MPCD STUDENT THESIS
Joanne Berger Spring, 1982
AND THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
JOANNE H. BERGER
AND THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES i
Submitted by Joanne H. Berger. .?
___ * < t v _
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Planning and Community Development University of Colorado at Denver Professor Herb Smith Thesis Advisor
To Edward Bear
who advised, encouraged, consoled, hugged, and supported me at great personal expense during the past three years, this
work is dedicated to you with my deepest respect and affection.
Existing federal legislation documents a century of commitment to the preservation of archaeological (cultural) resources. Unfortunately, this mandate is accompanied by an American tradition of amateur and commercial collecting of cultural remains. There is a serious discrepancy Between the law and the implementation of the law. Archaeological resource planning has been a response to other development efforts that have stood to adversely impact the cultural resource base. The responsibility for implementation lies in the domains of planning and management. The current national thrust toward energy development has sharpened the conflict between natural resource extraction and cultural resource destruction.
This paper explores this conflict, defines the modern and prehistoric cultural landscapes in the Southwest, defines the primary issues, discusses the threats to the resource base, reviews the various actors involved, explores existing management policies and their implications through a look at a case study in Southwestern Colorado, and concludes with a series of planning management, and community development recommendations. It is hoped that this document will provide a comprehensive introduction to anyone interested in the preservation of archaeological resources on public lands.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank John Prosser, Dave Hill, and Dan Schler, professors on the Graduate Faculty of the School of Design at the University of Colorado, Denver, for their willingness to conduct outreach programs in rural communities like Cortez. Our communities are desperately in need of their educational support services and planning expertise. Training local concerned citizens in planning and community development and allowing them to apply what they are learning in their home communities, not only gives a dimension of reality to the educational process, but it increases dramatically the impact of the program. Both the students and the communities benefit.
I would like to thank Professor Herb Smith for the guidance and encouragement that he gave me during the formulation and completion of this thesis. His personal concern for my development as a professional coupled with his first hand knowledge of the political realities in the Southwest kept me alive, well, and on course.
Special thanks to Sam Burns, Professor of Sociology at Fort Lewis College and coordinator of the Western Colorado Rural Communities Program in this area. Sam has affected every community in the region, he is responsible for my involvement in the graduate program, and his concern for human dignity and expression have greatly enhanced the quality of life in this area.
I extend my gratitude to the Montrose and Durango Offices of the Bureau of Land Management for their strong belief in public involvement and their willingness to make their resources available to me.
I wish to express my appreciation to my husband Ed and to Glenda Wilhelm for their thoughtful editing of the final manuscript.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Stuart Struever, Director of the Center for American Archeology, for his lifelong commitment to archeology and public education. He is a visionary in the field and his programs are in the process of redirecting the course of American Archeology.
Jo Berger April 21, 1982 Cortez, Colorado
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................ iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................... iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: CONFLICTS IN THE PRESERVATION OF
CULTURAL LANDSCAPES .................................... 4
CHAPTER 3: ISSUES ............................................... 19
CHAPTER 4: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY ............. 29
CHAPTER 5: THREATS TO THE RESOURCE .............................. 37
CHAPTER 6: THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE .............................. 46
CHAPTER 7: THE USERS ............................................ 63
CHAPTER 8: THE CONSTITUENCIES ................................... 70
CHAPTER 9: THE MANAGERS ......................................... 76
CHAPTER 10: EXISTING MANAGEMENT POLICIES ......................... 91
CHAPTER 11: MONTELORES AREA CASE STUDY .......................... 108
CHAPTER 12: RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 125
CHAPTER 13: CONCLUSION .......................................... 149
APPENDIX ......................................................... 155
REFERENCES CITED/BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 165
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Location of Archaeological Resources ................. 5
Figure 2: Patterns in the Built Environment ......................... 7
Figure 3: The Prehistoric Southwest of the Anasazi ................ 10
Figure 4: The Prehistoric Cultural Landscape ....................... 12
Figure 5: First Wave Culture ........................................ 15
Figure 6: Second Wave Culture ....................................... 17
Figure 7: Early Centers of Archaeological Activity .................. 30
Figure 8: Agents of Cultural Resource Destruction ................... 38
Figure 9: Advisory Council Regulations for the Protection
of Historic and Cultural Properties ..................... 55
Figure 10: A Summary of Existing Federal Legislation ................. 61
Figure 11: The Users ................................................. 63
Figure 12: The Constituencies ........................................ 75
Figure 13: The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government ............... 76
Figure 14: The Management Maze ............1.......................... 89
Figure 15: Montelores Area Case Study Base Map ...................... 107
Figure 16: Montelores Area Cultural Resource Inventory .............. 112
Figure 17: Montelores Area Grazing Inventory ........................ 116
Figure 18: Montelores Area CO2 Field ................................ 119
Figure 19: A Century of Impacts ..................................... 148
Figure 20: A National Network of Archaeological Centers ............. 153
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The destruction of archaeological resources across the country is progressing at a steady pace. Urbanization, resource extraction, the expansion of service networks, a depressed economy, an increased value for antiquities on the national and international art markets, and a two hundred year tradition of amateur collecting are all contributing heavily to the demise of this nation's past.
We can only know a prehistoric society from the artifacts and patterns of their existence that are found in and on the land. It is essential that great care be taken to preserve that record intact.
When a modern society obliterates that record through its own patterns of land use and a distinct lack of value given to such archaeological studies, not only is the record lost, but so are the lessons that modern man can learn about another's adaptation to its current environment. This study derives from the conflicts inherent in the imposition of a modern cultural landscape over the archaeological record.
An accurate interpretation of the archaeological record hinges upon an evaluation of material remains in their original context. Although archaeologists have become skilled in the arts of interpretation and preservation, their efforts are oftentimes thwarted by the intervention of a modern culture that disturbs that original context either intentionally or accidently. Never before has a culture possessed the capacity to totally eliminate any and every trace of the prehistoric record.
This study documents a history of legislation that mandates a national concern for preservation. The intent of the law is implemented through the management policies and procedures of a variety of federal agencies. These management systems are characterized by a lack of coordination between managing entities, inconsistant decision making, and confusion resulting from a change in focus from disposition of resources to multiple use and sustained yield. The archaeological resource has been the unintentional victim of its 'protectors.
The case study in Southwestern Colorado specifically illustrates the conflicts discussed and the limitations of current management policy.
The series of recommendations resulting from this study pertain not only to the specific example but have wide ranging applications to the resolution of conflict between an intrusive cultural landscape and a fragile archaeological record.
This thesis is limited by 1) restricted access to research materials and 2) a personal view that the value of culture and cultural resources in our country is severely and dangerously underrated. The investigator is not a trained archaeologist and has brought to this study neither the biases nor the benefits of knowledge associated with that field.
This study is necessarily limited to a non-economic view of cultural resource management. Few economic studies have been done in this field and those that exist are limited in scope and application. The resource is being undermined by the lack of this type of data. This study is also limited to an overview of the Department of the Interior management policies as implemented by the Bureau of Land Managment as they are the primary multiple
use managers of archaeological sites on public lands in Southwestern Colorado. Neither does this study attempt to investigate the role of the Native American in cultural resource management.
Investigation methodology included a review of available literature, interviews with agency managers and interviews with members of the archaeo" logical profession. As secretary of the Anasazi Advisory Committee, appointed by Congressman Ray Kogovsek to review and assess management policies relating to resources on public lands in Southwestern Colorado, the investigator was able to participate in hearings which explored the viewpoints of various competing resource users. The study will begin with a definition of the cultural landscape and the conflicts between modern land use and the prehistoric record.
CHAPTER 2: CONFLICTS IN THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Archaeology is, most simply stated, the study of the remains of the past. Archaeologists concern themselves with the record of human occupation preserved on or directly below the surface of the earth. The challenge of their profession is to accurately reconstruct the cultural landscape within which other members of our kind have lived. (Figure 1)
Man is a balance between the physical needs of the body and the metaphysical needs of the mind. Man's greatness and uniqueness lies in his capacity to explore and provide for both aspects of his nature. The balance between the rational and the intuitive, the pragmatist and the dreamer, the scientist and the artist, the material and the etherial, is reflected in the material and non-material aspects of cultural remains. These aspects combine in a given setting to form the cultural landscape.
Environmental forms evolve in response to nine basic survival needs: physical protection; breathable air; good water; food; shelter; family; self expression; connectedness with other human beings; and spirituality (Hill 1981: Lectures on the Development of Environmental Form). The first five needs respond directly to the physical aspects of man; the other four to the metaphysical. All of these needs must be recognized and considered if man is to survive and flourish. The particular emphasis or rank given these needs by a culture is based on the resources available in the natural environment, the capacity of man to alter or adapt to that environment, and the mental framework that organizes the interaction of the two. These three ele-
ments, the natural environment, the man-made or 'built' environment, and the organizing mind set, constitute the cultural landscape.
The natural environment consists of the basis setting or background upon which the culture builds. It includes the vegetation, the shape of the land, the availability of natural resources like water, good soil, wild fruits, nuts, and berries, the abundance of wildlife, the amount of rainfall, and the climate.
The built environment consists of buildings, networks (roads, reservoirs, check dams), the layout pattern for communities, tools, utility wares, clothing, weapons, methods of transportation, and objects of artistic expression. (Figure 2)
The mind set is reflected in the social organization, the political system, trade networks, and the structural organization of the culture. The mind set is the basic pattern that incorporates natural and man-made resources into a fabric that facilitates the survival of the culture.
Archaeologists go about the business of reconstructing these cultural landscapes. This is possible because material remains of the natural and built environments are trapped in the soil. Through the use of carefully documented systematic approaches to excavation and analysis, archaeologists are able to recreate a scenario of past lifeways. The ability to accurately describe the landscape depends on the condition of the materials in or on the surface of the land and the presence of an undisturbed context in which elements of the two environments remain in their original pattern of association. From the study of the interaction between these two elements archaeologists are able to speculate about the mind-set of the culture; the
metaphysical aspects which can never be verified or based on fact.
The lack of a written record or longstanding oral tradition makes the re-creation of a culture's mind-set very difficult. Speculation about mind-set has been a source of criticism and question regarding the position of archaeology as a science. Members of other scientific disciplines argue that archaeology as a discipline rightfully belongs among the humanities since its findings cannot be ultimately verified or based on absolute fact. While it is true that conclusions about the philosophical outlook of prehistoric cultures are based on speculation, the material remains of the natural and built environments can be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis and the conclusions based on fact.
If one entered the national forest in the late fall to observe the ground at a few selected spots, there would be found used shotgun shells, bits of plastic tarp, beer cans, and coleman fuel cylinders. Were this pattern repeated at a number of different sites, it could tentatively identified as a hunting camp. The investigator could then look for specific sites in the forest that are conducive tc such a purpose. Conclusions as to the density of hunting sites in a given region and the frequency of their use could be drawn from artifacts and the patterning of sites. If bones, antlers, or entrails were found at some camps, statements could be made about the success of the hunting efforts. Types of weaponry, patterns of land use within the camp site, and other physical factors would even lead to verifiable conclusions about the mind set of the hunting society that produced the camps.
Such analysis is possible because human behavior is patterned. Through
systematic control of research investigators are able to theorize about those patterns, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and either confirm or disprove the original theory.
When looking for patterns within the cultural landscape, archaeologists conduct this same type of analysis on the physical remains of the natural and built environments of past cultures. They identify characteristics of site types and begin to sort out the patterns. From these patterns they construct, hypothesis regarding the underlying principles of mind which were used to direct and influence the patterns. Then a variety of tests are applied to determine whether it is possible to deduce the accompanying mind-set. Through such investigations archaeology as a discipline bridges the domains of both science and the humanities.
Because we can only know a prehistoric society from its artifacts and patterns of existence found in and on the land, it is essential that care be taken to preserve that record. Wien a modern society obliterates that record through its own patterns of land use, and lack of value given to such archaeological studies, not only is the record lost, but so are the lessons that modern man can learn about another's adaptation to the same environment.
