Society for American Archaeology

Society for American Archaeology

Archaeology under a Microscope: CRM and the PressAuthor(s): Robert D. KuhnSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 195-212Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694563 .

Accessed: 12/09/2013 23:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:47:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694563?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER A MICROSCOPE: CRM AND THE PRESS

Robert D. Kuhn

Cultural Resource Management (CRM) archaeology receives regular press and media attention. This coverage canl shape public perceptions and attitudes about the field. Fur ther 7nore, press coverage and public opin1ion1 can affect CRM project and policy decision-making. Analysis of the content of newspaper articles collected by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) r elated to CRM archaeology over thefive-year period between 1995 and 2000 included docu7nenting the types of issues that received press attention and assessing the amount of positive and negative press coverage. Recom7mnencdations to encourage improved media covertage of CRM archaeology include. increased recognition of the importance of press coverage; in1creased efforts to encourage positive press coverage of CRM; improved skills for workinig wit/h the press; greater participationl fro7m archaeologists in academia; and continulled evaluation and assessmenit of newspaper anid media coverage of CRM archaeology.

La Arqueologia de Manejo de Recursos Culturales (CRM) recibe atencion regular de la prensa y otros medios de comnunicaci6n. Esta cobertura puede formar las percepciones y actitudes del ptiblico sobre el campo. Cuanto mnas, la cobertura por la prensa y la opinion de piiblico pueden afectar las decisiones hechas por CRM sobre proyectos y politica. El ancilisis del contenido de artfcu- los con relacion a arqueologia de CRM, recolectados de periodicos por la Oficina de Preservacion del Estacdo de Nueva York (SHPO) entre 1995 y 2000 incluye la documentacion de los t6picos discutidos en la prensa y el cdlculo de la canticlad de articu- los negativos y positivos. Las recomnendaciones para mnejorar el reportaje de arqueologia cle CRM incluyen: mas reconoci7niento de la importancia de cobertura por la prensa, mas esfiuerzos a propiciar reportajes positivos de CRM, mejoramiento de destrezas para trabajar con la prensa, mnas participacion de arque6logos academicos, y la continua evaluacion de la cobertura por los mnedios cle comunicaci6n de la arqueologia de CRM.

T he premise of this study is that the practice of CRM archaeology is affected by press coverage and public perceptions generated by

newspaper reporting. Therefore, the discipline should recognize and acknowledge this reality and work toward improving public perceptions about CRM archaeology through the media. Many authors have emphasized the importance of the media to archaeology (Herscher and McManamon 1995; Klesert 1998; McManamon 1991; Milanich 1991; Moore 1997) and used surveys to examine public opinion about the discipline (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999; Ramos and Duganne 2000). Most people acquire information about archaeology from newspapers (DeCicco 1988:842), especially in the Northeast (Ramos and Duganne 2000:17). In this study, a five- year assessment of CRM press coverage is presented using New York State as an example. The primary focus of the analysis is to measure and assess how newspapers report and present CRM archaeology to

the public. In particular, the amount of positive and negative press is measured and different types of topics and issues reported are assessed.

In New York, most CRM archaeology is conducted because of government regulations implemented by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Section 106 of the National Historic Preser- vation Act requires a review by the SHPO of projects that have federal agency involvement. Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act requires a review of projects that have state agency involvement. Finally, the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) autho- rizes local municipalities to require CRM as part of local project approvals. Many municipalities rely on SHPO guidance for the implementation of SEQRA.

This suite of legislation ensures that large num- bers of projects, currently more than 5,000 per year in NewYork, are subject to SHPO review. Forty-four percent of the CRM archaeology projects reviewed

Robert D. Kuhn m New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, NY 12188-0189

American Antiquity, 67(2), 2002, pp. 195-212 Copyright( 2002 by the Society for American Archaeology

195



196 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No. 2, 2002

by the New York SHPO are federal (Section 106), 35 percent state (Section 14.09), and 21 percent local (SEQRA). The SHPO reviews projects from 27 different federal agencies, 25 state agencies, and hun- dreds of local municipalities. In most instances, the SHPO works closely with federal, state, or local agency officials regarding CRM decision-making.

Many of these projects are government funded. The federal and state highway programs, HUD hous- ing and Community Development Block Grants, Rural Development infrastructure programs, and state construction agencies invest substantial funds in economic development projects. For these projects, CRM archaeology is primarily supported by state and federal taxpayer dollars. A significant portion of the projects reviewed by the SHPO is privately funded. Other than the federal highway program, most Section 106 reviews in New York involve private projects that need a permit, license, or approval from a federal agency. The same is true at the state level, where private projects needing a state Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation permit constitute the most frequent SHPO reviews. Local SEQRA reviews are almost universally privately funded projects. In all of these instances, CRM archaeology is primarily supported by developer dollars.

New York has minimal federal landholdings and few projects occur on its state landholdings. CRM projects in New York take place in communities, have economic and quality of life impacts on those communities, and often generate considerable attention and strong attitudes and feelings in those communities. They frequently create considerable local and regional press attention. In this sense, the CRM archaeology for these projects is often conducted 'under a microscope."

Most government representatives, whether they are civil servants, appointees, or elected officials, believe that they have a responsibility to the public good, as well as an obligation to be responsive to public needs and concerns. Government decision-making regarding program administration is determined by a number of factors, including regulations, guidelines and standards, policy analysis, and program assessments. In addition, public opinion has an impact on decisions. Elected officials are typically the most sensitive to public opinion and the press, but to a greater or lesser extent their sensitivity is often transferred to agency decision-makers. Which factors have the most impact on decisions will vary

on a case-by-case basis, but on high-profile projects the significance of public opinion cannot be easily dismissed.

The intent of the legislation creating the SHPOs- the National Historic PreservationAct-was to place the SHPO programs fiimly within this governmental milieu. The appointment of the State Historic Preservation Officer by the governor of each state (36 CFR Part 61.4[a]) ensured that the SHPO would be responsive to the elected administration of state government. After all, the SHPO was not established to represent an abstract set of archaeological standards or ideals but rather to "reflect the interests of the State and its citizens in the preservation of their cultural heritage" (36 CFR Part 800.2[c][1][I]; emphasis added). Therefore, SHPO decision-making regarding CRM projects is not strictly determined by archaeological standards and guidelines but by other factors as well, including public opinion. Furthermore, public opinion and press coverage can also influence the level of overall support for SHPO and for other agency CRM programs within a state, impacting funding, staffing, policy, and new initia- tives, in addition to individual projects.

There are some archaeologists who decry the curTent legal framework for CRM archaeology in the United States (e.g., Shott 1992). Perhaps in the future new laws will improve upon many of the shortcomings of existing legislation. Until such time, maintaining and building public support for CRM archaeology is essential (Herscher and McManamon 1995), and efforts to understand, assess, and evaluate the impact of press coverage and public opinion on CRM archaeology can contribute to the advancement of the field (Ramos and Duganne 2000). For, as McGimsey and Davis (2000:5) have written, "only insofar as archaeology becomes effective public archaeology can the cre- ation and maintenance of appropriate public attitudes occur, which in turn permits decision-makers to develop and apply the legal and administrative mechanisms and the funding necessary . . . to achieve archaeology's ... goals...." To that end, this paper presents an assessment of how newspapers in New York are currently presenting CRM archaeology to the public.

The New York SHPO Clippings Files

In New York State, the SHPO is part of the State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preserva-



Robert D. Kuhn] ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER A MICROSCOPE 197

tion (herein referred to as "Parks"). Parks is respon- sible for the administration of over 150 state parks and 34 state historic sites. The operation of the agency's geographically diverse properties is man- aged by 11 regional offices, in addition to the head- quarters in Albany, the state capital. The SHPO is located at Peebles Island State Park, north of Albany, and the SHPO and Peebles Island are often referred to synonymously.

