort of organization employs the individual. In particular. we must take care not to equate
ARM with the field of administration and management. Many managers spend time doing
research, just as do teachers. Similarly, while many
persons are employed by ARMICRM firms to do
essentially full-time research and report writing,
these individuals become managers when and if
they become involved with making the management recommendations that form a portion of an
ARM report.

Research and Report Writing

This field includes all research (field, laboratory,
and, increasingly, multidisciplinary work) and writing the technical reports deriving from the resultant data, as well as publications of a theoretical
nature designed to facilitate interpretation of that

61 3

data, which are directed primarily to archaeological colleagues or archaeologically sophisticated

members of the public, though the more attractive
they are to the general public the better. (Publications written specifically for the general public are
considered a part of public outreach.) In a sense this
field might be considered the core field of archaeology (much as cultural anthropology is considered
by some as the core field of anthropology). However, while it is true that ongoing research is central to the other three fields and to a viable
discipline, it is equally true that, should any one of
the other fields suffer serious failure, the ability of
archaeology to exist as a scientific discipline would
be in serious jeopardy.
With the advent of ARM, archaeology, for the
first time, has a significant number of archaeologists
who are conducting field research on essentially a
full-time basis. Their efforts have increased manyfold the data derived from the traditional research
carried out on a part-time basis by academics.
As I indicated earlier, there is a feeling on the
part of some that a distinction should be drawn
between academically based research and ARMfunded research. Let me cite two examples of the
concerns being expressed from an academic perspective, both drawn from the recent SAA booklet
TeachingArclzneology in the Twenty First Centun:
"As has been pointed out, the master's degree is the
most appropriate qualification for entry into the
nonacademic world, for the Ph.D. is a pure research
degree" (Fagan 2000: 128); "[blecause of restructured job markets and the scaling down of the academy, proposals [to restructure graduate education]
center on de-emphasis of the Ph.D. and refocusing
on the M.A. which should form the 'driver's
license' or union card for all positions of senior
responsibility in commercial entities engaging in
professional practices" (Schuldenrein 2000:
136-137).
As I interpret them, both of these quotes suggest that the M.A. degree is the most appropriate
one for ARM research, while relegating "pure
research" to the domain of the Ph.D.s in academe.
Both views should be challenged.
Much of the ARM research initiated under the
expanded funding that occurred in the 1970s and
onward was, of necessity, undertaken by individuals holding the M.A. (for there simply weren't
enough Ph.D.s available to meet the demand). And

61 4

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

today, many of these individuals constitute the

senior and most experienced ARM research and
administrative personnel. This is in stark contrast
to the research situation prior to the 1970s when
almost all research was done under the direction of
individuals possessing the Ph.D. But just because
it was a necessity to call largely upon M.A.s in the
past does not mean that it is the best path to take in
the future and that there is but a limited role for the
Ph.D. in ARM. If we accept the fact that ARM is
where the vast majority of archaeological field
research is now being accomplished and will continue to be accomplished in the foreseeable future,
it is inconceivable that responsibility for ARM
research should be allocated solely, or even primarily, to persons possessing the M.A. degree, as
Fagan and Schuldenrein seem to be suggesting.
Ph.D.s, by definition, have received more training
and should have a broader perspective, and the dissertation should provide good evidence that the
individual could be responsible for successfully
carrying out amajor research project. Ph.D.s belong
where the action is for that is where the precious
original data is going to be saved or lost forever. If
archaeologists don't see to it that there is a healthy
mix of properly trained M.A.s anclPh.D.s involved
in the ARM fray, they will have failed completely
in their responsibility to themselves, to the public,
and especially to the resources.
Fagan also states that "pure research" is the
domain of the Ph.D., with the implication that it is
most likely to be carried out by those in academia.
I am not quite sure exactly what he means by "pure"
but possibly it implies having the opportunity to
spend long periods contemplating generalized
research of a theoretical nature independent of any
specific set of data. It is true that universities leave
the archaeologist relatively free to determine the
nature of his or her research, thus permitting longterm contemplative research as a part of one's job
description (though, in practice, much of it is probably done on one's own time). ARM funding to
directly support extensive contemplation is highly
unlikely. If that is all that is intended I have no
quarrel with his statement.
What troubles me is the unstated, and probably
unintended, impression that, since it is unlikely that
ARM-funded research is going to be highly theoretical or contemplative in nature, the value or status of that research is somehow diminished. If you