This study derives from the conflicts inherent in the imposition of a modern cultural landscape over the archaeological record of prehistoric adaptations to that same environment. It is a study of resource conflicts, survival issues, value systems, priorities, mind-sets, carrying capacities, and patterns of behavior.
Figure 3: THE PREHISTORIC SOUTHWEST OF THE ANASAZI
THE PREHISTORIC CULTURAL LANDSCAPE IN THE SOUTHWEST
T T ^^^ < < -> % n. m im
The development of prehistoric cultures in the Southwest began over ten thousand years ago with the Paleo-Indian tradition (11,000 B.C. to 5,500 B.C.)* There is limited evidence of this widely scattered group of nomadic hunters and gatherers throughout the Southwest. From the greater evidence found in the Mid West along tne fertile Mississippi and Ohio River valleys, it appears they lived primarily on big game and utilized stone tools. A second tradition evolved between 5,500 B.C. and A.D. 400.
This Archaic tradition or desert culture became increasingly dependent on native foodstuffs and less on big game. They practiced a form of seasonal wandering within given physiographic regions. They probably lived in brush shelters, cooked their food over hearths, and processed their food with stone tools. They snared small game and utilized a variety of tools.
The third tradition, that of the Pueblo or Anasazi, dates from A.D. 400 to A.D. 1300 and reflects a substantial change in lifeways. The hunting and gathering tradition of previous cultural groups was abandoned in favor of agriculture. The earliest dates for corn and other cultigens comes from Bat Cave in central New Mexico, placing them as early as 155 B.C.. By A.D.
400 it is conceivable that the Anasazi were cultivating corn, squash, and later, beans to supplement their diet of wild foods and small game. Their technology advanced from spears, nets, snares, and milling stones utilized by the Archaic people. They manufactured a variety of stone tools, baskets, and eventually pottery to help process, store, and transport their agricultural products. They build permanent shelters, had specialization of labor,
Figure 4: THE PREHISTORIC CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
increased their population, generated an agricultural surplus, began trading with other farmsteads, and domesticated wild turkeys and dogs.
Initially people were spread out in small clusters based on extended family units. Gradually they began coming together into small villages and larger hamlets. In time they created extensive communities and developed political networks which probably utilized outlying communities as sources of specialized resource production. As dependence on agriculture increased, power probably centralized. Political organization must have become more sophisticated as large communities extended beyond the carrying capacity of the resource base. Evidence of trade wares trace shells from the Gulf of Mexico, macaw feathers, and red ware pottery from Utah and Chaco Canyon in Northern New Mexico.
Between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1150 the Chaco Phenomenon appeared. There was a large population expansion in the Chaco area. Extensive road networks connected the large Chacoan towns with outlying colonies along the San Juan River drainage. There is evidence of Chacoan outlier settlements in the Mesa Verde Region in southwestern Colorado and evidence of Mesa Verde influence in the Chaco region.
Toward the end of the 13th century the culture abandoned the northern regions and followed the San Juan drainage to the South. Drought, disease, depletion of natural resources, and population growth were among the issues that led to forced migration from the area. It is believed that the descendants of the Anasazi survive in the Rio Grande Pueblos of northern New Mexico.
HISTORICAL BASIS OF THE MODERN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
Living today on top of the cultural record left by the Anasazi is a society that also had its beginnings in agriculture, but whose values have evolved from world wide happenings relating to resource use and industrial development. This shift from an agriculturally based society to an industrially based society has been accompanied by tremendous conflict.
Prior to the industrial revolution western civilization was land based.
Man relied on his ability to work within the natural system and harvest the fruits of renewable resources. He carried a deep respect for the traditions of the past and the transmission of culture was carried on through the vehicle of the extended family. The agricultural village provided a stable environment for the raising and educating of the young. Economies were decentralized and self-sustaining. Settlements were dispersed along rivers, streams, and pockets of fertile soil. Social units were inward looking with a simple division of labor. Alvin Toffler describes this evolution in terms of waves (Toffler 1981: The Third Wave). He refers to the agriculturally based social order as the First Wave. (Figure 5)
With the coming of the industrial revolution the world changed drastically. Coal, gas, oil and rubber tires became the driving forces of the society (Mumford 1961: The City in History). The decentralized solar wagon economies were replaced by mass production and the factory system. The economic base shifted from the harvest of renewable resources to the mining of non-renewable fossil fuels. Distribution and trading systems were transformed to handle the increase in the flow of goods to the masses. The railroad, steamship,
Extended Family Land/Water Based
FIRST WAVE Low Technology Agricultural
Geomorphic Inward Looking
the truck, and the airplane replaced nomadic traders. Technological advancements in communications shrank the world through the invention of radio, television, telegraph, and telephone. The notion of man as the steward of the land was replaced by man as real estate developer. Land became a commodity to be bought and sold on the free market. Giant corporations evolved which afforded investors limited liability and little personal responsibility. The family unit became fragmented and mobile to follow the rapidly changing job markets. Cities sprang up along highways in areas devoid of natural support resources (Hill 1981: Lectures on the Development of Environmental Form). Man developed an ultimate faith in science, his machines, and his ability to dominate the natural environment. This Second Wave, as Toffler labels it, carried into the mid 1900's. (Figure 6)
During the Second Wave archaeological resources suffered tremendous neglect and destruction. Culture in general was not given much standing among industrial priorities. Our industrial society became enamoured with the achievements of the present and scorned the 'primitive' accomplishments of past cultural groups. Man had created giant earth moving machines with the capacity to totally eliminate any trace of past cultures. Previously, other cultures had been forced to adapt to or reutilize the physical remains of preceeding cultural groups. The record of the interaction between cultural landscapes was preserved. Modern society now faced the prospect of totally eliminating the past for future generations.
According to Toffler, the birth of the Third Wave occured during the fifties. Mumford, in his book The City in History, supports the view that our society is undergoing a transformation as a result of the development
Nuclear Family High Technology Linear
Highway Based Industrial Outward Looking
of microtechnology and an increased environmental awareness. The computer is transforming our society and its value system. We are witnessing the breakdown of the factory system. Non-renewable fossil fuels are becoming scarce and new sources of energy are being explored that are more efficient and less destructive to the natural environment. During the sixties and seventies a number of environmentally oriented pieces of legislation had a significant impact on the preservation of natural and cultural systems.
We are realizing that our survival needs of breathable air, good water, family, self-expression, and connectedness with other human beings, are not being met. Our values are shifting and as a result of this change a strong drive toward cultural resource preservation and management is beginning.
Archaeological resources are gaining stature among the resource hierarchy. Cultural resource management has become a growing field. It draws upon the expertise of archaeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, ethnologists, historians, and planners. In response to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) managing agencies, enforcement agencies, private industry, the scientific, and the academic community are all beginning to reappraise the value of these resources. The conflict between energy resource extraction, agricultural resource utilization, and archaeological resource preservation is a direct reflection of the transitions just described. The following chapter will describe the primary issues relating to archaeological resource management on public lands .
CHAPTER 3: ISSUES
1. IF THE IMPACTS OF INCREASED POPULATION GROWTH AND ENERGY EXTRACTION IN THE SOUTHWEST REMAIN UNCHECKED THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES TO REGIONAL ECONOMIES WILL BE GREATLY DIMINISHED.
2. IF THE COMPATIBILITY OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN MULTIPLE USE AREAS IS NOT CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT OF ONE RESOURCE CATEGORY MAY ELIMINATE THE FUTURE USE OF ANY OR ALL OTHERS.
3. IF THE CURRENT RATE OF VANDALISM TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONTINUES THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF THE RESOURCE BASE WILL BE IRREVOCABLY LOST.
4. IF LONG TERM PLANNING FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION IS NOT BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL INVENTORIES AND QUANTIFIABLE STANDARDS FOR SIGNIFICANCE THE SUSTAINED YIELD OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL BE LOST.
5. IF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES INVOLVED IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ARE NOT STREAMLINED AND INTEGRATED THE MANAGERS WILL CONTINUE TO REINFORCE THE ATTRITION OF THE RESOURCE BASE.
6. IF THE LAWS CURRENTLY IN PLACE ARE ADEQUATE WHY THEN IS THE RESOURCE BASE CONTINUING TO ERODE?
7. IF ARCHAEOLOGISTS CONTINUE TO PLACE A LOW PRIORITY ON PUBLIC EDUCATION AND THE DISSEMINATION OF THEIR FINDINGS THEY WILL LOSE THE SUPPORT OF THEIR MOST POTENT CONSTITUENCY, THE LAY PUBLIC.
The following is a fleshed-out version of the seven issues or areas of concern.
1. If the impacts of increased population growth and energy extraction in the Southwest remain unchecked the potential economic contribution of significant archaeological sites to regional economies will be greatly diminished.
* As the population of the United States redistributes into the Sun Belt communities in the Southwest will continue to feel the impact of growth and speculation.
* Growth and development are tending to occur in prime areas of resource concentration which diminishes the resource base and increases the costs to developers who are forced by law to mitigate the impacts.
* The contribution to regional economies from recreation and tourism as base industries is increasing throughout the Southwest. Protection and development of significant archaeological sites which are appropriate for tourism could increase the local capture rate of tourist dollars which in turn would diversify and stabilize regional economies which have been historically dependent on the exploitation of one resource e.g. mining, agriculture, livestock, or timber.
* Sites on private lands are subject to few protective controls. Preservation and selective development of sites on public lands are the best means of insuring that the archaeological resource base will be ongoing and used in the public interest.
* Population and recreational growth in the region will increase the
potential for adverse human impacts to the resource base.
* Generally archaeological sites and our contemporary communities are located on or in relation to the same natural resources e.g. rivers, fertile soil deposits, mountain, forest, or scenic areas. This creates a conflict between development and archaeological resource preservation. This conflict can be dealt with through effective management and planning strategies.
2. If the compatibility of resource development in multiple use areas is not
carefully analyzed the concentrated development of one resource category
may eliminate the future use of any or all other categories.
* Some types of resource development are compatible and others are not. In the Southwest archaeology and livestock production seem to be compatible. Mineral development generates adverse impacts which tend to make it less compatible with either of the above. These impacts can be mitigated through carefull planning and a sensitivity to the unique attributes and needs of other resources in the development area.
* Land managing agencies have certain historical priorities relating to grazing and mineral development which conflict with current legislated missions requiring equal development and protection of all resources through the principle of multiple use.
* National priorities do not take into account regional differences and local economies.
* Under the guise of multiple use funding priorities may favor one resource to the exclusion of others.
* Historically archaeological resource planning has been a response to other planning and development projects. In areas containing significant concentrations of archaeological sites planning should focus on the archaeological resources in and of themselves.
3. If the current rate of vandalism to archaeological resources continues the scientific value of the resource base will be irrevocably lost.
* In no other time during man's history has the capacity to alter the face of the earth been as great. Giant bulldozers and earth movers are capable of leveling' mountains, altering the course of rivers, and totally eliminating any trace of previous cultural developments. In the past, in-coming cultures were forced to build next to the remains of earlier cultures or integrate these remains into their structures.
The evidence of the past was retained in the soil. That will no longer be the case.
* The density of population, industrialization, and agricultural development in the East and Mid-West have resulted in a tremendous amount of land modification. It is estimated that by the turn of the century all lands which are appropriate for leveling in this area will have been leveled. This has created a sense of urgency regarding the impact of this type of activity to archaeological sites. The vast and undeveloped character of Western lands creates the impression that the archaeological resource base is infinite and undisturbed. This is not the case. Archaeological sites, agricultural areas, and energy extraction areas are all generally located in the same zone.
* The mining of archaeological sites for private collections and commercial sale reduces the scientific value of sites through the loss of artifacts and the destruction of architectural features.
* The scientific value of artifacts is based on their association with the original context. Artifacts removed from sites have little value to the archaeologist.
* Archaeologists are interested in regional cultural patterns and need
a broad cross section of site types to develop problem oriented research questions. Vandalism reduces the availability of site types.
* It is difficult to determine the significance of a site from the surface. Archaeologists rely on artifacts on the surface to diagnose the type and extent of the site. If these artifacts are removed through amateur or commercial collecting, archaeologists are forced to excavate portions of the site in order to determine its significance.
