Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s:
Administrative History
Chapter Five: New Initiatives in the Fields of
History, Historic Preservation and Historical Park Development and Interpretation
|
|
O. Historical and Archeological Research:
1935-1941
The Historic Sites Act provided for a comprehensive
research program "to obtain true and accurate historical and
archaeological facts and information" relative to the nation's
historical and archeological sites. Under Dr. Chatelain's tutelage the
Park Service developed an energetic and far-reaching research program,
so energetic Harold Ickes informed Director Cammerer on June 11, 1936,
that the Park Service was going too far afield in the matter of research.
Accordingly, the director had Chatelain draw up a document describing the
overall purview of the Park Service research program. On July 7 the document
entitled "Statement Regarding the Activities in Historical Research of the
Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings" was submitted to the
secretary. [90]
Asserting that the research activities of the branch
were "an extremely important part of the work of the National Park
Service," the statement noted that between January 1, 1935, and June 1,
1936, the research staff working with materials in the Library of
Congress and in other federal departments had prepared more than 300
reports. Of these 57 percent were prepared at the request of
Congressional committees or individual Congressmen or because of the
need to obtain data to render judgments upon bills pending before
Congress which would affect the National Park Service. Some 38 percent
of the reports were made in response to inquiries from field personnel
or from other Park Service branches in Washington, while some 5 percent
were prepared to answer requests from state agencies or historical and
patriotic agencies.
Chatelain went on to note that the research program was
based "on a true conception of the needs of the Park Service and a
carefully planned program of meeting the day by day problems that come
into the Service." The studies were necessary "if the high professional
standards" of the Service were to be followed in the historical areas.
The historical problems of these areas were "necessary problems" which
must be met if the National Park Service were to meet the obligation
placed upon it by law "to recommend action on sites proposed for
national administration, and to develop those which are required."
In handling these problems, Chatelain contended,
historical research in Washington saved both time and money because of
the research resources at the Library of Congress and the archives of
the various federal departments. With such material at hand, a "small
efficient research staff in Washington" could provide the essential
historical information necessary to the handling of a large percentage
of historical problems presented to the National Park Service" without
expensive travel to the field, and without using the time consumed in
field investigations." Moreover, the "true justification" for a
comprehensive investigation of historic places lies in
the fact that only by studying and reporting on them is it possible to
secure the complete picture that is an essential preliminary to
classifying sites according to their importance. And not until this
classification is made will it be possible to carry out fully the
purposes for which the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was
created. Survey and classification is a fundamental responsibility
placed upon the National Park Service by the recent historic sites
legislation.
The reports made as a result of inquiries from the
field and other branches of the Park Service . . . are indispensable to
the authentic development of the sites under Federal Administration.
Accurate restoration of historic buildings is often made possible only
by data uncovered in the Library of Congress and other governmental
agencies. . . .
Chatelain argued that the National Park Service could
not safely rely upon the accuracy of information provided by state and
local agency historians. To meet the obligation placed upon the Park Service
by the Historic Sites Act, the Park Service historians must
"verify the historical truth" for themselves and "secure the information
which meets our own particular problems." In conclusion he noted:
. . . To maintain true professional standards, to
handle the work involved promptly, efficiently and at as low a cost as
possible, and through that means to cultivate true historical standards
and a genuine and widespread interest in preserving the important
remains of our national past is the fundamental justification of the
work of the Research Division. . . . [91]
As the National Park Service became increasingly
involved in the development of historical areas, there was a
corresponding need to define the relationship between research and
development. The Regional Historians' Conference held on June 6-10,
1938, recommended that the National Park Service adopt a draft research
and development policy for historic sites that it drew up. Accordingly,
Director Cammerer approved such a policy statement on June 20, 1938. The
document stated that a "basic function of the National Park Service is
the preservation and interpretation of historic sites." To perform that
function effectively, it was ''necessary that the relationship of
historical and archeological research to development programs of such
areas be clearly understood." Such a research and development policy was
needed to provide a framework within which the Branch of Historic Sites
and Buildings "could provide technical research assistance to the
administrative officers in charge of historic sites and to the branches
directly concerned with planning and development." The essential points
of the policy read:
It is a fundamental principle that research should
precede actual developmental work. When it accompanies the execution of
a project the demands of the moment are likely to force hasty and
inadequate investigation and thus enhance the liability to error.
Furthermore, planning itself can be intelligently undertaken only in the
light of all the data revealed by research.
. . . To secure complete and accurate information and
interpret it correctly, requires trained and experienced personnel.
Reliance should not be placed on data compiled by untrained or
inexperienced persons, nor should historical or archeological research
be assigned to any nonprofessional personnel except with the approval of
the Branch of Historic Sites. . . .
The Service should be capable of instantly proving the
authenticity of its work. Accordingly, the policy is adopted of fully
documenting the plans for each interpretative or developmental feature
involving historic or prehistoric remains with a view to placing the
Service in such a position of security that it can fully justify, at any
time, any preservation, reconstruction or restoration project on areas
under its jurisdiction. The research data shall, at the time of park
development, be inserted on the project application as project
justification or as a technical report justifying and fully documenting
the work that is to be performed. . . .
. . . In addition to such documented studies for
specific restoration or development projects, similar data files and
similar documented studies should be made on such allied subjects as
ordnance, ceramics and furnishings, when they are involved in park
development.
Collaboration of all technicians engaged in research on
the character, features, and history of a given site, is essential if
the best results are to be obtained. Not only should archeologists and
historians studying the same site work closely together, but the data
compiled by them should be regularly checked with the results of
historical-architectural studies and museum research.
The use of modern and standardized methods of gathering
and recording historical and archeological data for use in planning is a
basic requisite for effectuating any sound program of development for a
historic site. Unless the best methods known are adhered to and a
sufficient trained personnel is available to permit their thorough
application, developmental plans should be halted or postponed.
[92]
An example of an historical park program where research
was tied closely to development was the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. On
July 21, 1938, Ronald F. Lee, Chief, Branch of Historic Sites and
Buildings, drew up the outline of a historical research program that would
meet the needs of preservation, restoration, interpretation, planning, and
development for the canal. The work program, which would require the services of
two historians, included:
1 . To conduct historical research in original
documents and in the field to determine as accurately as surviving
evidence permits, the exact character of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,
its route, and river and road connections, plans of structures,
aqueducts, locks, wharves, plans of equipment including canal boats,
character of its traffic, and its historic uses, to permit authentic
preservation and restoration.
2. To prepare an historical base map of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal showing historic location of canal, locks, dams, and its
necessary structures such as warehouses, lock-keepers' houses, etc. ,
and the relationship of the canal to adjoining historic sites and
settlements, such as early Georgetown, Harper's Ferry and
Cumberland.
3. To collect, and classify for historical purposes
copies of photographs and prints showing the canal in active use for
purposes of authentic preservation, and to collect, identify, and label
artifacts and other objects discovered during the period of
development.
4. To translate the historical data accumulated into
maps, reports, and other forms suitable for use by architects and
engineers preparing detailed construction and development plans.
5. To prepare a plan, and to inaugurate a program for
the interpretation of the historic features of the canal to the using
public through markers, preservation and restoration, museum exhibits,
and other means and devices as study may indicate is necessary.
6. To aid in liaison work with the other technical
branches in the Service in the planning and development of the area.
[93]
Chapter Five continues with...
Development of Restoration and Preservation
Policies: 1935-1941
|