Research in experimental archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, geoarchaeology, and vertebrate taphonomy has appreciably increased our general understanding of the formation processes—cultural and natural—of archaeological sites. In synthesizing some of these recent advances, this paper focuses on the traces of artifacts and characteristics of deposits that can be used to identify the formation processes of specific deposits. These observational phenomena are grouped into three basic categories that structure the presentation: (1) simple properties of artifacts, (2) complex properties of artifacts, and (3) other properties of deposits. Also considered is the way in which prior knowledge can help the archaeologist to cope with the large number of processes and the nearly infinite combination of them that may have contributed to the specific deposits of interest. Several analytical strategies are proposed: (1) hypothesis testing, (2) multivariate analysis, and (3) use of published data to evaluate formation processes. This paper demonstrates that the identification of formation processes, which must precede behavioral inference and be accomplished by any research endeavor that uses evidence from the archaeological record, can become practical and routine.

Toward the identification of formation processes

Archaeological survey design is viewed as a problem in choosing techniques for site and artefact discovery that are most cost‐effective given the particular archaeological and environmental characteristics of the study area. Uncontrollable factors of the study area discussed are abundance, clustering, obtrusiveness of archaeological materials, and visibility and accessibility. Both purposive and probabilistic techniques for varying discovery probabilities are examined within the framework of recovery theory. In addition, other considerations involved in survey design are reviewed, including field crews, site definition, recording procedures, surface collecting and testing. Finally, a three‐stage survey programme is outlined, wherein stress is laid on acquiring the knowledge needed for making decisions about survey techniques.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/124409.pdf

The design of archaeological surveys

Recent years have witnessed the explosive emergence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as a major collective actor in development activities. Social development at the local level is the broadest arena within which NGOs provide their contribution. This paper discusses five sets of issues relevant to NGO's contribution and strategic issues for NGO's future development. The first part identifies three characteristics of current NGO growth: expansion of their numbers and constituencies; broadening functions; and more complex internal institutional structures. Section two deals with international resource transfer through NGOs for development purposes. The paper's third section discusses the nature, functions and types of NGOs vis-a-vis the local government and the state. The fourth section analyzes the main patterns of NGO strengths and weaknesses in working for local development. The fifth section discusses how international and bilateral development agencies can work with NGOs and strengthen their role, in light of the World Bank's recent experiences in cooperating with them. The final section outlines two strategic issues for further NGO development: organizational build-up and the need for favorable policy and administrative environments.

/pdf/nongovernmental-organizations-and-local-development-2yhpiuj3oc.pdf

Nongovernmental organizations and local development

Although the concept of significance has been widely discussed in cultural resource management. the origin of the idea and the epistemology underlying it have remained unexamined. This paper outlines the history of the significance concept in historic preservation and traces the current view of significance to the empiricistpositivist school of Western philosophical thought. Flaws in the arguments of this school, and in the logic of the significance concept, are raised and discussed. Potential approaches for dealing with aspects of the significance dilemma are proposed. THE FEDERAL MANDATE to manage and protect archaeological and historical resources has, since its earliest days, divided cultural properties into two classes: those which are "significant" and those which are not. The level at which significance is to be evaluated has broadened with time: early federal efforts covered sites of national significance, while in more recent times the significance of properties important at state and local levels has come to be recognized. The notion of significance now guides much of this nation's historic preservation effort. The ambiguities of the concept have been noted and discussed, but a deeper understanding of the idea, and its origin, has not emerged. The purposes of this paper are, first, to develop such an understanding, and second, on this basis, to suggest possible courses of action for dealing with some aspects of the significance dilemma. To accomplish this, it will be useful to briefly sketch the development of today's significance concept.