Keeping abreast of newspaper coverage concerning Parks' issues is a high priority for the agency. The Albany office subscribes to four capital district papers and five downstate/New York City papers. Regional offices subscribe to one or more local or regional papers in their area of the state. Each regional office forwards newspaper clippings rele- vant to Parks or SHPO to the agency's communica- tions bureau in Albany, where a statewide clippings file is created for internal-agency distribution. In this way, SHPO is kept informed of newspaper coverage about CRM projects across the state. The product is equivalent to what would be provided by a professional clipping service. While it is not exhaustive, there is little doubt that the clippings file captures a high percentage of the newspaper articles that are rel- evant to the agency and SHPO.

This paper analyzes the content of newspaper coverage related to CRM archaeology in New York State between June 1995 and June 2000. A total of 201 clippings was compiled during this five-year period, including 169 newspaper articles and 32 editorials, columns, and commentaries. Twenty-eight different daily and weekly newspapers reported on 53 different CRM archaeology projects. Table 1 provides a list of the newspapers that reported on CRM archaeology during the study period.

The Amount and Focus of Coverage- "What Makes the Papers?"

Newspaper articles generally fell into a number of categories (Figure 1). Some primarily focused on the archaeology, reporting on important new discoveries, new information learned about the past, or oppor- tunities for the public to see new sites or excavations. In general, these articles were directed at the perceived public interest in archaeology. Without excep- tion they conveyed a very positive image for archaeology, treating the discipline as inherently interesting, scientifically important, and worth the attention of the public. Occasionally, the develop-

Table 1. List of New York State newspapers that reported on CRM archaeology between 1995 and 2000.

Acronym Name Location

[BN] Buffalo News Buffalo [CDBR] Capital District Business Albany

Rev,iewt (wieekly) [C] Courier Chatham [CSE] Courier Standard Enterprise Canajoharie

(weekly) [DG] Dailv Gazette Schenectady [DM] Daily Mail and Daily Freeman Catskill [DN] Daily Nevw!s Batavia [DS] Daily Star Oneonta [Df] Daily Times Watertown [DC] Democrat and Chronicle Rochester [ES] Ev ening Sun Norwich [II] Journal Ithaca [PJ] Journal Poughkeepsie [LVC] Lake & Valley Clarion (weekly) Geneseo [NYTJ New York Times New York City [ND] Newsdav Long Island [NC] Niagara Gazette Niagara Falls [PSTD] Post Standard Syracuse [PS] Post-Star Glens Falls [PSB] Press & Sun - Bulletin Binghamton [RD] Record Troy [RR] Recorder Amsterdam [S] Saratogian Saratoga

Springs [Sf] Standard Cortland [SC] Star Gazette Elmira [THR] Times Herald Record Middletown [TU] Times Union (and Saratoga TU) Albany [RTU] Times-Union Rochester

/ Process Focus 28% (47)

w Figure 1. Categories of newspaper articles about CRM archaeology.




ment project necessitating the archaeological excavations received little or no attention in the article.

The second and largest category of articles focused primarily on development projects, reporting on the status of the project with regard to the archaeological component. Many of these reported on the impact that CRM archaeology had on the progress of the project, often with either a positive or a negative bias. Some articles were stimulated by a controversy over CRM requirements or archaeological discoveries with regard to the project. The headlines, subheadings, and lead paragraphs typically focused on the problematic or controversial aspect of the project, suggesting that it was this component of the story that made it newsworthy.

A third category of articles focused on the CRM or regulatory process, reporting on issues raised by regulatory procedures governing CRM, SHPO func- tions, or the merits of archaeology versus economic development. Most often, such analytical and issue- oriented reporting was presented as part of in-depth coverage of an ongoing controversy, suggesting again that this is what made the topic of interest to the readers.

During the five-year period from 1995 to 2000 there was at least one CRM archaeology story every single month being carried by a newspaper some- where in New York State. To those in government who monitor newspaper reporting on a statewide basis, this creates the perception that coverage of CRM archaeology occurs with considerable regu- larity. On the other hand, during this same five-year period the SHPO reviewed and consulted on 1,965 projects that involved CRM archaeological investigations. Only 53 of these projects, or 2.7 percent, received newspaper coverage. This indicates that a very small number of CRM projects actually gar- nered the attention of the press, either because they were not brought to the attention of the newspapers or they were not determined to be newsworthy by newspaper reporters or their editors.

The projects that did receive coverage do not appear to represent either a random or representa- tive sample of the whole. Apparently, reporters and editors were selecting stories based upon their perceived interest to the reader. One of the outcomes of this practice is clear: whether purposeful or not, newspapers create a perception that CRM archaeology is usually controversial and problematic. For example, during the period of study the SHPO was

involved in six projects that went to litigation over archaeological issues. All six received extensive press coverage. Although these six projects represent just .3 percent of the 1,965 archaeology projects SHPO reviewed, they compose 11.3 percent of the 53 projects that received coverage in the press and 21.3 percent of the published articles. Many of the other projects reported in the papers during this period, while not litigated, were controversial as well. As a result, the press can create a pe-rception that CRM archaeology is inherently controversial, problematic, and potentially litigious. In contrast, most of the archaeology for the 1,912 other projects that did not receive press coverage proceeded through the CRM process routinely.

The Face of CRM- "Who's Talking to the Press?"

Including interviews in an article is a fundamental practice in newspaper journalism. Rare is the article that does not include a quote from someone involved in the story. Quotes draw the reader's eye and put a human face on the story, creating interest. Issue-oriented articles use quotes to provide opinions about the story, often from multiple perspectives. Expeit opinion is often sought to verify information or val- idate a position.

The 169 articles included in this study contained 349 quotes. Figure 2 presents the distlibution of these quotes by category. CRM professionals (typically the on-site archaeologists) were quoted most often, followed by project managers, government officials, and SHPO representatives. Together with attorneys, these categories represent individuals with a direct involvement or stake in the project, albeit often with differing interests and perspectives. They represent approximately 71 percent of the quotes. The impli- cation is that, generally speaking, there is little reluc- tance on the part of those directly involved in CRM projects to discuss them with the press.

It is difficult to generalize about the content of quotes by category. Often, the CRM professionals speak directly to the nature of their archaeological discoveries or the significance of the finds. SHPO representatives also often address the significance of the archaeological finds, the nature of the CRM process, or the reasons for a SHPO decision. Project managers and government officials can be supportive or critical, as the case may be, but more often than not they are most interested in addressing the




Attorney Preservationist 3%/ (12)

6% (19)

SIIPO Government 13% Official (44) 17%

(60)

Figure 2. Number of quotes in newspaper articles about CRM archaeology.

status of the project and how it will be brought to fruition with the least difficulty. Although the impact of individual quotes on readers must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the fairly even distribution of quotes from the different direct participants in CRM projects does suggest that the reader is receiving varied perspectives of CRM archaeology in the press.

Reporters often tap a variety of sources for outside perspective. This study included non-CRM archaeologists, Native Americans, members of the public, and historic preservationists. Archaeologists quoted in the press were identified as professionals affiliated with academic institutions (one-third) and museums (one-third), as well as avocationals who were members of statewide archaeological associa- tions (one-third).

Although these categories of individuals often provided very different perspectives, in general they tended to be knowledgeable about and supportive of CRM archaeology. In instances where negative opinions were expressed, they usually advocated for more archaeology or greater site preservation and were critical of the limitations of the CRM work. How- ever, these positions constitute only 29 percent of the quotes, indicating that outside perspectives appear less frequently in newspaper articles.

