|
CHAPTER 6 THE FUTURE OF PROTECTING THE PAST
THE FUTURE OF PROTECTING THE PAST
Bennie C. Keel
Introduction
It is difficult to discuss the future without reference to the past and present. It is in comparison that changes can be evaluated, successes and failures identified, and new directions charted. We are at a critical point in American archaeology. What we do in the next decade about the problem of the dwindling archaeological resource base will effect the future of the profession. There are many important issues facing the profession today how we deal with them will define our future as a science. This article discusses the historical background of archaeological resource protection in United States and where it is going and in my opinion where it needs to go. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide my perspectives, observations, and of course my bias on this important topic. I think that the present volume will greatly assist in providing future direction for protecting the past.
Historic Overview
The historical development of archaeological resource protection in the United States has been described in several articles in this volume (Domenici, McGimsey, Knudson, Fowler, Friedman, Cheek, Neumann, and Rogers and Grant). The efforts directed at archaeological conservation which began in the late 1800's demonstrate a long commitment by private citizens, professional organizations, and the Federal Government. As a result numerous law have been passed designed to protect the past for the future. Without those efforts I believe little of the past would be left and American archaeology as we know it today would be considerably different. I do not wish to review in detail the historic development of the federal archaeological laws, others in this volume have covered that ground. Nonetheless, I do think that it is important for us to examine why these laws were necessary and how the implementation and administration of these laws have on occasion drifted away from the course their supporters and authors charted. If for no other reason such an examination should demonstrate the care we should demand in crafting statutory language. The Antiquities Act of 1906, for example, was enacted after several attempts to halt the wanton destruction of prehistoric sites in the Southwest. It also provided for the creation of National Monuments from public lands and the issuance of permits to insure that the excavation of publicly owned sites was carried out properly. Within a short time lands were being withdrawn for other than archaeological reasons. The way the Act was written allowed this. Knowledgeable people would argue that such lands were worthy of protection for reasons other than their archaeological value, but I am certain that the extent of use of the Act to protect non-archaeological values was not anticipated by its authors or supporters. (For a detailed treatment of Executive Order withdrawals and the establishment National Historic Monuments see Rothman 1989.) The creation of a couple of hundred National Monuments as are the exemplary efforts of the Archaeological Conservancy should not be minimized (see Michel this volume for further discussion of the Archaeological Conservancy). The issuance of permits became a pro forma exercise because of a variety of circumstances. Law enforcement of the criminal sanctions of the Act was a failure -- less than 25 prosecutions occurred under the Act. In 1979, almost three quarters of a century later Congress passed the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. This legislation was required to stop looting and vandalism in the Southwest. The niceties that distinguish these two statutes will be omitted here, but the fact of the matter remains that both laws had the same purpose -- to halt unauthorized destruction of the archaeological record. It is interesting to note that historic preservation legislation of the 1960's and mid-70's focused on planned federal undertakings, not illegal actions by looters and vandals. What was the reason for this focus? Had looting and vandalism dropped to tolerable levels? Was planned development perceived as the greater threat to the national archaeological data base? Or was American Archaeology sophisticated enough to recognize that it was easier to cope with identifiable institutions responsible for archaeological resource destruction than the faceless hordes of pothunters? The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, based on the need to rescue archaeological data from the development of a national water resource program, provided a small appropriation to the National Park Service to support its efforts as well as the River Basin Surveys program located in the Smithsonian Institution. This program's predecessor had been the rescue work, state wide surveys, and restoration projects that were conducted during the Great Depression under the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and various economic relief legislation of that era. During this 22 year period between 1966 and 1988 more federal archaeological laws were enacted (or amended) than in the preceding century and a half. The Moss - Bennett bill amended the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 in the most startling manner - it provided a "built in" funding source independent of the annual congressional appropriation process for archaeological rescue work. This "built in" funding source was the authorization for agencies to transfer up to 1 per cent of authorized construction funds to the Secretary of the Interior to assist the Secretary in carrying out the Act. Subsequently, this provision was interpreted to mean that agencies were authorized to spend up to 1 per cent for archaeological recovery work themselves. Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act the amended Act covered all federal undertakings, not just reservoir developments. The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 or "Moss-Bennett Act" as the amended Reservoir Salvage Act is popularly known was directly responsible for the geometric growth in archaeological or "cultural resource management" jobs in the Federal Government, academia, and the private sector. Carl Chapman once told me that he and the others who were intimately involved with writing the Moss - Bennett law assumed that the federal agencies would use the assistance authority to transfer funds to the Secretary of the Interior (National Park Service) to carry out the Act's requirements. With the additional funds, they assumed, the National Park Service would establish an entity (Interagency Archeological Services) similar to "national archaeological surveys" in other countries. He and perhaps others saw the act being implemented through close cooperation between the National Park Service and universities and museums across the country in much the same manner as the River Basin Survey program of the 1960's. Although efforts were made (both within and outside of the National Park Service) to create this kind of organization they were unsuccessful. The failure to establish an organization capable of implementing the Act has been attributed to two complementary factors. First, National Park Service senior management was not in a position to allot the necessary positions from its personnel ceiling. Second, agencies were somewhat reluctant to transfer funds to the Secretary of the Interior, but even more reluctant to transfer the conduct of a program that had the potential for immense impact of their construction programs. In simple terms the Corps of Engineers, Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, and other federal agencies were not about to minimize their control over their projects and funds by transferring archaeological responsibility to an other agency, especially a conservation agency such as the National Park Service. Much has been written regarding the unexpected administrative structure that developed to carry out the Act within the federal bureaucracy. As a result of this unanticipated institutionalization of the program across the Federal Government the Department of the Interior and specifically the National Park Service has been criticized. For a number of reasons I believe that the institutionalization of archaeological programs in major federal agencies is much more desirable than a centralized program in a single agency. The development of individual agency archaeological programs has created more archaeological jobs than a central operation would have. The creation of archaeological programs across the government has insured that archaeological concerns are routine day - to - day considerations in other aspects of agency operations. Fulfilling archaeological responsibilities are viewed as part of the agency mission; not as a requirement to be met by the use of consultants as needed. An old time bureaucrat once told me that when agencies employ consultants to conduct their business it means that the agency isn't committed to that segment of their business; they perceive it as a temporary inconvenience. Within the federal system the chaos that might be expected from a multitude of agency archaeology programs has largely been avoided through the leadership of the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Society of Professional Archeologists. Various regulations and guidelines developed by the National Park Service and the Advisory Council through the open rule making process has insured consistency in requirements, procedures, and professional qualifications. The Society for Professional Archeologists has preformed an immeasurable service through its certification program and grievance process that would have been impossible by federal agencies. It is also important to recognize that the actions by other academic disciplines, professions and segments of the public were the primary stimuli that led to the enactment of other broader historic preservation laws -- the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Noteworthy also is the inclusion of heritage resources in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as a consideration in the development of federal undertakings. The National Transportation Act of 1966, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1988 -- were enacted to deal with other specific threats to archaeological resources. The purpose and scope of these statutes are described elsewhere in this volume. Federal legislation, in particular the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, was directly responsible for the geometric growth in archaeological or "cultural resource management" (CRM) jobs in the Federal Government, academia, and the private sector (see McGimsey this volume for a personal perspective on the development of CRM in the United States). This resulted in a tremendous increase in the archaeological database and a commensurate increase in our understanding of the history and prehistory of this country. Historically the archaeological profession and its allied public has sought to preserve and conserve archaeological resource through the legislative process. Despite the common admonition contained in the bulk of preservation statues that these efforts are for the "benefit of the American people" the vast majority of the actions undertaken under the laws were for the benefit of archaeology and its practitioners. This situation has improved and can continue to improve if the actions described in this volume are implemented. Gordon Willey and Jeremy Sabloff (1973) have provided a historical description of the evolution of intellectual development of American Archaeology. Little of their account considers the administrative constraints in which the discipline grew. For the present purpose it is sufficient to note virtually all growth in the discipline in the United States has been influenced by federal law in one way or another. I am unsure whether federal requirements had more effect on intellectual growth of the discipline or vice versa. It may be more accurate to consider the interaction as symbiotic. Despite suggestions to the contrary the Federal Archeology Program has always reflected the current trajectory of American archaeological theory. This is how it should be and I suggest that this is how it will continue. It is my impression that much of the criticism directed at the Federal Archeology Program is based on myopic altruistic perceptions. By the last decade of this millennium there seems to be sufficient legal authority in place to deal with archaeological properties in the federal domain as well as in many states and local jurisdictions. Like the Internal Revenue Code, historic preservation legislation has needed and will continue to need fine tuning (e.g., the 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 1988 amendments to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979).