[Vol. 68, No. 4, 20031

don't have the abundance of well-documented and

reported data provided by ARM research, to what
are you going to apply your theories? (If ARM
research is not well documented and reported the
perpetrators should be called to account.) Also,
there is no reason why archaeologists employed to
do ARM research cannot, on their own time, do
contemplative research or, for that matter, apply for
a grant to do so in between (or as an add-on to)
ARM projects. It is true that academic and ARM
research and reports will occasionally concentrate
on areas not normally considered by the other, e.g.,
ARM researchers often undertake research on
preservation, curation, and other relevant topics
rarely addressed by academic researchers. However, this difference in the limits of the total scope
of research undertaken by academic and ARM
researchers provides no legitimate rationale for segregating their research into different camps.
We must reaffirm what ARM really means, to
ourselves and to those who employ us. One major
goal of the underlying legislation is to insure that
the public has appropriate access to archaeological information. It must be remembered that ARM
reports are, inherently, of a dual nature: management and research. Every ARM report must provide the planners with an adequate base for making
proper decisions relevant to the archaeological
resources to be affected by the project (the management portion of the report), but the ultimate
purpose of any ARM report is to present the results
of research on the archaeological data base in a style
and format such that it can contribute meaningfully
to the public's understanding (the research portion
of the report). The public, represented by State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and agency
reviewers, not the agency management or other
sponsor, is the final target of the end product. The
report that is provided to the funding entity must
not be simply some formalistic presentation of
meaningless or barely interpreted data accompanied by a set of recommendations. It is no doubt
true that most ARM Phase I (archaeological survey or overview of the area to be impacted), and
even many Phase I1 (testing the sites found for significance) reports often do not directly attack major
or even minor scientific problems. It must be
remembered that these ARM projects are primarily to establish site significance and eligibility for
the National Register and are designed principally

FORUM

for that purpose rather than solving other problems.

(There are exceptions, but, generally, there is not
much you can do problem-wise with the data gathered from a preliminary pipeline survey that is five
miles long and ten feet wide, though those data,
when added to other subsequently, or previously,
gathered bits and pieces, may prove to be significant.) On the other hand, larger ARM projects, particularly Phase 111projects (excavation or other data
recovery sufficient to mitigate any adverse impact),
should meet high standards for research; the
research should add substantially to the archaeological database both factual and theoretical. Only
if Phase I11 reports and, when appropriate, Phase I
and I1 reports, make full and appropriate use of the
data gained and provide the public with the information they want and deserve in a meaningful manner can we justify the continued utilization of public
funds for archaeological research.
There often are differences between the focus
of academic and ARM research, as I have outlined
briefly above. But it does not follow from that that
one or the other is of lesser or greater importance
or should be held to a different standard. Both academically based research and ARM-funded
research have legitimate and mutually complementary roles to play in the total picture of archaeological research for they both are endeavoring to
derive the maximum possible information from the
data base. These two research efforts should not
become compartmentalized. The only basic division within the field of research that should concern us is that between "good" archaeological
research and " b a d archaeological research.
The public currently is investing considerable
sums of money in archaeological research, particularly ARM research. It has a right to expect that
archaeologists will not submit, nor agencies or
other sponsors accept, reports that do not fulfill the
intent of the law or meet accepted professional standards. It is the responsibility of the archaeological
profession to take whatever action is necessary to
provide that assurance. One of the major reasons
the Register of Professional Archaeologists was
established was to provide such professional oversight. The Register identifies those archaeologists
who meet basic standards of training and experience, and who have agreed to accept and adhere to
a Code of Conduct and Standards of Research Performance. It provides a grievance procedure to

615

identify those who fail to do so. For segments of

ARM research, the agency and SHPO reviews provide one form of the necessary oversight. The Register, by holding all registered archaeologists
publicly accountable, however funded, provides
the discipline with amore universal means of assuring the public of professional performance, though,
obviously, only when most qualified archaeologists
become registered can it be fully effective. Should
the discipline fail in this attempt to police itself,
some form of public licensing may become
inevitable.
In the final analysis, archaeological research is
archaeological research. Good archaeological
research is all part and parcel of a single field of
archaeological endeavor.

