Archaeology Dissertation Text

MA Theses & Ph.D. Dissertations
on Public Archaeology-Related Topics

An annotated bibliography project by Kim Christensen.

Please let us know if you have suggested content to add, and visit later to see how the page develops. Send your contributions and comments here.

Adams, Laura Marie.  2011  Archaeology in fiction: The impact of perception.  M.A. Thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

 

Abstract (by author):

This study examines the influence that archaeological-fiction has on the general public's perception of archaeology by examining how, if at all, that perspective is influenced. The analysis will examine meaning in the representations of archaeology in contemporary popular culture. This project proposes that the role of these fictional accounts is an important avenue toward public archaeology. The meanings of these representations accurately portrayed or not, have influences over the general public that are worth investigation.

Through this research, archaeologists can move toward a clearer understanding of the impact archaeological-fiction has and how archaeologists can communicate more productively with the general public. This project will examine the role of archaeology in the world of fiction, the influence this role has on culture, and why this role is important to the field of archaeology.

ISBN: 9781267055248

Full-text pdf available via ProQuest.

Appler, Douglas Ross. 2011. Understanding the community benefits of municipal archaeology programs. Ph. D. Dissertation, Cornell University.

Abstract (by author):
Archaeology's ability to recover hidden information about the past creates many opportunities for engagement and collaboration with a variety of community groups. Within this context, few efforts at sustaining long-term relationships with the public have been as successful as the municipal archaeology programs found in Alexandria, VA; St. Augustine, FL; and Phoenix, AZ. For decades, these cities have successfully mixed the enthusiasm and curiosity of local residents, the professional and technical expertise of archaeologists, and the regulatory and structural support of local government in order to produce a variety of place-specific public benefits. Yet despite the sustained success of these programs, they have received surprisingly little attention in academic or professional circles.
This dissertation begins an exploration of the social environment that surrounds the municipal archaeology programs in these three cities. The data used are drawn from archival and published sources, as well as from interviews with the members of the public, the archaeologists, and the city staff most strongly associated with the three programs. The historical information brings to the forefront the role of the public in the process of creating each program. In each case, members of a concerned public were responsible for taking the first steps toward making archaeology a city priority, and none of these programs could have taken their current shape or lasted as long as they have without the continued input and participation of private citizens. It also explores how zoning and the development review procedures in each city have been structured to allow for the recovery of archaeological information that would otherwise be destroyed during the construction process. The dissertation identifies some of the ways in which these archaeology programs have shaped other municipal amenities, such as local museums, parks, heritage walks or trails, and public art that interprets local history. This research contributes to the wider discourse linking archaeology and the public, and makes evident some of the ways in which the public benefits from having access to the archaeological process.
ISBN: 9781267016270

 

Atalay, Sonya.  2003.  Domesticating Clay: Engaging with 'they'.  The social life of clay balls from Catalhoyuk, Turkey and public archaeology for indigenous communities.  Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 
Three primary research themes are addressed in this dissertation: archaeological stewardship and public outreach; the social life of the clay ball materials found at the 9,000 PB site of atalhyk, Turkey; and the practices and daily life interactions which the people who lived in that community had with clay and clay ball materials.
       Stewardship and public archaeology are addressed in Chapter 2, and in a group of accompanying educational materials. Chapter 2 addresses the ethics and practice of making archaeological research accessible and useful to diverse public audiences, with a particular focus on Indigenous groups in North America. The educational materials are for use in K-12 Turkish and Native American classrooms, and bridge academic research with popular education, in an effort to democratize archaeological knowledge. They present cross-cultural comparisons of the changing practices of clay use and cooking in Turkey and Native North America and are particularly oriented to addressing issues crucial for contemporary Native American communities including sovereignty, heritage, repatriation and decolonization processes.
       The remaining chapters present an examination of clay ball materials from atalhyk, Turkey, and utilize ball data and multiple lines of evidence to move from the clay balls to interpretations of the people who lived at this site. The social life of the clay balls is investigated by moving through each stage in their use-life. The symbolic meanings of the balls are examined and joined with interpretations of the activities related to their production, use, re-use and discard.
       Through an examination of clay ball social life, I demonstrate that people at atalhyk were not only involved in domesticating plants and animals, but were also domesticating clay through their everyday practices and interactions with it. They transferred clay from the wild landscape into the domestic domain, and were able to form and transform it into the shapes and uses they desired. After production, the clay balls and objects played an important role in domestic practice, and were used in daily acts of cooking and food preparation to transform plant and animal resources into meals.

    Beard, Jennifer A.  2008.  Late Homestead Period Householding at Benmore and Tintic Junction: Comparing Rural and Sub-rural communities in Tooele and Juab Counties, Utah.  M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University. Abstract (by author)

Historical archaeologists are turning more and more attention to the study of capitalism in post-Industrialist nations. The concept of householding considers networks of families or groups that operate outside of the mainstream capitalist economy, and may be a useful tool in the study of American West homesteading.  This thesis considers the feasibility of applying the concept of householding to Benmore, a small homesteading community in Tooele County, Utah where 20 families sought to survive by dry farming in a marginal environment.  The study relies heavily upon the unpublished journal of Israel Bennion which was offered by Bennion’s family after nine years of volunteer research gained their trust and approval.  U.S. Forest Service Passport-in-Time volunteers donated several thousand hours of fieldwork toward documenting visible evidence of the town.  This thesis is both a feasibility study of the householding concept in Western archaeology and a positive evidence of the impact public archaeology can have in furthering historical and archaeological research.Available online.

 

Birch, Jennifer.  2006.  Public archaeology and the cultural resource management industry in southern Ontario.  M.A. Thesis, Carleton University. 
ISBN: 9780494164204
The growth of the archaeological consulting industry in Ontario has drastically changed how archaeology is done in this province. This new public context has raised questions about accountability, and it has been suggested that archaeologists have an obligation to public education and outreach. This thesis will investigate the public role of consulting archaeologists in Ontario, with reference to a recent survey undertaken among archaeological practitioners in the province for the purposes of this study. The results suggest that the current system of cultural resource management in this province is lacking in policies and practices that permit meaningful communication with the public.