The opinions of those directly involved with a project can occasionally be self-serving and held sus-

pect by the reader. In this regard, the voice of a rec- ognized expert who is aloof from the project will often carry greater influence. Judging from the manner in which they are treated by the press, academic or museum archaeologists often hold the most credibility with the public when the issue involves an archaeological site or discovery. However, only 10 percent of the quotes in the press are from these experts. The voice of academia can have a powerful impact on public perceptions of CRM archaeology, but the results suggest that this voice is rarely being heard.

The Accuracy of Newspaper Reporting The factual inaccuracy of local newspaper reporting is legendary. The reasons for this may include reporters often functioning on extremely short deadlines, having little time to check or recheck facts, not sharing stories with their sources prior to publica- tion, and often going to print with minimal editorial oversight. The limited background that most reporters have in archaeology can also contribute to errors of fact or interpretation. Compounding these problems, reporters may often determine the "angle" for their story before contacting any sources and then use information and quotes in a selective fashion to fit the bent of the article.

The newspaper articles in this study were reviewed to identify errors of fact and assess reporter accuracy. Eighteen out of 169 newspaper articles, or 10.6 percent of the sample, included one or more errors of fact. Factual errors included misspellings of names or archaeological terms, inaccurate names given for agencies or archaeological organizations, confusing archaeologists with architects, dating archaeological sites or components to the wrong period, misstating regulatory requirements of CRM legislation, misstating the length of time archaeologists conducted fieldwork on a site, and mistaking and misidentifying different types of historic archaeological features.

This assessment must be considered an extremely conservative estimate of newspaper errors since only the factual information that could be accurately ver- ified by the author was considered. Information in these articles that came from other sources could not be objectively evaluated. Also, the assessment was strictly limited to factual information, leaving aside often extremely questionable interpretations of regulations, process, or perspective. Therefore, the con-



200 AMERICAN ANTIOUITY [Vol. 67, No. 2, 2002

Neutral 43% (73)

Figure 3. Perspective of newspaper articles about CRM archaeology.

clusion that at least one out of every ten articles written is likely to have elements of the story incorrect does not have to be offered cautiously and is proba- bly palliative. Furthermore, it was not possible as part of this study to assess the degree to which newspaper readers accept what they read as fact, or their abil- ity to identify or question inaccurate information.

Positive and Negative Reporting of CRM Archaeology

While newspaperjournalism strives to provide objective and unbiased reporting, it is also the case that many articles, and especially the headlines and subheadings of the articles, convey a positive or negative perspective on the subject. The articles included in this study were assessed with regard to the image they projected of CRM archaeology: positive, negative, or neutrallbalanced. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of newspaper articles based upon this assessment. Although the tenor of most articles was readily apparent, this evaluation was inherently sub- jective. As a means of assessing its validity, 25 members of the public were asked to evaluate the headlines of the articles using the same categories. This small sample varied by age, sex, and location within the state and was composed entirely of people with no professional connection to or special interest in the field of archaeology. The exercise was not meant to be a statistically valid survey but rather a simple measure of the author's objectivity. While some of the responses were wide-ranging, the majority approximated Figure 3. The average considered

the sample of articles slightly less negative (20.4 percent) and more positive (37.9 percent) than the author.

Appendix 1 provides more detailed information about the articles. As indicated by Appendix 1(A), the majority of the positive articles focused on new archaeological discoveries, scientific, or historical contributions of the archaeological work, or oppor- tunities for the public to visit sites or exhibits. Sto- ries with headlines such as

Preserving a Buried Legacy (NYT 6 March 1999);

Canal dig offers hands-on history of bygone era (BN 16 August 1999); or

Dig finds remnants of old city; public tours offered at dig (DG 13 May 1999);

provided the public with an image of CRM archaeology that is inherently of interest and of value.

Press quotes of civic leaders in support of CRM archaeology often send a strong positive message. For example, Governor Pataki's statement: "New Yorkers instinctively want to preserve or recover artifacts from centuries ago and allow scholars to study their historical significance," reported in the capital's Times Union (9 March, 1997) and other papers across the state, conveyed meaning on multiple levels. It expressed a justification for CRM archaeology that was simple and logical, and it measured the value of the exercise in terms of its research potential. Perhaps most importantly it demonstrated that state government, at the highest level, acknowl- edged the value and contributions of the field. This type of statement can have a significant influence on public opinion.

A smaller percentage of the positive articles focused more on the development projects at issue or on the regulatory process, rather than the archaeological work. These reports typically emphasized that the CRM process succeeded, leading to the recovery or avoidance of archaeological remains in a manner that did not impede the project. Stories with headlines such as

Archaeology doesn't have to cause construction delays (CDBR 10-16 August 1998);

Albany builds on past with care; Archaeologists search for artifacts at development sites (TU 20 May 1998); or




DO NOT DISTURB; Mohawks, Developer, Officials ensure Native American remains aren't unearthed (CSE 5 August 1998);

presented a positive image of CRM as a process that works, is not a hindrance to development, and can often identify and protect important archaeological sites through mitigation or project redesign and avoidance.

The opinions of officials, developers, and construction personnel can also create a significant positive impression. One construction engineer described the effect of archaeological investigations on his project succinctly: "They finished a lot of their work before we started ours.... They go in and do their thing and it doesn't impact our schedule at all" (CDBR 10-16 August, 1998). A town supervisor emphasized the value of CRM in appreciative terms: "When the project started, we thought it [the archaeology] was a well-intentioned but expensive addition.... But when they found the first skeleton ... I was glad the archaeologists were on the site" (DG 4 June, 1995). This type of testimonial by nonar- chaeologists is often very convincing.

Many articles also included positive reporting of the SHPO. Stories with headlines such as

State Will Protect Old Indian Site (DT 9 November 1998);

Waterford, State, Indians OK plan to rebury remains at Peebles Island (DG 12 June 1996); or

Peebles Island display features Dutch artifacts (RD 10 May 1997);

reflected flatteringly upon the SHPO in its role as a protector of archaeological sites, facilitator of CRM project resolutions, and promoter of archaeology.

Negative reporting of CRM archaeology can be divided into two broad categories. The first includes articles that portrayed the discipline as a hindrance to economic development. As Appendix 1(B 1) indicates, this type of reporting composed over two- thirds of the negative articles. These articles typically focused on the delays and high costs associated with CRM archaeology. There were also often subthemes questioning the value or significance of archaeological discoveries, portraying the discipline as merce- nary, or the regulatory process as excessive and burdensome. Stories with headlines such as

Archeologists delay school project (DS 13 May 1999a);

Dig for artifacts delays shopping center (CSE 8 July 1998); or

UV School waits on dig for artifacts; Search of proposed site will cost up to $200,000 (PSB 15 July 1999);

present an image of CRM archaeology that is critical, negative, and unflattering. The occasional article questioning the competency of an archaeological firm or highlighting a dispute or disagreement between archaeologists also generates an unprofessional image for practitioners in the discipline.

Press quotes critical of a variety of aspects of CRM archaeology can be particularly caustic. The high cost of CRM archaeology is an extremely common focus. Commenting upon the exponential cost of identification, evaluation, and mitigation phases in the CRM process, one quote was that the project committee "feels a little bit whipsawed" (DS 13 May 1999a). The reference imparts not only a sense of the high cost of the work but a vague feeling of exploitation that reflects negatively on the discipline. Another official was more blunt: "The sewer district ... received a $1 million bill for archaeological work and a three-month delay after 3,500-year-old Indian skeletons were found.... There were a lot of people who said it was a waste" (DG 4 June 1995).

