ANTECEDENTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Edward Friedman

Introduction

The federal historic preservation program, as it exists today, has a long developmental history. The early preservation movement was made up of two groups - antiquarians/archaeologists and those involved with endeavors to preserve historic properties. Oftentimes, the two groups were working together on archaeological and historic properties projects. In addition, these two groups often joined together to participate in legislative efforts to advance the preservation movement (King et al. 1977).

According to Hosmer (1965), "[T]he American preservation movement appears to have been a truly grass-roots effort. It sprang up spontaneously all through the nation as an amateur activity, and therefore it did not possess a national organization or leadership of the kind usually encountered in comparable movements." King et al. (1977) see an unraveling of this long-standing movement during the Great Depression with each of the two groups, archaeologists and those oriented to historic properties preservation, going its separate way. King et al. point out that "[A] major problem for modern historic preservationists is to bring archaeology and preservation together again . . ." (1977:22).

This article presents a chronological summary of the development of the historic preservation program through 1974. Post 1974 development is discussed in Fowler, Cheek, Neumann, and Rogers this volume. Detailed research on the historic preservation movement is abundant. It has been interpreted by authors of various disciplines. The historian's perspective is provided by Hosmer (1965, 1981, and 1987) and Lee (1970); an archaeological viewpoint is provided by Willey and Sabloff (1973) and D. Fowler (1985); an anthropological position is presented by King et al. (1977); and a legal outlook is contained in Rogers (1984).

Preservation in the 1700's

Don Fowler (1985:138) notes that one of the earliest efforts at preservation of an archaeological site was recorded in 1788, in Marietta, Ohio. While preparing the townsite for construction, the Ohio Land Company "reserved . . . the two truncated pyramids and the great mound, with a few acres attached to each, as a public square."

Thomas Jefferson, in 1793, prior to becoming president of the United States, undertook systematic archaeological excavations on his Virginia property, in an attempt to determine the origin of the mound sites. For this effort he has been referred to as the "father of American archaeology", but it should be noted that "Jefferson's influence as an archaeologist apparently was not important for either his contemporaries or even the next generation." (King et al. 1977:12, Willey and Sabloff 1973:38). He established a model for archaeology in terms of: 1) stratigraphic approach, 2) testing explicit hypotheses, and 3) immediate publication of results. From today's perspective, Jefferson's only fault was in not issuing a call to conserve archaeological sites for future study or appreciation (Fowler 1985:138).

Preservation in the 1800's

The effort to save Independence Hall from demolition was the century's first preservation undertaking. Efforts to preserve the structure began in 1813; the final victory was achieved in 1816. This project was to set the tone for most preservation activities for more than 100 years; it was based on private funding for the preservation of properties important to the history of the Revolution (King et al. 1977:13).

Eighteen hundred and forty-six marked the federal government's entree into preservation with the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. This same year saw the first governmental sponsorship of archaeological research as the Smithsonian provided support for Squire and Davis's investigations of the mound-builder sites (Fowler 1985:136 and King et al. 1977:12).

Up to this point preservation proponents had been very successful in advancing their position. The first setback also came in 1846. In Deerfield, Massachusetts, there was a community drive to save "Old Indian House," the last remaining Indian structure from the site of a 1704 massacre. Though the action was unsuccessful, the effort set a tone for community involvement in historic preservation that continues up to this day (King et al. 1977:13).

A major impetus to the preservation movement was the reverence the people had for their great men, Washington in particular. As the Washington Monument was under construction in 1850, another effort to memorialize Washington was being undertaken by the State of New York. The State acquired the Hasbrouck House, Washington's headquarters during last two years of the Revolutionary War. This action is noteworthy because prior to the 1870's preservation was almost exclusively a private affair (King et al. 1977:13). Later in the decade, 1853, the Mount Vernon Ladies Association was formed and began a national campaign to raise funds to purchase and preserve Washington's home. By 1858 the association had raised enough money for the purchase and initial restoration projects (Hosmer 1987:5).

While the loss of the "Old Indian House" in 1846 was a setback, 1863 witnessed a major defeat. After a four-year battle, John Hancock's home was lost to the wreckers. Hosmer (1965:13) points out that, "[I]n dying the Hancock house contributed more to the preservation movement than it ever could have by remaining intact. Throughout the next five or six decades many preservationists used the Hancock Mansion as their rallying cry."

The Centennial Celebration in 1876 saw a significant change in the fabric of the preservation movement, with federal and state governments providing funding. One facet that did not change was the focus on sites associated with the Revolutionary War (Hosmer 1987:6 and King et al. 1977:17).

