National Register of Historic Places Home PageNational Register of Historic Places Home PageTravel Home PageTravel Home Page

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
National Register, History and Education

Process & Policy Issues | Outreach to Diverse Communities | Landscapes | Recent Past | Miscellaneous

Archeology for the Non-Archeologist

Why Should We Care About Archaeology?
Identifying Archaeological Sites
Data Sets and Significant Questions In Archaeology
Using Criterion D

Suggested Readings and Websites

Why Should We Care About Archaeology as Part of the Preservation Process and National Register nominations/documentation?

PLANNING: Many historic sites and standing structures worthy of preservation have related (and sometimes unrelated) pre and/or post contact archaeological remains that go unidentified, unrecognized, and thus unprotected and not considered in the planning process. In order to make informed and wise decisions about a property's long-term management, archaeological potential should be identified and significance made clear.

RESEARCH: Identified sites can be considered in current historical and archaeological research (particularly cross-cultural, geographical, functional, or comparative studies--see Data Sets and Significant Questions in Archaeology, below). Archaeological information can be used in the interpretation of the site and the lives of the inhabitants, ultimately making the available information, research potential and interpretation more rich. Archaeology can supplement the historical record. Many times, archaeology challenges the information in written records, maps, and historical accounts and points out inherent biases in written information. It is important to remember that written records are sometimes a biased line of evidence for understanding the past, so we should remember not to privilege written documentation above other evidence such as oral history and material remains. Archaeology documents the lives of everyday people and poorly documented people (such as enslaved Africans), and people for which there exists no written records or records that may be severely biased (like American Indians) and provides clues to operating ideologies (worldview, perspectives). Archaeological data can help us understand the development of modernization, globalization, and industrialization (like the spread of ideas, technology, material things, consumer behavior, communication, and the development of a capitalist economy). (See selected bibliography for examples of such research).

STEWARDSHIP: Identifying archaeological sites (and listing them on the National Register) will articulate the significance of archeological remains to landowners and the public. When archaeological and historical significance is known, the public's support of these resources can help provide funding for archeological and historical programs, help to protect archeological and historical resources. In addition, the public lobbies for legislation which addresses these concerns.

Identifying Archaeological Sites

There are several ways to determine if archaeological sites exist (such as reconnaissance and intensive surveys and predictive modeling) and if they are relevant to the nomination and/or documentation. Please refer to the National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning, for more specific information on archaeological survey and identification. Here is a checklist of some relevant questions that should be used as a starting point for identifying sites and their significance:

*What contexts are being used to understand the significance of the property?

*What type of property are you dealing with (landscape, structure only, etc)?

*What region is the property in?

*What is the time period the property was occupied or used?

*Does historical research indicate that there may have been additional structures on the property?

*What type of structures existed here through time? How was this land used through time?

*How many owners has the property had?

*What types of activities took place on the property and/or outside the main structure?

*Is there any visual evidence of previous structures and/or activities (ie, foundations, obvious swells, ditches, or depressions, roadbeds, or other features)?

*Have historic or prehistoric artifacts been found on the surface of your property?

*Is your property currently being plowed, or has it ever been plowed?

*What kinds of things have been done on the property that could have disturbed any archaeological deposits?

*What is the American Indian use of the area?

*What is the likelihood - based on prior work and/or predictive modeling - that a prehistoric site(s) exists in the area?

*What is the history (and prehistory) of the region where the property is located?

*What is the role of the property in the historical development of the jurisdiction, state and region in which it is located?

*What is the property's role in America's history?

*What information is available in the state historic preservation plan based upon work and research already done?

*What sites have been identified, researched and/or excavated in the locale--and are they related to your property or the reason the property is significant?

*What archaeological site reports are available at your SHPO's office, your local or regional National Park Service Office, any local or regional CRM firms, local or regional historical societies, local or regional research libraries, and are they related to your property and/or the reason your property is significant?

*Are there any local or regional archaeological groups (such as the Archaeological Society of your state) that could be contacted for information about the work they have done in your area?

*What types of research questions have been asked of properties similar to yours where archaeological remains have been found?

*Can you adequately define the extent and integrity of any archaeological deposits?