* Vandalism which has typically been confined to the midden or trash areas where burials are located is now occuring more frequently in the room blocks where the heart of scientific data is located.
* Each year the plow cuts deeper and deeper into the site destroying associated activity areas as well as the main body of the site itself.
4. If the long term planning for archaeological resource allocation is not
based on comprehensive regional inventories and quantifiable standards for significance the sustained yield of the scientific and economic benefits to future generations will be lost.
* A balance between resource utilization and resource conservation must
be struck to insure the availability of resources in the future.
* Excavation techniques are improving as new technology is developed. Archaeologists are now gleaning much more data from sites than they did twenty five years ago. As technology continues to improve archaeologists may develop the capacity to analyze a large portion of the data contained in sites without having to excavate them.
* Archaeological resources are finite and the resource base is beginning to 'play out'.
* The time and money constraints involved in contract archaeology are in many cases resulting in the depletion of the resource base without comprehensive analysis and publication of the data.
* Archaeologists, planners, and managers are all having difficulties developing quantifiable standards to be used in the determination of which sites should be dug, which preserved, and which sites are expendible .
5. If the policies and procedures of Federal, State, and local authorities involved in archaeological resource management are not streamlined and integrated the managers will continue to reinforce the attrition of the resource base.
* Agencies are duplicating equipment, storage, and data processing costs. Through cooperative agreements agencies could lend equipment, reduce costs, and increase the efficiency of their management operations.
* The quality of investigation and utilization of data is hindered when
agencies handle archaeological mitigation work in-house and are not equipped to process and store large numbers of artifacts, devote adequate time to the development of research questions and analysis of data, and provide the funding for the publication of their findings.
* Funding priorities and budget cutbacks have crippled monitoring and law enforcement capabilities within the various agencies.
* There is little support or involvement of local governmental entities in the management or protection of resources on public lands. This jurisdictional problem undermines efficient planning and the implementation of managment strategies.
* Decisions made in Washington regarding the sale or utilization of public lands may have tremendous impact on local or regional economies in areas where at least 60% of the land ownership is held by Federal or State entities.
* In the Southwest, resource managers include the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Indian tribes, the Bureau of Reclamation, the State Historic Preservation Office, the State Archaeologist, local government officials and the State and local law enforcement personnel. There is currently no existing vehicle for the coordination and integration of these agency efforts.
6. If the laws currently in place are adequate why then is the resource base
continuing to erode?
* In many cases the laws are sufficient but enforcement of those laws has been undermined by management decisions made within the agency.
* The language of the law in some cases is vague and unenforceable.
* Lengthy processing of information and complicated procedure discourage the use of certain laws.
* The regulations for the newest law on the books, the 1979 Archaeological Resource Protection Act, have not been written.
* On the ground enforcement of the existing laws is extremely difficult on the remote public lands in the West.
* Cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel is lacking in many areas.
* There is a lack of certified law enforcement personnel to 'police' the State.
* Because of the lack of public education efforts, many agencies and individuals are not aware of the laws.
* There exists a 100 year tradition of individual use of the resource by amateur collectors and commercial dealers which must be confronted and changed.
* There is a certain lawless individualism which characterizes the West and rejects most types of government intervention.
7. If archaeologists continue to place a low priority on public education
and the dissemination of their findings they will lose the support of
their most potent constituency, the lay public.
* Archaeologists continually emphasize the importance of public information but rarely present their findings in a form the lay public can understand.
* Local residents who are curious about artifacts and archaeological sites have no positive, constructive outlet for their interest other than the unsupervised plundering of sites. Opportunities for involving the lay public in scientific excavations are tremendous but rarely utilized.
* The more informed the members of the lay public become, the more likely they are to develop a sense of stewardship regarding the resource base. Through education and positive experiences with archaeologists the underlying values in a community can be changed.
* The lay public has difficulty determining the difference between their activities as 'pothunters' and the activities of archaeologists. Both groups extract the resource from the ground and destroy the site in the process.
* The local community is either the first line of defense or the first line of offense in regard to archaeological resource protection. They have the potential to make a vital contribution in the area of preservation and generally possess good first hand information about the location of sites.
* The majority of agencies involved in the management of archaeological resources have no ongoing public education/information programs.
These issues have a number of implications. These implications fall into nine different categories. These categories include:1) public involvement;
2) interagency networks; 3) planning; 4) resource allocation; 5) capital facilities; 6) education; 7) management; 8) legislation; and (9) fiscal policy.
Throughout the course of this study each of these issues will be discussed and recommendations will be made in the various areas of implication. The following table will generally summarize each issue and the areas of implication which are affected by it.
ISSUE IMPLICATION CATEGORIES
1 Planning; resource allocation; legislation; and fiscal policy.
2 Planning; resource allocation; management; and fiscal policy.
3 Public involvement; planning; resource allocation; education; management, and legislation.
4 Planning; and resource allocation.
5 Public involvement; interagency networks; planning; capital facilities; management; and fiscal policy.
6 Management; and legislation.
7 Public involvement; education; and management.
CHAPTER 4: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Archaeology is a young science. It is only during the last century that the methodologies and tools of research have evolved which have transformed an antiquarian hobby into a scientific discipline. The history of archaeological research in the United States has been dominated by two cultural traditions: the mound builders of the Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys and the Pueblo tradition of the Southwest. (Figure 7) The birth of the scientific pursuit of archaeological remains took place in the mounds in response to a controversy which arose over the degree of cultural sophisti- cation of the existing American Indian groups. Our colonization policy was based on the assumption that existing Indian culture was primitive and relatively undeveloped. This assumption justified the domination of a savage pre-existing culture by a more sophisticated culture. The people who built the mounds, however, had obviously attained a high level of cultural development and if these mound builders were in fact the ancestors of existing Indian groups the moral rationale behind the settlement policy was highly questionable. It was in response to this concern that early investigations of the mounds occured.
The first documentation of the mound cultures was made during the De Soto Expedition of 1539. De Soto was able to observe Indians along the Mississippi River Valley constructing mounds. By 1673, the Marquette and Joliet Expedition down the Mississippi saw no evidence of these mound building
Indians and the mounds De Soto had observed were covered with vegetation and blended in to the natural landscape. The mound builders were surviving but only in the deep South, in Mississippi and Alabama.
By the early 1700's the lower Mississippi mound builders were dying out but the French were able to document the Natchez between 1698 and 1732. As settlement moved outward from the eastern coastal states land was cleared along the river valleys and the northern mounds were being exposed. Rufus Putnam, a Brigadier General during the Revolutionary War, began building a community at Marietta, Ohio and soon discovered that they were building in the heart of a large mound group. He made a survey of the area and mapped his findings.
By the late 1700's people were well aware of the mounds in Ohio and doctors had begun studying the formation of skulls found in the mounds in search of characteristics which would link the living Indian cultures in the area to the builders of the mounds. In 1838 a shaft was sunk into the Grave Creek Mound and a tablet was found. The tablet was sent to a variety of experts for their interpretation of its origins. The resultant proliferation of theories linked the mound builders to the Vikings, the Aztecs, the Israelites and the Egyptians.
Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, one of the great figures in early American Anthropology, published an account of the Grave Creek research which advanced the conclusion that the mound builders were in fact linked to existing Indian cultures. Schoolcraft's findings were fairly unpopular at the time but they were generally correct as later studies would demonstrate.
As the controversy in the East continued the first government sponsored research into the mound building cultures occured with the creation of the Smithsonian Institution in 1846. Concurrent with the interest in prehistory was a growing interest in preservation of many of the historic sites relating to the Revolution and the founding of the country. The State of New York in 1850 acquired Washington's Headquarters during a portion of the Revolutionary War and a campaign to acquire Mt. Vernon and other historic properties in the east occured (King 1977:12-14). In the meantime, the United States Government, as a result of the war with Mexico, acquired large portions of land in the Southwest including California. This prompted the formation of a number of survey expeditions into the wild territories of the West to inventory the geographical, geological, plant, animal, climatic, and archaeological resources existing therein.
After the Civil War an increased movement westward occured and the government realized that it needed additional information about the land, its resources, and the Indian groups living there in order to derive a settlement policy. In 1849 the Department of Interior was formed to deal with these issues. In 1879 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) was formed and the Smithsonian established what would eventually become the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE).
Major John Wesley Powell directed these two organizations and was extremely interested in Indian cultures. The newly formed American Anthropological Association and the Archaeological Institute of America were able to exert influence on Congress to earmark 20% of the BAE funds for an investigation of the mounds. At the same time, an interest in the cultures of the Southwest
was growing and in 1881 the Archaeological Institute sent an expedition led by Bandelier into the Southwest.
The early surveying expeditions of the 1850's were the first time that trained observors had been in the Southwest to inventory its resources. As a result of the gold discoveries in the West, boom towns were springing up everywhere. Once the railroad connecting the East and California was completed the development of Southwestern lands was inevitable. The Hayden Survey in the Southwest during 1874-76 had documented a number of cliff dwellings and by the time Bandelier arrived in 1882 the vandalism to those recorded sites and others was extensive. Bandelier recommended that a number of large ruin sites be witheld from public sale and protected (King 1977:15).
During the 1880's a great deal of archaeological work was being conducted by ethnographers from the BAE who were interested in documenting the lifeways of existing Indian groups and as a result got involved in the excavation of communities which were thought to have been constructed by the ancestors of these Indians. These early 'archaeologists' took an inductive approach to their research. They accumulated vast samples of artifacts and data and then began to look for patterns emerging from the data around which conclusions could be drawn. This descriptive approach characterized archaeological research until the middle of this century.
In 1891 a wealthy Swede, Gustav Nordenskiold, was traveling the world for his health and came to Southwestern Colorado. There he discovered the fabulous cliff dwellings of the Mesa Verde. As a trained observor he began a careful documentation of the ruins which he photographed, mapped, and recorded. He made sample collections and it was in response to his attempts to take these collec-
tions of artifacts out of the country that Mesa Verde National Park was eventually formed in 1906.
Nordenskiold was not the only 'scientist' making collections in the Southwest. In the late 1800's the discipline of archaeology/anthropology was gaining stature at Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley and other academic institutions. Private museums were sponsoring expeditions to the Southwest and large collections of artifacts were being removed from sites and transported across the country to museums, state repositories for collections, and national expositions. It was an exciting time for archaeology as a great cross fertilization of ideas and theories occured notwithstanding the damage to the resource base.
With the designation of Mesa Verde as a National Park intensive surveys were conducted. The School of American Archaeology was formed by Edgar Hewitt in Santa Fe, New Mexico. As a result of Hewitt's pioneering work the first quality excavations began occuring in the Southwest. By 1929 the technique of dendrochronology or tree ring dating had been developed. This allowed archaeologists to take sample cores from logs utilized in the construction of dwellings, compare the pattern of rings in the sample to the base chrono'-logy established and date the cutting of the log to within five to ten years.
Throughout the 30's and the 40's great strides were made in research technology., Cultural chronologies were established and archaeology continued to gain credibility as a scientific discipline. During this time archaeologists continued to concern themselves primarily with the remains of material culture e.g. architectural features, pottery, stone tools, and plant and animal remains.
The vast number of samples which they had collected had allowed them to create categories which described different periods of cultural evolution.
After World War II the character of archaeological research changed. Archaeologists were being called upon to salvage the data in sites which were going to be destroyed as a result of large Federally funded construction projects primarily in the form of dams and reservoirs. Suddenly archaeologists found themselves involved in large scale mitigation projects with definate time and research constraints. Contract or salvage archaeology became a lucrative option for archaeologists. It also created a great deal of controversy among professional archaeologists who felt that the quality of research generated during these mitigation projects was less than desirable.