Eighteen hundred and seventy-nine was a pivotal year for American archaeology. Lee (1970) identifies five significant developments within the preservation movement that later led to the adoption of the Antiquities Act (1906) as the first national historic preservation policy of the United States. The first of these events was the organization of the Anthropological Society of Washington (in 1902 joined with other organizations to form the American Anthropological Association), which started publication of the American Anthropologist in 1888. The second development was the founding of the Archaeological Institute of America, with the express goal of promoting and directing archaeological research. On the governmental side of the equation was the establishment of the Bureau of American Ethnology within the Smithsonian Institution. The publication of the "Report Upon United States Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian," edited by Frederick Putnam, is considered the fourth event of the year. The book which deals with the pueblos of Arizona and New Mexico heightened public awareness of the spectacular nature of the sites of the southwest. The final event of 1879 was the election of Lewis Henry Morgan, an anthropologist, as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The decade of the 1880's began with an expedition to the southwest. In the account "Report on the Ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos" (Norris 1881), Bandelier testifies to the extensive looting of sites. The report aroused wide interest and deep concern on the part of Archaeological Institute of America members who were moved to submit a petition to Congress to protect sites. The petition, introduced by Senator Hoar of Massachusetts, suggested reserving selected lands from public sale and protecting antiquities from ruthless destruction. The petitioners were unable to gather enough support, so the effort failed to pass out of the Committee on Public Lands in 1882. (King et al. 1977:15, Lee 1970:9, Meltzer et al. 1985:140, and Rogers 1984:3).

President Ulysses Grant, in 1872, signed legislation establishing Yellowstone as the first national park. In 1881, Yellowstone's superintendent, P.W. Norris, issued a staff directive that established policy for future parks and their personnel:

In 1886, Frank Cushing, of the Smithsonian's Bureau of American Ethnology, headed the privately funded Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition which travelled to Casa Grande. In his reports, Cushing noted serious damage to the ruins at the hands of looters. These reports served as the basis for preservationists to again petition Congress to protect sites (Lee 1970:18).

In 1889, as in 1882, a petition was submitted by Senator Hoar to Congress to enact legislation to protect Casa Grande. On this occasion, the drafters of the document, having learned from their previous setback, lined up several prominent citizens to sign the petition, which this time was successful. As a result of the petition, an Executive Order signed by President Harrison in 1892 established Casa Grande as the first national archaeological reservation in U.S. history (Lee 1970:19 and Rogers 1984:3). The Executive Order designated that lands around the ruins were to be withdrawn from sale and settlement, and federal funds were to be set aside to protect and repair the site. The task of managing the reservation was given to the Department of the Interior. (King et al. 1977:15, Lee 1970:20, and Rogers 1984:3).

As the 1800's drew to a close, there were indications of greater public awareness, interest, and appreciation for archaeology and historic preservation. This period also had its negative side, the Chaco Canyon site of Pueblo Bonito was looted and the materials sent to the Swedish Museum as well as the American Museum of Natural History (King et al. 1977:18 and Rogers 1984:5-6). According to Lee (1970:29), the display of these materials created a ". . . rising public interest in the history and art of the southwest Indians [which] was accompanied by a swelling demand for authentic prehistoric objects."

Preservation in the 1900's

After the activities of at Chaco Canyon came to light, the preservationists determined that a method to protect the site was needed, and according to Rogers (1984:6), the only means open to them was to have the lands withdrawn. After years of bureaucratic maneuvering, the whole area of Chaco Canyon was withdrawn in 1905, pending its possible designation as a national park.

Nineteen hundred and six saw the passage of the Antiquities Act. To pass, this legislation required a massive effort spanning six years, three sessions of Congress, and seven versions of the bill. H.R. 13349 was introduced in early January 1906, and passed in March. The Senate version was introduced in February and was approved in May. On June 6, 1906, President Roosevelt signed the bill into law (Lee 1970:47-77). The following year, 1907, uniform regulations were developed by the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and War (King et al. 1977:19).

During the second decade of the 1900's, the Federal Government became deeply involved in preservation activities. Nineteen hundred and sixteen witnessed the centralization of responsibility for the management of federally-owned historic properties in the Department of the Interior and was furthered by the establishment of a unified National Park Service (King et al. 1977:19).

A new development in archaeology had its beginnings in the 1920's. The construction of federal hydroelectric plants and flood control projects which threatened large number of archaeological sites in river valleys ushered in the era of salvage archaeology (Meltzer et al. 1985:145).

