Most archaeological research in the early twenty-first century is not done in the interests of learning about the past for its own sake. Nor is it done in order to obtain information and materials for public interpretation in museums, parks, and educational institutions. Most archaeological research today is done, and most archaeologists are employed, in connection with some kind of environmental impact assessment.
As the words suggest, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is done to assess what impacts some
Action, activity, or program will have on the environment. It is done as a result of laws enacted in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s by virtually all developed nations and many developing ones, and because of policies adopted by international funding bodies like the World Bank and the US Agency for International Development (see Antiquities and Cultural Heritage Legislation). The basic idea behind EIA is ‘look before you leap’ - determine what damage a project or program will do to the environment before deciding whether and how to carry it forward. National EIA laws and international instruments cause studies to be done of a proposed project’s environmental impacts, so that these impacts can be weighed and balanced together with the project’s perceived benefits in reaching a decision about funding or permitting it.
Words like ‘environment’ and ‘impact’ can have different meanings for different people, and the ways such terms are expressed and understood can vary between cultures. Generally, however, the ‘environment’ is understood by EIA practitioners to include both the natural world and the built environment of cities and towns. Sometimes the word is used rather exclusively to embrace only the tangible aspects of the environment - plants, animals, soil, water, buildings, sites. In other cases things that are not so tangible are also recognized as parts of the environment - such as the social and cultural institutions involved in human use of plants, animals, or water, and the feelings that people have for places - of awe, of reverence, of revulsion, and so on. ‘Impacts’, in most EIA systems, include both direct and indirect impacts: impacts that result immediately from an action at or near the place the action happens, and impacts that occur at a distance in space or time. Archaeological sites are usually understood to be parts of the environment, and their disturbance is taken to be an environmental impact. It should be noted that environmental engineers - that is, engineers who work on control and correction of environmental pollution - tend to think of the environment as limited that which can be polluted - basically air, water, and soil, and regard impacts as primarily involving the pollution of such media.
A well-done EIA examines all aspects of the environment that may be altered by a project, be it a highway, a railroad or pipeline, a dam and reservoir, a new urban development, an agricultural scheme, or a port facility. The analysis is performed by an interdisciplinary team of scientists, social scientists, and other specialists, often organized by a consulting firm engaged either by a project proponent or by a government agency or ministry responsible for funding, permitting, or overseeing the proposed project. Among the aspects of the environment that are often examined are the affected area’s archaeological sites, along with its historic buildings, cultural landscapes and urban areas, the traditional lifeways of its people, and other cultural characteristics.
In the United States, where the practice of EIA is well developed although not always very well done, it has been reliably estimated by a major US firm, SWCA Environmental Consultants, that about US$300-400 million is spent every year on EIA-based archaeology. This is an enormous amount of money relative to what comes from traditional research funding sources like foundations and academic institutions. A similar level of EIA-based archaeology is carried on in the European Union, Japan, and other nations, although in some countries most of the work is conducted by cultural ministries and other governMental organizations rather than by the private consulting firms that dominate the field in the US. Most archaeologists completing graduate degrees today can expect to spend at least part of their careers in EIA-related work. The industry has also generated many jobs for people without advanced degrees. Many archaeologists support themselves in graduate school in such jobs, and some make their careers in EIA-related work without having to complete a graduate education.
In many countries, and in the implementation of some international standards and agreements, EIA archaeology is regarded as part of an interdisciplinary professional practice called ‘cultural heritage’, ‘heritage resource management’, ‘historic preservation’, or ‘cultural resource management’ (Figure 1; see Goals of Archaeology, Overview). This field of practice brings together specialists in such fields as archaeology, cultural and social anthropology, history, and architectural history to work toward ensuring the preservation and wise use of the cultural environment, as variously defined. Precisely which aspects of that environment are emphasized varies from nation to nation; some national traditions give priority to protection of the built environment of architecture and landscape architecture; others give more stress to traditional ways of life, uses of the natural environment, or intellectual property. Archaeology plays a large role in some such interdisciplinary management programs, a minor role in others, but to the extent a cultural heritage program emphasizes EIA work, archaeologists are deeply involved in the assessment process.
World History