Available online

Boland, Dale Elizabeth.  2006.  Social identity in historic Fish Creek: An archaeological investigation.  M.A. Thesis, University of Calgary.
ISBN: 97804941356010
This study is an archaeological examination into social identity in an historic settlement context. Focussing on two Calgary homestead sites first settled in the late nineteenth century, the research concentrates on discerning facets of past social identities from the material remains of daily activities. Architecture is included in this study along with excavated materials that have been categorized according to function. From functionality a recreation of past activities and lifestyles has been realized. And from these behaviours, working under a postprocessual framework, a more comprehensive understanding of ethnicity and gender roles, coupled with better detail of the socioeconomic status of those living and working on these two farms, has been gained. The field and laboratory component of the research were largely performed by avocationals through the Programme for Public Archaeology, which worked to draw connections between past and present and fostered a sense of community within this western Canadian city.

Fedorak, Shirley A. 1994.  Is Archaeology Relevant? An examination of the Roles of Archaeology in Education.  M.A. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.   

     The recent re-evaluation of archaeology's raison d'etre has opened up the new field of public archaeology, which focuses upon increasing the public's awareness of and appreciation for archaeological research, the value of conserving archaeological resources and ultimately, the richness and diversity of past human cultures. Educational archaeologists have supported this emerging emphasis through development of educational materials and programs which bring archaeology to elementary and secondary students.

     As the field of educational archaeology has matured, a gradual evolution of thought has resulted in the initial emphasis on excavation and discovery of artifacts being replaced by an emphasis on conservation of archaeological resources and utilizing archaeology as a vehicle for presenting culture history. Recent educational archaeology programs have espoused a stewardship message and have focused on archaeology's relevance as an educational medium.

     Examination of archaeology's roles in education suggests archaeology's integrative, multidisciplinary nature and holistic perspective constitute a discipline well suited to education. Development of educationally, archaeologically and culturally valid educational archaeology programs ensures the continuation of archaeological research in a society which values knowledge of the past and supports a conservation ethic.

 

Gonzalez-Tennant, Edward.  2011  Archaeological research and public knowledge: New media methods for public archaeology in Rosewood, Florida.  Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida. 

Abstract (by author):

This dissertation explores emerging methods for translating academic research into public knowledge. It focuses on the site of Rosewood, Florida. This town was once home to a prosperous African American community, one which became increasingly segregated during Jim Crow. The community was shattered by a week-long episode of racial violence, culminating in the systematic burning of the entire town, commonly referred to as the Rosewood Race Riot or Rosewood Incident. This PhD examines the history, life, and community of Rosewood prior to 1923. The history of Rosewood is viewed in relation to larger social developments throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This contextualization within broader social patterns of American history demonstrates the connection between past episodes of racial violence and modern social inequality. The dissertation directly examines the potential new media technologies, such as virtual world environments and digital storytelling, hold for public archaeology and history.

ISBN: 9781267167699

Full-text pdf available via ProQuest.

 

Gonzalez, Sara Lynae. 2011 Creating Trails from Traditions: The Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail at Fort Ross State Historic Park. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.

Abstract (by author):
Weaving together Indigenous, feminist and archaeological approaches, this dissertation examines the frameworks we use for understanding and representing indigenous colonial experiences and identities. Within the context of North American archaeologies of colonialism, how we interpret and represent the impact of colonial encounters upon Indigenous communities can directly impact these communities' control over their cultural heritage. My dissertation presents a case study of these issues and offers an alternative practice of archaeology that empowers tribal decision-making in the study, preservation and representation of their own cultural heritage.
This dissertation applies a community-based approach in the study of the Kashaya Pomo's 19th Century colonial heritage at Fort Ross State Historic Park and asks two related questions: 1) how can an archaeology of colonialism best envision colonial encounters between Europeans and Indigenous peoples? and 2) how do contemporary political and cultural landscapes relate to our representations of the colonial past? My dissertation addresses these questions through a case study of the North Wall Community, a historic multi-ethnic village site that was part of the Russian Colony of Fort Ross (1812-1841). Investigation of the community's interethnic households, occupied by Kashaya women and their Russian and Creole partners, provides the basis for the development of interpretive content for the Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail at Fort Ross State Historic Park. The goal of this dissertation project is the creation of a low-impact archaeological methodology that minimizes the trail and archaeology's impact upon Kashaya ancestral sites, and upon the tribal community.
The dissertation is divided into four parts. In Part I, I outline a decolonized approach to archaeology that integrates indigenous epistemologies into archaeological theory and practice. Drawing upon the work of Patricia Hill Collins, Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Devon Mihesuah, I use an intersectional, indigenous and feminist approach to the archaeology of colonialism at Fort Ross, CA. In Part II, I introduce the Kashaya Pomo Interpretive Trail Project, focusing on how this collaborative project has engendered decolonized representations of archaeology and Kashaya heritage at Fort Ross State Historic Park.
In Part III, I develop a low-impact archaeological approach for the study of Kashaya ancestral sites that minimizes archaeology's disturbance to both the ground and the tribal community, who views archaeology as a potentially dangerous activity. Drawing upon this framework, I present the results of field and laboratory analyses the inter-ethnic households located at the North Wall Community. In Part IV, I discuss the implications of combining archaeological research with the development of public outreach programs that engage the public in productive dialogues about heritage. Collaboration with the tribe on this project has resulted in community-specific guidelines for the study, care and disposition of Kashaya cultural resources. Creating a community-based cultural education and outreach program has also been critical for establishing an archaeology of colonialism that not only integrates Indigenous views on science, spirituality and heritage into the study and representation of the colonial past, but which also remakes the practice of archaeology into an ethically and morally just endeavor.
ISBN: 9781124849317

Kellar, Elizabeth J.  1996.  The Public Trust: Educational Responsibilities and Objectives Beyond Preservation and Awareness.  Masters Paper, December 1996, on file in the Department of Anthropology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. 
      Public education, in concert with stewardship, is a stated ethical responsibility within the field of archaeology. While many public education programs in archaeology today highlight both principles, the public and the education have been defined differentially by various individuals and institutions. Examination of the educational goals of archaeological institutions and the many publics recognized, indicates that they are often self-interested and do not reflect the wider role of archaeologists today. Archaeological education has been emphasized by individuals and institutions, yet it is archaeology as education which is suggested should be our emphasis. Our goals in educating our many publics can no longer be self-serving.
        This paper addresses our ethical responsibilities as narrowly defined and expands them to incorporate educational objectives beyond awareness and protection. We must be more attentive to the goals and agendas of our publics and understand how to communicate with these publics. The archaeological record as a public trust is often ignored by the archaeological community. Our responsibilities and especially those of academia could be successfully accomplished through the creation of partnerships between academic institutions and the local community public school systems.