Teaching Archaeology
I would restrict the teaching field to those who
endeavor, as a major professional activity, to educate the next generation of archaeologists and
encourage others not yet so committed to join the
ranks of archaeology majors. At universities and
most colleges this requires the Ph.D., but there are
some venues where the M.A. may serve. Of course,
in the process of teaching courses containing
archaeology majors, teachers affect the lives of
many other students as well, and this is to the longrange benefit of archeology. There are also a great
many others, in a wide range of venues, who teach
archaeology courses, but if the sole audience for
the course is the academic non-major and/or the
general public, then that teaching falls more properly under public outreach.
Traditionally departments have concentrated on
preparing students for research and report writing,
though teaching was the only field in which to get a
job. Such departmental myopia is now totally inappropriate. Things have changed, but only gradually,
and not enough. Teaching experience is now a part
of many graduate programs, but no real effort has
been made to provide the student with even the
option of obtaining the training needed to prepare
for service in each of the four fields of archaeology.
As a result, most graduates today are being cast out
into a world for which they are not appropriately
trained. Few graduate students know the geographic
area(s) or in what context or combination of contexts (research,teaching, management,or public outreach) they will spend their professional lives. The

61 6

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

core responsibility of their teachers is to prepare

them, as adequately as possible, for any employment
eventuality. From a logical standpoint that is not as
impossible as it might appear, but it will require
some massive rethinking of graduate programs. (A
committee of the SAA is currently reviewing archaeological curricula; see Bender and Smith 2002.)
Given the inertia inherent in the usual college or university department it will be a tall order. But until
such time as teachers provide students with the training and experience they need to obtain and retain a
professional position they will be doing the student,
and the discipline, a grave disservice.
At a minimum, there are three things graduate
students should come away with when they graduate: a demonstrated ability to think, the ability to
handle data and make decisions or judgments concerning it, and the ability to express themselves in
coherent English. The first and the last can only be
taught by example (either by the teacher or through
the literature, and to a degree the subject matter is
peripheral, though the more archaeological it is the
better), and by doing it. (The truest advice Jo Brew,
my graduate advisor, ever gave me, as I struggled
with my dissertation, was that the only way to learn
to write was to write.) Only decision making
requires an appropriate context. Without an adequate knowledge of examples of anthropological/archaeological contexts, and of anthropological/
archaeological theories (and how they evolved), it
is difficult, if not impossible (or at least not efficient), to make good archaeological decisions or
judgments. But this phase of a student's training
must not be overdone. If the presentation is balanced, a little can go a long way with a good student. There must be time available to introduce
students to at least some of the many specialized
techniques and multidisciplinary approaches available today, and to the basic skills necessary for the
student to have the potential to be successful in any
or all of the four fields upon graduation. If gradu
ate programs would take the three basic goals noted
above as their guide, I feel sure they could construct
a curriculum that would adequately prepare the student for employment, and without taking the inordinate amount of time it presently seems to take.
As a final note, if the teaching field is to fulfill
its obligation to the discipline, it is incumbent upon
it also to devise and make available to practicing
archaeologists extracurricular courses that will

[Vol. 68, No. 4, 20031

serve as updates concerning the latest archaeological theories and methods.

Administration and Management

At the beginning of the era of change there were
essentially no experienced archaeological administrators or managers of any kind, other than a half
dozen or so with the National Park Service and perhaps an occasional one with a foundation or other
organization. Certainly there were not enough to
constitute a genuine field of archaeological
endeavor. That is no longer true. Because of federal legislation, every SHPO and practically every
federal agency has at least one archaeologist who
serves as an administratorlmanager and, in many
agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service,
and the National Park Service, they may number
in the hundreds. In addition there are hundreds of
archaeological managers affiliated with private
research entities.
Many individuals attached to agencies may do
some survey work and even some site testing, while
spending much of their time on various administrative activities including writing scopes of work
for archaeological projects and reviewing the
reports submitted. When reviewing these reports
they are serving as the representatives of the public. This places both agency and SHPO archaeologists in a critical position with respect to all field
research conducted under their purview, and underscores the importance of their being adequately
grounded in the basics of archaeology. Their need
to receive periodic updating on archaeological theories, methods, and data is evident.
Independent archaeological firms, as well as the
large architectural and engineering firms that undertake archaeological research, must employ, in addition to those employed to carry out field
investigations, one or more archaeologists whose
whole or part-time endeavors are as administrators
if the firms are to be successful. Archaeologists
entering this new field have had to learn the rules
and responsibilities of administration and management and become knowledgeable concerning
agency policies and practices and how to integrate
archaeology effectively into them. At the same time
the employing agencies have had to learn how to
deal with their new archaeological responsibilities.
It has been an interesting process for all involved.