*Note: Urban areas should not be automatically thought to have disturbed deposits or inadequate integrity for answering important research questions. Archaeologists have developed special methods for working in an urban environment. Sampling strategies, fieldwork, expenses, and public outreach are noticeably different for urban areas. The cities of Alexandria, Virginia (see selected bibliography and websites) and St. Augustine, Florida have active municipal urban archaeology programs and their research provides good examples of what types of important information can be learned about urban landscapes, people, and culture through archaeology (for instance, urban archaeologists have contributed to our understanding of the origins of urbanization, modern urban problems in the areas of sanitation, transportation, housing, and social and material inequality).

Data Sets and Significant Questions In Archaeology

It is important to remember that while most historic sites and structures nominated to the National Register have archaeological potential, this information may not be important to our understanding of the pre- and post-contact periods of our history and/or this information may not be directly related to the significance of the property (ie, may not be related to the reason the property is being nominated)

So, what are the important questions in archaeology and how can that information be related to data found at archaeological sites? If the property has archaeological potential, but this information is not directly related to the reasons the property is being nominated, or the resource has not been adequately defined, how do we deal with that potential (is it significant in it's own right; does it deserve an additional nomination or an amendment to an existing nomination, additional research)?

DATA: As humans interact with their environment and with each other, they leave behind evidence of their actions. Derived from the common phrase "archeological site," the National Register defines an archeological property as the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains. It is this physical evidence of the past and its patterning that is the archeologist's data base. The physical evidence, or archeological remains, usually takes the form of artifacts (e.g., fragments of tools or ceramic vessels), features (e.g., remnants of walls, cooking hearths, or trash middens), and ecological evidence (e.g., pollens remaining from plants that were in the area when the activities occurred). Ecological remains of interest to archeologists are often referred to as "ecofacts." Things that are of archeological importance may be very subtle, hard to see and record. It is not only artifacts themselves that are important but the locations of artifacts relative to one another, which is referred to as archeological context (not to be confused with historic contexts). Archeologists frequently rely upon ethnographic information, either directly or through analogy, to analyze the archeological record. Oral history and traditional knowledge is often essential for interpretation.

Data sets, or data categories, are groups of information. Data sets are defined by the archeologist, taking into consideration the type of artifacts and features at the property, the research questions posed, and the analytical approach that is used. Whatever their theoretical orientation, all archeologists look at patterns in the archeological record. It is the evaluation or analysis of data sets and their patterning within the framework of research questions that yields information. Data sets can be types of artifacts (such as ceramics, glass, animal remains, human remains, lithics, metals, plant remains, textiles, wood, shell, or tools), archeological features (such as privies, trash middens, or tailings piles), or patterned relationships between artifacts, features, soil stratigraphy, or above-ground remains. A graveyard, for example, might contain at least three data sets: the human remains, items buried with the deceased, and the arrangement of the graves within the cemetery.

Methods of analysis can be broken down into three broad categories: spatial analysis (methods of determining patterns of distribution), chronological analyses (dating archaeological materials and sites) and artifact or material analysis. Analysis of different types of materials can be broken down roughly into three parts: morphological/typological analysis, material analysis (studies of the composition of artifacts) and technological analysis. Examples of different kinds of archaeological analysis, methodologies, and techniques include (but are not limited to): archeomagnetic dating, archaeometry, artifact distribution analysis, settlement pattern analysis, luminescence dating, seriation, typological analysis, chronological analysis, surface collecting, statistical analysis, stratigraphic analysis, (paleo) environmental reconstruction, ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, fission-track dating, dendrochronology, obsidian hydration dating, potassium-argon dating, radiocarbon dating, minimum vessel analysis, geophysical prospection, ground penetrating radar, magnetometry, soil resistivity, ground surveys, excavation, subsurface testing, floatation, lithics analysis, chemical analysis, mortuary analysis, sampling, ariel photography, infrared photography, seasonality studies

So how do these analyses translate to important research questions...

Important Questions:

Archeologists have at least three over-arching goals. The first is to reconstruct sequences of societies and events in chronological order in local and regional contexts. The second is to reconstruct past lifeways, including the ways that people made a living (such as how they obtained and raised food as well as how they produced, distributed and consumed tools and other goods); the ways they used the landscape (such as the size and distribution of camps, villages, towns, and special places); and their interactions with other societies and within their own (such as household structure, social organization, political organizations and relationships). The third is to achieve some understanding of how and why human societies have changed through time.

