Written May 15, 2008
This ethnography is about an archaeologist and the career field of archaeology. The question I hope to answer is “what is being an archaeologist all about?” Several facets of anthropology will be expressed as I sketch the current environment of archaeology in the US and describe the interaction with my informant. I evoke my version of ‘thick description’ prescribed by Clifford Geertz with an attempt to effectively paint a perspective of my research. The development of this ethnology will also utilize Geertz by presenting the role of symbolism as the backdrop to archaeology in the US. Cultural activism functions to enhance the color of the broader picture in archaeology. As a tangent to my research, I briefly explore gender and Sherry Ortner’s theory on the female as the nurturer. There is an endeavor to informatively render the circumstances surrounding, and my experience of participant observation. Marcel Mauss and Marshall Sahlins are presented in relation to the interview process. The conclusion responds to my question and demonstrates how archaeology encompasses many branches of anthropology.
I feel compelled to explain why I chose this subject for this essay.[1] I’ve always wanted to be an archaeologist. My wife playfully mocks me when she refers to it as, “playing in the dirt.” Over the years I have collected quite a few archaeology books and watched a lot of the History Channel. But with work, kids, the house… life, I was always too busy to delve into archaeology as an occupation. Instead I had to satisfy my interest vicariously. Now that we’re practically empty nesters, my wife has supported my efforts at school. And although my training is not quite complete, I am an archaeologist (I know this because my mentor professor says so). Yet, I haven’t thus far spent much time in the field around other archaeologists. I did attend a six-week archaeological field school in the middle of the Jornada del Muerto (Journey of the Dead Man): a god-forsaken desert in south central New Mexico.[2] But that has been my only dig. The Cultural Project has been the perfect opportunity to study the archaeologist and archaeology as a microculture. The Office of Contract Archaeology (OCA) is where I met my informant, real world archaeologist, Alexander Kurota. The reflections of my experience with Alex and the knowledge it proffered are expressed below as I examine the archaeological vocation as a microculture. It all begins as a part of my archaeological education…
A research project on early Galisteo Basin inhabitants led me to the offices of the OCA. The OCA is a Cultural Resource Management (CRM) firm that is closely associated with the University of New Mexico. CRM archaeology is involved with the preservation of cultural heritage. The function of a CRM firm is to analyze localities prior to any construction projects in order to determine what artifacts may be present from the culture of bygone peoples. This entails any part of the three-fold process: survey, report of analysis, and documentation of any excavation. The role of a CRM archaeologist may involve investigation, interpretation and/or conservation of historic sites and artifacts. These functions and roles are not just job descriptions; federal government mandates them. Anything that involves government has rules. I have come to learn that for archaeology in the US, there are two rules. These rules are spelled Section 106 and NAGPRA.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) created the National Register of Historic Places and a catalogue of National Historic Landmarks.[3] NHPA: Section 106 necessitates that all construction projects that involve federal land, monies or contracts are required to be reviewed to ascertain if there may be any impact on Registered Historic Places or potentially registered historic places. Much of the acreage in the west is federal land. The vast spider web of roads and pipelines in the US touch federal lands. Most building constructions have some sort of federal subsidy. Before Section 106, there was no federally mandated archaeology. Subsequent to Section 106, archaeology was everywhere and CRM firms sprang up all over the country, including in 1973, the OCA. Section 106 established a precedent toward national conduct of geographic intensification and recognized the national cultural heritage, but it was only a first step. There is a previous cultural heritage that had yet to be acknowledged.
American Indians have a religious, spiritual and historical connection to the land. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), is a federal law that requires the consultation of native tribes on any excavation that is known to have or found to contain indigenous cultural items and human remains. [4] The law mandates that permission must be arranged from the affected tribes before excavation can begin. And also the cataloguing and return of previously excavated cultural items and human remains to their lineal progeny if it can be established. Before the enactment of NAGPRA on November 16, 1990, the Indian’s sacred and ancient connection to the land was largely ignored. Museums, collectors, antiquities traders, and looters pretty much did as they pleased. It is true that each state had individual and distinctive laws regarding grave robbing. But these laws were not prosecuted with much vigor when it came to ancient bones and indigenous artifacts. A large contingency of native peoples felt that the indiscriminate sale and trade of their legacy epitomized wholesale discrimination. For legions of American Indians the lack of respect for their heritage symbolized dehumanization. Indian activists appealed to the US government for recognition of their religion and culture and won. Under NAGPRA the law has become nationally standardized. NAGPRA only applies if federal land or funding is involved. Therefore, it is not all encompassing, but it is a far-reaching law that applies to the same builders and contractors as Section 106. Further, most museums collect federal subsidies and must also comply with NAGPRA. The enactment of NAGPRA nationally acknowledges the humanity of indigenous peoples.