Interviews are also an opportunity to belittle the value of archaeological discoveries. Often, criticisms were expressed in frustration over the archaeological requirements that may be placed on a project. Reacting against efforts to have archaeological doc- umentation completed, one official referred to the historic remains of a nineteenth-century canal as "a 50-foot-long dent in the ground" (PSB 12 April 1995). Another developer's statement concerning prehistoric remains, "we're not talking about hatch- ets here. It was scrap-it was nothing of significance" (DG 20 October 1995), was also fairly typical. To the professional, these quotes betray a tremen- dous insensitivity to history and ignorance about archaeology, but it cannot be assumed that the public will interpret them similarly. Clearly, these statements portray archaeological remains as unimportant and attempt to convince others of that point of view.

Efforts by reporters to make their articles more interesting by adding humor or appealing to popu-




lar conceptions about archaeology often contribute to this problem. Introducing an article about a CRM project with the quote, "Look Mommy, I found an arrowhead" (ES 13 May 1999), reinforces the notion that archaeology is not an important or scientific discipline. In this regard, it can be especially difficult for historical archaeologists to convince reporters to take their work seiiously because, as one town supervisor noted, "It's a little bit comical excavating a privy" (Saratoga TU 21 July 1998).

Some attempts at humor hit their mark but not at the expense of archaeology. A positive article on a very impor-tant CRM mitigation project began with this notable hook: "Dated as far back as 1300 B.C., some of the artifacts dug up last week at the old Gar- den Plots site are thought to have been in place longer than Town of Fenton Supervisor Donald Grunder" (PSB 22 July 1998). However, other efforts at humor can be detrimental to public perceptions of the field. Introducing an article on the costs associated with a controversial, litigious, and big-budget archaeological mitigation project, a reporter began with this unfortunate statement: "The archaeological battle over a rich deposit of early Dutch artifacts has left the state Dormitory Authority with what may be the costliest collection of broken plates around" (TU 27 November 1997). This lead portrays CRM archaeology as expensive and implicitly suggests that the results are not worth the cost. Although it was presented in a humorous vein, it implicitly links CRM archaeology with the stereotypical notion of waste- ful government programs: "a wildly expensive and misguided government boondoggle" (McManamon 1991:124). This is also another example of howjour- nalistic practices often color the presentation of the discipline in the press.

The SHPO is no less immune from negative coverage. SHPO timeliness in its review of projects is a frequently cited criticism, along with delays and costs associated with the requirements which SHPO places on projects. Where project design is affected by SHPO requirements, the competing goals of state and local constituents are occasionally raised as a concern. Articles with headlines that reflect negatively, such as

Village claims state office hampers its development plans (PSTD 15 April 1999);

Agencies disagreed over dig site findings (TU 17 October 1996); or

State takes heat over Norwich plaza snag (PSB 12April 1995);

cast the SHPO in the role of troublemaker rather than facilitator and portray the program as another example of state government dictating to localities.

Local officials are rarely hesitant to bring the power of their opinion to bear. A mayor's complaint that "a 'five-minute review' ended up being stalled for a month" (PSTD 25 December 1999) insinuated bureaucratic delays. A town supervisor's charge that "the state [SHPO] has been stubborn in its position" and that "if the project falls through, it will be the state's fault" (ES 12 April 1995) made clear where blame was to be assigned preemptively. These statements create a perception that the SHPO was not responsive to local government.

The nature of this type of negative reporting about CRM archaeology contrasts sharply with the second category of negative reporting that is frequently encountered. Whereas the first category of negative articles portrays the requirements and implementation of CRM archaeology as onerous and excessive, the second category portrays these same practices as inadequate or insufficient. These articles compose about 30 percent of the negative articles in this study, and they typically are based upon an anti-economic development theme. As Appendix 1(B2) indicates, they often question CRM methods and portray them as substandard or unprofessional. The integrity of CRM decision-making and the adequacy of regulatory enforcement are also frequent issues, with CRM presented as "a clash of modern politics and ancient history" (THR 29 May 1996). The inability of CRM archaeology to stop development projects is also often criticized. Stories with headlines such as

Historic finds, historic losses? Bulldozing of site fits pro-development pattern (TU 21 September 1996);

Ancient artifacts won't block mine; State officials say discovery of stones isn't enough to stop proposed project (SG 22 September 1998); or

Quarry gets OK to mine; Prehistoric artifacts could be destroyed (THR 29 May 1996);

portray an image of the CRM field as ineffective. Press quotes such as "Even the best archaeologists

in the countiy can't do it right when there's a back-




hoe pushing you in the hole" (TU 1 1 March 1997) and accusations that the state is doing "the worst of sal- vage archeology" (TU 31 January 1997) reinforce a sense that CRM methods are substandard. Statements such as 'As soon as they're reaching pay dirt, they have to cover it up" (PJ 19 September 1999) express frustration with the short length of time and limited amount of excavation permitted for CRM projects.

The SHPO often received criticism for perceived political influences in the decision-making process. In instances where constituents were dissatisfied with SHPO determinations, they were often quick to question the judgement or integrity of the decision and to search for ulterior influences. Some SHPO decisions were questioned in the most unflattering terms, as in, the "SHPO has said we're going to ignore the stunningly obvious" (DG 22 September 1998). Oth- ers blatantly attacked the integrity of those decisions with statements such as, the SHPO "gave in to political pressure" (THR 29 May 1996). While accusations of this kind were rare, the insinuation of political machinations was common and certainly does shape public perceptions of SHPO integrity in a way that fosters skepticism and distrust. Speaking from the New York SHPO experience, there are occasions when political influence does shape CRM project decision-making, but the media and the public's perceptions regarding the frequency of these events is out of all proportion with reality.

Often, these articles are reporting on a conflict concerning a project that is opposed by a local con- stituency of the "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) variety. In these cases usually the only goal is to stop a development project without compromise, and the individual or group attempting to achieve that goal is quick to adopt a no-holds-barred approach. Since those involved rarely have a vested interest in the broader field of archaeology, the criticisms launched at the perceived limitations or inadequacies of CRM can be vociferous and unrestrained. Discerning readers may be able to identify such self-serving arguments and attacks for what they are; however, this cannot entirely discount the impact of extremely critical statements about CRM circulating in the press.

The unfortunate association of CRM archaeology with NIMBYism also can generate ambivalence about the field. There is usually little sympathy for archaeology when people perceive that it is being used without merit to stop or delay a project. Also,

surveys have shown that the general public typically has a very vague and unclear knowledge of archaeology (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999:401, 404; Ramos and Duganne 2000:30), making it extremely difficult for the newspaper-reading public to discern and separate valid archaeological concerns from spurious ones. As a result, even when legitimate archaeological issues are raised about a project they can often be met with skepticism. The perception that CRM is a tool of NIMBYism undermines the credibility of archaeology. While this problem may not be characteristic of all states, in New York it is chronic. Unfortunately, the controversial nature of NIMBY issues attracts press coverage, which reinforces this negative association.

Many of the articles in this study offered fair and balanced reporting of CRM archaeology, without any positive or negative bias. The majority were simply factual articles reporting on the status of a CRM project. Others were issue-oriented articles that explored a variety of CRM topics, usually giving equal treatment to both sides of a debate. The issues addressed in these articles are listed in Appendix 1 (C). In most cases they represent legitimate points of discussion worthy of evaluation and debate.