There are a number of categories of questions that are used routinely to frame research designs in terms of anthropological observations of societies. Such general topics include but are not limited to: economics of subsistence, technology and trade; land use and settlement; social and political organization; ideology, religion, and cosmology; paleoenvironmental reconstruction; and ecological adaptation. In addition, a category of questions that relate to improvement to archeological methodology should be considered.

What are important questions in archeology? Even if a current list of important research questions existed (that archeologists could agree upon), the questions would still change as the discipline evolves and certain questions are answered and others are asked. Moreover, as research questions of the future cannot be anticipated, the kinds of data necessary to answer them cannot be determined with certainty. Thus, the research potential of a historic property must be evaluated in light of current issues in archeology, anthropology, history, and other disciplines of study (Ferguson 1977 - see selected bibliography).

Theoretical positions on and pragmatic debates about important research questions are expressed at professional archeological conferences and in the professional literature and journals. For example, the Society for Historical Archeology sponsored a plenary session titled "Questions that Count in Archeology" at its annual meeting in 1987. This session addressed the issue of which theoretical frameworks or general research topics will generate the most important questions for post-contact archeology (e.g. Deagan 1988 - see selected bibliography). From a theoretical viewpoint, Kathleen Deagan, for example, makes the case that the questions that count cannot be answered by either historical or archeological data alone, or through simple comparisons of two data categories. Rather than simply reinforcing other documentary sources, the interpretation of archeological evidence provides a supplementary and complementary record of the past. Other questions that count are those that apply archeological techniques to answering history-based questions about which there is inadequate documentation. In fact, to date, this has been post-contact archeology's most successful scholarly contribution. According to Deagan, other questions appropriate to the unique capabilities of historical archeology focus on understanding general cultural phenomena that transcend specific time and space.

Archaeologists use contextual information and data potential to construct research designs. Important research questions may change as the level of context changes. For example, a late Mississippian village site may yield information in a research design concerning one settlement system on a regional scale, while in another research design it may reveal information of local importance concerning a single group's stone tool manufacturing techniques or house forms. It is a question of how the available information potential is likely to be used.

What if the information potential of an archaeological site on the property does not directly relate to the reasons the property is being nominated, or the archaeological resource has not been adequately defined?

Ask yourself these questions:

*Is the archaeological potential of the property significant in its own right? (Is it important to local, state or national history?)

*Should a separate nomination be done to address the significance of the archaeological resources?

*Should an existing nomination be amended to address the archaeological resources?

*Can or should more research be done?

*Can the archaeological resource, if not adequately defined, at least be mentioned in the nomination/documentation?

Using Criterion D

Important things to remember about Criterion D: Application of Criterion D requires that the important information which an archeological property may yield must be anticipated at the time of evaluation. Archeological techniques and methods have improved greatly even in the few decades since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act. The questions that archeologists ask have changed and become, in many cases, more detailed and more sophisticated. The history of archeology is full of examples of important information being gleaned from sites previously thought unimportant. Because important information and methods for acquiring it change through time, it may be necessary to reassess historic contexts and site evaluations periodically.

Under Criterion D, a property conveys its significance by the quality of information it contains. Context and research potential are of paramount importance when evaluating the integrity of a property. While the evaluation of integrity may sometimes be subjective, it must be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to the property's significance. Determining which aspects of integrity are relevant to a property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. Generally, archeologists use the word integrity to describe the preservation quality of the deposits at a property. Good integrity usually means that a site has deposits that are relatively intact and complete and thus can provide important information. However, few archeological properties have wholly undisturbed cultural deposits and integrity should be evaluated in direct relation to the research questions defined in a research design. It is important to consider the significance of a property before considering integrity. This may involve comparing the property to other similar properties in light of the historic contexts in which the property's significance is defined. For example, in a region that is very poorly known, even deflated sites may produce important information regarding 1) basic archeological questions about use of the region and 2) baseline data on site condition with which to evaluate other similar sites in the region.