I have tried unsuccessfully to channel cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz through the J-Store regarding Section 106 and NAGPRA. But I think he would find symbolism in the intent of both of these laws. Equally and individually, each of these laws has their critics and both are recognized as less than perfect. However, before their enactment, archaeology in the US was pretty much a free for all. Now, because of these regulations, two separate cultural identities are better nationally respected and protected. Even geologists conducting mineral exploration are required to consult with native tribes and report to the government a professional unbiased assessment of the land they intend to alter. And these laws have produced a secondary consequence. Since Section 106 and NAGPRA were enacted, federal requirements have created an upsurge in business for CRM firms and trained archaeologists. Currently, there is interest in the Galisteo Basin as a potential source of oil. And as the OCA comes into play, the words of my cultural anthropology professor, Julia Hess, reverberate in my mind: “Any good cultural anthropologist will talk about women.”[5] The hierarchy at the OCA provides an opening to analyze the gender symmetry I observed at this particular archaeological workplace.
Feminist anthropology embraces gender as a mechanism of social construction.[6] Donna Kay, the Office Administer and Rebecca, her assistant, man the front office (or should I say woman the front office?). Of the Senior Archaeologists, there are two women and three men. The director and his assistant are men. It appears evenly divided between the sexes of the various other workers who wander about the offices and labs. The more or less equal gender numbers of employment was interesting to me. Clearly, men are being educated in the fields of archaeology and geology. However, my observation at school is that the number of students in these departments is slightly skewed toward the female. Because of my experience at school, my expectation was that more women would have been involved in the operation. Admittedly, there is an asymmetrical symmetry of gender displayed at the OCA. A critical feminist observer would argue that at the OCA, men occupy the top of the hierarchy and women inhabit the bottom.
It’s probably no surprise that women occupy the first and front line of the administration. But is the front line the bottom of the hierarchy? Both the women have been at their positions for more than a decade. Each time I have been at the OCA, the two girls have gone about their business with confidence, pride and (dare I say it?) glee. Perhaps more accurately it might be said that these women care for, look after, and cultivate the office from the front. An analytical observer may well conclude that the women relish their authority because it is embedded in the nature of their gender.[7] Widely respected feminist cultural anthropologist, Sherri Ortner might propose that these women nurture the business from the front office.[8] I experienced first hand how the dominance, status and power of the front office steers and controls the entire business. There may be two men with the title of ‘director,’ but it is the two women at the front office that run the ship. Therefore, I believe the structural hierarchy displayed at the OCA is not due to gender inequality. Instead, I prefer to think the gendered roles most likely resulted from professionalism of the individuals and, additionally, serendipity. What else could I think; this is the new millennium of gendered equality. And, after all, I am a man. This is where my informer, the professional archaeologist, enters the picture.
While making the inquiries at the OCA, Rebecca introduced me to Alex. He and I talked for an hour on the history of the Galisteo Basin. As it happened, he was scheduled to conduct an expedition to the basin the very next day. He invited me to join him and I eagerly accepted. The invitation turned out to be a full day of participant observation. On the morning of February 20, 2008, I joined Alex and his assistant, Craig at the offices of OCA. As Alex drove us to Pueblo Blanco he explained why we were going to do what we were going to do.
Pueblo Blanco is the oldest archaeological site in the Galisteo Basin. It is owned by the State of New Mexico and administered by the State Land Office (SLO). Recently, there has been renewed public interest in the entire archaeology of the Galisteo Basin. A Houston, Texas based oil company has purchased mineral rights to some of the acreage in the basin. Tecton Energy, LLC has filed application with the state to drill three exploratory test wells in an effort to investigate the feasibility of further drilling for oil. Cultural activism by environmentalists, archaeologists and local citizens has posed some level of resistance to the project. The conflict has triggered New Mexico Governor Richardson to order a moratorium on any drilling in the area at least until June 24, 2008 to further study the situation.[9] Clearly, federal lands are exempt from the actual drilling for resources. Representatives Tom Udall and Heather Wilson co-sponsored the Galisteo Basin Archeological Sites Protection Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law on March 19, 2004 that prevents federal land from being used as a mineral source.[10] In the case of the Galisteo Basin, federal laws, New Mexico congressmen, state officials and concerned citizens have all united to guard and conserve precious cultural resources. Meanwhile, the SLO has contracted the OCA to perform investigations at Pueblo Blanco and various other sites in the Galisteo Basin. The sun was just breaking as we arrived at the site.
