SIGNING AS A MEANS OF PROTECTING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESJohn H. Jameson, Jr. and Marc Kodack
Introduction
This article discusses the effectiveness of signing as a tool for protecting archaeological sites. The signing data are drawn largely from the results of a nationwide questionnaire that was sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES). For convenience and consistency, we have centered our discussion on the comments and answers from the National Park Service (NPS) that comprised nearly half of the questionnaire respondents, and whose responses appear to be representative of the whole. We include a brief description of an available field study, a before-and-after scenario from the Anthony Shoals site in southeastern Georgia. The posting of formal, written signs has probably been an important form of communication for many thousands of years. Perhaps it is with some degree of irony that modern-day archaeologists and resource managers employ signing as a communication technique in order to protect and preserve the remains of former lifeways, the "signs" of the past. In the following discussion, we present an assessment of signing as a method or means of protecting archaeological sites from looters and other resource abusers. We draw, to a limited extent, on our own experiences and observations, but have relied heavily on data collected by a nationally distributed questionnaire (Kodack 1990a; 1990b; 1990c). We have used these data to draw a number of conclusions about the utility of signing as a site protection tool. This assessment of signing is by no means an exhaustive or complete analysis, and should be considered preliminary.
Previous Assumptions
Many archaeologists, including the authors, have long held certain assumptions about signing that are common within the field of cultural resource management (GAO 1987: 46-47). These pre-conceived notions on the value and usefulness of signing were based on limited personal experiences with signs, on conversations and communications with colleagues, and on what were considered to be common sense ideas in the application of various signing strategies and conditions. Briefly stated, these assumptions were that: (1) it is better to have signs than to not have signs, except in remote or less obtrusive areas, where signs may draw unwanted attention; (2) signing may help in a majority of cases, but it is more effective when accompanied by monitoring and enforcement activities; and (3) signs, whether placed on-site or on a nearby access road, should contain a warning about what laws will be broken, what specific actions are against the law, and information on possible penalties. The creators of the U.S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station (WES) questionnaire shared these ideas and assumptions, but hoped to establish a more objective basis for evaluating the nature and overall effectiveness of signing within the field of cultural resource management (Paul Nickens, personal communication, 1990).
A Nationwide Questionnaire
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers many archaeological sites and features that occur near and adjacent to the Nation's navigable waterways. The Corps has recognized that, as part of its protection responsibilities, a proactive program of management of these archaeological materials is needed. As part of this program, with the purpose of measuring and analyzing the expressed experiences of the nation's archaeological resource managers, a questionnaire was designed and distributed by WES. The questionnaires were sent out in early 1989 to federal, state, and local agencies throughout the United Ss. The authors believe that the Corps' nationwide questionnaire can be thought of as a test of the above stated common assumptions about the "whys", "hows", "whats", and "whens" of signing. The questions in the nationwide questionnaire were divided into three parts. In Part 1, respondents were asked for an opinion on how strongly they agree or disagree with statements on the effectiveness of signs, the location of signs, what the message on a sign should say, and what archaeological materials should be signed. In Part 2, other protection strategies supplemental to signing, such as law enforcement and interpretation, were addressed. Part 3 could be used by respondents for additional statements. As mentioned above, the questions in Part 1 ask the respondents for an opinion on how strongly they agree or disagree with general statements on the nature and effectiveness of signing. The possible choices for answers included one of the following: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. In this analysis the "strongly agree" and the "agree" answers and the "strongly disagree" and the "disagree" answers have been combined in an attempt to determine how the majority of people are leaning in their answer to a question. By combining these answers, a clearer indication of the general opinion about a question is possible. Because the "neither agree nor disagree" answers represent the absence of any leaning one way of the other on a statement, these responses have been eliminated from the analysis.
An Analysis of National Park Service Responses
Nearly half (47.7 percent) (n=203) of all the questionnaires that were returned were answered by NPS personnel. Because their responses appear to be representative of the responses as a whole, and for sake of convenience and consistency, we have chosen to focus our discussion on the NPS material. In the course of tabulating the data in the questionnaire, we noticed that the total number of responses varied for each question. Consequently, the total number of responses for each question is occasionally less than the total number of respondents. In the following discussion, in order to allow the reader to follow this variation and level of participation for each question, we have given the corresponding number (n=) of responses for each question or statement addressed in the questionnaire when that information was available.