FORUM

Archaeologists in this field, more than those in traditional archaeological fields, must operate effectively in a number of nonarchaeological contexts
such as business, politics, and the legal and legislative scene. As a result of these diverse concerns
ARM-based research increasingly extends beyond
traditional archaeological research into such vitally
important management-related topics as the effect
of forest fires or herbicides on surface or buried
archaeological deposits. Research of this type
forms a normal part of the administration and management field of activity.
There are now a great many archaeologists (both
Ph.D.s and M.A.s) who have years of experience
in managing archaeological resources from the perspective of land-managing agencies, state SHPO
offices, and major public and private research agencies, though the total number is unknown.

Public Outreach
Public outreach has been a part of archaeology
from archaeology's very beginning, but only in the
past few years has it come into its own to the point
that it could be considered a separate field of
endeavor to which archaeologists might devote an
entire career or major part of a career. Early on there
were archaeologists who taught archaeology in a
wide variety of college or other contexts to public
groups (as opposed to groups of potential professionals), archaeologists working in museum contexts who used exhibits and other museum
resources to convey the subject, and others, all too
few, who wrote for the public.
But at about the same time that CRM develop
ment was taking place, and probably for much the
same basic reasons, awareness of the disappearing
cultural (including archaeological) resource base
and increasing environmental concerns, there was
a major increase in attention to public outreach by
archaeologists, with publications such as Stewards
of the Past (McGimsey et al. 1970), with its distribution of 60,000 copies nationwide, and Public
Archeology (McGimsey 1972) serving as harbingers. As with researchers and managers, the number of archaeologists (both Ph.D.s and M.A.s)
involved with outreach, either full or part time, has
increased dramatically in the past few years as
shown by the recent upsurge in publications (e.g.,
Jameson 1997; Smardz and Smith 2000) and the
activities of the Public Education Committees of

61 7

the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for Historical Archaeology, and the Archaeological Institute of America. There are now many
archaeologists who serve as public education specialists attached to research organizations, corporations, parks, or any of a variety of other entities;
archaeologists who work with K-12 school groups;
archaeologists who work extensively with amateurs; archaeologists who expend considerable time
writing specifically for the general public; and other
archaeologists whose primary professional orientation, at least for major periods of time, is directed
to conveying archaeology to the public. In the
process, they too must work effectively in areas
other than archaeology such as education, public
relations, and exhibit design, even marketing. They
frequently incorporate archaeological field research
directly into their public outreach programs. As in
the management field, increasingly they are
expanding beyond traditional research into topics
specifically relevant to public outreach such as
investigating how archaeology is best conveyed to
different age groups of the public.
I do not know how many full- or part-time individuals are so engaged, probably far more part time
than full time, but I would wager the number is
large, and getting larger. Thank goodness.
Archaeology is the discipline that endeavors to
discover and interpret the material remains of the
past, and to make that information available to present and future generations. The public funds
archaeological research for two reasons: (1) it
remains convinced that the information archaeologists produce indeed does have some important
relevance to our understanding of ourselves and our
society, and (2) the vast majority of the public has
a genuine curiosity about what happened to human
beings on this earth before the present generation
arrived, and archaeology is a major scientific source
of that information. The discipline of archaeology
functions to satisfy those two public needs. It is the
individuals engaged in outreach who have primary
responsibility for conveying to the public what the
rest of the discipline is doing, in a format the public can understand and appreciate. Only insofar as
they are successful can the other fields of archaeology be assured of, or be worthy of, continuedpublic support.
Working in the public arena, and particularly
writing successfully for the public, is difficult and

61 8

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

not everyone can do it well. Yet all too often in the

past, valuable contributions in this area were not
given recognition on a par with activities in other
archaeological fields. I would like to think that
those days are gone, for this field of archaeological endeavor is vital to us all.