During the 50's another significant shift in archaeological thinking occured. A group of archaeologists sparked by Walter Taylor and the anthropologist Lewis Binford began posing a different set of research questions which focused on non-material culture (Struever 1979:104-113). New archaeologists focused on the environmental system, the human biological system, and the cultural system. They became very interested in the way in which human beings adapted to their surrounding environment. They shifted from an inductive approach to a deductive approach. They designed their research based on a specific set of problem questions which they sought to prove or disprove through the analysis of the data gleaned from the site. New archaeologists utilized a multi-disciplinary team of scientists to reconstruct the cultural scenario. Botanists, astronomers, osteologists, zoologists, palynologists, and physicists applied research techniques from their respective fields and the cross fertilization which occured significantly altered the evolution of archaeology as
a scientific discipline. New archaeologists focused on social and political
systems; on trade networks, settlement patterns and changes in climate. They developed research techniques which enabled them to extract previously untapped information from the soil. As a result of this shift from an inductive research orientation to a deductive research organization, archaeological data and theory can now withstand the rigorous scrutiny of scientists from other fields and the rite of passage from antiquarian hobby to scientific discipline is nearly complete.
1. Lone wolf archaeologist
2. Inductive approach
3. Focus on material culture
Focus on non-material culture
4. Site specific
5. Low technology
6. Belief that resource base was unlimited
Belief that the resource base is finite
7. Research sponsored by academic institutions
Research sponsored by the Federal government and private industry
CHAPTER 5: THREATS TO THE RESOURCE
"If this destruction of the cliff houses of New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona goes on at the same rate in the next fifty years as it has in the past, these unique dwellings will be practically destroyed and unless laws are enacted, either by states or by the general government, for their protection, at the close of the twentieth century many of the most interesting monuments of the prehistoric people of our Southwest will be little more than mounds of debris at the bases of cliffs. A commercial spirit is leading to careless excavations for objects to sell, and walls are ruthlessly overthrown, buildings torn down in hopes of a few dollars gain." (Fewkes 1896:269-270)
It is unfortunate that Fewkes' comments, written in 1896, are still pertinent today. Eventhough the legislation that he called for has been enacted many times over, the archaeological resource base of this nation is continuing to erode. The commercial spirit is stronger than ever and many of the most visible cliff dwellings have indeed become mounds of debris at the bases of cliffs. Where are the threats to the resource coming from?
Paul Nickens, in his recent study on vandalism to archaeological resources in the Southwest, has described two agents of cultural resource destruction: human agents and natural agents. (Figure 8 ) Federal land managers are fairly well equipped to deal with problems arising from natural agents of destruction. For the purpose of this study, I will focus on archaeological destruction resulting from human activity.
One of the difficulties inherent in a discussion of archaeological vandalism is that everyone 'knows' that it is happening but actual
AGENTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DESTRUCTION
Freezing and Thawing Catastrophic Events
Survey Techniques Excavation
Frustration toward Government Revenge Wanton
Hobby Collecting Curiosity Leave One's Mark Commercial
Land Development Agriculture and Land Clearing Grazing
Land Reclamation and Flood Control Recreation
Roads, Public Utilities and Pipelines Mining Industrial
documentation is limited. In order to determine the types and the amount of destruction incurred one must have reliable information regarding the number, location and condition of archaeological sites in a given area. In the majority of cases this base data has not been compiled. The inventories, required by law (EO 11593, Federal Land Policy and Management Act), have not been completed because of funding limitations and agency priorities... or the lack of priorities. Some pioneering work has been done.
In 1978, Lance Williams conducted a survey of one hundred and sixty Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Park Service managers in the Rocky Mountain Region to determine the extent and the characteristics of vandalism in their areas. Out of those areas containing sites an average of sixty-one percent (61%) of the prehistoric sites and fifty-one percent (51%) of the known historic sites had been vandalized (Williams 1979:28). The three most highly vandalized resource types were rock art (80% vandalized), rock shelters or caves (78%), and stone or adobe walled dwellings (77%) (Williams 1979:39). These structures were also the most visible; a characteristic which contributed greatly to their destruction. Peter Pilles, the Coconino National Forest Archaeologist in Arizona wrote in response to Williams' survey that "most site classes have been subjected to some pothunting but by far, the most damage has been done to the large pueblos and the five to fifteen room pueblos with trash mounds obviously because of the greater number of burials and loot they contain...In the south half of the forest almost every single large pueblo and cliff dwelling has been seriously disturbed...In fact I would guess that eighty percent of all cave sites in the Verde Valley have been potted to some degree" (Williams
Based on the result of Williams' study, the most common forms of vandalism are excavation, defacement, surface collecting, removing boards and timbers, shooting, painting and chalking rock art, and the theft of objects from buildings (Williams 1979:39).
The study further indicated that people were attracted to sites which had been previously vandalized, where artifacts were weathering out and were partially exposed. Sites which offered potential for completing or filling out private collections and sites with little or no law enforcement patrol were also highly susceptible (Williams 1979:48). Sites on the vast acreages of BLM and Forest Service lands in fairly remote areas are obvious targets. The image which the Park Service fosters of a ranger behind every tree has greatly enhanced their ability to protect the resource under their jurisdiction. The fact that they are also a single-use agency, unconcerned with incompatible resource development, also works to their advantage.
If a fairly clear understanding of the types of sites which are vandalized is known, what information exists regarding the characteristics of the perpetrator of the crime? Both Williams' and Nickens' studies agree that the typical vandal works in a group of two or three people, is generally thought to be male, and over thirty years of age. The vandal's efforts are preplanned and oftentimes systematically arranged. There are known cases of pothunters in Southwestern Colorado who park their vehicles two miles away from the site and hike through the woods, away from the roads, to avoid detection by patrols or other passing vehicles.
Artifact collecting in the United States has a long history. It has
been a family bobby and tradition for generations. Many of the early pioneer and farming families who settled areas in the West have extensive collections which have been passed down through several generations. There is a great deal of pride associated with these collections and a strong commitment to keeping them in the family and in the area where they were found. The strong desire to display the artifacts locally is in part a response to the removal of large collections of artifacts by archaeologists and amateur collectors around the turn of the century. These artifacts ended up in museums and universities in the East and around the world.
Many local collectors have become quite knowledgeable over the years and would like to believe that there is no difference between their activities and those of archaeologists. The fundamental difference is clear. The local collector is primarily interested in the artifact. The archaeologist is primarily interested in the artifact in its original context. It is the context, and the specific association of the artifacts to one another, which provide the archaeologist with the vital evidence which substantiates their theories. "The artifact in context is a key concept in archaeology...Context refers to the associations among structures, artifacts, features, and the soil in and on the ground. These associations can provide relative dating measures, information on changing climatic and geological conditions, on human utilization of the environment through time, on technological changes, on religious or ceremonial observances, and on many other topics of interest (Williams 1979:8). Without this understanding of context, the artifact in and of itself is almost without value to the archaeologist. The scientific value lies in the evaluation of each of the three elements of the cultural
landscape and their particular mode of interaction.
Archaeology is a detective story. Archaeologists uncover a complex network of clues in a given setting. It is their job to utilize these clues to reconstruct the type, sequence, and meaning of activities within that setting. If someone hands a detective a revolver without any description of where it was found, how it was used, when it was used, and why it was used it would be impossible for that detective to solve the crime. If someone hands an archaeologist a prehistoric mug, he can comment on the beauty and craftsmanship of the object, on the clays and dyes used, on the style of the pottery but he can make no reliable inferences about anything beyond the object itself. Only through an analysis of the object in its original context can the detective ever hope to solve the mystery.
Wanton destruction of archaeological sites is not a primary motive for vandalism. It does occur and there are recent examples of this type of activity in Southwestern Colorado but generally the desire for personal collections or commercial gain act as the stimulus. The desirability of objects of antiquity for museum display and private collection is not an isolated problem. Nations throughout the world have been faced with the steady plundering of their art resources. Each time a museum is visited and original sections of hieroglyphic panels, walls, or statuary are observed it must be remembered that the original site of the object bears a scar where the piece was cut away from the rock and transported out of the country. The red rock cliffs of the Southwest continue to be ravaged by this type of activity as petroglyph panels are removed and commercially sold. It is no longer unusual to find prehistoric Southwestern pottery for sale in airports and exclusive boutiques
in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas and to a lesser extent in Chicago, Cleveland, Boston, Montreal, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New York, Savannah,and Washington D.C. (Rippeteau 1980:90). This growth in the art market is attributed toil) the fact that it is now fashionable to possess prehistoric art objects; 2) formerly inaccessible areas are being rapidly opened up, and 3) there is more money and more collectors involved in the art market (Meyer 1973). Some museums and galleries are requiring signed affidavits giving the location of the site from whence the artifact came before they will agree to purchase the object. Although this represents a positive step by art dealers, these affidavits are easy to forge or create. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 was specifically directed toward commercial profiteers. Convictions under this new law should help to curb commercial activities but it is only a first step.
Archaeological resources are also the victim of unintentional destruction. They are highly sensitive to any type of land modification activity due to their location on or directly under the surface of the earth. Charles R. McGimsey writes that "this nation's past is contained in its soil. That soil is being disturbed and redistributed at an ever increasing rate. Those of us alive today will be the last ever to see any significant portion of it in an undistrubed state." (McGimsey 1972:17) As trends toward decentralization and a redistribution of population from the East into the Sunbelt continue, the impact of growth on archaeological resources in the Southwest will increase. This adverse interaction is already occuring in cities like Phoenix, Arizona where residential and commercial zones are pushing out into areas of archaeological sensitivity.
Damage to archaeological sites in the Southwest has already occured as a result of early land clearing efforts relating to agricultural production. In the past, archaeological sites have been highly impacted by chaining, plowing, and mineral extraction. The development of energy resources in the West will continue this pattern of adverse impacts to archaeological sites unless new management models are developed and implemented.
In summary, the threats to the resource come from four basic directions 1) artifact collecting on the local level; 2) commercial plundering of the resource for sale on the art market; 3) a redistribution of population; and 4) a carte blanche development policy regarding mineral resources extraction The implications of these threats will be explored in the sections which follow.
THE CONGRESS FINDS AND DECLARES THAT:
(1) the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic heritage;
(2) the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people;
(3) historic properties significant to the Nation's heritage are being lost or substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency;
(4) the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans;
(5) in the face of ever-increasing extensions of urban centers, highways, and residential, commercial, and industrial developments, the present governmental and nongovernmental historic preservation programs and activities are inadequate to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of our Nation;
(6) the increased knowledge of our historic resources, the establishment of better means of identifying and administering them, and the encouragement of their preservation will improve the planning and execution of Federal and federally assisted projects and will assist economic growth and development; and
(7) although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals, and both should continue to play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by private means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in
the United States to expand and accelerate their historic preservation programs and activities.
Section 1: NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
CHAPTER 6: THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
The body of protective legislation surrounding cultural resources reflects over a century of commitment on the part of this Nation to the preservation, identification, and scientific study of archaeological remains. This preservationist posture is most clearly presented in the Statement of Purpose (Section 1) of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended in 1980 which I quoted as an introduction to this section.
The need for Federal involvement in archaeological resource protection became increasingly evident at the close of the 19th century. Bandelier's report in 1881 on the vandalism occuring to ruins throughout the Southwest resulted in a petition to the Senate for the withdrawal of a number of large sites from public sale. Unfortunately, the petition died in committee (King 1977:15). As a result of the Hemmenway Expedition (1386-1888) a group of New England preservationists led by Mary Hemmenway, the sponsor of the expedition, petitioned Congress to withdraw Casa Grande ruin in New Mexico and the lands surrounding it from public sale. The petition was successful and the first formal historic preservation act on the part of the Federal government was codified.
During the 1890's, several other ruins, including Chaco Canyon in northern New Mexico were also withdrawn from public sale. Citizens in southwestern Colorado were becoming increasingly alarmed at the exportation of artifacts from the giant cliff dwellings of the Mesa Verde. They began a drive to get Mesa Verde established as a national park. In the meantime,
Eastern preservationists and politicians were fighting to establish an Act of Congress which would set aside portions of public lands for protective purposes. After six long years the Antiquities Act of 1906 was formally passed by Congress under President Roosevelt and the cornerstone of archaeological legislation was laid.
The ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906
The Antiquities Act of 1906 formally declared the Federal government's intent to protect and preserve cultural remains of the near and distant past. It reads, "Any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity on lands owned and controlled by the government of the United States, without permission of the Secretary of the department of government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated shall upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or be imprisoned for a period of time of not more than ninety days or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court."