We must also keep in mind that archeological properties nominated under Criteria other than D, as well as those nominated under Criterion D only, constitute considering significance from other perspectives. Recent scholarly literature has emphasized consultation with descendant and other concerned communities (Dongoske et al. 2000; Stapp and Longenecker 2000; Epperson 1999; Blakey and LaRoche 1997; and Swidler et al. 1997 see selected bibliography), encouraging professionals to promote communication concerning the significance concept and CRM in general.

It is important to note that under Criteria A, B, and C the archeological property must have demonstrated its ability to convey its significance, as opposed to sites eligible under Criterion D, where only the potential to yield information is required. Below is an example of how one nomination addressed Criterion D: information potential and important research questions in their documentation. The text is from the nomination for Coso Rock Art District, in Inyo County, California, written by Amy Gilreath.


Collectively, contributing District resources have the potential to yield information important to a number of archaeological research issues of interest on national, inter-regional, and regional levels. Thus, all contributing properties are significant under NRHP Criterion D. The leading issues include the age and meaning of prehistoric rock art, prehistoric religious practices and belief systems, and western Great Basin hunter-gatherers and their subsistence practices and settlement patterns.

Age and Meaning of Prehistoric Rock Art

Section 7 of this nomination listed the methods that have been used, and those that are being developed, to date rock art, including stylistic analysis, element superposition, cation-ratio dating, and radiocarbon dating of organics incorporated in the varnish. Each of these methods involves study of the rock art itself. Other more traditional kinds of archaeological analyses, however, have the potential for being just as productive in determining the age and meaning of the rock art. A locational analysis of rock art sites within the District may, for instance, provide some implications about the art works' function. Similarly, study of the directly associated cultural deposits and features may render additional inferences about the function and antiquity of the rock art.

Prehistoric Religious Practices and Belief Systems

This aspect of prehistoric, non-literate cultures remains the most elusive to archaeologists. Physical evidence of prehistoric religious practices, beliefs, and values is rare, and so descriptions of such practices often are the result of an involved interpretation of indirect evidence. The Coso Rock Art District provides ample and unique physical remains of certain types of prehistoric religious practices. Furthermore, these remains occur in a contextual setting replete with other culturally affiliated, contemporaneous archaeological sites. The District's contributing resources provide an opportunity for an extraordinarily comprehensive reconstruction of past life ways in this area, by combining results of petroglyph studies with results obtained from studying the associated non-petroglyph resources.

Western Great Basin Hunter-Gatherers

District sites represent over 10,000 years of hunter-gatherer adaptations in this desert environment. Variability in the types of District sites and their constituents suggests that prehistoric subsistence practices shifted over time, perhaps a cultural response to real changes in the biotic resources available, a reflection of the displacement of hunters (Prenumic populations) with gatherers (Numic populations), and/or an outcome influenced by other factors. The variability in the types of District resources equally reflects temporal changes in settlement patterns and land-use practices. The suite of archaeological resources within the District is so variable as to suggest that nearly the full spectrum of activities practiced by the different cultures who used and occupied the District is represented here. The District encompasses special-activity sites such as hunting blinds, dummy hunters, and bedrock milling slicks, not to mention the petroglyphs that result from ritualized behavior. There is also high variability among residential sites within the District, from open-air limited habitation sites and multiple rock-ring villages, to occupied caves and rockshelters, some of which were also used as burial grounds.

Suggested Readings and Websites


Beaudry, M. (editor). Documentary Archaeology in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1988

Blakey, M. and C. LaRoche. "Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground." Historical Archaeology 31(3):84--106.1997

Carroll, L. "Communities and Other Social Actors: Rethinking Commodities and Consumption in Global Historical Archeology." International Journal of Historical Archeology 3 (3):131-136.1999

Carson, C. "Doing History with Material Culture." Material Culture and the Study of American Life, edited by I.M.G. Quimby, pp. 55--61. W.W. Norton, New York.1978

Carson, C., N.F. Barka, W.M. Kelso, G.W. Stone, and D. Upton. "Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies." Winterthur Portfolio 16 (2/3):135--196.1981

Cheek, C.D. and D.J Seifert. "Neighborhoods and Household Types in Nineteenth-Century Washington, D.C., Fannie Hill and Mary McNamara in Hooker's Division." Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by P.A. Shackel and B.J. Little, pp. 267--281. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.1994