Epistemology of the Significance Concept

It has long been recognized that archaeology in sub-Saharan Africa, and its public manifestation through the medium of museums, emerged within the context of European colonial rule, and that legacies of colonialism continue to shape archaeological practice across the continent. Following independence there has been steady indigenization, initially in terms of personnel but subsequently also in terms of organizational structure and research agendas. Recent calls for a ‘post-colonial archaeology’ liberated from the constraints imposed by ‘the colonial archive’, have highlighted many of the challenges that remain. Nevertheless, indigenization has also resulted in the production of more nationalistic and/or Afrocentric perspectives. These echo some of the sentiments voiced by the first generation of African political leaders regarding the need to recover a truly ‘African past’, which have also been revived in more recent calls for an African Renaissance as articulated by NEPAD, among others. This pap...

Possibilities for a postcolonial archaeology in sub-Saharan Africa: indigenous and usable pasts

In this paper an attempt is made to review selected anthropological studies of voluntary associations, in particular, and common-interest associations, in general. The aim is to show how these groups have been studied as adaptive mechanisms in situations of social, cultural, and technological change, especially in those types of change involving rapid urban growth and large-scale migrations of rural populations to towns and cities. The review is organized in six sections: the first deals with some general theoretical considerations of the nature and types of associations; the second, third, and fourth focus on a review of studies in three geographic areas (Africa, Asia, Western Europe and North America), while the fifth section deals primarily with studies of rotating-credit associations; the sixth section covers some concluding remarks and suggestions for further studies.

Studying Voluntary Associations as Adaptive Mechanisms: A Review of Anthropological Perspectives [and Comments and Reply]

Cultural resource management studies, which provide archaeological information for planning purposes, are currently burgeoning in American archaeology. A general approach is developed which aims at bringing such studies into conformity with legal requirements and the high standards of modern archaeological research. This approach is founded on the precept that cultural resource management cannot attain its management goals without solid research effort; thus every contract project must obtain research results. Discussions of the Cache Project, an intensive survey undertaken by the Arkansas Archeological Survey in northeastern Arkansas, illustrate how management and research goals can be brought into harmony. Major results of the Cache Project and research designs, as well as other recent progress in cultural resource management studies, are briefly reviewed.

Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research: The Cache Project [and Comments and Reply]

by GADI G. Y. MGOMEZULU Box 264, Lilongwe, Malawi. 29 vii 80 \"Archaeology ought to be what archaeology already is. The problem is how can we improve our ways of doing it?\" (Isaac 1971:129). The gist of Miller's (CA 21: 709-15) paper contradicts this premise. It is that archaeology is dependent on \"the structure of society\" and therefore, where it is just being introduced, should be different from the archaeology in societies in which it has a longer tradition. While Miller attempts to disclaim this view, the rest of his article is consistent with it. One may safely say that a society's conception of the universe and its role in it has a lot to do with what that society does and why it is the way it is. A case can be made that it would be expecting too much for an archaeologist's view of the universe to coincide with that of any society. In terms of the time depth of man's history, for instance, an archaeologist may have 3,000,000 years in mind when the society may only be able to relate to a few hundred. The duty of the archaeologist in such circumstances will be more to popularise the aspects of archaeology unknown to the society than to coin a brand of archaeology \"suited\" to that society. A similarly pervasive idea in the article is evolution of societv versus evolution of archaeology. This, to say the least, revives such hackneyed 19th-century evolutionary ideas as Morgan's (1964 [1877]) \"primitive\" and civilized.\" Research by external institutions hould indeed be encouraged by indigenous people, who for the most part lack financial resources and, even more, trained manpower. External institutions, on their part, should include the involvement and training of indigenous people from the beginning. Any other relationship is, in fact, parasitic on the indigenous people. The article is at its best when dealing with the Solomons example. The generalisations from the author's experience in the Solomons are, however, misleading. What needs to be done in \"developing\" countries vis-a-vis archaeology is not to fabricate a different type of archaeology to fit them, but to popularise archaeology without significantly changing its meaning or nature (Mgomezulu 1979).

Leslie E. Wildesen

Papers

Studying Voluntary Associations as Adaptive Mechanisms: A Review of Anthropological Perspectives [and Comments and Reply]

Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research: The Cache Project [and Comments and Reply]

On Archaeology and Development