This law served as the basis for the prosecution of antiquities offenders from its enactment in 1906 to 1979 when the Archaeological Resource Protection Act was passed. This new law provided stiffer penalties for antiquities offenders.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 further authorized the President to identify historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on public lands as national monuments. Permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites,
and the gathering of objects of antiquity on public lands were to be granted by the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and War (the Secretary of War subsequently delegated his authority to the Secretary of Interior). The permits were to be granted provided that the above described activities were undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges or other recognized scientific or educational institutions and the gatherings were to be made for permanent preservation in public museums. We see clearly reflected in this first piece of legislation, the introduction of the actors who continue today to play a fundamental role in the management of archaeological resources. These roles will be further discussed in the sections on users, managers and constituencies involved in archaeological resource management.
It is somewhat remarkable, that eventhough the Antiquities Act had been in existence since 1906 the first criminal prosecution for an antiquities violation under the act did not occur until 1974. Ben Diaz had removed a number of ceremonial Apache face masks from a cave on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona. An Apache medicine man testified that the masks were not more than three or four years old. As a result, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the language of the Antiquities law did not clearly define 'objects of antiquity' and these particular objects being only several years old, did not necessarily qualify. The court ruled that the Antiquities Act of 1906 was 'fatally vague' and in violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling in this case, United States of America v. Ben Diaz had serious repercussions. The Diaz decision had set a precedent which invalidated the use of the Antiquities Act for the prosecution of violators. As
each subsequent case came to court, the charges against the violators were dropped based on the Diaz decision. It became crystal clear that the Act contained inherent weaknesses which now undermined its ability to uphold the original intent of the law. The implications of this decision and the impetus it gave to the formation of the 1979 Archaeological Resource Protection Act is thoroughly discussed in the Airlie House Report 1977: Moratto et. al; and Cultural Resources Law Enforcement: An Emerging Science 1981: Dee Green and Polly Davis.
The HISTORIC SITES ACT OF 1935
During the Depression Era a large number of public works programs were instituted which focused not only on the construction of museums, bridges, and other feats of engineering but focused on archaeological sites as well. The Tennessee Valley Authority Project resulted in a great deal of archaeological salvage work as WPA crews excavated the magnificent mounds located in the river valleys facing inundation. It was a difficult time for archaeology in that a large number of sites were being excavated by relatively untrained personnel under the supervision of archaeologists who were at times responsible for 300 or more people working on sites at one time. The excavation program was coordinated by the Smithsonian Institution which was unable to handle the coordination of personnel let alone the massive amounts of data which were being generated. Because the emphasis at this time was primarily on the fieldwork, the quality and consistency of the archaeological field records and the analysis of the data was very limited.
As a result archaeologists have very little valuable information from those
WPA studies. President Roosevelt was interested in preserving the Nation's past and putting people to work in the process. Archaeological excavation was obviously an area with the potential to utilize large numbers of workers. He also began an inventory of historic American buildings and employed thousands of people to measure, draw, and record historic buildings across the United States. His interest in historic preservation was codified in the form of the Historic Sites Act of 1935.
This Act provided for the preservation of American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance. The Secretary of Interior, through the National Park Service, was mandated to collect existing data; make a survey of historic and archaeological sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities; to determine those of exceptional value; to acquire title to property containing such sites; to restore, reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve, and maintain sites, buildings, and objects; to erect markers, and to operate these sites for the benefit of the public including the creation of educational, interpretive programs and concessions. The Historic Sites Act also established an Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments.
The Historic Sites Act is significant in that it reaffirmed the central role of the Secretary of Interior in preservation programs, established an authorization for the National Park Service to pursue a broad range of programs and it recognized significant historic sites outside of the domain of public lands.
The RESERVOIR SALVAGE ACT OF 1960
After World War II the Federal government once again undertook an extensive public works program which focused to a large degree on the construction of reservoirs throughout the country. Archaeologists were called upon to direct the salvage efforts and the Smithsonian once again took the leadership role. The Smithsonian organized the River Basin Salvage Program based on a philosophy of quick excavation with minimal reporting requirements (King 1977:25). The basic approach to archaeological research at that time was still inductive. Archaeologists sought to collect massive numbers of artifacts based on the belief that future studies of these artifacts would reveal cultural categories and patterns. There were few problem oriented research designs and the analysis of the data was very limited. Unfortunately, this 'quick and dirty' approach to excavation and research became accepted as the model for 'salvage' archaeology. This approach, however, was to undergo serious criticism from members of the profession in the decades that followed.
In 1960 the Reservoir Salvage Act became law. Under this Act, any agency of the United States who planned to construct any Federally funded reservoir whicn was greater than 5,000 acre feet was required to inform the Secretary of the Interior of those plans. A survey of the sites in the proposed reservoir area was then required and coordinated by the National Park Service. The National Park Service was already coordinating a large share of these salvage projects through their Interagency Archaeological Salvage Program (IAS) which they implemented in 1946. IAS gradually replaced the Smithsonian as the coordinating agency. Eventhough the
IAS attempted to improve and upgrade the standards for archaeological work conducted as a result of these construction projects, they continued to be plagued by the lack of coordinated planning, adequate research designs, and effective monitoring procedures (King 1977:26)
The NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 (as AMENDED IN 1980)
During the fifties and sixties a number of new threats to archaeology and historic preservation emerged. President Eisenhower created a vast system of interstate highways for defense. These highways cut through old established parts of the city and threatened historic buildings and archaeological sites in their path. Urban areas were expanding and the growth threatened historic structions as they faced imminent destruction from urban renewal and archaeological sites as cities expanded their limits into rich concentrations of cultural remains. Members of the archaeological profession were increasing their criticism of 'salvage' research techniques and a new approach to archaeological methodology surfaced. This 'new' archaeology was based on a multidisciplinary, deductive, scientific approach to research which began to transform the discipline (Refer to the History of Archaeology section for more information). Preservationists, archaeologists, and politicians began to mobilize and combine forces. The result was the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 which was later amended in 1980.
The National Historic Preservation Act established a program for the preservation of historic properties. It's statement of purpose, quoted at the beginning of this section on legislation gives a very clear summary of
preservationist concerns and the value of history and culture to this Nation. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Interior to maintain a National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.
It grants funds to States to prepare comprehensive statewide surveys and plans. It also makes matching grants-in-aid funds available to the National Trust for Historic Preservation (chartered in 1949), states, and local governments for the preservation and public utilization of historic properties. It further stipulates that requests for grants-in-aid must be in accordance with comprehensive statewide historic preservation plans and comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans. This was a strong affirmation for planning efforts.
Section 106 of the amended Act provides that "The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking."
The Act goes on to create the Advisory Council and stipulates
(1) National Register Properties (2) Properties Eligible for the National Register
Apply Council Criteria of Effect
(In Gtnsultation with SHPO)
ADVISORY COUNCIL REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PROPERTIES
Effect-Apply Council Criteria of Adverse Effect
(In Gtnsultation with SHPO)
No Adverse Effect
Forward Documentation to Giuncil for Review
Proceed with Federal Undertaking
Concurs with Conditions
Agency Does Not Accept Gmditions
(1) Prelim Case Report
(2) On-Site Inspection
(3) Public Info Meeting
Agency, SHPO Agree
Memorandum of Agreement
Failure to Agree
Meet ing and I Meeting
(with Report to Advisory Council)
way in which, the Council will be chosen and its mission. The purpose of the Advisory Council is to advise the President and members of Congress on matters pertaining to historic preservation and to coordinate historic preservation activities among Federal, state, and local governments. (A more detailed description of the Advisory Council is given in the section on managers)
The Section 106 procedure has been a bone of contention between managers within the various agencies and managers within the Advisory Council. Many of the agency managers feel that the procedure is too unwieldy and time consuming. They estimate that the procedure requires a period of at least two years to complete. Managers within the Advisory Council recognize that the process needs to be streamlined and have begun to implement specific time saving steps when no adverse impact can be determined as a result of a proposed project. This new procedure would allow proponents to receive clearance without having to go through the entire formal commenting process. The following table describes that review process. (Figure 9)
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11593 OF 1971
The late sixties and early seventies marked a significant change in public policy. In 1969 the National Environmental Policy Act was passed into law and a growing concern over the state of the natural environment was given formal recognition. Federal agencies were now forced to prepare environmental impact statements which documented the affect their particular project would have on the natural and cultural environment and alternative
strategies for mitigating the negative impacts of their actions on the various resource bases. The Nation became concerned about the quality of our air, the pollution of our rivers and lakes, and the extinction of various species of wildlife. The 'return to earth' movement was flourishing and in connection with the celebration of Earth Day in 1971, President Nixon signed Executive Order 11593.
The Advisory Council, frustrated in their efforts to implement the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act and disappointed by the lack of clear guidelines needed for the effective implementation of NEPA in regard to cultural resources, pushed for the issuance of the Order. Under the new Order the Federal government was called upon to provide leadership in preserving, restoring and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation. It authorized Federal agencies to institute procedures which assured that Federal plans and programs would contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned sites. More significantly, the Order further provided that Federal agencies, in conjunction with State Historic Preservation Officers, must locate, inventory, and nominate all sites, buildings, districts and objects under their jurisdiction which appear to qualify for the National Register. Furthermore, agencies were required to exercise caution while this evaluation of sites was occuring to ensure that eligible sites to the Register were not transferred, sold, demolished, or substantially altered. The Department of Interior was given the authority to guide these activities and the Advisory Council was to be consulted and provided the opportunity to comment.
With the passage of Executive Order 11593 the Advisory Council and
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), an arm of the National Park Service which had been given the responsibility of implementing the 1966 Act, were finally given the legislative base to conduct systematic planning for archaeological resources prior to the start up of the various projects.
The ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION ACT OF 1974 (MOSS-BENNETT)
In the early seventies, archaeologists in the Mid-West under the leadership of Charles McGimsey and Carl Chapman, became alarmed at the attrition rate of archaeological sites as a result of land modifying activities. They were also interested in creating regional, coordinated sources of archaeological data to upgrade the standards and the orientation of archaeological research occuring in association with the river basin projects. McGimsey and Chapman were able to mobilize the archaeological community across the country and the result was the Archaeological Conservation Act which is oftentimes referred to as Moss-Bennett, the names of the two Congressmen who drafted the bill and guided it through Congress.
Moss-Bennett was actually an amendment to the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960. Its intent was the preservation of archaeological data (not just sites) which might be destroyed as the result of "flooding, building of access roads, the erection of workmen's communities, the relocation of railroads and highways, and other alterations of the terrain caused by the construction of a dam by any agency of the United State or by an private person or corporation holding a license issued by any such agency; or any alteration of the terrain caused as a result of any construction project or Federally licensed
activity or program". The Act further stipulated whenever any Federal agency provided any form of financial assistance to any private person, association or public entity, the secretary of Interior can authorize the funding of a survey of the affected site and the recovery, preservation, and protection (specifically including analysis and publication) of the data contained in that site. If delays in construction resulted from these actions and an agreement could not be reached initially, the Secretary was instructed to pay damages for the use of private and/or non-Federally owned lands. Finally, the Act stated that up to one percent of the total cost of the project may be utilized for the costs of archaeological survey, recovery, analysis, and publication. As a result of Moss-Bennett, the character of 'salvage' archaeology was changed. Archaeologists were given legislative support for research priorities based on the recovery of data, not artifacts. A base of funding was also established and the specialized field of cultural resource management based on archaeological contracts with Federal agencies and private industries began to take shape.
The ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT OF 1979
As a result of the Diaz decision in 1974 it became clear that the Antiquities Act no longer served as a viable deterrent to antiquities offenders. The penalties articulated in the Act were minimal in comparison to the value of prehistoric artifacts on the commercial art market. The Archaeological community once again banded together and sought the passage of this Act. In order to avoid the problems with language inherent in the 1906 Act which subsequently led to its demise, the 1979 Act carefully
defines in great detail the term 'archaeological resource'. It further qualifies this definition in terms of time, "no item shall be treated as an archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph unless such item is at least 100 years of age". The Act outlines the procedures for obtaining permits and in Section 6 explores the various criminal penalties which can be imposed. Convicted violators can be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both provided however, that if the commercial or archaeological value of the archaeological resources involved and the cost of restoration and repair of such resources exceeds the sum of $5,000 the person will be fined a maximum of $20,000 or imprisoned for a maximum sentence of two years or both. If a violator is convicted for a second time the fine can extend to $100,000 dollars and five years in prison.
