Archaeopolitics
Donald Forsyth Craib
Contents:
House Holds Oversight Hearing on Historic Preservation--On March 20,
1996, the House Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Lands held an oversight hearing on historic preservation. The hearing also
addressed two other issues: (1) the reauthorization of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and (2) proposed changes to requirements for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places.
Donna Seifert (immediate past president, SHA, and current SAA Executive Board
member) presented testimony before the committee on behalf of SAA and the
Society for Historical Archaeology. Chairman James Hansen (R-Utah) requested
that the testimony address three specific aspects of historic preservation:
reauthorizing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and changing the
role and function of the council; suggesting ways to streamline the Section 106
process; and addressing the process for listing properties in the National
Register of Historic Places.
There were three panels of witnesses. The first panel included representatives
from the Advisory Council, National Park Service, National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers, and two state historic preservation offices.
The second panel was composed of a representative from the National Mining
Association and a witness representing the Defenders of Property Rights. SAA
and SHA were represented on the third panel along with individuals from the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Keepers of the Treasures, and the
American Cultural Resources Association. Below are excerpts from the SAA/SHA
statement.
SAA and SHA began by pointing out to the subcommittee that the "Congress and
American people have consistently provided strong bipartisan support for
protecting and interpreting significant archaeological sites as an essential
part of the nation's heritage" and "that historic preservation is important to
the American people; that there is broad public support for the overall goals
and procedures established by the National Historic Preservation Act; and that
this support extends to archaeological sites as well as to the historic
buildings and other properties that provide the tangible record of our
history."
To Top of Page
Reauthorizing and Changing the Role of the Advisory Council--SAA and SHA
stressed their strong support for the reauthorization of the Advisory Council
and noted that the "council plays an essential role by promulgating regulations
for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act." They stressed that
"Section 106 is a key part of the NHPA and one that has kept federally funded,
permitted, or assisted projects relatively free of litigation over their
effects on historic properties." And they concluded this part of her testimony
by suggesting that the Advisory Council:
- Work with SHPOs to develop programmatic agreements that allow agencies to
comply with Section 106 on commonly encountered projects or property types
without involving the Advisory Council;
- Develop guidance documents that will assist agencies in carrying out their
Section 106 responsibilities more effectively and efficiently; and
- Conduct periodic reviews of agency activities carried out under programmatic
agreements.
Streamlining the Section 106 review process--The two organizations noted
that "the basic principles underlying the Section 106 process are sound, but we
believe that the procedures for applying the process to archaeological
resources need to be made more efficient and effective...Amendments to NHPA are
not required; needed improvements can be made through changes in agency and
SHPO practices and in regulations." Several of the recommendations made in the
testimony were:
- To the extent feasible, make decisions regarding the treatment of
archaeological properties on a programmatic rather than a project-by-project
level;
- To avoid duplicative effort, take into account what has been learned from
previous archaeological investigations when making decisions regarding survey,
evaluation, and mitigations. Use advisory panels of experienced archaeologists
to provide the background information and perspectives needed to improve
management decision making;
- Agencies must proactively seek the views of Native Americans and other
interested parties in the Section 106 process;
- Under Section 106 focus decisions regarding archaeological properties on
desirable outcomes rather than just on process. Avoid simplistic approaches and
exploit the flexibility available within the Section 106 regulations to achieve
creative solutions to preservation problems; and
- Commit an increased proportion of the time and money spent on archaeology
under Section 106 to disseminating the substantive results to the general
public.
To Top of Page
Listing Properties in the National Register of Historic Places--A
particular problem in archaeology is the difficulty of identifying sites
eligible for National Register listing. They pointed out that "significant
archaeological sites are often difficult to see because the artifacts, cultural
features, dating evidence, and other materials they contain are buried or
obscured by vegetation or later construction," further noting that "systematic
survey and subsurface testing is usually required to locate archaeological
sites before they can be evaluated for National Register eligibility." They
stressed that "the National Register criteria are general and must be applied
critically and intelligently to ensure that the properties determined eligible
for the National Register are significant."
The following recommendations were made:
- The National Register and Advisory Council should work together to update and
improve detailed guidance on applying National Register criteria to
archaeological sites and districts. This guidance should be designed to help
archaeologists and agency personnel make better informed and more
discriminating judgments about the eligibility of archaeological properties;
- Archaeological sites often are evaluated only in relation to National
Register criterion D (property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history); such sites should be more frequently
evaluated against other National Register criteria, especially criterion A
(property associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of our history); and
- Historic buildings are commonly evaluated with respect to National Register
criteria A, B, and C, but not D, even though many of them have significant
information potential embodied in associated archaeological remains and
deposits: We recommend that historic buildings be evaluated for their
archaeological information potential where appropriate.
Seifert concluded by stating that SAA and SHA "are committed to addressing the
difficult issues involved in streamlining applications of our historic
preservation laws while ensuring appropriate management of our archaeological
resources for the benefit of all Americans."
If you would like a copy of the testimony, please write to me, or you can
locate a copy on the government affairs page on SAAweb. You can reach me at SAA
headquarters, 900 Second St., N.E. #12, Washington, D.C. 20002-3557, (202)
789-8200, fax (202) 789c0284, email donald_craib@saa.org.
Donald Forsyth Craib is manager of government affairs and counsel of SAA.