Keremedjiev, Helen.  2007  Public Archaeology in Montana: A Sample of University of Montana Students' Perceptions of Archaeology and Knowledge of Local Sites.  M.A. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.

Abstract (by author):

      Archaeologists have an obligation to disseminate publicly their research and theories. To do this effectively, they need to know how each public perceives archaeology. A voluntary Institutional Review Board certified questionnaire was given to 606 University of Montana undergraduates and graduates. It included topics on the basics of archaeology and sites in Montana. After the results were tabulated, a website was created to show the overall results. Its location is at www.umt.edu/publicarchaeology. This online resource includes the questionnaire, the total raw results of all classes responses, and a discussion section. (See Appendix E for screenshot images of the website.) This project is a pilot program to see how archaeology is understood by non-professionals. Their input will help researchers communicate better their data.

     Two hypotheses are tested with this sample. First, individuals who attended high school in Montana have more knowledge and interest in local archaeology. Second, non-anthropology majors have less knowledge and interest in archaeology than anthropology majors. Overall, the responses produced mixed results for both hypotheses. One cannot predict always that where someone was educated in high school, he or she will be aware more and have a strong curiosity for local archaeology. Though individuals who are specializing in anthropology may be more knowledgeable, they may not be aware or care about all aspects of the topic. Overall this sample had a basic understanding of archaeology and little knowledge of Montana archaeological sites.  Available online.

 

King, Amanda.  2008.  Archaeology and Local Governments: The Perspectives of First Nations and municipal councilors in the Fraser Valley, B.C.  MA Thesis, Simon Fraser University.

Abstract (by author):

     Local governments are in a position to act as bridges between the publics they represent and the management of archaeological heritage. Since First Nations and municipal councillors in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia, make decisions on behalf of their communities, I focus this thesis on their perspectives of archaeology. Through surveying and interviewing local government representatives, seven key themes emerged: Relevance, Knowledge, Interest and Exposure, Value, Protection Issues, Management Responsibility, and Working Together. First Nations and municipal councillors' perspectives reveal general areas of divergence on the relevance, protection, and management of archaeological heritage, and convergence on the values of archaeology and working together on heritage issues. Although local governments uniquely situate archaeology through distinct views, they can bridge this disconnect through dialogue on shared perspectives. I provide recommendations to encourage this process of communication between First Nations and municipal governments, and their publics, on the management of archaeological heritage.

Keywords. Archaeological heritage management; Local government perspectives; Public archaeology; First Nations councils; Municipal councils; Cultural tourism.

ISBN: 9780494585948

Krass, Dorothy Schlotthauer. 1995. Public High School Teachers and Archaeology: Exploring the Field. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Abstract (by author) 

       Archaeology belongs in the schools.  Students and teachers both find it interesting, and it has been shown to be an effective vehicle for teaching a wide array of topics and skills.  However, there are at least two serious reasons why it is important for students to understand what archaeologists do and why:  (1) an informed public is a potential ally in identifying, protecting and managing endangered archaeological resources; and (2) archaeology as a mode of inquiry can help students understand the social construction of the world in which they live.

       Archaeologists and educators have been working together to develop materials to help teachers use archaeology in their teaching.  Some excellent materials are now available for middle and junior high school teachers.  But if students are to take archaeology seriously as a tool for social analysis, they need to be exposed to a more mature understanding of it in high school.

       Interviews exploring the ways in which archaeology is currently understood and used in all aspects of the curriculum in one high school indicate that teachers use it to capture students’ interest, or to reward them for learning some other subject.  Teachers do not use archaeology to teach analysis and interpretation of evidence, or critical thinking skills, or the role of human beings in the creation of social systems.  Since very few teachers have received formal education in archaeology, they do not associate these goals with archaeology as a discipline.

       Teachers’ sources of information about archaeology are television, newspapers and general circulation magazines.  These popular sources do not provide them with the understanding they need to recognize archaeology as a tool for intellectual and social analysis.  Archaeologists should take advantage of more professional channels for reaching teachers with serious material linking archaeology to the various disciplines traditionally taught in high schools.

       To reach high school students with a more sophisticated understanding of archaeology, we need first to present that knowledge to their teachers as fellow professionals.

Long, Emily M.  2012  Kids and digs: Promoting archaeology education on the Coconino National Forest.  M.A. Thesis, Northern Arizona University.

Abstract (by author):

The primary goals of this thesis are to examine the importance of public archaeology education and to present possible opportunities for Federal agencies to teach archaeology through unique media on the Internet and through mock excavation scenarios. During the Summer of 2011, I served as an archaeological technician for the Flagstaff Ranger District on the Coconino National Forest. My internship with the U.S. Forest Service took place under the guidance of Jeremy Haines, the Flagstaff Ranger District Archaeologist. My primary duties included surveying the Turkey Butte Fuels Reduction Project area, conduct a post-tornado inventory survey, provide support for the 2011 wildfire season, and prepare a compliance report and simulated excavation for Elden Pueblo.

Through the Turkey Butte Survey, the post-tornado inventory, and other minor survey projects, I gained a better understanding of the prehistoric and historic archaeology of the Coconino National Forest. Preparing compliance reports for various projects and writing my own compliance report allowed me to engage with the 'administrative red tape' that must occur before conducting any major undertaking on public lands. I also experienced the importance of engaging in good-faith tribal consultation in order to meet the needs of both the agency and tribal concerns.