Present Concerns
It may seem ironic that the current most pressing threat to the National archaeological data base is the same threat identified a century ago -- looting and vandalism. This problem will not go away. The legal means to protect archaeological properties are in place across the federal domain and in many state and local jurisdictions. The effective use of these means has yet to be fully recognized. Additionally, and for a major portion of the nation (the eastern United States), the majority of sites are situated on private lands. Many of the states and a few county and municipality governments have passed laws and ordinances modeled on federal statutes. These too have avoided the constitutional issues regarding government interference with private property rights. The treatment of unmarked graves is the only area that has been consistently considered. In this area both archaeologists and Native Americans agree that the looting of graves by pothunters should be stopped. However, this is about as far as the agreement goes. Many archaeologists must do as I have -- face the fact that in the majority of situations the treatment of Native American skeletal remains has been in a large part insensitive at best and racist at worst. Native Americans are concerned not only with current practices of recovery of additional skeletal material, grave goods and sacred sites but with collections curated in institutions across the country (see Anyon this volume for further discussion of Native American concerns regarding archaeological resources). In establishing the National Museum of the American Indian, Congress has directed the Smithsonian Institution to set in motion a process by which these materials can be turned over to the tribes. To be sure some portion of these collections have immense scientific importance but other portions have little or none. We must pay more attention to the rights and desires of the legitimate Native Americans and do our best to find a way out of this morass. The Taos Conference and special sessions at the Society for American Archaeology annual meetings in Atlanta (1989) and Las Vegas (1990) are clear examples of the major national professional organization confronting the problem. The cooperation between the various interest groups that these meetings has generated is laudatory. None of the articles in this volume call for new major legislation. Thus, if new legislation is not the answer to the dilemma, where lies our hope. It should be clear to even the most casual reader that our hope for better archaeological data preservation is to be found in the distillation of the sound and practical ideas and concepts found in this volume and by adopting the sound methodological approaches which have worked in various venues across the country.
Future Directions
Clearly the Taos Conference addressed many of the questions regarding the scope and causes of looting and vandalism, and provided a long list of proactive efforts which should ameliorate the problem. The call for additional research regarding the scope and causes of looting and vandalism should not go unheeded, but most important consideration must be given to research priorities. These priorities must be established by the Society for American Archaeology. While the Society can not dictate research activities it does stand a great chance in influencing the profession and the government in the sequence and levels of effort to accomplish the necessary research. Given that there is a national consensus regarding the magnitude of the problem and the real world constraints of limited personnel (with other duties to accomplish) and limited available money it is incumbent that duplication of efforts are avoided. Harvey Shields (this volume) has offered a paradigm for attacking this problem that should be given the most serious consideration. We must avoid the idea that the integration of archaeology into public education, media bombardment, the use of volunteers in archaeological projects, development of site stewardship programs, law enforcement and the other salutary suggestions will stop all looting and vandalism. Clearly it will not. Even the threat of immediate execution did not deter all tomb robbers in dynastic Egypt. Our grand strategy must obtain the "biggest bang for the buck". Our planning and execution must be integrated both horizontally and vertically. The articles in this volume clearly indicate that several fronts must be attacked simultaneously. The challenge is to identify the appropriate strategy and tactics. The wisdom of experience provided in the articles in this volume that focus on specific fronts must be heeded. Federal and state laws and local government ordinances dealing with the criminalization of acts related to the archaeological data base must be developed with input from law enforcement professionals, representatives from the judicial system and Native Americans as well as archaeologists and politicians. Kris Rogers' (this volume) experiments in developing model legislation is an excellent resource to guide such efforts. Clear thinking has to be given the area of education. I am uncertain that enough attention has been given to devising a national archaeological education strategy. Its seems that clear distinction needs to be made about the strategy and tactics to be used for each of the population segments we need to reach. We also need to develop greater precision in defining the goals of education -- what elements of archaeological education are common to all sectors of the population and what elements are specific to particular sectors. If the outcome of our educational effort is to develop the idea and acceptance of the public trust theory for heritage resources management (Knudson this volume) the approach will be different from educational efforts aimed at improving the observance of current laws. A different approach will be necessary also in educating individuals who wish to participate in site stewardship programs or field projects. Clearly raising the sensitivity of the general public regarding the increasing loss of archaeological properties is a job that can best be accomplished by the popular media. Public awareness of the loss of a heritage resource is usually the first step in efforts to rescue a property or the data it contains at the local project level. Infrequently the larger problem has not been described in these local efforts, but this is changing.
The inclusion or integration of archaeological information in public school curricula will take a different tact. Clearly to be successful it will take a tremendous amount of individual commitment, time and energy. No matter how important we believe our cause, it is as Gene Rogge (this volume) points out archaeology is just one more crusade that competes for the attention of the public school system. It is likely that much of the effort required of individual archaeologists working in this area can be reduced by the preparation of curriculum materials at the National or state level. More progress is possible if the prepackaged material is developed and used as it is in other public school study areas. Given the limited resources for this kind of foray the approach should be in generalists and global terms, rather than emphasizing local or regional matters (see Messenger and Enloe this volume for a discussion of archaeologists as global educators).
Conclusion
The challenge we face in affecting the future of archaeological resource protection is one of coming to grips with an unfamiliar area. For the most part we have no experience in grass roots movements, yet many archaeologists are convinced this is where the solution to our current dilemma lies. The public trust theory regarding the most wise use of heritage resources must be developed. This seems to be the only viable long run mechanism to deal with the protection of the entire archaeological data base in a nation with such strong concepts of private property.
References Cited
Rothman, H., (1989) Preserving Different Pasts: The American National Monuments. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.
Willey, G. R. and J. A. Sabloff (1973) A History of American Archaeology. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Return to the Table of Contents Open the Microsoft Word Version of this Article
|