Although these articles were reported in a fair and balanced manner, they still could have a positive or negative impact upon the reader. For example, in most cases the issue-oriented articles were generated as follow-up stories about controversial projects. Therefore, despite the fact that they were objectively presented, they do reinforce the negative notion that CRM archaeology is closely associated with controversy. On the positive side, these same articles are typically informative, objective, and insightful. They enlighten the reader about CRM and engage the reader in CRM issues. Yet, both sides of the issues are often presented without endorsement, leaving it to the reader to assess the value of CRM positions. Individual readers are likely to take different messages away from these stories based upon their per- sonal attitudes, making it difficult to assess the impact this type of press has on the public. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the positive aspects of this literature are greater than any negative messages.

The Op-Ed Page

Editorials, columns, and commentary are categori- cally different from basic news reporting. They provide the editorial board, newspaper columnists and




a t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o

Figure 4. Political cartoon highlighting a legal battle between the New York Archaeological Council and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York over a state construction project (DG 18 October 1996).

staff, or guest commentators with the opportunity to express an open opinion on an issue, project, or controversy. Therefore, op-ed pieces have been assessed separately from newspaper articles in this study.

Thirty-two editorials, columns, and commentary pieces were run during the period of this study, including 15 editorials (46.9 percent), 11 pieces by columnists (34.4 percent), and 6 guest commentaries (18.7 percent). Guest columns were provided by public officials, professionals, or respected avocational- ists. Four political cartoons about CRM archaeology were also published. The political cartoon illustrated in Figure 4 (DG 18 October 1996) graphically illustrates a commonality among all the op-ed pieces. Unlike newspaper articles, which were more diver- sified in their reporting, all of the editorials and commentary focused on controversies surrounding CRM archaeology.

Fifty-three percent (17) of the editorials, columns, and commentaries projected a positive image of CRM archaeology, while 47 percent (15) were negative. Unlike articles, these pieces present an

unequivocal position on an issue, and there is no neutral reporting. Appendix 2 provides more detailed information about this body of work.

As a review of Appendix 2(A) suggests, the positive editorials, columns, and commentaries cover a wide range of CRM issues and advance strong arguments in favor of CRM positions. This copy cham- pions CRM archaeology forcefully and convincingly. Headlines such as

Protect Archaeological Heritage (DS 24 May 1999b);

History: Handle with care (DG 20 November 1996); and

Future will judge how we treat past (TU 19 October 1996);

make strong statements of advocacy for CRM archaeology. After the obligatory reference to philosopher George Santayana, these editorials and columns often offer lucid and reasoned arguments in favor of archaeology, site preservation, and the




funding and governmental commitment necessary for both. It is this small category of press coverage that provided the most favorable and positive image of CRM archaeology to the public.

Negative editorials, columns, and commentaries include the two broad categories previously dis- cussed for articles, including pieces that are anti- CRM and pieces that are pro-CRM but critical of its implementation. Examples that take an anti-CRM position (Appendix 2[B1]) often parrot the well- known issues of cost, delays, and the disincentives to development. These journalists can often employ very creative reasoning. For example, one editorial argued that the high sensitivity for historic archaeological sites in urban areas contributed to suburban sprawl and the lack of downtown development (DG 20 March 1999). Another suggested that Native Americans should not have a voice in the issue of burial-site protection because "they don't have to make a living here. We do" (DM 9 February 1996). Issues about too much government regulation and infringement of private property rights also served as gravamen. Editorials with headlines such as

Unfunded archaeological mandate (DG 20 March 1999); and

Just Whose Land Is It, Anyway? (DM 4 December 1995);

protested openly against CRM archaeology and explored a variety of arguments challenging its implementation. Since these were editorials rather than articles, they tended to be more forceful in their positions. Perhaps the anti-archaeology perspective advocated here was best captured by a concluding statement in one editorial: "Given the desperate economic straits everyone claims the county is in, we can't afford to live in the past much longer" (DM 11 October 1996).

The second category of negative op-ed pieces included those that are pro-CRM but critical of the implementation of CRM archaeology (Appendix 2[B2]). Many of these were critical of government's role in not protecting archaeological sites or not ensuring that adequate CRM archaeology was completed on projects. Others challenged CRM decision-making or charged political influence. Editorials with headlines such as

Handling history carelessly (DG 20 November 1997);

History reduced to pile of rubble (THR 14 December 1995); and

Shovels filled with our history (TU 21 September 1996);

while presenting strong arguments for CRM archaeology, were critical of practices, standards, and implementation as well as official decision-making. The press as government watchdog was often an underlying theme in many of these pieces, and the government and SHPO were regular targets for chas- tisement. One columnist argued that the "state-in its infinite myopia-won't do the sensible thing and excavate" historic archaeological remains (BN 22 November 1999). Another refelTed to a state agency's pursuit of a building project without proper archaeological investigation as "naked arrogance" (TU 19 October 1996) and asked "where . .. is the state's office of Historic Preservation in this flap? Aren't they supposed to be protecting us from this solt of loutish corporate behavior?" (TU 21 September 1996).

Regarding this category of negative press, there is a significant difference between the editorials, columns, and commentaries and the newspaper articles. It has been noted above that newspaper articles included in this category often relate to project controversies generated by NIMBYism. In contrast, almost all of the op-ed pieces focused on projects and controversies that raised legitimate and significant archaeology and CRM issues. Apparently, editorial boards and newspaper columnists are discerning enough to distinguish meaningful archaeology issues from spurious NIMBY claims and tend to avoid the latter.

The result is a body of literature that, despite the criticisms, has some very positive aspects to it. The reader digests a very pro-archaeology position and is rarely left with any doubts regarding the legitimacy of the issue. Although the criticisms reinforce some of the negative impressions about CRM relating to the quality of the work and the integrity of the decision-making, the overriding message is that CRM archaeology has value and should be done more and done better. Frequently, valid criticisms are offered in a constructive manner, fostering acceptance of current shortcomings in CRM archaeology on the basis of a commitment to future improvement. There- fore, while the very purpose of most of these editorials, columns, and commentaries is to criticize how




CRM archaeology is being implemented, there is little doubt that this copy has a positive influence on the readers regarding the broader value of doing archaeology and CRM.

In addition, there is another significant contrast between the newspaper articles and the editorials, columns, and commentaries. As appendices 1(B 1,2) and 2(B 1,2) illustrate, almost 70 percent of the negative newspaper articles are anti-CRM, with a smaller proportion pro-CRM but critical of its implementation. With the op-ed pieces the reverse is true. These statistics convey a message that is very clear when all of the copy is systematically reviewed: collec- tively, the editorials, columns, and commentary project a far more favorable image of CRM archaeology than the newspaper articles.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Newspaper reporting of CRM archaeology, especially negative reporting, is not new. Over 20 years ago, the Wall Street Journal commented on the economic and financial implications of federal historic preservation regulations in an article titled, "'Public Archeology': Like It or Not, You Are Paying for Digs" (Wall Street Journal 12 August 1977). This article focused on the costs involved with "contract archaeology." A generation later, 20 percent of Amer- icans still do not affirm that public funds should be used to protect archaeological sites (Ramos and Duganne 2000:30). Other articles of the time questioned CRM archaeology's value to the public (Sun- day News 13 February 1977). Today, self-evaluation of the discipline often raises the issue of CRM archaeology's public benefit. As Jameson (1997:13) has succinctly put it, "despite the promises and pre- dictions of 30 years ago, what has the public, who has footed most of the bill in terms of tax dollars spent on these studies, appreciably gained?" If we are unable to answer this question affirmatively to the public's satisfaction, it is unrealistic to believe that CRM archaeology will continue to grow and thrive.