Providing teaching support during the Elden Pueblo Archaeological Project school programs helped me learn how to best engage the public, particularly children, with different types of media. I already knew how to excavate an archaeological feature, but my internship pushed me to create a reverse excavation in a way that would tell a story about the Northern Sinagua at Elden Pueblo and be as archaeologically accurate as possible. For my thesis project, I constructed a large-scale excavation scenario and developed teaching materials for Elden Pueblo, a prehistoric Sinagua pueblo complex on the Coconino National Forest. This thesis provides insight into the possibilities of public archaeology education at the Federal level.

ISBN: 9781267367846

Full-text pdf will be accessible via Proquest in May 2013.

 

 

McDavid, Carol.  2002.   From Real Space to Cyberspace: The Internet and Public Archaeological Practice.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
      The primary purpose of this thesis is to examine whether Internet web sites are effective communicative media for archaeologists to interact with their publics in open, democratic and relevant ways; particularly when the archaeological interpretations themselves are 'sensitive' and 'charged' in contemporary social and political contexts. That is, does the Internet allow a more open and democratic archaeology, and can it provide a voice for the multiple, shifting and sometimes contested understandings of past and present which archaeology frequently engenders? A corollary issue will be to observe what people do when they look at archaeology on the Internet, and to consider what archaeologists should understand about this medium in order to communicate with it effectively.
      This work is situated within a number of disciplinary contexts. First, it is situated within American postprocessual historical archaeology, and represents part of a growing movement within that field to make it more relevant to people outside archaeology and to embrace the inherently political nature of archaeological practice. Second, as important, it falls under the rubric of public archaeology; that is, the study of the public dimensions of doing archaeology; or, the interaction between archaeology as a closed discipline and archaeology in public practice. Within public archaeology it is most clearly aligned with recent politically oriented consultative/collaborative movements in America, particularly those which concern disempowered descendant communities, although it is also situated within more general public archaeology discourses world-wide. Third, it was influenced by American pragmatist philosophy, which provided a framework for the 'conversational' (as opposed to 'educational' or 'presentational') approach which was used as a guiding principle for the web site.

 

1996.  The Levi Jordan Plantation: From archaeological interpretation to public interpretation.  M.A. Thesis, University of Houston.
     Public interpretations of archaeological sites frequently disregard the social and political contexts in which the interpretations (museums, site tours, etc.) operate. This thesis attempts to determine the feasibility of incorporating these contexts into planning the public interpretation of archaeology; in this case, the archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation in Brazoria, Texas. It operates within the framework of critical theory, and argues for a "both/and", rather than "either/or", approach to interpretive issues. It examines how diverse understandings of power and control will affect the feasibility of interpreting this site to the public, and examines ways in which descendant communities (African American and European American) can have a voice in presenting the archaeologies and histories of their ancestors. It also presumes the need for archaeological involvement in public interpretation, in order to mitigate the filters frequently imposed on archaeological data by curators, designers, and interpreters.

Meyer, Jeffrey Scott. 2011. Experiencing the past: Interpreting the past through the senses. M.A. Thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Abstract (by author):
This thesis examines aspects of historical interpretation. An interpretive style, called "experiential interpretation," is presented, tested, and analyzed. Experiential interpretation attempts to present tangible details about the past by appealing to the human senses of taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing. The main objectives of this interpretive style are to present intimate histories of past individuals, to foster emotional or relational connections between the learner and the material, and to also utilize creative aspects of learning. The author's work in historical interpretation at Fort Necessity National Battlefield is analyzed.
ISBN: 9781124622873
Available online at: http://dspace.iup.edu/handle/2069/363

Moe, Jeanne Marie. 201. 1 Conceptual Understanding of Science through Archaeology Inquiry. Dissertation, Montana State University.

Abstract (by author):

Since the launch of Project 2061 in 1985, in an effort to improve science education, educators have searched for engaging ways to teach science inquiry in the classroom. While archaeology is inherently interesting, it is an underused vehicle for teaching national standards, especailly science inquiry, in pre-collegiate education. This case study examined students' conceptual understanding of five science inquiry concepts (observation, inference, classification, context, and evidence) and the Nature of Sciecne (NOS), the differences between science and history, and the similarities in science inquiry and historical inquiry through the study of archaeology  The qualitative case study included 27 subjects, all fifth grade stuents who were studying American history through archaeological inquiry.  Data was collected through a series of learning assesment probes and a performance task designed specifically for this study.  Interviews, observation of the performance task, and an examination of classroom work completed data collection.  With only minor exceptions, students were conversant in all five of the inquiry concepts, however, their understandings of each concept was highly individual. In many cases, students retained some misconceptions, misunderstandings, or incomplete understandings. Identification of the cognitive processes underlying student understanding helped trace the origin of misconceptions, misunderstandings, and incomplete understandings. All of the students demonstrated some understandings of the Nature of Science and the relationships between science, history, and archaeology. The study has implications for learning , for curriculum development, and for teaching and teacher preparation.  Students can easily retain misconceptions throughout a course of study or can fail to reach complete conceptual understanding. Identification of misconceptions and their source can proivde teachers with a clear starting point to dispel misconceptions and to create deeper and more accurate conceptual understanding of science processes. Results can be used immediately to improve the curriculum used in this study and to design better sceince inquiry curricula. Future research could be designed to confirm the results of this study and to expand the sample to a larger and more diverse groups of subjects.

 

Available online at http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/1887/MoeJ0511.pdf?sequence=1

 

Mustonen, Heather L.  2007  Public archaeologyand community engagement at Michigan State University: The Saints' Rest Archaeological Project.  Dissertation, Michigan State University.