Overall Effectiveness of Signs
The first section of Part 1 of the questionnaire addressed general topics and sought to measure the opinions of respondents on the overall effectiveness of signing at archaeological sites. They contain four basic opinion statements:
Sign Messages
The next section of Part 1 posed the following question, followed by a list of possible alternatives messages: "Once a decision has been made to sign archaeological materials, what kind of message should be on the sign?"
"Which combination?" (n=147)
Although messages with interpretive or warning language were endorsed, the combination of these two messages is considered most effective. A third message theme, one specifically identifying the archaeological material, could be integrated with and incorporated into the interpretive/warning sign. The only message theme that was not strongly endorsed was one presenting false information to the visitor via a bogus message. In the questionnaire response narratives (Part 3), a number of opinions on sign messages were expressed. Many respondents stated that sign messages that refer to the legal penalties for disturbing or destroying archaeological resources need to be updated to reflect the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and not the mostly superseded 1906 Antiquities Act. This is important because the ambiguities in the 1906 Act, specifically the reference to "object of antiquity", make successful prosecutions under the Act highly unlikely, as has been borne out by court case histories. The lowering from $5,000 to $500 in the dollar value threshold for a felony in the assessment of damages to an archaeological resource should help to discourage looting and vandalism and increase the number of successful prosecutions. Signs used to mark the boundaries of a NPS park unit (this could be applied to other federally managed lands as well) should include some warning about the removal or disturbance of both archaeological and natural materials. All signs should be free standing or attached to a modern device such as a fence or railing, if possible. Signs should not be attached to trees, historic buildings, and other landscape features, in order to avoid the paradox of placing signs with a resource protection message in a manner that results in further damages to trees, buildings, or other features.
Visibility of Archaeological Materials
The next section of the questionnaire addressed the subject of whether sites in remote or inconspicuous areas should be signed.
The respondents felt that the ability of a visitor to see archaeological materials should be considered when signing these resources. Those sites that are highly visible, prehistoric or historic, that have been subject to past looting or vandalism, should be prominently signed to prevent further attacks. Those resources that are much less noticeable by the casual observer or are located in areas infrequently visited, should not be signed. The reduced visibility and inconspicuous location of these sites has brought a measure of protection that would be diminished by the placing of an identifying sign.
The Need to Investigate Specific Signing Strategies
The final question in Part 1 asked whether controlled case studies are needed:
A large majority of these respondents would like to see a field program designed so that their opinions could be verified or negated.
Experiences with Past Signing Projects
The twelve questions or inquiries in Part 2 of the questionnaire asked for descriptions of specific signing projects and opinions on how effective these projects have been. Some questions are similar in format to Part 1 and these answers have been summarized by category. For other, more open-ended questions, a greater variety of answers were possible.
The respondents further commented that park visitors include local or regional residents who are regular users, persons from elsewhere in the United States, and foreign nationals on vacation. The number of visitors who annually visit these NPS areas ranges from several thousand to several million. Although the specific objectives of these transient visitors are unknown, most do not intentionally disturb or destroy archaeological sites.
Respondents reported that many sign messages are interpretive and are specific to the unit in which they are located. Some signs are selected from the NPS Sign Manual. Both Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service antiquities signs have been used.
To summarize the NPS experience with signing projects, it can be stated that signing must be one part of a preservation and protection program, and that signs need to be supplemented by other kinds of strategies such as law enforcement, interpretation programs, visitor center and/or museums, and physical barriers.
Other General Comments
As stated above, Part 3 of the questionnaire could be used by respondents for general comments. One theme that occurs repeatedly throughout these comments is the strong feeling that archaeological materials which currently are unsigned and are not being adversely impacted should remain unsigned. If signed, unwanted attention might be directed towards these resources. The total number of signs that are used should be balanced between their purpose or "mission," and the visual impact to the surroundings where these signs will be placed. Too many signs would be an intrusion on the natural, prehistoric, or historic setting.