The Act also articulates civil penalties which will be determined based on the archaeological or commercial value of the resource involved and the cost of restoring or repairing the site. There will be no penalties assessed for the removal of arrowheads located on the surface. The purpose of this distinction is to severely penalize the commercial profiteer and not the occasional arrowhead collector.
There are problems associated with the Act in terms of the 100 year time limit and the lack of control over surface collecting but generally, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act provides land managers with a potent weapon to begin cracking down on antiquities offenders. There has been some degree of concern among archaeologist and enforcement personnel in that the regulations associated with the law have not yet been drafted and recorded in the Federal Register. Without the regulations, implementa-
of the law is limited. Prosecutions, however, are being upheld under the law in Utah. It is, without a doubt a vital enforcement tool which will in time provide managers with the necessary authority to curb commercial exploitation of archaeological sites on public lands.
This completes the general overview of the existing body of legislation designed to protect and preserve archaeological sites and data. It is generally agreed among the archaeological profession and among land managers that the legislation in place at this point in time is adequate. The regulations for the 1979 law need to be codified and there are minor problems with the language in other laws. The main problem, however, lies in the fact that with all these different pieces of legislation, the resource base is continuing to erode. There are serious problems in enforcement of the laws and management policies within agencies tend to give interpretations of the laws which undermine their ability to fulfill their intended mission. These aspects of archaeological resource management will be more fully explored in future sections throughout the course of this study.
CHAPTER 7: THE USERS
The users of resources on public lands are many. Raymond Thompson (1974:17-23) describes four main categories of archaeological resource users: 1) research scholars and their students; 2) institutions, museums,
and private collectors; 3) various clients of government and industry including foundations, private donors, federal and state agencies, and private industry involved at this time in energy related development; and 4) members of the public including local citizens and the corporate body constituting the public interest.
Professional Archaeologists: The professional archaeologist is primarily concerned with the scientific research value of the resource. Historically,
research scholars have been thought of as the protectors of the resource base and the primary advocates of resource preservation. The nature of archaeology is such that archaeologists destroy a site through excavation. They provide in return a documentation of what they found and through the analysis of their data enhance the 'public' knowledge of the information contained within the site. Some excavations result in the stabilization of the ruins and the creation of interpretive programs which greatly enhance the public users experience with the resource.
Oftentimes, research archaeologists conduct coursework in the field. University classes are cleared by land managers to study sites in the field and once there, archaeologists and students make surface collections or excavate without the use of adequate reporting techniques. If the research activity has been poorly designed and the funding is not sufficient to handle the proper analysis of data or the publication of the findings, a poor utilization of the resource base results. It is the responsibility of the land managers and the members of the archaeological profession to set performance standards which ensure that the quality of work justifies the permanent loss of the resource.
As changes in archaeological methods occur the need for quality educational training programs within the universities becomes more critical. Universities have in the past been the primary support base for the training of future scientists in the field. Academic institutions have been able to amass the technical equipment, the storage capacity, the interdisciplinary research teams, and the publication funds/facilities necessary to disseminate the information to the archaeological community and the lay public. Because
archaeological sites on public lands are already protected through a number of federal and state laws, sites being threatened with destruction on private lands offer a good opportunity for educators to train students and to salvage information which would otherwise be lost.
A review of the literature relating to archaeology,and in particular contract archaeology,reveals the documentation of examples in field situations wherein a site has been identified, it is determined that it could be avoided, the company has already set aside funds for the excavation, and the archaeologist, eager to get his trowel into the dirt, chooses to go ahead and excavate rather than avoid the site. Many members of the archaeological profession are distressed by this type of exploitation of the resource base by their peers (King 1979:351).
As new techniques are being developed there is hope that in the near future the data contained in archaeological sites can be retrieved more efficiently and comprehensively without actual destruction of the site.
Because of the finite nature of the resource base and this upgrading of research technology a growing number of archaeologists feel that it is wiser to avoid a site when possible rather than excavate it.
Managers must be conscientious in their assessment of proposed projects which utilize the resource base. They must call for strict standards of documentation, qualified personnel to supervise both the excavation and the analysis of the data, a sufficient storage capacity for artifacts which not only protects them from damage but allows them to be utilized in the future, and carefully thought out research designs which make significant contributions to the regional data base. If a public resource is taken out of the public
domain the result of that activity should enhance some other facet of public utilization.
Institutions: As a result of the major policy shift occuring in the late sixties and the early seventies toward resource conservation and management, the requirements for institutions as mandated by federal legislation are changing. Institutions are now finding themselves overwhelmed by the massive amounts of data, artifacts, and overhead required to conduct archaeological work for large salvage projects. Many institutions received contracts and found themselves totally unprepared to handle the management responsibilities inherent in projects of such scope and magnitude. A single member of a university staff could no longer complete a project during one or two summer field seasons utilizing student labor. Large construction projects had time constraints which necessitated a network of archaeological crews which functioned on a year-round basis. This has led to specialization within many institutions into contracting departments which are entities in and of themselves.
It has also stimulated the growth of a number of interdisciplinary consulting firms and private contractors who specialize in large archaeological projects.
Institutions are uncomfortable at finding themselves in a position of being legally responsible for the quality of work conducted under contracts in which they are a sponsor. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Guidelines,university sponsors can be sued if they fail to meet time or quality constraints. If an archaeologist would survey an area and report that it is free of archaeological sites and the bulldozer begins to clear a well pad and encounters a site which in turn requires mitigation and holds up the project,
the agency can seek damages as a result of the delay and the additional cost of excavating the site.
In order to ensure that the maximum amount of data is extracted from a site which is going to be destroyed, universities and research organizations must cooperate on a regional basis to assess the significance of any given site in terms of the overall research universe and the problem oriented questions being studied in the region. Managers must ensure that institutions using the resource complete their contractual obligations. Furthermore, they must encourage a free and open bidding system on contracts to ensure that one contracting institution does not become territorial and 'lock up' all excavations within their domain. A spirit of free competition will enhance the quality and the freshness of archaeological research involved in the project.
Government and Industry: In the West, the Federal government is the primary developer of resources either through its role as resource allocator or its own construction projects. The primary interest of private industry in archaeological resources is a by-product of their activities relating to natural resource extraction. In the process of extracting these mineral, water, and timber resources, Federal law requires that any adverse impacts to archaeological sites be attended to. In response to the legislation of the sixties and seventies many agencies developed in-house archaeological crews who were involved in the early stages of project planning and facilitated the entire compliance process. Oftentimes, however, these archaeologists have been limited through funding and agency priorities in their abilities to
conduct comprehensive planning, research, analysis, and publication. The majority of sponsors in the private sector rely on federal government personnel and private archaeological contractors to guide them through the compliance maze. Preserving the integrity of the resource base in the face of heavy development is a challenge which government and private industry planners are attempting to meet head on. The question of national priorities relating to resource use becomes critical in this user category. Projects in which resource development and archaeological preservation have been compatible need to be studied in order to provide management models for future projects.
The current developments by Shell Oil Company in Southwestern Colorado are providing the basis for this type of cooperation.
The Public: Public users of archaeological resources come in a variety of sizes, shapes, and colors. They come from home and abroad. They are interested in a variety of resources on public lands including archaeological sites, woodland products, wildlife, and recreational opportunities. In many cases, the recreational user of public lands utilizes motorcycles or off-the-road vehicles which have potentially severe adverse impacts on sites and fragile environmental zones (Ritter 1980).
The public user category also includes that illusive citizen who 'mines' artifacts from archaeological sites on public lands to enhance his/her private collection or to sell commercially. These individuals exploit public resources for private gain.
There is one final definition of public as it pertains to the 'public good' or the 'national interest'. In this case the public refers to the
interests of the corporate body of U.S. citizens. It is toward this type of public use that federal legislation is directed. Its mission is to preserve the remnants of the past for future generations and to utilize resources for interpretation and public viewing.
Use of the archaeological resource base is seldom balanced. Historically, research scholars and institutions have controlled the availability and use of archaeological sites. As our nation's energy needs have increased, government and private industry have taken a more aggressive role. Their use of the resource base has not always been compatible with that of the scholars, the institutions, and the 'public interest'. There are conflicts among users. There are also great opportunities to resolve these conflicts through careful planning and management policies and an education of each user group as to the needs and constraints of the other users. There is room for a cautious optimism regarding the future use of the resource base.
CHAPTER 8: THE CONSTITUENCIES
Constituencies play a vital role in the overall scheme of archaeological resource management through their ability to influence public policy and the decision making process. Constituent groups are the formal vehicles through which individual members of the public who are concerned about specific issues can band together with others who hold similar beliefs and have an impact. Constituencies put pressure on Congressional representatives and managers within various agencies to improve the implementation of existing policies and procedures or, to change those policies if they are proving ineffective. Within the sphere of archaeological constituencies there are six basic categories: 1) the academic community; 2) local historical societies; 3) non-profit organizations of local, state, and national scope; 4) ad-hoc groups; 5) conservation organizations; and 6) members of the private development community.
Historically, the academic community has taken the leadership role in the investigation and preservation of archaeological resources. Academic institutions have had the resource base necessary to conduct major archaeological excavations. Academic institutions are well established, stable organizations with recognized sources of archaeological expertise. They wield a great deal of power on the state level. Institutions are also extremely territorial. This competitive thrust has resulted in a series of archaeological fiefdoms in which contracts are carefully controlled and input into the decision making process is carefully couched to maintain that
parochial power base. As a result of this competitive orientation ^academic constituencies are less powerful on the national level then they are on the state and local levels.
Academic institutions have spawned a number of entities which have eventually evolved into powerful constituent groups in their own right.
These organizations of professional archaeologists have been extremely effective in upgrading the standards for archaeological work and the credentials of those archaeologists performing the work.
Because of their formal organizational structure, their longevity, and their access to credible, top-notch research scholars, academic institutions do tend to well established relationships with state and some national decisionmakers which makes them a viable lobbying group.
Local historical societies are a vital link in the overall network of historic preservation activities. When it comes right down to it the success or failure of a preservation effort is largely dependent on the support engendered in the home community. Local citizens are the first line of defense and no politician in the world will support an action which is opposed on the home front. Strong local historical societies provide a focal point for the coordination of individual interests and are oftentimes the only repository of local historical information.
Local historical societies oftentimes sponsor excavations or surveys of archaeological sites under the direction of a qualified archaeologist.
With proper training and guidance they can provide desperately needed man power to complete site inventories and record oral histories. They are also generally well aware of those individuals involved in resource destruction
and as a result they contribute a great deal to the enforcement effort.
Members of local historical societies are deeply interested in the policies of the state and federal historic preservation office and rely upon them to provide direction and government funding for the operation of a number of society projects. One drawback to the political impact of this constituent group is that they generally lack coordination with other local societies throughout the state. This makes their impact very strong on the local level hut limited on the state and national level. They do provide a vital leadership role within the local community through the organization of educational seminars and workshops and the dissemination of archaeological information throughout the community. They can coordinate programs within the schools and create a positive outlet for archaeological curiosity on the part of the lay public. Without the protection and interest of individuals on the local level, all the laws and management policies of the various governmental entities are to no avail.
Non-profit organizations function on a national, state, and local level.
On a national level organizations such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation is heavily involved in the generation of funds for state and local preservation projects. Other national organizations interested in archaeological resources include the American Society for Conservation Archaeologists, the Society for American Archaeology, the Society of Professional Archaeologists and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.
This constituent group has the greatest potential for special interest lobbying based on its broad membership base. It includes thousands of
professional archaeologists from across the country who are well aware of policy making decisions which would adversely impact archaeological resources. This constituent group is well educated and extremely familiar with the existing legislation, its strengths and its weaknesses. They are also strategically located within the various managing agencies across the country and are, in many cases the actual designers of policy. They have successfully infiltrated the system and are trying to evoke positive change from within that system.
