total appropriation for the agency's activity or program. H.R. 6257, though similar, would include "projects" within the phrase "Federal or federally assisted programs or activities." Without this addition, Section 3 of the bill could be interpreted as authorizing the transfer of one per cent of the total funds appropriated for our entire Civil Works program rather than one per cent of the funds appropriated for an individual project. Therefore, the Department of the Army prefers the privisions of H.R. 6257 which would prevent this interpretation. A second significant difference is the distinction which H.R. 6257 makes between large and small projects. For small projects, this bill would allow an amount greater than one percent of total project appropriations to be spent for the investigation and the recovery of any archeological data threatened with extensive damage. The amount, however, must be mutually agreed upon by the project agency and the Secretary of the Interior as being necessary to effect adequate protection and recovery. The Department of the Army believes that the approach of H.R. 6257 is superior to that of H.R. 735 in that H.R. 6257 could provide more adequate protection for archeological data which might not otherwise be recovered because of inadequate funds.

Accordingly, we recommend the enactment of H.R. 6257. We suggest, however, a technical amendment to H.R. 6257(by adding the word "protect" to the phrase "Federally licensed activity or program" found in Section 1 of the bill. This change would provide internal consistency between Section 1 and Section 3, and thereby assure the uniform interpretation of its provisions.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. BURLISON. Our next witness is Dr. Jesse D. Jennings, representing the Great Basin Anthropological Conference.

Dr. Jennings, we welcome you before the committee.

STATEMENT OF DR. JESSE D. JENNINGS, REPRESENTING GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONFERENCE, DIRECTOR, UTAH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

Dr. JENNINGS. Honorable Chairman and committee members, I should like to express my appreciation for the opportunity of presenting testimony. I am here as the designated representative of the Great Basin Anthropological Conference, with membership in all western States and the Western Canadian provinces. I also represent the Utah Museum of Natural History of which I am the director, and the Statewide Archeological Society of Utah, of which I was a member. I am also professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. These credentials, I hope, are sufficient to identify me as both a conservationist and professional scholar.

My personal involvement with salvage archeology goes back to the late thirties when I was employed, for 9 months, as a supervisor of excavations for the recovery of archeological materials back of the Chickamauga Dam upriver from Chattanooga, Tenn. After World War II, I was designated by the National Park Service to coordinate the work of the Government agencies and private institutions engaged in the salvaging of archeological remains over the entire Missouri Valley when the huge dams, that created the existing lakes on that river, were being constructed. After coming to Utah, I directed the salvage operations with the Upper Colorado Basin for the University of Utah behind the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, and Fontenelle Dams for the period 1956-63 under a series of continuing

contracts with the U.S. National Park Service. Intermittently over the past 20 years I have conducted what are now called environmental impact studies for the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Soil Conservation Service where water control or road construction was contemplated. I have had a similar contract with the Utah State Highway Department for 13 years.

With the exception of the Glen Canyon project and the Utah Highway Department, each of the salvage operations with which I have been connected were inadequately funded, so that there were too few excavation parties and too little time to salvage an adequate sample of the prehistoric remains jeopardized by the flooding of vast stretches of fertile river valleys, where prehistoric sites abound, before the dams were filled and the material lost forever. There was sufficient lead time in the case of the Upper Colorado River Basin studies.

Because of the lack of funds, I personally saw in other areas archeologists working on important prehistoric sites after the dam gates were closed and the rising waters were lapping at the edges of the site. Many sites mentioned already by one of you gentlemen, particularly in South Dakota, went underwater without there ever having been a sample cut.