One of the primary means of interfacing with the public is through the press. Millions of Americans rely on local newspapers for their daily news, and the print media can significantly shape public opinions and attitudes. Therefore, as McManamon (1991:124) emphasized over a decade ago, it is incumbent upon archaeologists to cultivate print- media outlets and use these vehicles to get the positive messages of CRM archaeology out to the public.

This recommendation remains valid today. Furthermore, there is little doubt that press cov-

erage and public opinion can have a significant impact on government decision-making in CRM archaeology. Archaeologists are sometimes reluc- tant to acknowledge or accept this fact because the idea that decisions are based on factors other than archaeological standards appears contrary to the high ethical principles to which archaeologists aspire. Only a few have been courageous enough to write openly in the scholarly literature about examples of the negative influence that the press and the public can have on CRM projects (e.g., Yamin 1997). Yet, there is little question that the public has a legitimate and legal right to participate in the decision-making process and to expect direct benefits from publicly funded projects. Acknowledgment and acceptance of the role of politics in archaeology is clearly growing (Bense 2000).

A few archaeologists might still prefer to work toward excluding politics, the press, the public, and other stakeholders from CRM archaeology, so that all of the important decision-making can be made by archaeologists. This is an unrealistic goal that is in conflict with the consultation process established in federal regulation (36 CFR Part 800.2[d]) and contrary to the intent of the National Historic Preserva- tion Act. It is also inconsistent with archaeology's ethical principles of accountability, public education, and public reporting (Society for American Archaeology 1996:451-452). The alternative, educating the public and the press about the value of CRM archeology, may be more challenging but also may be more beneficial over the long-term. After all, the power of the press and public opinion can be advantageous when it carries an educated, informed, and sympathetic message about archaeology (see Bense 1991 and Milanich 1991, for examples). Fur- thermore, the practice of CRM archaeology is not without its shortcomings, limitations, and faults. The glare of media scrutiny can help foster a commitment to addressing real problems in the field. Archaeolo- gists can learn from the public sentiment, perhaps more than they currently do.

The results of this survey can be used to develop recommendations for improving CRM archaeology's public image. For example, this study has shown that the overwhelming majority of CRM archaeology projects do not receive any press coverage at all. This may explain the results of other sur-




veys, which have shown that the public significantly underestimates the scale and amount of CRM archaeology (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999:403; Ramos and Duganne 2000:16). Encouraging press coverage of more projects could have a positive result by demon- strating that CRM archaeology is commonplace and typically completed without a significant impact upon the cost or timing of development projects. This would help counter the perception that CRM archaeology is inherently controversial, which current press coverage clearly perpetuates.

This study also illustrates that reporters recognize stories about archaeology as inherently newsworthy. Coverage is almost universally positive when the press focuses on the actual work of the archeologist: the excavations, techniques, and discoveries. In contrast, when the story focuses on the development project or regulatory process, there is a greater like- lihood that the press coverage will be negative. Obvi- ously, emphasizing the interesting aspects and contributions of the archaeological work should be a high priority when interacting with the press. This will increase the chances that the resulting article will get published and will convey a positive message.

In some instances it is impossible to avoid involvement with a controversial project. CRM archaeology is dedicated to protecting and preserving significant sites, or at least ensuring that adverse impacts to sites are appropriately mitigated. Sometimes achieving these ends requires determination, disagreement, and conflict. In such cases, press coverage can have a real impact on the outcome of the issue, as well as on long-term opinions and attitudes about CRM archaeology in a community. The results of this study indi- cate that in such instances, editors and columnists are more likely to champion the values and causes of archaeology than are staff reporters. If this pattern is valid generally, then it provides an avenue worth pursuing when involved with a controversial project that could use more sympathetic press.

An important corollary is that archaeologists should be very discerning when choosing to participate in or comment on controversial projects. When a highly significant archaeological site is at stake it is certainly appropriate for archaeologists to speak out in favor of stewardship. In such cases, the integrity and commitment to the resource is usually treated positively by the press. However, frequently a project can become controversial because a NIMBY group or individual is opposed to it, and the

legitimacy of the archaeological issue may be sus- pect. It can be tempting to become involved in such issues because the controversy can often lead to greater expenditures on archaeology. A group opposed to a project may also try to hire one archaeologist to criticize another archaeologist's work publicly. In almost every instance, this type of controversy generates a very negative perception of archaeology. The controversial aspects and dis- agreements will be accentuated by the press; the legitimacy of the archaeological issue may be questioned by the press or the readership; the profes- sionalism of the archaeologist (and therefore archaeology) will be publicly undermined; editors and columnists will be unlikely to champion the archaeological issues; and government decision- makers will quickly become suspicious or dismis- sive of archaeology.

When a project is reported by the press, estab- lishing the legitimacy of the archaeological component is critical to receiving press coverage that has a positive influence on public opinion. Since the positions of stakeholders in the project are frequently dis- counted, the participation of independent archaeologists is important. In this regard the com- ments of professional archaeologists at colleges, uni- versities, and museums can be paramount. The professoriate is highly regarded by the public for its expertise, knowledge, and integrity. This body is widely viewed as an independent voice of authority. A quote from a member of the academy regarding the significance of an archaeological discovery, the value of site protection, or the legitimacy of an archaeological controversy gives the issue instant credibility. Fortunately, news reporters are always actively seeking experts to quote in their articles.

Unfortunately, this survey demonstrates that the valuable role that academic archaeologists can play regarding the public perception of CRM archaeology is relatively underutilized. Some of the reasons for this are apparent and well known. As this survey shows, newspaper reporting can be inaccurate and sometimes sensationalist. This is a severe disincentive for academics to participate, especially when their own careers are based significantly upon their established professional reputations. There are undoubtedly safer mechanisms that academics can use to contribute to public education but perhaps none as important (Herscher and McManamon 1995:43).




For the willing, simply making the connection between correspondent and expert is often a challenge given the deadlines typical of newspaper reporting. At the national level the Media Relations Committee of the Society for American Archaeol- ogy has addressed this problem by maintaining a Press Information Referral Network in order to link reporters easily with archaeological experts willing to be interviewed (Wolynec 1996:7). However, most newspaper reporting of CRM archaeology occurs at a local level. If statewide archaeological organizations maintained a similar referral network of archaeologists within their state it might be used more frequently by local reporters.

Klesert (1998), Milanich (1991), and Moore (1997) have emphasized the importance of working with the press as a vehicle for educating the public about archaeology, and they provide valuable guidance for improving the press skills of archaeologists (see also DeCicco 1988 and Potter 1990). These primers deserve frequent reference. They encourage archaeologists to learn about local newspapers in their area, cultivate relationships with local reporters, and educate and cooperate with journalists. Archae- ologists should learn how to write press releases and use them. When interacting with the press, archaeologists should be prepared to present a coherent, j ar- gon-free, and meaningful message to help define the story. Herscher and McManamon (1995:44) also encourage providing feedback, both positive and negative, in response to archaeology stories in the press. Both direct contact and letters to the editor are appropriate.

The need to engage the press and the public in CRM archaeology is critically important. If archaeologists hope to see CRM grow and thrive we must continue to address the challenge of educating the public and increasing public understanding and commitment to CRM archaeology through the media. We must also continue to encourage a greater sense of public ownership of the past (Herscher and McManamon 1995:43). There are many, many vehicles and forums for positive public education and outreach about CRM archaeology and they should all be explored and utilized. However, we must also directly confront the negatives, which appear most often in local newspaper reporting. No elected administration, agency head, SHPO, or CRM program can be comfortable with negative reporting in the press. This represents a programmatic weakness

that can affect individual project decision-making, agency commitments to staffing, funding, and support for SHPO and CRM programs. It also has a negative influence on broader public opinion about archaeology in general. The best means of addressing this issue is to work with newspaper reporters.