Cleland, C. "Questions of Substance, Questions that Count." Historical Archaeology 22(1):13--17.1988

Cotter, J.L. "Symposium on Role of Archaeology in Historical Research." Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by R. L. Schuyler, pp. 18--19. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.1978

Cressey, P.J. and J.F. Stephens. "The City-Site Approach to Urban Archaeology." Archaeology of Urban American, The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by R.S. Dickens, Jr. , pp. 41--62. Academic Press, New York.1982

Cressey, P.J., J.F. Stephens, S.J. Shephard, and B.H. Magid. "The Core-Periphery Relationship and the Archaeological Record in Alexandria, Virginia." Archaeology of Urban American, The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by R.S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 143--174. Academic Press, New York. 1982

Deagan, K. "Neither History Nor Prehistory: the Questions that Count in Historical Archaeology." Historical Archaeology 22 (1):7-12.1988

-----"Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology." Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (Vol 5), edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 151-177 Academic Press, New York.1982

Derry, A. H., Ward Jandl, Carol D. Shull, Jan Thorman, and Patricia L. Parker. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register of Historic Preservation, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Revised 1985 by P. Parker.

Dickens, Jr., R.S. (editor). Archaeology of Urban America, The Search for Pattern and Process. Academic Press, New York..1982

Dongoske, K.E., M. Aldenderfer, and K. Doehner. Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 2000

Epperson, T. "The Contested Commons: Archaeologies of Race, Repression, and Resistance in New York City." Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by M.P, Leone and P.B. Potter, Jr. Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers, New York. pp. 81--110.1999

Ernstein, J. "Shifting Land Use, Shifting Values, and The Reinvention of Annapolis." Annapolis Pasts, Historical Archaeology in Annapolis, Maryland, edited by P.A. Shackel, P.R. Mullins, and M.S. Warner, pp. 147--168. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.1998

Fagan, Brian M. (editor in chief). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York. 1996

Ferguson, L. (editor). "Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things." Historical Archaeology Special Publication, 2. 1977

Hardesty, D. "Historical Archaeology in the Next Millenium: A Forum". Historical Archaeology 33(2):51--58.1999a.

--------------"Response to Comments by Gray, Lees, and Schuyler." Historical Archaeology 33(2):71--72.1999b.

--------------"Research Questions and Important Information." CRM 18(6):4B8.1995.

Hardesty, D.L. and B.J. Little. Assessing Site Significance, A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. Alta Mira Press, New York. 2000.

Heath, B. Hidden Lives, The Archaeology of Slave Life at Thomas Jefferson=s Poplar Forest. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA.1999.

Heath, B. and A. Bennett. " 'The little Spots allow'd them': The Archaeological Study of African-American Yards." Historical Archaeology 34(2):38--55. 2000.

Henry, Susan. "The National Register and the 20th Century, Is There Room for Archeology?" CRM Volume 18(6) pp 9-13.1995.

Hodder, I. Reading the Past, Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Originally published 1986, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.1992.

Hood, J.E. "Social Relations and the Cultural Landscape." Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape, edited by R. Yamin and K.B. Metheny, pp. 121--146. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.1996.

Johnson, M. "Commentary: Mute Passive Objects?" International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3(2): 123--129.1999.

Leone, M.P., and N.A Silberman (editors). Invisible America, Unearthing Our Hidden History. Henry Holt, New York.1995.

Leone, M. P. and P. B. Potter Jr. Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers, New York.1999.

Lipe, W. "A Conservation Model for American Archaeology." The Kiva 39:213--45.1974

Little, B.J. "Nominating Archeological Sites to the National Register of Historic Places: What's the Point?" SAA Bulletin (17) 4,19.1999.

-------------Text Aided Archaeology. CRC Press, Boca Raton.1992a

Little, Barbara, Erika Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle, Jr. and John Knoerl. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register, History and Education. 2000.

McManamon, F.P. "A Regional Perspective on Assessing the Significance of Historic Period Sites." Historical Archaeology 24:14--22. 1990.

McGimsey, C.R. Public Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York. 1972.

McGuire, R.H. and Paynter. The Archaeology of Inequality. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 1991.