Many, if not all, such tragic losses could have been avoided had there been adequate money and adequate leadtime. You note that I link leadtime with money. The point is that if moneys were available for the archeological work from the moment of decision to erect a dam, construct a road, or extend an airport, there would be time for the appropriate State or private institution to mount an investigative study-that is, a survey-followed by excavation of the more important sites. It is impossible to overemphasize the necessity for salvage work in view of the incredible demands for land being made by land development operations for both agriculture and city sprawl, road construction, airport expansion, and many other kinds of Federal construction activity, to say nothing of the private sector. In order to save a representative sample of our dwindling prehistoric resources the passage of this bill is imperative. Perhaps I should also point out that the study of North American prehistory, which carries us back in time some 15,000 to 20,000 years, is essentially a study of the American Indian and his history, and his adventures in conquering the new world. The importance of these studies for the Indians themselves is considerable. As is well known, Indians today are just beginning to stand up for themselves, again taking pride in being the first Americans. They are themselves much more interested in their history than they have been in the recent past.

Aside from any intrinsic value to the world of knowledge and scholarship these data may have, the study of American prehistoric remains thus provides great time depth for the continued appreciation and public understanding of the first Americans. In addition, and this value probably appeals to laymen most, the wondrous achievements of the prehistoric Indians in art, architecture, irrigation projects, and the like, remain a perpetual source of esthetic enjoyment and admiration for the American people as the objects are displayed in museums around the Nation-and indeed around the world. The popularity

of the many archeological preserves such as Mesa Verde National Park, Bandelier National Monument, Casa Grande National Monument, Ocmulgee National Monument, and many, many others, underlines the satisfaction moderns derive from prehistoric Indian handiwork. There is attached a copy of an article which I wrote in assessment of Salvage Archeology in which I mention the scientific importance of emergency archeological projects.

(The article from American Antiquity, vol. 28, No. 3, January 1963, follows:)

ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACT EMERGENCY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROGRAMS*

(By Jesse D. Jennings)
"ABSTRACT

"Contract emergency research is seen as sharing essentially the same limitations as other emergency work. These are: the pressure of time; an arbitrary restriction of geographic area of study; the obligation to sample adequately the full range of cultures represented; and the possible problem of dealing with a large volume of data. The contract also carries with it a stipulated deadline for the completion of an acceptable report. All of these limitations are seen as advantageous."

One wonders what else can be said about emergency (once called salvage) archaeological work, except to express an annoyance over the years by the implication that salvage archaeology is different somehow from "real" archaeology. At any rate, in recent years the special emergency tasks have become the dominant ones in American archaeology. Regardless of words, “emergency" is an excellent term for the high-priority, quick-action archaeology seen on every hand today.

The burgeoning of archeological operations and the increasing sums of money involved have led to new excavation techniques, new approaches to the handling of data and, more importantly, to the training of anthropologists. An increased public interest in prehistory has led to concomitant increase in conservation on the one hand and to planned despoliation in the name of exploration on the other. Although this is not the place to evaluate the scholarly results of recent decades of emergency archaeology-history will attend to the evaluation of our workit does seem appropriate to insist that there is no reason to attach any invidious connotations to emergency archaeology. It ought not to be thought of as markedly different from any other insofar as rigor of standards is concerned. Any competent craftsman works as fast and as well as he can on any job, given all the controlling conditions. Carelessness or low recovery need not be associated with emergency work. Haste does not inevitably lead to carelessness.

In view of the mountains of useful data recovered by emergency operations. of the inescapably superior quality of most of the extant reports, and of the strides in scientific understanding achieved over vast areas of the land, it seems to me that those scientists who have disdained to engage in emergency work have been proved thoroughly wrong. In fact, as I have maintained since WPA days, good archaeology can be and has been done under any conceivable situation. Archaeology is a complex of attitudes supported by a few simple field techniques and is always done in the face of limiting factors, time, money, equipment, and labor competence, to name a few. The use of practical intelligence in applying techniques results in good archaeology. Techniques alone, applied in sequence and by rote, result in virtually nothing.