The use of signs is generally supported and is felt to work well with larger, more visible kinds of archaeological materials. Additional protection measures, such as law enforcement and regular monitoring, should also be used in conjunction with signing.
One commentator presented a good summary of the issues to be considered when designing signing projects: "Signing of cultural resources can be an effective deterrent to negative human impacts. There can be no absolute rule by which managers may sign or not sign a particular resource. The variables which the manager must consider include:
One question that should always be asked is, 'Will signing the resource increase the threat of damage?' Once that question is answered, it is only necessary to determine the management approach to the resource, kind of verbiage, appropriate placement of the sign, etc."
Signing Experiences Outside the National Park Service
In general, the non-NPS respondents, including State Historic Preservation Offices (n=34) and various other federal, state, and local agencies, mirrored the opinions expressed by the NPS respondents: signing coupled with other methods can be an effective way to monitor and deter looting/vandalism against archaeological resources. Sites that are highly visible are probably the best candidates for signing as the signs may help to discourage vandalism and looting. Signing sites that are not threatened by looting/vandalism should be avoided to prevent the signs from acting as a beacon, drawing unwanted curiosity to the site. Public education on archaeology and why it is important to protect archaeological resources is pointed out as the only real solution to looting/vandalism. Some distinctive aspects of the non-NPS responses are summarized below.
Signing at the Anthony Shoals Site
The results of the WES questionnaire indicate that signs are an essential element in any strategy to protect archaeological sites. However, no objective field studies have been available that can confirm this observation. In an attempt to measure the affects of signing at a previously unsigned site, observations were made over a two year period at the Anthony Shoals Site (9 Ws 51), located in southeastern Georgia. The site, which has suffered from severe looting for a number of years, is co-managed within the Broad River Wildlife Management Area by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the lessee, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division (DNR) (Jameson 1990). At Anthony Shoals, despite specific lease stipulations for resource protection, the Corps (and not DNR) has assumed the active management responsibilities for protecting it from rampant looting/vandalism. The site, approximately 4 hectares (10 acres) in size, is composed of a relatively large, multi-component prehistoric occupation, that is located on the flood plain of the Broad River. It is easily accessed by a county maintained dirt road and by water on the south bank of the adjacent river. Exposed and easily spotted artifacts and features are numerous. The site was initially inspected by Corps archaeologist John Jameson in May, 1987, who reported several freshly dug pot holes. Following a Corps-sponsored program of archaeological testing in 1987, an archaeological contractor recommended a three-pronged approach to the long-range management here: stepped up site monitoring; data recovery in a small portion of the site that is exposed on the surface; and restoration of looted areas to their original contours (Wood and Smith 1988). With no funding as yet allocated to carry out these recommendations, efforts by the Corps to curb the rate of looting/vandalism have been limited to posts as roadblocks placed on site along the unpaved access road, slightly increased monitoring of the site by Corps rangers, and signing. Because the area remains accessible by both land and water, these efforts have had marginal success. Revisits to the site by the senior author (Jameson) in March 1989, shortly after the signs had been installed, and again with Marc Kodack in May, 1990, show that significant looting is still occurring, but at a reduced rate. The March, 1989, visit uncovered evidence for some minor surface scratching, indicating that, at least at that time, the rate of destruction at the site had abated. However, the May, 1990, visit recorded renewed looting/vandalism in the form of several freshly dug pot holes and a large backhoe-excavated area within the access road. One of the two on-site posted metal signs, which had been installed at eye level on wooden posts, approximately 500 feet apart and adjacent to the intrusive access road, had been removed. At two points along the access road, the posts have been pulled out of the ground. Notwithstanding the more recent observations of damage, the present rate of destruction still appears to be less than in 1988 and earlier. It is difficult to assess at this time whether the signs alone have contributed as a deterrent to looting. However, due to the very minimal monitoring that has been conducted (less than one visit per month), and the failure of the installed road barriers, signing has probably played the most significant role. Nevertheless, for the signing effort to be more than marginally effective, it must be accompanied in the future by more intensive monitoring and law enforcement efforts.