Others have stressed "the power of the press, the support that can be provided by the media, the problems of inaccurate and/or negative press coverage, and the methods that can be used to ensure accuracy in information" (Bense 2000:93). The goal of this article has been to emphasize the importance of these issues, to challenge and encourage archaeologists to continue to engage the press, and to provide some suggested recommendations for accomplishing this task. Public opinions and attitudes about archaeology have been poorly researched in the past, and continuing to ascertain public opinion about the discipline will remain important in the future (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999:400-401). The assessments and results presented here are more anecdotal than scientific, and they may also demonstrate the need for more com- prehensive recording, analysis, and evaluation of press coverage in CRM archaeology.

Acknowledgments. Special thanks to the numerous individuals that participated in the review and assessment of the newspaper articles included in this study. Thanks also to Lynne Sebastian, Michael Schifferli, Kath LaFrank, Tim Kohler, and the four anonymous reviewers for providing valuable com- ments and insights on an earlier draft of this paper. Appreciation is also extended to Nancy Davis, Carol Raemsch, Tracy Shaffer, and Nina Versaggi for tracking down a number of obscure newspaper references. Christina Kelly's Spanish translation of the abstract is also appreciated.

References Cited Bense, J. A.

1991 Archaeology at Home: A Partnership in Pensacola, Florida. In Protecting the Past, edited by G. S. Smith and J. E. Ehrenhard, pp. 1 17-122. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

2000 Archaeopolitics: The Political Context of Archaeology. In Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S. J. Bender and G. S. Smith, pp. 83-86. Society forAmer- ican Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Biffalo News 1999 Canal Dig Offers Hands-On History of Bygone Era; Final Tours of Site are Slated This Week. 16 August. Buf- falo, New York.

1999 Reburying History of Inner Harbor Makes No Sense. 22 November. Buffalo, New York.

Capital District Business Review 1998 Archaeology Doesn't Have to Cause Construction Delays. 10-16 August. Albany, New York.

Courier Standard Enterprise 1998 Dig for Artifacts Delays Shopping Center; Officials




Hope Construction Can Begin in September. 8 July. Cana- joharie, New York.

1998 DO NOT DISTURB: Mohawks, Developer, Officials Ensure Native American Remains Aren't Unearthed. 5 August. Canajoharie, New York.

Daily Gazette 1995 Finding Artifacts Creates Delicate Balance for Munic-

ipalities; Indian Traditions Must be Respected and Projects Finished. 4 June. Schenectady, New York.

1995 Lake's Rich History has a Cost; Developers Face Responsibility of Finding Artifacts. 20 October. Schenec- tady, New York.

1996 Waterford, State, Indians OK Plan to Rebury Remains at Peebles Island; Site Gets OK for Indian Burial. 12 June. Schenectady, New York.

1996 Untitled Political Cartoon. 18 October. Schenectady, New York.

1996 History: Handle With Care. 20 November. Schenec- tady, New York.

1997 Handling History Carelessly. 20 November. Schenec- tady, New York.

1998 AncientArtifactsWon'tBlockMine;StateOfficialssay Discovery of Stones Isn't Enough to Stop Proposed Project. 22 September. Schenectady, New York.

1999 Unfunded Archaeological Mandate. 20 March. Schenectady, New York.

1999 Dig Finds Remnants of Old City; Public Tours Offered at Dig. 13 May. Schenectady, New York.

Daily Mail 1995 Just Whose Land Is It, Anyway? 4 December. Catskill, New York.

1996 Ames Brightens Outlook. 9 February. Catskill, New York.

1996 Kiss Wal-Mart Goodbye. 11 October. Catskill, New York.

Daily Star 1999a Archeologists Delay School Project. 13 May. Oneonta, New York.

1999b Protect Archaeological Heritage. 24 May. Oneonta, New York.

Daily Times 1998 StateWill Protect Old Indian Site; Plot is Burial Ground. 9 November. Watertown, New York.

DeCicco, G. 1988 A Public Relations Primer. American Antiquity 53:840-856.

Evening Sun 1995 State has P & C Plaza Plans All "Locked" Up. 12 April. Norwich, New York.

1999 New School for UV may be Delayed by Archaeologi- cal Findings. 13 May. Norwich, New York.

Herscher, E., and F. P. McManamon 1995 Public Education and Outreach: The Obligation to Edu- cate. In Ethics inAmericanArchaeology: Challengesfor the 1990s, edited by M. J. Lynott and A. Wylie, pp. 41-44. Soci- ety for American Archaeology. Washington, D.C.

Jameson, J. H., Jr. 1997 Introduction. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public, Digging for Truths, edited by J. H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 11-22. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Klesert, A. L. 1998 You Too Can Write Good: Writing About Archaeology for Local Newspapers. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 16(3):40-41.

McGimsey, C. R., III, and H. A. Davis 2000 The Old Order Changeth or, Now that Archaeology is

in the Deep End of the Pool, Let's Not Just Tread Water. In

Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century, edited by S. J. Bender and G. S. Smith, pp. 5-8. Society for Amer- ican Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

McManamon, F. P. 1991 The Many Publics for Archaeology. American Antiq-

uity 56:121-130. Milanich, J. T.

1991 Archaeology in the Sunshine: Grass Roots Education Through the Media and Public Involvement. In Protecting The Past, edited by G. S. Smith and J. E. Ehrenhard, pp. 109- 115. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Moore, A. 1997 Publicly Relating: Notes from the Public Relations Committee. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 15:44-45.

New York Times 1992 Preserving a Buried Legacy, In Restoring Park, Digging

Carefully Into Storied Past. 6 March. New York, New York. Pokotylo, D., and N. Guppy

1999 Public Opinion and Archaeological Heritage: Views from Outside the Profession. American Antiquity 64:400-416.

Post Standard 1999 Village Claims State Office Hampers its Development

Plans; Baldwinsville Says State PreservationAgency Causes Delays. 15 April. Syracuse, New York.

1999 Paper Mill Island Project Freed; State Senator John A. DeFrancisco Prods the State Historic Preservation Office. 25 December. Syracuse, New York.

Potter, P. B., Jr. 1990 The "What" and "Why" of Public Relations forArchae-

ology: A Postscript to DeCicco's Public Relations Primer. American Antiquity 55:608-613.

Poughkeepsie Joumral 1999 Albany's Future Development Keeps Bumping into its Past. 19 September. Poughkeepsie, New York.

Press & Sun-Bulletin 1995 State Takes Heat Over Norwich Plaza Snag. 12 April.

Binghamton, New York. 1998 Ancient Treasures. 22 July. Binghamton, New York. 1999 UV School Waits on Dig for Artifacts; Search of Pro- posed Site Will Cost up To $200,000. 15 July. Binghamton, New York.

Ramos, M., and D. Duganne 1998 Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology. Harris Interactive, Rochester, New York.

Record 1997 Peebles Island Display Features Dutch Artifacts. 10 May. Troy, New York.

Saratoga Times Union 1998 19-Century Privy Found Along Canal; Archaeological Discovery Stalls Development. 21 July. Albany, New York.

Shott, M. J. 1992 Commerce or Service: Models of Practice in Archae-

ology. In Quandaries And Quests, Visions ofArchaeology 's Future, edited by L. Wandsnider, pp. 9-24. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 20. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Society for American Archaeology 1996 Society forAmericanArchaeology Principles ofArchae- ological Ethics. American Antiquity 61:451-452.

Star Gazette 1998 AncientArtifacts won't Block Mine; State Officials say

Discovery of Stones Isn't Enough to Stop Proposed Project. 22 September. Elmira, New York.