Hence I suggest that specifically labeling, whether the archaeology was done as an emergency job (to a schedule and in the press of time) or was done in a

After this paper was written I received and read the excellent symposium in ARCHAE OLOGY, Vol. 14, No. 4, called SOS, and the paper. A Guide for Salvage Archaeology by Frend Wendorf (Museum of New Mexico Press, 1962). Many of the ideas in these publications are parallel to some that I express independently in this paper. I wish here merely to acknowledge my awareness of the similarity of our conclusions and express my appreclation of the publications mentioned.

This paper was given at a symposium entitled "Administrative Problems in Emergency Archaeology" at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona, May 3-5, 1962.

leisurely "pure" context, can be abandoned. Why not just judge the archaeology on the basis of the results, asking questions like: are the published accounts clear, detailed, complete, logical, and consistent with other knowledge?

It is better, I suggest, that we do archaeology, whether pure and problem or emergency and total, with the best skills, brains, and rectitude we possess, and continue to refine our knowledge of prehistory. If we must have a phrase, why not use something like total archaeology or full-range or dragnet or something else that implies the basic procedure? Or reservoir, highway, construction, pipeline, or some other term indicative of geographic coverage? In any event, let us hope that the erstwhile connotations of the word salvage will be discarded.

As a quick summary of these paragraphs, I suggest that in virtually any detail, and certainly in the round, salvage archaeology is bringing in results superior to most other work done in America, except possibly that of Gila Pueblo, where total coverage resulted in the recognition of a deep sequence of occupations in southern Arizona. The pendulum has swung to intelligence in such things as technique, if by this we mean realistic adjustment of tools to the task and the rejection of rote procedures. The volume of data recovered insures the likelihood of fullest recovery of the range of physical specimens and nuances of relationship in ancillary data (palynology, for example). Utilization of all these data in interpretation, and in the study and chronological arrangement of all sequent cultures in a region, results in filling in regional and areal knowledge and in bringing vast knowledge out of "unimportant" areas.

On the other hand, all emergency, quick-action jobs have certain inescapable attributes. There is always (1) the pressure of time, (2) an arbitrary restriction of area, (3) the injunction to sample adequately the full range of cultures represented in the arbitrary area, and (4) a large volume of recovered material to plague both excavator and analyst. These conditions merely structure the archaeological attack; they do not necessarily hamper it.

Having been asked to talk particularly about working under government contract, I will become specific. Because I have expended appropriated funds (both state and federal), contract funds, and private grants, I am at the outset claiming some experience; and I can assert that the contract, as worked out between the University of Utah and the National Park Service for Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, and Fontenelle reservoirs, has presented no problems, no areas of disagreement or unpleasantness, or any crippling conditions or stipulations. The only problems encountered were those we made for ourselves. The University of Utah has also had contracts with two or three United States Department of Agriculture agencies, two pipeline companies, the State Highway Department. and the State Park Commission. All contracts have been similarly pleasant and easy to complete.

There are of course quite specific provisions in any contract, and payment naturally depends on meeting these stipulations, whatever they may be. Stipulation does establish special factors not present in outright grants, state funds, or even annually renewed, federal, fiscal-year funds. The most important contract stipulation is the completion of reports by certain dates, a condition implemented by the withholding of significant percentages of funds until the required report is accepted. The arbitrary limits of the area to be studied are sometimes specified, although this is always an implicit condition in most emergency work anyway. Other and lesser conditions involve hours of work per week, nondiscrimination, and other standard inclusions. In short, the only important factor I can perceive in contract work that is not found on other jobs is the report deadline. Hence contract emergency archaeological work shares with other emergency jobs the hazards of arbitrary areal delineation; total sample as opposed to limited or precise problems; large volume of data (in some cases); and time limitations for field work as imposed by emergency situation. To these is added the major item of report deadline. All of these circumstances may and do influence the organization and prosecution of the work, but theoretically they do not modify either the objectives or the quality of the research performed under them. The original assigned title of this paper, "Problems in the Administration of Government Contracts," caused me some discomfort, because I recognize no special problem. The rules are clear and the task equally well-defined. The only real problem has been to tailor a mechanism to the assignment. In fact, I see all the five major limitations I have cited above as advantages rather than hindrances. For example, the matter of areal restriction enforces a concentration of effort