Abstract (by author):

     In the summer of 2005, the Department at Anthropology at Michigan State University conducted a public archaeology project focused on the excavation of Saints' Rest, the institution's first boarding hall. As part of the University's Sesquicentennial celebrations, the project was designed to investigate early student life through archaeological excavations while engaging members of the University community in the exploration of their shared past. The goal of this thesis is to present the Saints' Rest Archaeological Project as a case study in public archaeology by demonstrating the ways in which a university can engage a variety of community members in the shared history of the institution through archaeology. The results of archaeological and archival research will be presented along with a discussion of the ways in which the community was able to participate in the project and the subsequent benefits of this interaction. This discussion will contribute to the growing literature on public archaeology, a topic that continues to draw increasing interest within the discipline of historic archaeology.

ISBN: 9780549253280

Nelson, Susan K. 2004. Perspectives on Archaeology and the New Ohio Social Studies Curriculum Standards: A Case Study of an Interdisciplinary Approach. Masters Thesis. Antioch University. (685 KB; 4 - 5 minutes to download on a 56k modem)

Seguin, Jason.  2008.  Contemporary use of archaeological parks: Pilgrimage and the sacred at Stonehenge, Chaco Canyon, and Tikal.  MA Thesis, Trent University.

ISBN: 9780494431900

     The purpose of this thesis is to create a dialogue for discussion regarding access and use at archaeological parks in non-traditional ways. It is based on a comparative analysis of how certain groups have performed ceremonies, and left contemporary offerings, at Stonehenge, Chaco Canyon, and Tikal. The perspective is that these archaeological parks are sacred places for many contemporary groups. As sacred places, a certain portion of the public has used them to create, solidify, or strengthen individual, group, or community identities. This was often done through physical interactions with the archaeological structures and landscapes. These interactions raised issues of concern around the preservation and conservation of these sites.It is concluded that a number of changes need to be made, in part modelled after the more inclusive approach used at Tikal, so as to facilitate a wider variety of narratives at Stonehenge and Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Implementing certain changes means creating a more inclusive presentation of the past. This should allow for a wider variety of interactions while not negating the archaeological presentation of the past.Key words. public archaeology, reflexive narratives, World Heritage, stakeholders, pilgrimage, sacred space, inclusiveness.

Skipper, Jodi. 2010 "In the neighborhood": City planning, archaeology, and cultural heritage politics at St. Paul United Methodist Church, Dallas, Texas. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.


Abstract (by author):
What happens to a historically African American church when its local African American community no longer exists? Can attempts to emphasize its historic heritage help it to survive? In this dissertation, I consider the racial politics of urban gentrification and the ways in which one historic Black church community utilizes cultural heritage politics as a survival strategy and resistance to city planning in the city of Dallas, Texas. This case study is part of a much broader phenomenon dating to the post-WWII era whereby U.S. local, state, and federal government officials "redeveloped" urban neighborhoods as part of urban renewal plans. Some of these government actions resulted in drastic changes to neighborhood landscapes, displacing entire "minority" communities. Affected by similar circumstances, the St. Paul Church community chose to remain in its original neighborhood and restore its historic building, rather than bend to the will of Dallas city planners.
In particular, I examine two church heritage projects; a public archaeology project in which a shotgun house site was excavated on the church property and a public history project which resulted in an interpretive history exhibition on the church. I examine how this church community became involved in these two projects and whether these approaches are practical to the historic preservation of this church community.
Basic contributions of this work include: (1) filling gaps in public archaeology research by examining a public archaeology project, beyond the excavation, and critiquing its viability in jeopardized urban contexts, (2) analyzing strategies of political mobilization around heritage politics; (3) determining which Black communities are more likely to engage in and benefit from this type of political mobilization; and (4) problematizing what constitutes giving the power to a community to negotiate its past in the present.
This dissertation project finds that although African-American and other minority groups are often politically and economically disadvantaged when challenging eminent domain abuse, these communities are not powerless. The St. Paul community's utilization of heritage politics as a means to avert eminent domain abuse is one case in point.
ISBN: 9781124422275

 

Stewart, Lisa Claire.  2005.  Public archaeology in action: creating sustainable cultural tourism development plans for the ancient Maya archaeological site of Minanha, Belize.  M.A. Thesis, Trent University.
ISBN: 9780494048627
     Tourism is the largest industry in the world. Accordingly, many countries are heavily investing in the creation of archaeological parks for tourists. Belize is one such country. Located in Belize, Minanha is a unique ancient Maya archaeological site with immense tourism potential, which is presently under heavy threat from illegal looting, encroaching land development, and the fact that Belize has not yet taken any steps to ensure its conservation and/or development. Thus, the objectives of this study are to create three sustainable cultural tourism development strategies for Minanha, and to recommend to Belize that they implement the most appropriate one. To create these strategies, this study addressed four research questions, followed the "ideal" planning process, and collected data from texts, human subjects, and archaeological sites. In the end, this study recommends that the Government of Belize actualize a low investment development strategy for Minanha in order to ensure its sustainable and fruitful future.

Swanton, Kristin Elizabeth.  2012  Landscape, memory, and public archaeology: An ethnographic study of stakeholder communities and conflict archaeology at the Battle of Mystic Fort.  M.A. Thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

 

Abstract (by author):

Beginning in 2009, researchers from the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center began fieldwork in fulfillment of a grant from the National Park Service. This study focused on the Pequot War, which occurred in southeastern Connecticut from 1636-1638. The key event during the war was the Battle of Mystic Fort, in which English soldiers and their Narragansett and Mohegan allies attacked and razed a Pequot fort, killing over 400 tribal members. The archaeological research project sparked both interest and criticism from various stakeholders, resulting in months of public outreach to garner support. In an effort to identify the range of stakeholder perspectives associated with the archaeological research and to assess the success of public outreach efforts, ethnographic interviews were conducted with English descendants, Pequot descendants, and landowners living near the battlefield. This thesis serves as an assessment of stakeholder concerns and specific challenges relating to this community archaeology project.

ISBN: 9781267290250

Full-text pdf available via ProQuest.