Peacock. E. and A.J. Patrick. "Site Survey and Land Records Research: A Comparison of Two Methods for Locating and Characterizing Historic Period Sites on the Tombigbee National Forest, Mississippi." Mississippi Archaeology 32(1):1--26. 1997.

Purser, Margaret. "Consumption as Communication in Nineteenth Century Paradise Valley, Nevada." Historical Archaeology 23(3):105--116. Edited by Barbara Little and Paul Shackel. 1992.

Schaafsma, C.F. "Significant until Proven Otherwise: Problems versus Representative Samples." Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World, edited by H. Cleere, pp. 38--51. Unwin Hyman, London. 1989.

Schuyler, R.L. "Archaeological Remains, Documents and Anthropology: A Call for a New Culture History." Historical Archaeology 22(1):36--42. 1988.

--------------"Historical and Historic Sites Archaeology as Anthropology: Basic Definitions and Relationships." Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by R.L Schuyler, pp. 27--32. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York. 1978.

Scott, E. Those of Little Note, Gender, Race and Class in Historical Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1994.

Shackel, P.A. Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era. Plenum Press, New York. 1996.

-------------"Consumerism and the Structuring of Social Relations: An Historical Archaeological Perspective." Digging into Popular Culture: Theories and Methodologies in Archaeology, Anthropology and Other Fields, edited by R. Browne and P. Browne, pp. 31--41. Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Bowling Green, Ohio. 1991.

Smith, S.D. "Context and Archaeology of Settler Communities: An Example from Fort Leonard Wood Missouri. Settler Communities in the West; Historic Contexts for Cultural Resource Managers of Department of Defense Lands, edited by Robert Lyon. National Park Service. Rocky Mountain Region. pp 95--105. 1994.

Sprinkle, Jr., John H. "Research, Stewardship, Visibility, and Planning: Four Reasons to Nominate Archeological Sites to the National Register." CRM, Using the National Register of Historic Places (17) 2, 12. 1994.

Stapp, D.C. and J. Longenecker. "Working Together - 'The Times They Are A-Changin': Can Archaeologists and Native Americans Change with the Times?" Society for American Archaeology. Bulletin 18:18--20. 2000.

Swidler, N, K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, and A.S. Downer. Native Americans and Archaeologists, Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. 1997.

Tainter, J. and G.J. Lucas. "Epistemology of the Significance Concept." American Antiquity 48:707--19. 1983.

Trigger, B.G. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 1989.

Townsend, Jan. "Archeology and the National Register." CRM, Using the National Register of Historic Places (17) 2, 10-12. 1994.

U. S. Department of the Interior. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Federal Register 48(190). 1983.

Wilson, J.S. "We've Got Thousands of These! What Makes an Historic Farmstead Significant?" Historical Archaeology 24:23--33. 1990.


National Register of Historic Places

National Historic Landmarks Program

Earliest Americans Theme Study

Links to the Past, NPS

Managing Archaeological Collections, NPS

The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Framework, NPS

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation


New South's Guide to Section 106:

The WWW World of Archaeology

Entangled in the Past: Archaeology on the World Wide Web

Society for American Archaeology

Society for Historical Archaeology

Levi Jordan Plantation web site:

Register of Professional Archaeologists

Seeking Sites Afar: Point of Reference (Journals and Bulletins) for Anthropology, Archaeology, and History

American Anthropological Association

American Cultural Resources Association

The Archaeological Institute of America

North American Archaeology:

Anthropology Outreach Office, Smithsonian Institution

Navajo Nation Archaeology Department:

CRM and the World Wide Web

American Association for State and Local History

The Web of Time, Pages from the American Past:

Discovering Archaeology:

Anthropology in the News

The Federal Register

Organization of American Historians

History Matters

Common Place, The Interactive Journal of Early American Life

Archaeological Research Resources:

Society for Industrial Archaeology

Regional Alliance for Preservation


World Heritage Nexus: People, Places, Things

The Minicenter for Teaching Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture and Society

Archaeological Parks in the U.S.

Public History Resource Center

Glossaries of Archaeological Terms:

Recommended Sites, Anthropology

MDA, Archaeological Objects Thesaurus

Glossary of Lithics Terminology:

Academic Info, Anthropology

Alexandria Archaeology:


National Register Home | Publications Home | Workshop Home

Comments or Questions