What Makes Some Mitigation Measures and Programs "Creative"? (And Where Does That Leave the Rest of Them?). Issue 3 (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sebastian, Lynne
• Editors: Douglass, John G.; Manney, Shelby A.
• Is Part Of: Advances in archaeological practice. Volume 8:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 220
• Page End: 224
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: cultural resource management, -- creative mitigation, -- Section 106, -- National Historic Preservation Act, -- historic preservation, -- public archaeology; el manejo de recursos culturales, -- mitigación de efectos adversos, -- la preservación histórica; Archaeology -- Methodology -- Periodicals; Archaeology -- Technological innovations -- Periodicals; Archaeology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 930.1028
• DOI: 10.1017/aap.2020.5
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2326-3768

Abstract

ABSTRACT: A quick search on antonyms for "creative" yields obvious results such as "uncreative, " "unimaginative, " and "uninspired, " but also terms such as "dull, " "derivative, " and "stodgy." In the world of cultural resources and mitigation of adverse effects, "creative" is most often opposed to "standard." That sounds like a good thing, right? Good old, reliable, dependable, predictable standard mitigation. But as we will see from the articles in this special issue, remarkable things can happen when those designing mitigation programs replace or augment "standard" approaches. What is it about a mitigation measure or program that leads us to term it "creative"? How can we expand those defining qualities of creative mitigation measures and programs to enhance the quality of standard mitigation approaches? How can we make the standard approaches, if not creative, at least not stodgy?