 

 

Whiting, Nancy Carolyn.  1997.  Presenting a plural past: Archaeology and public education.  Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. 
ISBN: 9780591444865
     Archaeology has an ethical imperative to promote the preservation of cultural heritage materials and to make those cultural heritage materials available to the public. At the same time educators are seeking to provide students with an understanding of the positive nature of diversity, to help them grasp both the commonalities of being human and the inherent differences which enrich various cultures. Clearly, there is a common interest here. Archaeology and its parent discipline anthropology, provide one means of teaching about cultures, both past and present.
Archaeology is a social construction which demands a continuing dialogue between the past and the present. It is this interactive process, this questioning attitude, that is essential to impart to school age children. Interpretations of cultural heritage need to be viewed as selective and varied. Children need to know that the same history creates many pasts and many heritages. By making the unwritten past available to the public, archaeology has the potential to supply children with inclusive interpretations of the past.
        This project introduces educators to the value of using archaeological and anthropological concepts to inform a plural past. It also hopes to convince archaeologists of the value of public education. As educators teach children the value of respecting differences, using cultural heritage materials, they are at the same time building respect for the materials themselves. This respect for cultural heritage materials will create support for the study of archaeology and the preservation of archaeological materials.
        This dissertation proposes that a grade school curriculum based on archaeological and anthropological concepts will promote intercultural understanding. The project: investigates the theoretical background which justifies utilizing archaeology in public education, examines the current situation in Minnesota public schools and surrounding states, looks at good examples of state archaeology programs, and surveys grade school teachers, assessing what they are now doing, and what they would like to be doing, to promote intercultural education. An archaeology-based multicultural program for grades one to three is proposed. A pilot project for grade one evaluates the proposed program. Appendices present a handbook for grade one teachers and survey research materials.

Updated 3/20/2014

This document has been archived and replaced by NSF 15-554.

Archaeology Program - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Awards (Arch-DDRI)

Program Solicitation
NSF 14-566

National Science Foundation

Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

Proposals Accepted Anytime

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

This solicitation provides instructions for the preparation of proposals to be submitted to the Archaeology Program for Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement (DDRI) Grants. It replaces instructions that had been included in the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (SBE-DDRIG) announcement (NSF 11-547).

The advisor or another faculty member serving as the principal investigator (PI) of the proposal now is required to submit a signed statement affirming that the student will be able to undertake the proposed research soon after a DDRI award is made. In addition, the PI must affirm that she/he has read the proposal and believes that it makes a strong case for support of the dissertation research project.

This solicitation provides new clarification regarding certain aspects of DDRI proposal preparation for submission to the Archaeology Program. There are no limitations on the number of DDRI proposals that can be submitted to the Archaeology program by an advisor or other faculty member functioning as the principal investigator (PI) over the course of her/his career; however, a doctoral student may submit only two DDRI proposals to the Archaeology program to support their dissertation research during her/his lifetime.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

Arch - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Awards (Arch-DDRI)

Synopsis of Program:

The Archaeology Program supports anthropologically relevant archaeological research. This means that the value of the proposed research can be justified within an anthropological context. The Program sets no priorities by either geographic region or time period. It also has no priorities in regard to theoretical orientation or question and it is the responsibility of the applicant to explain convincingly why these are significant and have the potential to contribute to anthropological knowledge. While the Program, in order to encourage innovative research, neither limits nor defines specific categories of research type, most applications either request funds for field research and/or the analysis of archaeological material through multiple approaches. The Program also supports methodological projects which develop analytic techniques of potential archaeological value.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

  • John E. Yellen - Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-8759, email: jyellen@nsf.gov

  • Tyeshia Roberson - Pgm Assistant, telephone: (703) 292-8177, email: tmrobers@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

  • 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 45 to 50

During a fiscal year, the Archaeology Program expects to recommend a total of 45 to 50 Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement (DDRI) awards.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,000,000 to $1,200,000

The anticipated funding amount per fiscal year is $1,000,000 to $1,200,000 pending availability of funds. Project budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the work to be conducted. DDRI awards may not exceed $20,000 in allowable direct costs for the entire duration of the award. Indirect costs are in addition to this maximum direct cost limitation and are subject to the awardee's current Federally negotiated indirect cost rate. The maximum project duration is 36 months.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
  • Universities and Colleges - Ph.D. granting universities and colleges accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.

Who May Serve as PI:

DDRI proposals must be submitted with a principal investigator (PI) and a co-principal investigator (co-PI) who is the dissertation student. The PI must be the advisor of the doctoral student or another faculty member at the U.S. university where the doctoral student is enrolled.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:

There are no limitations on the number of DDRI proposals that can be submitted to the Archaeology program by an advisor or other faculty member functioning as the PI over the course of her/his career.

A doctoral student may submit only two DDRI proposals to the Archaeology program to support their dissertation research during her/his lifetime.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

  • Letters of Intent: Not required
  • Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
  • Full Proposals:
    • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
    • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)

B. Budgetary Information

  • Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
  • Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
  • Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

  • Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

    Proposals Accepted Anytime

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria apply.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of Program Requirements

  1. Introduction

  2. Program Description

  3. Award Information

  4. Eligibility Information

  5. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
    1. Proposal Preparation Instructions
    2. Budgetary Information
    3. Due Dates
    4. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

  6. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
    1. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
    2. Review and Selection Process

  7. Award Administration Information
    1. Notification of the Award
    2. Award Conditions
    3. Reporting Requirements

  8. Agency Contacts

  9. Other Information

I. INTRODUCTION

As part of its effort to encourage and support projects that explicitly integrate education and basic research, the Archaeology Program provides support to enhance and improve doctoral dissertation projects conducted by doctoral students enrolled in U.S. universities in anthropologically significant archaeology. Projects in other fields which directly contribute to this goal are also eligible for consideration. Enrollment in an anthropology or archaeology doctoral program is not required.

This solicitation provides instructions for preparing proposals for Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement (DDRI) awards to the Archaeology Program. It replaces instructions that had been included in the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (SBE-DDRIG) announcement (NSF 11-547).