Sunday News




1977 Federal Follies. 13 February. New York, New York. Timles Herald Record

1995 History Reduced to Pile of Rubble. 14 December. Mid- dletown, New York.

1996 Quarry gets OK to Mine; Prehistoric Artifacts Could be Destroyed. 29 May. Middletown, New York.

Times Union 1996 Historic Finds, Historic Losses? Bulldozing of Site Fits Pro-Development Pattern. 21 September. Albany, NewYork.

1996 Shovels FilledWith Our History.21 September. Albany, New York.

1996 Agencies Disagreed Over Dig Site Findings. 17 Octo- ber. Albany, New York.

1996 Future Will Judge How We Treat Past. 19 October. Albany, New York.

1997 McEneny Seeks Halt to Dig in Albany; Assemblyman Calls for More Study Of Archaeological Riches at Dormi- tory Authority Construction Site. 31 January. Albany, New York.

1997 $250,000 Set Aside for Digs in Cities; State Earmarks Archaeological Funds for Future Development in Albany, Schenectady and Troy. 9 March. Albany, New York.

1997 History Knows No Boundaries. 11 March. Albany, New York.

1997 Artifact BattleYields Results; Archaeological Dig Pro- duces Tens of Thousands of Items-and a Precedent. 27 November. Albany, New York.

1998 Albany Builds on Past with Care; Archaeologists Search for Artifacts at Development Sites. 20 May. Albany, New York.

Wall Street Journal 1977 'Public Archeology': Like It or Not, You Are Paying for Digs. 12 August. New York, New York.

Wolynec, R. B. 1996 Publicly Relating: Notes From the Public Relations Committee. SAA Bulletin 14(5):7.

Yamin, R. 1997 Museum in the Making: The Morven Project. In Pre- sentingArchaeology to the Public, Diggingfor Triuths, edited by J. H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 205-221. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Received Augutst 21, 2001; Revised December 5, 2001; Accepted December 16, 2001.

Appendix 1. Classification of newspaper articles relative to positive, negative, or neutral reporting of CRM archaeology. Under each heading, articles are grouped based upon the primary focus of the news story, and under each subheading topics or issues addressed in the articles are listed. Headings provide the number of articles in that category and the percentage of the whole. Subheadings provide the number of articles in that group and the percentage in that category.

A. Positive Reporting (54 articles - 32.0%):

Archaeology focus (38 articles - 70.4%):

Highlighted results of CRM archaeological excavations or archaeological discoveries Reported scientific contributions or research value of CRM archaeology Coverage of public interest in CRM archaeology (tours, visitation, curation, displays)

Project focus (9 articles - 16.7%):

Project (should, will, did) receive full archaeological assessment and evaluation Project design changed to avoid or incorporate archaeological site Project stopped to save important archaeological site Archaeology done, artifacts/information saved, and project (will, did) proceed

Process focus (7 articles - 12.9%):

Reported on role of agency in facilitating process or mediating dispute Reported on role of agency in protecting archaeological sites Reported on sensitive handling of Native American burial issues

B. Negative Reporting (42 articles - 24.8%):

1. Articles that are anti-CRM archaeology (29 articles - 69.0%):

PROJECT FOCUS (23 ARTICLES -54.8%): Archaeological survey requirements delayed development project Archaeological discovery delayed development project Archaeology requirements stopped development project or forced it to change or relocate Native American burial issues stopped development project or forced it to relocate




Archaeology project requirements were a hindrance to the community's goals Significance of archaeological discovery questioned Competency of archaeological firm questioned Dispute between archaeologists or archaeological firms reported

PROCESS FOCUS (6 ARTICLES - I4.3%):

Archaeology requirements are too costly Archaeological testing requirements are too high Regulatory reviews are not timely; take too long Archaeology requirements violate private property rights

2. Articles that are pro-CRM but critical of its implementation (13 articles - 31.0%):

PROJECT FOCUS (IO ARTICLES -23.8%): Adequacy of archaeological investigations questioned Site protections not sufficient; does not stop development projects Non-significance of archaeological site questioned Impartiality/judgment of decision-making questioned

PROCESS FOCUS (3 ARTICLES - 7.I%):

Timing of archaeological investigations questioned Legal or regulatory process not being diligently followed or enforced Access to site locations should not be withheld or kept confidential

C. Neutral Reporting (73 articles - 43.2%):

Status reports on newsworthy CRM projects (42 articles - 57.5%):

Project status regarding archaeology Legal status of project regarding archaeology

Articles that provide a balanced examination of the CRM process (16 articles - 21.9%):

Should archaeological survey and identification efforts be part of the planning process? Should archaeological survey/identification efforts be done earlier in the process? Should public funding for CRM archaeology be provided for development projects? Is the cost/time needed for archaeology a disincentive for urban development projects? Is the cost/time needed for archaeology worth the knowledge gained? Should the public have access to archaeological site locational information? Which Native American groups should be consulted/involved in the process?

Articles that provide a balanced examination of CRM outcomes (15 articles - 20.6%):

Economic development versus preservation of archaeological sites Excavation of archaeological sites versus preservation of sites in place Exposure and interpretation of sites in place, in addition to preservation Preservation of burials in place versus repatriation



212 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No. 2, 2002]

Appendix 2. Classification of newspaper editorials and commentary relative to positive and negative opinions about CRM archaeology. Under each heading or subheading the points addrhessed are listed. Headings provide the number of editorials/commentaries in that category and the percentage of the whole. Subheadings provide the number of editorials/commentaries in that group and the percentage in that category.

A. Positive Editorials (17 editorials - 53.1%):

Learning about, recovering, and recording our past through archaeology is important Archaeology can address important scientific and histoiical research questions Lack of funds is an unacceptable reason for not conducting archaeological investigations Lack of time is an unacceptable reason for not conducting archaeological investigations CRM archaeology deserves more attention Archaeology is of great interest to the public Progress is not more important than our heritage Once lost, an archaeological site is gone forever and cannot be replaced Sites should be preserved and protected Sites should be displayed and interpreted Significant sites should be preserved because authenticity is important Preserving and interpreting sites can contribute to heritage tourism Preserving sites can contiibute to sense of place; community identity; quality of life When sites are found and preserved, the cost represents an investment in the community Native American burials are sacred sites that should be preserved in place Every development project should be subject to an archaeological survey Archaeology should be done earlier in the process; archaeologists need more time Archaeology does not stop projects; impacts to sites can be mitigated and the project proceed Government must set an example and do CRM thoroughly on agency projects More funds should be made available for CRM archaeology Curating archaeological collections in an appropriate local museum is important Stronger laws are needed to protect archaeological sites

B. Negative Editorials (15 editorials - 46.9%):

1. Editorials that are anti-CRM archeology (4 editorials - 26.7%)

CRM archaeology is too costly and creates too many delays Cost must be a primary factor when deciding how to treat archaeological discoveries CRM archaeology is an unfunded state and federal mandate on local municipalities The need for development is more important than archaeological concerns The high archaeological sensitivity of urban sites contributes to suburban sprawl Loss of projects because of archaeological discoveries is bad for local economy Native American concerns regarding burials are not valid; should not stop projects CRM requirements violate private property rights There is too much government regulation

2. Editorials that are pro-CRM but critical of its inmplementation (11 editorials - 73.3%):

City, state, federal government, or SHPO not doing enough to protect sites City, state, or federal government not providing sufficient funds to address archaeology Timing of archaeological investigations questioned SHPO permitting sub-standard archaeological investigations Site is more significant than SHPO is acknowledging/treating it SHPO decision-making is being politically influenced



Society for American Archaeology

Documents