The state land on which Pueblo Blanco is situated is a U-shaped parcel that encompasses 435 acres. Alex is the foremost authority on the site. On the nearby Creston, located entirely on private land, are concentrated more petroglyphs and pictographs than anywhere else in the state. SLO chief archaeologist, David Eck, joined us shortly after our arrival at Pueblo Blanco. David pointed out SLO construction of past and recent remedial activities. There are several locations in and around the site where arroyos cut across and deteriorate the ancient masonry. The SLO is performing salvage archaeology by paying close attention to the site environment and taking actions to protect what can be preserved, and to impede any further deprecation. Alex’s expedition was charged to take several prescribed photos and conduct a field survey. He was to document any indication of recent erosion, exposure of major unrecorded artifacts, architecture or freshly exposed burials and to report any evidence of vandalism, scavengers or treasure hunters and looters.
The field survey coursed over the ruins of Pueblo Blanco. The first inspection of the survey took place at sandstone bluff that incorporates dozens of examples of rock art. There may be over one hundred separate instances of rock art throughout the pueblo. After reviewing the rock art of the bluff, we continued our field survey on the ground. Alex carried a clipboard with several maps of the site. He pointed out highlights of previous excavations and other points of interest. Our team spread out into fifteen meter spacing to create about a sixty-meter swath of observers to rake through the area. As we combed the site, our attention was to the ground as best we could manage in the midst intermittent juniper, cholla cactus, shallow and deeply incised arroyos and mounds of former architecture. If something unusual was found as we scanned the area, we inquired of Alex. We would all investigate to determine if an observation was noteworthy. If so, Alex made note of it. If not, we returned to our former spot and continued. A few rocks in close proximity may be indicative of an outlying site. Upon close inspection, a ceramic scatter would accompany almost every instance of this phenomenon. The rocks and ceramics indicated former hunting blinds, agricultural sites or some other manifestation of habitation. We did not dig, but were told these “fieldhouses” as often as not, each contained a hearth and were most likely at one time covered by a jacal ramada. Alex had previously found a skeleton in one. Each time we found one of these rock and ceramic scatters (and there were many), we would pause a moment and look over the site. While he documented the find, Alex would pick up a potsherd and invite Craig and I to scrutinize it. In this way we became more familiar with ceramic morphology. As we progressed over the mounds of former walls, potsherds, lithic core stones, shards and flakes of rock and obsidian littered the ground everywhere in the field of vision. With nearly every step artifacts were exposed, unearthed by recent snows and rains. All in all, the u-shaped 435 acres of the Pueblo Blanco site embraces formerly grand architecture and tens of thousands of artifacts, each contributing it’s own historical and cultural brushstroke on the canvas of Galisteo Basin habitation. Outside the boundary of state owned land the pattern continues, un-surveyed and undocumented. I gained what felt like a wide breadth of knowledge as I experienced a day in the life of an archaeologist. Yet, there was to be another experience with my informant that would extend the margins of the archaeological portrait.
Another requirement of the Cultural Project necessitated further imposition on Alex’s good will with a sit down interview. Up to this point my informant had allowed me to tag along and learn about him and his profession with no overt expectation of anything in return. By the theory of American anthropologist, Marshall Sahlins, Alex exhibited a “general reciprocity.”[11] He did not expect anything in return from me directly for his generosity and probably received enjoyment in giving his time and knowledge. Marcel Mauss anticipated the feeling of cultural obligation I experienced when he wrote, The Gift: it was my duty to return Alex’s kindness toward me, a complete stranger .[12] So I invited him to dinner at the Steak and Ale restaurant for the interview. My wife joined us for the occasion and consequently, Alex was double teamed with questions about his life and profession. He took it all in stride. Alex is contagiously charismatic and passionate about his profession. We learned he was from Slovakia and obtained a double B.A. in Teacher Training and English from the University of Constantine the Philosopher in his hometown of Nitra. At Wichita State University, he received his M.A. in Anthropology. He’s been an archaeologist in the US since he graduated eleven years ago. In the interview I learned for every hour an archaeologist spends in the field, he spends several hours doing research and writing reports. Alex explained that generally speaking, one must devote one’s time to becoming more educated rather than to other endeavors, like making money. To get ahead as a professional archaeologist, one must read… and read a lot. An archaeologist must specialize in a particular area of expertise. Alex’s specialty is pre-historic ceramics like those found in the Galisteo Basin. We all had a scrumptious meal and wonderful conversation. As we departed Alex encouraged my wife and me to continue our education after graduation.