The Archaeology Program supports anthropologically relevant archaeological research. This means that the value of the proposed research can be justified within an anthropological context. The Program sets no priorities by either geographic region or time period. It also has no priorities in regard to theoretical orientation or question and it is the responsibility of the applicant to explain convincingly why these are significant and have the potential to contribute to anthropological knowledge. While the Program, in order to encourage innovative research, neither limits nor defines specific categories of research type, most applications either request funds for field research and/or the analysis of archaeological material through multiple approaches. The Program also supports methodological projects which develop analytic techniques of potential archaeological value.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Through its competitive grants competitions, the Archaeology Program of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) seeks to advance basic understanding and methods in the study of anthropologically focused archaeology.

The Archaeology Program expects that the research it supports will draw upon and enhance fundamental theory in anthropologically based archaeology, and it will encourage and support potentially transformative research that has potential larger-scale, longer-term significance for both basic understanding and for societal benefit.

Although the Archaeology Program frequently engages in co-review of regular research proposals with other NSF programs, it does so far less frequently with DDRI proposals. Co-review entails multiple programs coordinating the review of a single project proposal. Doctoral students and their advisors who believe that their work might be appropriate for joint review are encouraged to contact program officers for all programs they think might have interest in their work well in advance to coordinate timing and to assess whether co-review is a viable option.

Doctoral dissertation research improvement (DDRI) awards provide support to enhance and improve the conduct of doctoral dissertation projects conducted by doctoral students enrolled in U.S. universities who are conducting scientific research that enhances basic scientific knowledge. As noted in the title of the awards, DDRI awards are meant to improve the conduct of the dissertation research. All DDRI proposals recommended for funding by the Archaeology Program must clearly demonstrate how the proposed research will contribute to the advancement of the basic science of anthropological archaeology.

DDRI awards provide funding for research costs not normally covered by the student's university. Examples of the kinds of expenses that may be included in a DDRI proposal budget are the following (please note that this list is illustrative and not inclusive):

  • Costs associated with travel and related expenses to conduct research at field sites, archives, specialized collections, and/or facilities away from the student's campus.
  • Costs for equipment necessary for the conduct of the project that will be devoted to the project over the duration of the award. (Note that any equipment purchased with NSF funds becomes property of the awardee organization.)
  • Costs for materials and supplies required for the conduct of the project.
  • Costs associated with archaeological field survey and excavation.
  • Costs for dating and analysis of archaeologically relevant materials.
  • Costs for archiving, preservation and public access to primary data.

Costs that cannot be reimbursed by DDRI awards include the following:

  • A stipend or salary for the doctoral student or advisor. (Note that salaries or payments for work by other individuals whose assistance is essential to the conduct of the project may be permitted when there is sound justification for such expenses.)
  • Costs for tuition, textbooks, or other items not directly related to the conduct of dissertation research.
  • Publication costs for articles based on the dissertation, except when the university's degree requirements permit the substitution of published research results for a free-standing dissertation
  • Costs for travel of the dissertation advisor(s) to the field site and/or professional meetings.

Although most grants are for a shorter time period, DDRI awards may be up to three years in duration. The dissertation does not have to be completed during that time period, but costs associated with research activities to be reimbursed with DDRI funds must be incurred while the award is active.

III. AWARD INFORMATION

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 45 to 50

During a fiscal year, the Archaeology Program expects to recommend a total of 45 to 50 Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement (DDRI) awards.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,000,000 to $1,200,000

The anticipated funding amount per fiscal year is $1,000,000 to $1,200,000 pending availability of funds. Project budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the work to be conducted. DDRI awards may not exceed $20,000 in allowable direct costs for the entire duration of the award. Indirect costs are in addition to this maximum direct cost limitation and are subject to the awardee's current Federally negotiated indirect cost rate. The maximum project duration is 36 months.

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
  • Universities and Colleges - Ph.D. granting universities and colleges accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.

Who May Serve as PI:

DDRI proposals must be submitted with a principal investigator (PI) and a co-principal investigator (co-PI) who is the dissertation student. The PI must be the advisor of the doctoral student or another faculty member at the U.S. university where the doctoral student is enrolled.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:

There are no limitations on the number of DDRI proposals that can be submitted to the Archaeology program by an advisor or other faculty member functioning as the PI over the course of her/his career.

A doctoral student may submit only two DDRI proposals to the Archaeology program to support their dissertation research during her/his lifetime.

Additional Eligibility Info:

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.

  • Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
  • Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the full proposal, in accordance with Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal.

Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.

Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, you can decide where to include this section within the Project Description.

For the following listed items/sections of the proposal, instructions specific to DDRI proposals under this solicitation are presented:

1. Cover Sheet

  • Begin the Project Title with, “Doctoral Dissertation Research:”, followed by a substantive subtitle, which should describe the project in concise, informative language so that a scientifically or technically literate reader could understand what the project is about.
  • Select the specific number of this Arch-DDRI solicitation in the section labeled Program Announcement/Solicitation.
  • Verify that the NSF Unit of Consideration is "BCS-DDRI Archaeology
  • List the primary dissertation advisor as the PI and list the doctoral student (and other advisors, only if highly appropriate to the conduct of the research) as Co-PI(s) in the Remainder of the Cover Sheet section. (Note that identification of an individual as a PI or co-PI means that they will have administrative responsibility for an award based on the proposal.)

2. Project Description

The Archaeology Program limits the Project description to 10 single-spaced pages of text plus an additional five pages of figures. One may decrease the number of text pages to increase figure pages but not the reverse. The "Results from Prior Support" section is not required. Otherwise, applicants should follow the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) for other general proposal preparation guidelines.

As specified in Chapter II, Section C.2.d of the NSF Grant Proposal Guide and in the comparable section of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, the project description should be a clear statement of the work to be undertaken. Applicants should note that the project description must contain a separate section within the narrative that discusses the broader impacts of the proposed activities.

To be competitive for funding by the Archaeology Program, the project description should provide clear descriptions of relevant literature and theoretical frameworks within which the project is set, a complete description of the research methods that will be used, and discussion of the expected intellectual merit and broader impacts that may result from the project.

3. Biographical Sketches

Biographical Sketches must be included for both the student and the dissertation advisor(s) and conform to the GPG specifications. In addition, the biographical sketch for the student should include a statement about the student’s current academic status and degree progress; a separate letter concerning the student's academic status is not required. Do not submit transcripts or letters of reference.