The Importance of Signing for Law Enforcement
The criminal prosecution of the looters at Anthony Shoals and other sites located on federally controlled properties may well hinge on the presence or absence of warning signs. Recent court cases have demonstrated that the presence of warning signs is a key element in almost all successful prosecutions under ARPA. Although the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) is a general intent law (meaning that a person cannot plead ignorance of the law as an excuse for not abiding by the law), some defense attorneys attempt to convince federal judges that ARPA is a specific intent law, when ignorance of the law can constitute a successful defense. The issue is further confused by misinformed or inexperienced judges. In a recent court case in Utah, for example, a judge incorrectly instructed a jury that ARPA is a specific intent law, thus possibly jeopardizing the outcome of future court cases in that state (Martin McAllister, personal communication, 1990). Understanding the importance of on-site or near-site signing, most prosecuting attorneys, before taking or pursuing an ARPA case, invariably ask if the resource in question was signed; the specific versus general intent argument becomes moot when the site is signed. Other protection statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. 641 (theft of government property) and 18 U.S.C 1361 (destruction of government property), which have been used in the prosecution of looters, are also much easier to enforce when the site is signed (McAllister, personal communication, 1990) (GAO 1987: 53). In some cases, warning signs posted off site on access roads, trails, and other conspicuous places have assisted law enforcement. At Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, for instance, an ARPA warning sign was undoubtedly the key to successful prosecution of the looters. Visitor information centers, campground bulletin boards, and other public notice areas are good locations for signs that convey the ARPA warning message. In addition to signs, public use brochures, exhibits, tour guides, interpretive talks, and even hunting licenses, are all good media for the posting of warning messages (McAllister, personal communication, 1990). Signs are most effective for law enforcement when they contain the following combination of messages: culture history or interpretative message describing the importance of the archaeological resource and why the resource is fragile and irreplaceable, plus information on possible fines and imprisonment, and ending with an "up" note to "enjoy but do not destroy your cultural heritage". For purposes of law enforcement, people react more positively when there is an interpretive message/importance message or restoration message. This will have a positive effect on all but commercial looters, who are not interested in archaeological protection. In some instances, commercial looters have been known to actually steal and use signs to promote the risk factor, thus able to demand a higher price for the looted relics. However, most artifact and relic hunters do care and will react positively when the right message is given (McAllister, personal communication, 1990).
The Need for Controlled Case Studies
A major finding of the WES questionnaire was the strongly expressed need for case studies on a wide variety of signing conditions and scenarios. The use of signs to protect archaeological resources is apparently open to question because of the lack of controlled field studies. A program of field experiments to gather data on signing is essential to move away from qualitative impressions.
A Proposed Field Experiment Design
Kodack (1990c) has outlined a proposed experimental design for a field experiment on signing at archaeological sites. He proposes that a controlled field experiment be composed of four basic elements: (1) site creation and field setup; (2) development and use of pseudo-site variables; (3) a monitoring program; and (4) development and distribution of a field questionnaire.
Site creation and field setup.
As a case example, Kodack suggests that a flintknapper manufacture artifacts and flakes for the creation of a "lithic scatter" site. Restricting the materials to stone would eliminate the longer periods of time needed to manufacture other artifacts such as pottery or textiles. Once the artifacts and flakes have been manufactured, they can be quickly positioned in the field. Each artifact would then be photographed and drawn prior to placing it in the field to provide a record of the artifact. The location for this "pseudo-site" would be checked to insure that the area does not contain real archaeological materials. Once all the artifacts are in position, a permanent site benchmark would need to be created and installed. This benchmark would serve as the reference point for mapping the artifacts.
Development of pseudo-site variables.