When I started studying my major, archaeology was about playing in the dirt. Through the process of The Cultural Project, knowledge has been unearthed that was once hidden to me. Clifford Geertz wrote, “Culture is an ensemble of texts, themselves ensembles which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulders of those to whom they properly belong.”[13] The experience with my informant demonstrated that archaeology is an ensemble of texts. The archaeological texts are themselves ensembles of cultural texts. I don’t intend to be trite when I write that the culture of the Southwest belongs to the citizens and the Natives. Compared to the hard sciences, archaeology is a relatively new. In it’s infancy, archaeology was about the discovery of artifacts. But for me and for the country, it has become much more significant than playing in the dirt. Like Powdermaker warned, as a field worker, I became part of the situation that I studied. (I will be participating in fieldwork with the OCA this summer.) It is because of cultural activists that archaeology has developed to where it is today. Mauss was right expressing that a gift infers obligation. As an archaeologist, the gift of a cultural heritage requires reciprocity. I think it important to spend a couple pages detailing my participation at Pueblo Blanco. I hope it imparts a sense of the cultural heritage surviving from antiquity. Being an archaeologist, the reciprocity is all about the preservation of humanity.
REFERENCES CITED
Bickley, Sally
2003 Jornada del Muerto - 90 miles of hell. Online, In: SouthernNewMexico.com. Burch Media, Inc. Last updated on Friday, January 10, 2003. Accessed May 11, 2008.
http://www.southernnewmexico.com/Articles/Southwest/JornadadelMuerto-90mileso.html
Billington, James A.
2008 Library of Congress. H.R.506 Title: To provide for the protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] (introduced 1/29/2003) Cosponsors (1): Rep. Wilson Heather [NM-1] (2/11/2003) Related Bills: S.210 Became Public Law No: 108-208. Accessed March 1, 2008. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00506:
Geertz, Clifford
1973 “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” In: The interpretation of cultures; selected essays Publisher New York, Basic Books
Hess, Julia.
2008 Personal communication, Anthropology 330; class notes March 11, 2008
2008 Personal communication, Anthropology 330; class notes April 29, 2008
Mauss, Marcel
1929 The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, translated by W.D. Halls ; foreword by Mary Douglas. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 National Park Service. Last Modified: EST
as amended through 1992 Public Law 102-575
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm
National Park Service The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/MANDATES/INDEX.HTM
Ortner, Sherry
1974 "Is female to male as nature is to culture?" In Woman, Culture and Society, edited by M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere. Pp. 67-87 Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Powdermaker, Hortense
1966 Stranger and Friend: The Way of an Anthroplogist. New York: W.W. Norton
Richardson, Bill
2008 EXECUTIVE ORDER 2008-004. IMPOSING A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON NEW OIL AND GAS DRILLING IN SANTA FE COUNTY AND THE GALISTEO BASIN. Accessed March 1, 2008 http://governor.state.nm.us/press.php?id=655
Sahlins, Marshall.
1972 Stone Age Economics. Chicago, Aldine-Atherton
[1] The library is replete with books by cultural anthropologists who have detailed their reason for interest in a particular topic or reveal their stream of consciousness while constructing ethnographies. With her publication of Stranger and Friend: The Way of an Anthroplogist (1966), Hortense Powdermaker is one of the first to write in this fashion rather than the cold hard exposition of facts, ‘unbiased,’ and detached observation preferred by her predecessors.
[2] Sally Bickley refers to it as “90 miles of hell” in her article about the Jornada del Muerto, published on the website SouthernNewMexico.com
[3] National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). A good place to read the law is http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm
[4] For full details of The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), see http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/MANDATES/INDEX.HTM
[5] Julia Hess. Personal communication, April 29, 2008.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] In her essay, "Is female to male as nature is to culture?" and other feminist anthropological scholarly publications, Sherry Ortner examines the role of gender through the cultural constructions of dominance, status and power.
[9] For further information about Governor Richardson’s moratorium see http://governor.state.nm.us/press.php?id=655
[10] Library of Congress. H.R.506 Title: To provide for the protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] (introduced 1/29/2003) Cosponsors (1): Rep. Wilson Heather [NM-1] (2/11/2003) Related Bills: S.210 Became Public Law No: 108-208.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00506:
[11] Julia Hess. Personal communication, March 11, 2008. In Stone Age Economics, Marshall Sahlins describes three kinds of reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity is no expectation of return; balanced reciprocity there is return with an expected period of delay; and, negative reciprocity is barter or cash economy, where a debt is immediately repaid.
[12] In, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, Marcel Mauss explains the obligation of the receiver of a gift feels to repay the giver.
[13] From, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” In: The interpretation of cultures; selected essays