Summary
Archaeologists need to recognize that each of the
four fields discussed here has a crucial role to
play-not one of them alone can make the contribution it should without the others.
You hear it said, both by academics and ARM
personnel, that field research and report writing is
the dominant field. And so it has been, in our minds
and in the minds of others, until recently. We must
make a genuine effort to rid ourselves of that perception. Teachers complain that research, not teaching skills, is what matters when it comes to
promotion and tenure. But it is the teachers themselves (and their academic colleagues, the deans
and chancellors) who have created and maintain
this condition. Only the teachers can correct the situation. Promotion and tenure decisions are not
handed down by aliens from Mars, but are made
by our own friends and colleagues. Good and
appropriate teaching is the first essential requirement of a viable discipline. It should be so regarded
and rewarded. (But, as with curriculum revision,
establishing that principle is going to require the
hard work of some true visionaries.) Nearly all
archaeologists enjoy field and contemplative
research (it often is what drew us to archaeology
in the first place), so it is natural for us to hold it in
high esteem. But that doesn't make that research
inherently more valuable or more important in the
long term to the discipline as a whole, than providing appropriate guidance to the next generation,
or managing the resource base in such a way that
maximum information is gained while maximum
resources are retained for the future, nor is such
research more important than conveying the results
of research to the public which, after all, is the only
reason (other than our own amusement) we have
for undertaking archaeology at all.
The discipline of archaeology has changed forever. It is no longer a world of professors who teach
and do as much field research as they can. Nor is
it a world where we can afford to segregate research
activities into separate disparate camps of acade-

[Vol. 68, No. 4,20031

mic and ARM researchers, or fail to assure the public of a high standard of performance. It is a fourfield world. Each field is crucial to the success of
the discipline and each is best served by an appropriate mix of well prepared M.A.s and Ph.D.s. A
multiple-field career track (in all possible combinations and degrees of emphasis) is now the rule
and will, hopefully, always be prominent, for the
discipline benefits tremendously from that diversity of individual experience, though we may see
increasing field specialization as the discipline of
archaeology continues to expand to meet the needs
of the new century.
The continued development and maintenance of
an equitable balance among the four fields of
archaeology is essential to the future of the discipline.

References Cited
Bender, Susan J., and George S. Smith (editors)
2000 Teaching Archaeology in the Tweny First Century.
Society for American Archaeology, Washington. D. C.
Davis, Hester A.
1971 Is There a Future for the Past? Archaeology
24:300-306.
1972 The Crisis in American Archaeology. Science
176:267-272.
Fagan, Brian M.
2000 Strategies for Change in Teaching and Learning. In
Teachitzg Archaeology in the fitlent?.First Century, edited
by Susan J. Bender and George S. Smith, pp. 125-131.
Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C.
Jameson, John H., Jr. (editor)
1997 Presenting Archaeologj to the Public: Digging for
Truths. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Califomia.
McGimsey, Charles R.. 111,Hester A. Davis. and Carl Chapman
1970 Stea,ards of the Past. Arkansas Archaeological Society. Fayetteville, Arkansas.
McGimsey. Charles R. I11
1972 Public Archeology. Seminar Press, New York.
Neumann, Thomas W.. and Robert M. Sanford
2001 Culturn1Resolil-cesArchaeology AltaMiraPress, Walnut Creek, Califomia.
Polk, Michael R.
2001 Private Contracting in Cultural Resources: A Matur
ing Business. The SAA ArchaeologicalRecord 2(3):2224.
Washington. D. C.
Schuldenrein, Joseph
2000 Refashioning Our Profession: Practical Skills, Preservation. and Cultural Resource Management. In Teuching
Archaeology in the T~,enf).-First
Century. edited by Susan
J. Bender and George S. Smith, pp. 133-139. Society for
American Archaeology. Washington. D. C.
Smardz, Karolyn. and Shelley J. Smith (editors)
2000 The Archaeology Echlcation Har~dbook:Sharing The
Past With Kids. AltaMira Press. Walnut Creek, California.

Received August 5, 2002; Revised Jan~taty22, 2003;

Accepted J a n u n ~28, 2003.