Oftentimes, ad hoc groups spring up in response to a specific action or situation. These groups are usually short lived and although they may be effective in the short run, they usually have little affect on long range policy. Their greatest strength lies in their ability to focus public attention on a particular issue. They tend to be conflict oriented and form initially because their members hold an extreme opposing view. Oftentimes they tend to be disruptive to dialog which is occuring between public agencies and other established constituencies. They are, however, able to mobilize quickly and bring about action in many cases where more formal organizations tend to be conservative and slow to respond.
Conservation organizations generally reflect the preservationist point of view. They are interested in buying or protecting sites which face imminent destruction. They will buy these sites, protect them through fencing and appropriate signage, and search for a responsible organization or agency who in time will take over the management of the site and preserve it for future use. The Archaeological Conservancy has acquired a number of endangered sites across the United States. Other conservation organizations
include the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and the Trust for Public Lands. In the past, organizations like the Sierra Club have been defined as extremist groups without a broad base of support. As a result of the environmental policies of the current administration this constituency is gaining power in its struggle to protect public lands, parks, and wilderness areas from development which would adversely impact their aesthetic, scenic, and environmental quality in the future.
As a result of the shift in Federal policy toward preservation during the past 15 years, the business community has begun to take a greater interest in the enhancement and reutilization of historic properties. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 provided a number of incentives to developers who would restore and utilize historic properties.
There is a certain amount of conflict between some preservation efforts and those of the development community. The evaluation of sites which are eligible for the National Register,and as a result the tax incentives,is a time consuming process. Oftentimes developers are working on a tight timeline and the 106 process can become costly as construction is held up and the cost of materials and interest rates rise. Developers oftentimes want a broad interpretation of historically significant properties when they want to utilize the tax incentives associated with that designation. On the other hand, when the historic property has no economic advantage they want stricter interpretations of historical significance to disqualify projects which might be held up as a result. Those members of the development community who have had a positive experience with historic preservation are strong advocates but there are many developers who have not yet become
convinced by the value of historic preservation efforts.
Constituent groups do play a vital role in the decision making process. Each constituent group possess various degrees of impact depending on their sphere of influence, their level of organization, and the numbers of people involved. Constituencies often find themselves competing with one another for membership, donations, political positions, excavation opportunities, and grant monies. It is not uncommon to find constituent groups who hold very different philosophical viewpoints. This is particularly true in regard to the question of whether sites should be dug now or held for the future. Regardless of their differences these groups do affect public policy and they are the voice of the people in an organized format who are speaking on behalf of present generations who are concerned about the preservation of the past for the future.
LOCAL HISTORICAL SOCIETIES
AD HOC GROUPS
CHAPTER 9: THE MANAGERS
Public lands are managed by agencies of the Federal or State government. The number of agencies involved in archaeological resource planning are many and the procedures for management are varied. Understanding the interrelationship between these agencies is a major hurdle for anyone interested in archaeological resource planning or management. It is no surprise that the resource base continues to erode in spite of all the protective measures which are being taken to preserve it when one begins to look at the network of agencies which play a role in some aspect of archaeological resource management.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES The Constitution EXECUTIVE BRANCH Office of the President
Department of Department of Department of Department of COMMERCE LABOR STATE TREASURY
Department of Department of Department of JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY
Department of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
Department of Department of Department of
HOUSING and URBAN DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION
Department of AGRICULTURE
Department of ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
INTERIOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
On the Federal level the managing agencies stem from Departments within the Executive Branch of the government. The public lands in the West are primarily affected by the management policies of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. As population continues to grow throughout the Southwest the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation are becoming more visibly involved. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation plays a vital role through its capacity to comment on the impacts of Federal projects on cultural properties. In the following section, a brief description of the organization and the policy mission of each of these agencies will be given.
THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
The Department of Interior is our Nation's principal conservation agency. It bears the responsibility for the management of a variety of natural and cultural resources on public lands. This management includes the "fostering of the wisest use of our lands and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation" (U.S. Government Manual 1980:323). The Department also inventories and manages our mineral resources in the best interest of the nation and all its people.
The Department of Interior manages over 500 million acres of Federal land. It was created by an Act of Congress on March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. 395;
45 U.S.C. 1451) to develop settlement and land use policies for Western lands. The Department is divided into a number of offices and bureaus.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau of Rec), and the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service are those Department of Interior agencies which are most involved with archaeological resource management. The National Park Service has been given the primary leadership role during the past 100 years for the management and policy making decisions which have most heavily impacted archaeological resources. The inclusion of archaeological resource management within this land managing agency has often created philosophical and management conflicts among various Interior agencies and archaeological constituents (King 1978:889).
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the total management of 417 million acres of public lands. These lands are located primarily in the Western United States including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The Bureau was established in 1946 when the Taylor Grazing Service and the General Land Office were merged into one agency. Throughout its history the BLM has been primarily involved in land disposal, grazing, and mineral development. It is the only agency within the Department of Interior which generates 'profits' through its leasing program. During the fiscal year of 1981 the agency generated approximately 800 million dollars from grazing fees and mineral leases. Only 10% of this amount or 80 million dollars was returned to the agency for management. The remaining 90% went into the general fund and was utilized for a variety of reclamation projects and Federal debt retirement. (Scott 1982: Anasazi Advisory Committee Hearings)
As a result of the environmental legislation of the seventies the BLM
has begun to shift its management priorities from the disposal of lands to the conservation and multiple use management of resources on these lands.
There has been a marked policy shift from BLM land as a market commodity to finance the Federal government to BLM as a source of natural resources which must be managed and conserved in the best interests of the nation.
The National Park Service was established on August 25, 1916 (39 Stat.
535; 16 U.S.C. 1). Its mission is to protect the natural environment of selected areas, to assist state and local governments to develop park areas, to preserve historic properties, and to manage park areas for the enjoyment and education of the American people. The orientation of this agency is very different from that of the BLM or the Bureau of Reclamation. It is a single use agency and it does not allow any type of land modifying activity to occur within park boundaries.
The National Park Service historically has been the lead agency involved in coordinating and permitting archaeological research and excavation on public lands. The agency includes the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Interagency Archaeological Service which are two agencies which have been involved in the coordination of archaeological resource management on a national scale. These two agencies have had a beleagured history as a result of understaffing and an overwhelming demand for their services as a result of the surge in construction oriented projects during the past decade.
The Bureau of Reclamation was created through the Reclamation Act of 1902 which authorized the Secretary of Interior to locate, construct, operate, and maintain works for the storage, diversion and development of water for
the reclamation of arid and semi-arid lands in the Western United States (U.S. Government Manual 1980:343). The Reclamation Service was originally a function of the United States Geological Survey but by June, 1923 it became a separate agency and the name was changed to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation deals almost exclusively with water projects including river basin studies, water utilization and conservation, the design and construction of dam projects, loans for the construction or rehabilitation of irrigation systems, and the operation and maintenance of 50 hydroelectric power plants. The agency is oriented toward large scale construction projects. The Bureau will initially purchase the land involved in the project but once the construction is completed the land and the water project are generally turned over to the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Water Conservancy District for management. The Bureau of Reclamation requires Congressional approval for the planning of projects to take place but unlike the Corps of Engineers who receive Congressional authorization and impose projects through the right of eminent domain, the Bureau of Reclamation must hold local elections and sell enough shares of water to pay for the cost of the dam construction. This need to work with local communities has tended to make the agency as a whole more responsive to public input and cultural resource management in general. The Bureau is currently involved in the largest salvage archaeology program in the history of the United States in association with its construction of the McPhee Dam on the Dolores River in Southwest Colorado. In addition to the actual salvage work, they are funding the construction of the Anasazi Heritage Center, a museum and artifact repository to house the artifacts from the excavations and
interpret the findings. They have worked out a Memorandum of Agreement with the Bureau of Land Management who will staff and manage the facility once the construction activities are completed.
The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service was formed in January of 1978 and disbanded in January of 1981 by President Reagan. The agency merged the Office of Historic Preservation and the Office of Outdoor Recreation. This agency or its subsequent parts has played a critical role in the management of historic and prehistoric resources. It is the center of planning, evaluation, and coordination of activities relating to natural, cultural, and recreational resources. It encourages national, state, and local programs which would utilize and integrate historic, cultural, natural, and recreational resources for the benefit of present and future generations.
This agency houses the Historic Preservation Fund which supplies matching grants-in-aid to states and local communities interested in protecting and utilizing historic properties and archaeological sites. It also houses the National Trust for Historic Preservation which conducts inventories, historic surveys and plans, acquires, restores, and rehabilitates historic and cultural properties. The Historic Preservation Office coordinates the network of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) who are responsible for the development of of comprehensive statewide Historic Preservation Plans and the review of all Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) on projects occuring within the state which impact archaeological or historic properties.
The Recreation Service has the responsibility for the preparation of national and statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans. It manages recreational resources based on the needs and demands of the American public.
This marriage of archaeology and recreation has not been extremely successful. Although the public involvement with archaeological sites is generally considered to be a recreational activity the scientific and educational uses of the resource base extend far beyond that limited scope. When archaeological resources were placed in the recreational category within a number of agencies, that recreational priority was even lower than that previously held by cultural resources. As a result, cultural resources which were being heavily impacted by energy developments were placed in greater jeopardy as a result of the merger.
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The Department of Agriculture was created by an Act of Congress on May 15, 1862. It became an Executive department in 1889 when the duties of the Department were expanded. For the purpose of this study we are only interested in two agencies within the Department, the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service.
The United States Forest Service was created in 1905 (33 Stat. 628; 16 U.S.C. 472) when the responsibility for the management of forest lands was transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of Agriculture. The forest reserves were originally carved out of the public domain in the early 1890's. The national forests have been governed by the Organic Act of 1097, the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.
The National Forest Service manages 154 national forests and 19
national grasslands or 188 million acres of public land (U.S. Government Manual 1980:133). The forests are managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield to provide the maximum utilization of resources over the longest period of time. The Forest Service has adopted policies which encourage the development of forestry based on enterprises that respond to consumer's needs, an expansion of public understanding regarding environmental conservation, the protection and improvement of the quality of air, water, soil, and natural beauty, and the protection and improvement of the quality of open space environments in urban and community areas.
Forest Service lands in the Southwest contain a tremendous number of archaeological sites. They have tried in New Mexico to take a very aggressive posture toward the prosecution of commercial pothunters and were in many ways responsible for the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. Unlike the guiding legislation for the BLM and the Park Service, the Forest Service mission does not specifically address the preservation and protection of archaeological resources. This has created enforcement problems for the agency.
The Soil Conservation Service was established by the Soil Conservation Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 163; 16 U.S.C. 590). It is primarily concerned with the development and implementation of national soil and water conservation programs in cooperation with local land owners, developers, community planning organizations and with other Federal, State, and local agencies. There are 2,950 conservation districts across the United States which include more than 2 billion acres of land. The Soil Conservation Service has been most actively involved with archaeological resource management in the Mid-West as a result
of the river basin surveys occuring during the fifties. The Soil Conservation Service has extensive cost sharing programs which utilize Federal dollars in the construction of stock ponds, irrigation ditches, and flood control devices. As a result, any projects conducted by the Service which utilize Federal dollars and transform the use of the land are subject to the body of protective legislation relating to cultural resources. Archaeological sites are highly susceptible to land modification activities and this particular agency is intimately involved in land contouring and irrigation networks which have a great potential for generating adverse impacts to archaeological sites. Because many prehistoric cultures were heavily dependent on agriculture, the current zones of agricultural land use are very often directly on top of the prehistoric zones.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Department of Housing and Urban Development management policies have tended to impact historic resources in urban settings more than prehistoric resources but the redistribution of population to the Southwest is rapidly changing that pattern.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development was established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of September 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 667; 42 U.S.C. 3531-3537). The Department was created to provide program assistance for housing and the development of the nation's communities, to coordinate Federal activities which impact urban, suburban, or metropolitan development and to encourage the solution of the problems
of housing and community development through states, cities, counties and/or other units of local government (U.S. Government Manual 1980:307). Because Federal dollars are involved in these grants, HUD projects are subject to cultural resource protection laws. Small communities which utilize Community Development Block Grants for the expansion of sewers or treatment facilities are now finding as a result of the Reagan Administration's policies that the burden of enforcement of cultural resource legislation is falling on their shoulders. Local government officials must now be aware of the existing legislative requirements in order to protect their community against the loss of funds as a result of non-compliance. Larger cities like Phoenix, Arizona are finding valuable prehistoric burials and architectural remains in the path of a proposed sewer line (Anzalone 1981:13-19). The city of San Antonio, Texas is utilizing HUD Urban Development Action Grants to redevelop the Alamo. Communities which utilize HUD dollars must be prepared to take on the compliance obligations which accompany those dollars. As urban expansion in the Southwest increases and cities push out into zones containing rich concentrations of archaeological sites, the need for archaeological input into local governmental decisionmaking will increase.
