|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
<br />The first version of National Register
<br />Bulletin: Definition of National Register
<br />Boundaries for Archeological Properties
<br />was edited by National Register
<br />Historian Beth L. Savage and released
<br />in 1985. The compilation of that
<br />bulletin was the result of the work of
<br />numerous individuals. Issues relating
<br />to the delineation of boundaries for
<br />archeological nominations were
<br />identified as a National Register
<br />Bulletin topic in the early 1980s by a
<br />committee of the National Conference
<br />of State Historic Preservation Officers,
<br />led by Valerie A. Talmage, former
<br />State Historic Preservation Officer of
<br />Massachusetts. Earlier work by Bruce
<br />MacDougal and Herbert Brito on
<br />boundary delineation for National
<br />Register properties served as a
<br />framework for the bulletin. Yvonne
<br />Stewart, Carol Dubie and John Knoerl
<br />played integral roles in the bulletin's
<br />completion. Helpful suggestions
<br />provided by the staff of the National
<br />Register and Planning Branches,
<br />Interagency Resources Division, and
<br />the insightful comments of many
<br />State Historic Preservation Offices
<br />contributed to the final publication.
<br />Answering an expressed need to
<br />provide continuing guidance in the
<br />area of delineating boundaries for
<br />archeological properties, the National
<br />Register reevaluated the usefulness of
<br />the original version of Bulletin 12 in
<br />1994. We thank the following for
<br />their comments: Carl Barna (BLM),
<br />Colorado Historical Society, John
<br />Cornelison (NPS Southeast Archeol-
<br />ogy Center), Frank R. Finch (Depart-
<br />ment of the Army), Leland Gilson
<br />(Oregon SHPO), J. Bennett Graham
<br />(Tennessee Valley Authority), Richard
<br />R. Hoffman (FERC), Diane Holliday
<br />(State Historical Society of Wiscon-
<br />sin), Elizabeth Horvath (NPS South-
<br />east Archeology Center), Judy
<br />McDonough (Massachusetts SHPO,
<br />Massachusetts Historical Commis-
<br />sion), Arleen Pabon (Puerto Rico
<br />SHPO), Gary Shaffer, (Maryland
<br />Historical Trust), Herschel Shepard
<br />(University of Florida), Robert E.
<br />Stipe, Lois Thompson (DOE), Western
<br />Regional Office, Valerie Talmage
<br />(former Massachusetts SHPO) and
<br />Richard Guy Wilson (University of
<br />Virginia).
<br />Several reviewers suggested
<br />incorporating National Register Bulle-
<br />tin: Definition of National Register
<br />Boundaries for Archeological Properties
<br />into a more broadly applicable
<br />boundary bulletin. In 1995, a revised
<br />National Register Bulletin: Defining
<br />Boundaries for National Register Proper-
<br />ties was issued. This current reprint of
<br />that bulletin incorporates an updated
<br />and streamlined version of National
<br />Register Bulletin: Definition of National
<br />Register Boundaries for Archeological
<br />Properties as this appendix. John H.
<br />Sprinkle, Jr., (Woodward -Clyde
<br />Federal Services) wrote most of the
<br />new material on site definition and
<br />identified new examples. Barbara J.
<br />Little (Archeologist, National Register
<br />of Historic PIaces) organized the
<br />bulletin into this appendix and
<br />deleted redundant examples. Carol D.
<br />Shull supervised the revisions. Mary
<br />F. McCutchan edited the text and
<br />prepared it for publication. Jan
<br />Townsend, Antoinette J. Lee, and Beth
<br />Savage assisted with various aspects
<br />of its preparation
<br />I. INTRODUCTION
<br />This appendix defines recom-
<br />mended approaches, with illustra-
<br />tions where applicable, to delineating
<br />boundaries for archeological proper-
<br />ties. Section II defines the concept of
<br />an archeological site. How archeolo-
<br />gists define the boundaries of archeo-
<br />logical sites is outlined in Section III.
<br />Section IV presents case studies which
<br />address the delineation of archeologi-
<br />cal site boundaries for a variety of
<br />both hypothetical and actual National
<br />Register properties. The case studies
<br />illustrate the necessary details —
<br />including background information,
<br />boundary description, approaches
<br />used, and boundary justification —
<br />with acceptable delineated bound-
<br />aries which typify situations com-
<br />monly encountered in preparing
<br />nominations.
<br />In each of the examples, the prop-
<br />erty has already been determined
<br />eligible for listing in the National
<br />Register. The cases are chosen to
<br />illustrate decisions regarding bound-
<br />aries.
<br />Reflecting the various types of
<br />historical associations retained by
<br />cultural resources, many historic
<br />properties are eligible for inclusion in
<br />the National Register under more
<br />than one of the four Criteria: A, B, C,
<br />or D. However, the National Register
<br />recognizes only one boundary for
<br />each historic property. Asite that is
<br />eligible under Criterion D for the
<br />important information contained in its
<br />buried remains, may also be eligible
<br />under Criterion A for its significance
<br />to modern Native American groups as
<br />a Traditional Cultural Property.
<br />Although the physical boundaries of
<br />the archeological site may be rela-
<br />tively small, the larger boundaries of
<br />the traditional place would be repre-
<br />sented in the National Register.
<br />Whatever the criteria for eligibility,
<br />historic properties should always be
<br />delineated by their largest relevant
<br />boundary.
<br />One continuing issue with historic
<br />properties that happen to be archeo-
<br />logical sites is the destructive nature
<br />of archeological investigation. The
<br />National Register does not, as a rule,
<br />list archeological sites that have been
<br />the subject of complete excavation.
<br />The artifacts, field records, photo-
<br />graphs, and other data collected
<br />through the process of excavation do
<br />not retain integrity of location or
<br />setting and thus are not eligible for
<br />inclusion. Some sites that were the
<br />locations of significant milestones in
<br />the history of American archeology
<br />are listed after excavation as historic
<br />sites.
<br />However, very few archeological
<br />sites are completely excavated in
<br />today's world where archeological
<br />studies are usually conducted as part
<br />of cultural resource management
<br />activities. Archeological investigation
<br />is by definition a process of sampling
<br />the buried record of past lives. At
<br />most sites, portions of the site remain
<br />unexcavated. In addition, in the
<br />framework of data recovery, or Phase
<br />III excavations, only a portion of the
<br />site, that within the "limits of pro-
<br />posed construction" or "area of
<br />potential effects" is subject to inten-
<br />sive excavations. Often large portions
<br />of archeological sites located outside
<br />the "mitigated" areas survive the
<br />development process. Care should be
<br />given, at the completion of data
<br />recovery excavations, to evaluate and
<br />nominate the significant surviving
<br />portions of the "unmitigated" area of
<br />such archeological sites.
<br />For example, in a recent case from
<br />a southeastern state, a large multi
<br />component archeological site, dating
<br />from the Late Archaic and Contact
<br />periods, was subject to data recovery
<br />excavations in the area slated for
<br />construction of a reservoir dam in the
<br />late 1980s. Subsequently in the mid
<br />1990s, another portion of the site
<br />underwent Phase III excavations as
<br />the result of a second federal under-
<br />49
<br />
|