The 1930's and the Great Depression was a time of unparalleled growth in the federal preservation program. To staff the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration, and Tennessee Valley Authority the Federal Government hired architects, archaeologists, historians, landscape architects, and engineers. Also during this period, the National Park Service assumed responsibilities for management of Revolutionary and Civil War battlefields from the War Department. To handle these new responsibilities, the National Park Service absorbed the initial programs of the New Deal in order to locate Civilian Conservation Corps personnel in many of the historic areas (Hosmer 1987:7).

In 1933, there was a major reorganization of federal land management responsibilities. The reorganization delegated the responsibility for the administration of all federal parks, monuments, battlefields, and historic sites to the National Park Service (King et al. 1977:19). In 1934, the National Park Service was the recipient of a new program, the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). The HABS program was another Depression make-work program that was to employ thousands and last for six months.

On the archaeological front, the Society for American Archaeology was chartered in 1934. One objective of the organization was and still is the conservation of archaeological sites.

In 1935, President Roosevelt signed into law the Historic Sites Act. According to King et al. (1977:23), ". . . for the first time asserted a broad federal concern for the nation's historic properties and authorized the National Park Service to conduct a tremendous variety of programs to locate, record, acquire, preserve, mark, and commemorate properties of national significance."

On the eve of World War-II, major gains had been made by the preservation movement, most of these a result of the make-work programs of the Great Depression. The United States entry into the war placed all preservation activities on hold. It was not until 1949, with the congressional charter of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, that the national preservation movement was set in motion again.

Between 1949 and the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 only one major piece of legislation was created. In 1960, the Reservoir Salvage Act, with its antecedents in the Missouri Basin Survey, was signed by President Kennedy ". . . to provide for the protection of historical and archaeological data which might otherwise be lost as the result of the construction of a dam (Scovill 1974:2)."

In 1974 Congress amended the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 as the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act. This Act extended the provisions of the 1960 Act to all federal construction activities and all federally licensed or assisted activities that would cause loss of scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate this effort, and to report annually to Congress on the program. It permits agencies either to undertake necessary protection activities on their own or to transfer to the Secretary up to 1% of the total authorized for expenditure on a federal or federally assisted or licensed project to enable the Secretary to undertake the necessary protection activities.

To address the increased amount of archaeological looting and vandalism that was taking place in the 1970's the professional archaeological community, federal agencies, and Congress set about the task of developing protective legislation that would provide additional protection for archaeological sites located on federal and Indian lands. This effort resulted in the passage of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) in 1979. Development and implementation of ARPA is discussed in Cheek, Neumann, and Rogers in this volume.

Conclusion

Protecting the past has been a special concern in this country for over two hundred years. The role of the Federal Government in this effort has been and continues to be very important. The preservation of archaeological resources on lands managed by the Federal Government, roughly one third of the nation, acts to conserve archaeological resources for future generations. Our country has a long and rich past that belongs to and is part of all Americans. A substantial part of that past is represented only by archaeological remains. At the request of a concerned public the Federal Government has developed laws, regulations, and guidelines to protect those archaeological resources. Although the laws have been modified over the years to respond to changing ideas and needs they have collectively provided the basis upon which current archaeological resource protection rests. Without them little of the past would be left. We all have benefited from those who protected the past for us. It is now our turn to protect the past for the future.

References Cited

Fowler, D. D. (1985) Conserving American Archaeological Resources, In, Meltzer, D., D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff (eds.) (1985). American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology 1935 - 1985, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hosmer, C. B., Jr. (1965) Presence of the Past: A History of the Preservation Movement in the United States Before Williamsburg, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.

Hosmer, C. B., Jr. (1981) Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949, University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Hosmer, C. B., Jr. (1987) Preservation-A Historical Perspective, In, Ronald W. Johnson and Michael G. Schene (eds.), Cultural Resources Management, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.

King, T. F., P. Parker Hickman, and G. Berg (1977) Anthropology in Historic Preservation: Caring for Culture's Clutter, Academic Press, New York.

Lee, R. F. (1970) The Antiquities Act of 1906, Office of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern Center, Washington, D.C.

Norris, P.W. (1881) Fifth Annual Report of the Superintendent of the Yellowstone National Park, Washington, D.C.

Rogers, K. O. (1984) Visigoths Revisited--The Prosecution of Archaeological Resource Thieves, Traffickers and Vandals, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 2:217.

Scovill, D. H. (1974) History of Archaeological Conservation Policy and the Moss-Bennett Bill, In, Lipe, William D. and Alexander J. Lindsay (eds.) Proceedings of the 1974 Cultural Resource Management Conference, Museum of Northern Arizona - Technical Series No. 14, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Willey, G. R. and Sabloff J. A. (1973) A History of American Archaeology, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Return to the Table of Contents

Open the Microsoft Word Version of this Article