Important variables that could directly influence the success of the experiment are the visibility and density of the stone materials. "Visibility" is defined as a measure of how easily the surface materials can be seen by someone passing (walking) by. Visibility is affected by the kind of material the stone artifacts are manufactured from, the density of the surrounding vegetation, and nature of shadows (time of day). The lithic raw material chosen for manufacturing the artifacts should be of a type that occurs naturally and is commonly found on real sites in the area, so the material itself will not draw attention to the pseudo-site. Since the density of the stone materials will also affect their visibility, Kodack would use three different density scenarios to determine what effect density has on visibility. The physical placement of the pseudo-site with respect to visitor traffic is another potential variable that would be a major factor in the "discovery" of the site. For purposes of comparison, sites could be placed in high visitor use areas (100 or more people per day), medium use areas (50 to 100 people per day), and low use areas (1 to 50 people per day). In addition, a pseudo-site might be placed in a remote location, off vehicular and pedestrian trails, to test the effects that infrequent or negligible visitor use would have on the archaeological materials. Sign placement should be tried both on site and off site. Off site placement of signs should be at least 30 meters away from the site. Different sign messages and combinations of messages should be tried, both off site and on site. These messages could be rod from one pseudo-site to another through time. Kodack suggests keeping sign size, material, and height above ground constant, so the effect of the message will not be influenced by these variables. All signs should be free standing to allow for maximum flexibility in their field placement.
Monitoring the program.
The monitoring frequency (daily, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly) is the most critical part of the experiment. Insuring that the observations provided by the monitoring are accurate is the most difficult aspect of this experiment. Kodack suggests that at least a bi-weekly frequency be tried at the start of the experiment, to be increased to a monthly rate if impacts are not visible, or decreased to a weekly rate if too many impacts are occurring. Monitoring should consist of an overall assessment of the conditions of both the sign and the pseudo-site. Photographs of the sign and site should be taken with verbal descriptions of any impacts. Remeasurement of the artifacts on the surface would be necessary to provide an interim catalog of what artifacts are present versus those that are missing. Caution should be applied to insure that any "missing" artifacts have not been inadvertently buried by humans as a result of human foot traffic, animals, or natural processes such as wind and erosion. The true measure of the effectiveness of a sign at the end of the experiment will be the observation of the number of artifacts still present (provided they are not buried or have not been so widely dispersed as to be unrecoverable). To determine this, a systematic examination of the surface should be carried out. The recorded observations for the current s of the materials can then be compared to the position of the artifacts on the original site map. Some minor excavation of the original area where the artifacts were placed may have to be done to determine if any of these artifacts has been buried. If all the artifacts are present, and are not widely dispersed due to unintentional human foot traffic, the selected sign and/or sign message used will be considered effective.
Distribution of a field questionnaire.
The field experiment should be coupled with a questionnaire targeted to local residents and transient visitors. To insure the integrity of the field experiments (visitors' and local residents' behavior towards signs might be affected by their participation in a sign questionnaire), the collection of the questionnaire information should be performed in a separate location. For example, if the field experiment was set up in Zion National Park, the collection of the questionnaire data might be conducted in Grand Teton National Park. Modifications to the suggested field experiment would be needed for areas with other kinds of materials and structures. Although the field testing of signs targeted at protecting archaeological resources is possible, these tests must be regularly monitored, if the effectiveness of the signs is to be assessed.
Conclusion
From the foregoing discussion on archaeological signing, we can conclude the following:
Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank Paul Nickens of WES, the principal questionnaire developer, for allowing us to use the WES questionnaire data.
References Cited
GAO (United States General Accounting Office) (1987) Cultural Resources: Problems Protecting and Preserving Federal Archeological Resources. United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Investigators, GAO/RCED-88-3. Gaithersburg, Maryland. Jameson John H., Jr. (1990) Co-management of Vandalized Sites; Opportunities and Problems. In Coping with Site Looting: Essays in Archeological Resource Management, edited by John E. Ehrenhard. Interagency Archeological Services Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Kodack, M. (1990a) A Summary of the National Park Service Responses to a Questionnaire on the Signing of Archaeological Sites. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Copy on file at Interagency Archaeological Servies Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta.
---- (1990b) Comments on Part 3 of the Sign Questionnaire Answered by Non Park Service Respondents. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Copy on file at the Interagency Archeological Services Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta.
---- (1990c) A Outline for a Field Experiment to Test the Effectiveness of Signing of Archaeological Sites. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Copy on file at the Interagency Archeological Services Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Wood, W. D., and C. A. Smith (1988) Archeological Evaluation of the Anthony Shoals Site, 9Ws51. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens. Copy on file at the Environmental Resources Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District Office, Savannah, Georgia.
Return to the Table of Contents Open the Microsoft Word Version of this Article
|