This is a second test.
Update: We are sorry for the inconvenience, but for some reason, the last two posts were not being accepted. Finally, they were.
In additional news, we urge you to check out the March 2004 issue of the SAA Archaeological Record (Note: We think that is an abominably stupid name) for several articles discussing CRM or Cultural Resource Management. The list of available issues is here with all but the latest being free.
This is kind of a controversial topic in archaeology, with the acadmic archaeologists often looking down their noses at the "contract archaeologists" and vice versa for different reasons. The article by Thomas Whitley is especially interesting as it examines the training issue of CRM in academia. While we may disagree with some small part of its content, we urge all interested parties to give it a read, especially the Whitley article, but the others as well. Most of the lay public is unaware of this divide in archaeology and it helps to elucidate some of the inner workings of this profession.
Of particular note: page 23, beginning with "CRM research does not contribute much to the greater archaeological scientific literature". This paragraph provides a vital bit of information: there is a large amount of published reports out there that rarely sees the light of day among researchers. We are unsure of the utter truthfullness of this statement, but we suspect that it is largely the case.