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Department of Transportation was established by Congressional action on October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 931; 49 U.S.C. 1651) to coordinate and effectively administer the transportation programs of the Federal government. As a result of the Federal highway system established during the fifties in response to Eisenhower's call for a nationwide network of
highways for defense, 42,500 miles of interstate highways were built.
The Department of Transportation was created to manage this system and expand to it as the need arose.
Any Department of Transportation construction project is subject to the laws requiring the mitigation of impacts to archaeological sites in the projected path of the highway in question. The agency is also involved in a number of urban renewal projects which are incorporating sophisticated transportation systems into redevelopment projects. People mover systems in Miami, Detroit, and Los Angeles are utilizing Department of Transportation funds. Rapid Transit systems are being expanded in Boston, Washington, and Atlanta. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration within the Department is involved in providing assistance to the cities involved in these projects. The project currently underway in Illinois to construct the Central Illinois Expressway cuts through one of the richest archaeological zones in the Mid-West. This project has required a great deal of cooperative planning among representatives of the Department of Transportation and the Center for American Archaeology who are conducting the mitigation activities (Anzalone 1981:13-19).
The Department of Transportation has adopted guidelines relating to cultural resource management which conflict somewhat with other existing Federal procedures. Any mitigation projects proposed under the auspices of the DOT Act must be preceeded by an evaluation via the environmental impact assessment process and an opportunity to comment under Section 106 by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if any National Register Sites or eligible sites are affected. These procedures must be implemented
prior to any data recovery activities or other land modification actions.
This compliance process, however, is complicated by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act which requires that all prudent and feasible alternatives be explored before any decision to use land from a historic site designated by local,
State, or Federal authorities can be made. Because this includes properties which are held ineligible to the Federal Register but may be considered significant by local or state entities, transportation agencies are required to conduct elaborate studies of all prudent and feasible alternatives prior to the taking of any archaeological site even in cases where project impacts can be fully and properly mitigated (McGimsey et. al. 1977:12-13). Streamlining and coordinating the procedures among agencies would help to expedite the management of these resources for all parties involved.
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is not an Executive Department nor is it directly involved as an agency with the management of archaeological resources but it does play a vital role in the management process.
The Advisory Council was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Its mission is to further a national policy of preserving historic and cultural properties for the benefit of present and future generations (Report to the President 1981). The Council is appointed by the President and serves in an advisory capacity to both the President and Congress on preservation matters. Through Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act the Council is mandated to comment on any Federally assisted, Federally licensed, or Federally conducted project which would
impact historic properties included in or eligible for the National Register. The Council is also required to work with Federal agencies, the states, and localities to provide training opportunities and informational materials on historic preservation.
The Council consists of 19 members which include the heads of six Federal agencies whose policies affect historic properties, the Architect of the Capital, ex officio representatives from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, a chairman, a vice-chairman, two members from the general public, one governor, one mayor, and four experts from preservation related disciplines. The Council staff is organized into three component parts: the Office of the Executive Director, the Office of Policy and Program Development, and the Office of Cultural Resource Preservation. The Office of Cultural Resource Preservation has the primary responsibility for the implementation of Section 106 and works directly with Federal agencies, SHPO's, and local governments to ensure the proper treatment of historic properties.
That completes the overview of the primary agencies involved in cultural resource management on public lands. As a result of the National Environmental Policy Act and Moss-Bennett, any Federal agency involved in projects of any kind which stand to adversely impact archaeological sites must evaluate that impact and propose a series of alternative strategies.
In the past, the Army Corps of Engineers has been extensively involved in construction projects impacting archaeological sites. The Department of Energy is becoming increasingly involved in areas where powerlines, strip mines, anu
Figure 14: THE MANAGEMENT MAZE
pipelines are occuring. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline was one of the first projects to be involved. The Department of Energy will be conducting excavations along the Monongahela River where an experimental coal gassification plant is to be built. The project will cover 2,400 acres and involves a private energy company and both the Japanese and West German governments (Anzalone 1981:17). Large portions of Utah and Nevada will be affected by the MX Missle System if it receives approval from Congress. The Papago Freeway is being planned near Phoenix. Surveys for the MAPCO Pipeline which will extend some 1,200 miles from southeastern Wyoming into west Texas have been completed. The result of these types of activities have been the involvement of a large number of agencies in archaeological resource management. There is a certain degree of duplication and inefficient policy making which is occuring as these agencies become involved in archaeological resource management and planning. There is a lack of coordination and communication among agencies even when they are working in the same region. The need for a coordinating structure will continue to become apparant throughout the course of this study.
CHAPTER 10: EXISTING MANAGEMENT POLICIES
The discussion of the legislative basis for archaeological resource preservation revealed that the Department of the Interior has historically been given the leadership role for the management of historic resources on public lands. Two Interior agencies bear the brunt of this responsibility: the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The operating base of these two agencies is very different. The National Park Service is devoted to single use management. The Bureau of Land Management is a multiple use agency. This study is limited to an exploration of conflicts generated in multiple use situations,and as a result,the following discussion of management options will be confined to those available to the Bureau.
A Brief History of the Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management lands contain:
* 80% of the Nation's known oil and gas
* 60% of the coal in the West
* 95 million acres of potential geothermal lands
* 80% of the Nation's oil shale
* 35% of the uranium reserves
* significant quantities of strategis minerals e.g. berylium
* 1.2 billion board feet of commercial timber annually
* a forage resource sustaining 28% of the Nation's sheep and 4% of the
* 200 million recreational visitor days to some of the Nation's most
spectacular open spaces and unique natural areas
* the largest and most varied wildlife resource managed by any Federal
or State agency
* the largest cultural resource storehouse in the Nation
The Bureau of Land Management was formed from the union of the General Land Office and the Taylor Grazing Service. The General Land Office was established in the early 1800's to survey and dispose of public lands west of the 13 colonies. During the 19th century and early 20th century the public land laws were oriented primarily toward disposal and sale as a means of generating income for the Federal government. The Homestead Acts, the Public Sale Law of 1848 for lands "too rough and mountainous and too small to manage" and the 1872 Mining Law were all generated to settle the West and bring in income to the government.
As a result of the range wars occuring between cattle and sheepmen in the 1870's, the original grazing legislation was introduced in 1878. In 1934 the legislation was finally passed and the Taylor Grazing Act became law. The Act was written under a prevailing philosophy of the land as a market commodity. Under this Act lands could be permitted and leased 'pending final disposal'.
The General Land Office was still involved in the survey, identification, and disposition of lands to encourage further settlement of the West. In 1946 President Truman set up a commission to study the possible merger of the Taylor Grazing Service and the General Land Office. This resulted in the formation of the Bureau of Land Management.
In 1964 four significant pieces of legislation were passed by Congress: the Classification of Multiple Use Act; the Revision of Public Sale which called for federal, regional, and local planning coordination; the Public Land Law Review Commission which integrated over 5,000 pieces of existing land use regulations; and the Wilderness Act. As a result of these pieces
of legislation, several other historic preservation and antiquities laws, and an increasing concern for preservation of environmental quality through the National Environmental Policay Act, the character of the Bureau and other land managing agencies changed.
The Bureau of Land Management followed the new intent of this legislation and reclassified its land in terms of those lands which should be 1) retained and managed; 2) transferred to other agencies or the private sector; and 3) those lands which should be disposed of. As it turned out, the majority of lands now fell into the 'retained and managed' category and the focus of the agency shifted from disposal to management.
In 1976 the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (The Organic Act) was passed and served as a concrete charter for the Bureau. This Act spelled out specific management policies and procedures for the agency.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
The following excerpts from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act will help to characterize the intent of the law and the management thrust upon which the agency currently functions. Included are six out of the thirteen policy statements wnritten into the Act. These six have the most bearing on this particular study.
(1) "The public lands be retained in federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest:" (Organic Act: Section 102 (a)(1))
This statement clearly reflects the shift in agency policy from disposal to management. Disposal is limited to those parcels that are determined, as a result of the planning process, to serve the national interest. The
selection of sites for the MX Missle System in Utah and Nevada might exemplify this type of use. Secretary of Interior Watt is currently advocating th.e sale of a percentage of public lands to generate dollars for the General Fund in order to reduce the federal deficit. Many would argue whether in fact this disposal of lands is the public interest or the private interest. It does nonetheless reflect an attempt to return to the pre-environmental orientation of the agency toward land use.
(2) "The national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other federal and state planning efforts;" (Organic Act: Section 102 (a)(2))
The focus on an inventory of the resource base is critical to effective land use planning. It is very difficult to attain any accuracy in the planning of impacts to archaeological resources from development projects without a mapped inventory of where those resources are. Once comprehensive resource inventories are completed, conflicting areas of use and incompatibility become clear. This is a logical first step in any long range planning effort and increases dramatically the efficiency of that effort. Securing adequate funding to complete these resource inventories has been a continual problem area for the agency.
(7) "Goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law;" (Organic Act: Section 102 (a)(7))
This statement clearly mandates the agency to manage their resources under multiple use and sustained yield. The critical question here is the exact definition of these terms under the law. Section 103 of the Act defines sustained yield as "the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high
level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources
of the public lands consistant with multiple use". This statement is fairly
straightforward and quantifiable. Both the level of output and changes in
that level as a result of management decisions can be measured and regulated.
The interpretation of the term 'multiple use' is not as clear.
"The term multiple use means the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient lattitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources including but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return of the greatest unit output."
(Organic Act: Section 103 (c))
The vague and general language of this definition encourages the manipulation of this law to support any and/or all positions on multiple use. If multiple use is roughly defined to mean equal treatment of all resources, the implementation of this policy is impossible. Resources do not occur in equal proportions throughout the landscape. How do we determine which combination of resources will meet the present and future needs
of the American people? What are those needs? Whose priorities are they
based upon? What exactly is the most judicious use of the land? How large is large enough to provide sufficient lattitude? The law clearly does not give adequate direction.
The language of the last three phrases is of special interest. This portion of the definition attempts to respond to compatibility issues.
The inclusion of scientific and historical values among the hierarchy of resources mandates a consideration of archaeological resources in planning and management. The last phrase is extremely important in that it calls for an evaluation of use based on criteria above and beyond economic return.
The sole purpose of management is no longer the disposal of lands to generate income for the government. If resources are valued solely on economic criteria, archaeology does not fair well. If resources are valued on economic, scientific, educational, cultural, and aesthetic criteria, archaeology does very well. This is not to say that archaeological resource development generates no economic return. In southwestern Colorado the Dolores Archaeological Project is putting $100,000 a month directly into the local economy through payroll. The stabilized ruins in Mesa Verde National Park attract an average of 600,000 tourists a year. The dollars these tourists spend contribute significantly to local and regional economies. This economic return will continue in perpetuity and causes very little adverse impact to the environment or the capacity for service delivery on the part of local governments. Other users generate a higher return in the short run and the long term contribution of archaeological resources tends to be overlooked. Regardless, this policy calls for an evaluation of resource use based on the relative merits of each resource. Unfortunately, this directive has not been incorporated into management decision making in the past five years.
(8) "The public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and archaeological values; that, where