regardless of the glamor or lack of it in the archaeological content of the assigned area. Or, put another way, the obligation to understand, as well as possible, the full prehistory of an arbitrary area tends to ensure uniform consideration of all kinds of sites. Sites and their contents, by their mere presence, have equal importance and must be given the same conscientious attention. The resultant understanding of regional culture shifts and changes through time no doubt actually advances knowledge faster than the special or narrow problem approach permits. Yet another very great advantage from largescale emergency work is the large volume of collections. Because I have always preferred a dragnet to a dipnet. I am most confident of conclusions based on large collections. I would prefer to dig ten sites of a given culture with all possible speed than devote the same time to tedious and sometimes spurious eroding away of one such site with a whisk broom. In short, my preference is to get 95% of the data from ten sites instead of 99% from one. The 95% from ten will probably recover examples of 99% of the total recoverable or observable phenomena; and moreover, by duplication of many of them, it will increase the reliability of the associated artifacts as a recurrent complex.

Of tremendous value, however, is the reporting deadline. This puts the burden of completion in sharp focus from the very beginning of the project. Thus it influences the project design from the outset; it establishes an inescapable routine or schedule to which work must be geared. It also imposes very firm limits on the quality or style of reporting. Minimal reporting in science, as I have understood it, is descriptive. The basic scientific obligation is to put the digested, ordered data on record, with or without a web of theory or a network of hypotheses. This is the minimum aim of all conscientious students and is rendered imperative by the report deadline. Descriptive writing can be done much faster than can high-level synthesis based on extensive comparisons. This suggestion of writing to a schedule is somewhat contrary to the philosophy in which most of us were trained. The average product of, or denizen of, academia is problem-oriented and is under no rigorous pressure to finish anything.

The above implies an overriding approach and a philosophy toward the data collected through field research also quite at variance with the usual attitude of the professional lonewolf scholar. Traditionally archaeologists do research in addition to other things. Analysis and writing, even art work, drafting, and photography are often done by the one who did the original research, and in hours diverted from other tasks. Laboratory research is done at a somewhat leisurely pace. The concept of a rigorously scheduled analysis, with all possible phases of the task broken into segments and the work being done by employees under direction, has been repugnant to those archaeologists whose early work and work habits were established in the older academic tradition. Contract report deadlines make necessary a stable of fulltime research personnel who work cooperatively in a joint attack on each season's problems. The segmenting of analysis into units and the availability of funds make it somehow easier to search for and employ specialists, such as mammalogists, botanists, palynologists, and others for short-term projects. With this skilled help, the descriptive reports are actually more complete and may well be of greater usefulness than some of the reports put together by the lonewolf scholar.

Ideally, as always, the man who does the field work and establishes the controls should supervise the analysis and report the findings. In short, I conceive of contract archaeology, although done in a university sitting, as a separate "business" with research its only goal and published data the only product. I suspect that the university setting presents the ideal mechanism for the contract arrangement. As designed at the University of Utah, the laboratory work is broken into many little parts-a sort of processing assembly line that any intelligent person who can follow instructions can do efficiently. Part-time student workers, for long or short periods, can be drawn at need from an evidently inexhaustible pool. Full-time laboratory supervisors can be drawn from the equally rich pool of graduate student wives who, being adult, motivated, and experienced workers, do very well in a variety of tasks. Most important of all, graduate students in anthropology can be utilized as staff archaeologists, part- or full-time, thus simultaneously learning and earning. It is to me a matter of pride that virtually every labor penny spent at the University of Utah on emergency archaeology has gone to students, although most of these are not students at the University of Utah. Field personnel, if local students are developed, thus can be trained year after year in project procedures