4. Other Supplementary Docs

Letters of Collaboration or Letters of Commitment

If the research project includes a significant component requiring the involvement of another institution, commitment of a laboratory, foreign government or other individual it is recommended that the proposal include a letter (or letters) of commitment/collaboration in the Supplementary Documents section. The content of the letter(s) should be limited to a brief description of the committed facilities or resources Letters of recommendation are not allowed. The Program recognizes that permits to conduct research in non-US countries are often not issued until funding has been secured. Research projects must be in compliance with all relevant US law and regulations.

Letters of Collaboration or Letters of Commitment (either written as letters or as free-standing e-mail messages) from individuals and/or organizations that will work with the doctoral student and/or provide in-kind support for the proposed project may be included as supplementary documents. Such letters are not needed from other individuals at the student's university or from that university.

Letters of collaboration or letters of commitment should be brief and focus on the willingness of the letter's author to collaborate or provide in-kind support for the project in ways that have been outlined in the project description. Such letters should not argue for support of the project by articulating in greater detail what activities the collaborator will undertake and/or by elaborating reasons for supporting the project. Applicants will be required to remove inappropriate letters before their application is sent to reviewers.

Signed Statement from the Principal Investigator

The advisor or other faculty member serving as the principal investigator (PI) of the proposal is now required to submit a signed statement affirming that the student will be able to undertake the proposed research soon after a DDRI award is made. In addition, the PI must affirm that she/he has read the proposal. The following template must be used to prepare this statement, with changes permitted only to provide information where there are blank lines in the template. Additional text is not permitted. The statement must be signed by the PI.

Required template for a statement signed by the PI:

To: NSF Archaeology Program

From: __________________________________
[Insert name of the PI]

By signing below, I affirm that the doctoral student is at a stage in her/his graduate program that makes it very likely that the student will be able to undertake the dissertation research described in this proposal soon after a DDRI award is made.

I affirm that I have read this proposal, and I believe that this proposal is appropriate for NSF submission.

Signed: _________________________________________
[Insert PI's signature]

University: ______________________________________
[Insert university name]

Date: ________________________________________
[Insert date that the statement is signed by the PI]

Permit Related Documents

Dissertation research in archaeology often requires permits to conduct field research or to access materials. Related documentation may be included as supplementary documents.

Please note: Letters of recommendation, transcripts, and other such material may not be included as supplementary documents.

5. Data-Management Plan

All proposals must include as a supplementary document a plan for data management and sharing the products of research. The data-management plan to be submitted with a proposal must be no longer than two (2) pages in length.

This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results. For more information about this requirement, please see the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter II.C.2.j and the Data Management and Sharing Frequently Asked Questions(FAQs). Please note: the SBE Directorate has additional guidance for proposals submitted to SBE programs, please see Data Management for NSF SBE Directorate Proposals and Awards. Questions should be addressed to John Yellen via e-mail (jyellen@nsf.gov).
While the Archaeology Program does not sponsor or have an official arrangement with any data archive it would note that two organizations provide this service.

In addition to the NSF guidance, you may find the guidance provided by the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) helpful. Additional resources can be found at the SAA site.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited

Other Budgetary Limitations:

  • Project budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the work to be conducted.
  • The maximum allowable budget is $20,000 in allowable direct costs. Indirect costs are in addition to this maximum direct cost limitation and are subject to the awardee's current Federally negotiated indirect cost rate.
  • The direct costs requested in a DDRI proposal must be allowable costs that will improve the conduct of dissertation research. Student stipends, tuition expenses, assistantships, and the doctoral advisor's travel expenses are NOT eligible for support.
  • Since salaries or stipends for the doctoral student or their advisor(s) are not eligible for support, after the PI and Co-PI(s) are entered on the Cover Page, their names must be manually removed from the Senior Personnel listing on the budget pages. This is to avoid construal as voluntary committed cost sharing, which is not permitted.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

DDRI awards provide funding for research costs not normally covered by the student's university. Examples of the kinds of expenses that may be included in a DDRI proposal budget are the following (please note that this list is illustrative and not inclusive):

  • Costs associated with travel and related expenses to conduct research at field sites, archives, specialized collections, and/or facilities away from the student's campus.
  • Costs for equipment necessary for the conduct of the project that will be devoted to the project over the duration of the award. (Note that any equipment purchased with NSF funds becomes property of the awardee organization.)
  • Costs for materials and supplies required for the conduct of the project.
  • Costs associated with archaeological field survey and excavation.
  • Costs for dating and analysis of archaeologically relevant materials.
  • Costs for archiving, preservation and public access to primary data.

Costs that cannot be reimbursed by DDRI awards include the following:

  • A stipend or salary for the doctoral student or advisor. (Note that salaries or payments for work by other individuals whose assistance is essential to the conduct of the project may be permitted when there is sound justification for such expenses.)
  • Costs for tuition, textbooks, or other items not directly related to the conduct of dissertation research.
  • Publication costs for articles based on the dissertation, except when the university's degree requirements permit the substitution of published research results for a free-standing dissertation.
  • Costs for travel of the dissertation advisor(s) to the field site and/or professional meetings.

C. Due Dates

  • Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

    Proposals Accepted Anytime

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

    Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

    Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF’s mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation’s most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

  • All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
  • NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
  • Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

  • Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
  • Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

  1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
    1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
    2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
  2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
  3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
  4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
  5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

  • John E. Yellen - Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-8759, email: jyellen@nsf.gov

  • Tyeshia Roberson - Pgm Assistant, telephone: (703) 292-8177, email: tmrobers@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

  • Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.

Related Programs:

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.

To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov

4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230

  • For General Information
    (NSF Information Center):

(703) 292-5111

  • TDD (for the hearing-impaired):

(703) 292-5090

  • To Order Publications or Forms:

Send an e-mail to:

nsfpubs@nsf.gov

or telephone:

(703) 292-7827

(703) 292-5111


PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230

0 Replies to “Archaeology Dissertation Text”

Lascia un Commento

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *