CORRESPONDENCE - 75A SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE

Home Browse Search

taking. However, portions of the site located between the two areas of previous data recovery excavations have the potential to contain signifi- cant archeological information. Proposed for preservation in place, this surviving parcel is eligible for the National Register although the site as a whole has endured two previous data recovery operations. Finally, the National Register has long recognized the disproportionate under - representation of archeological sites (approximately 7 %) within its approximately 67,000 listed proper- ties. Clearly, many thousands of historic buildings, structures, and districts contain unrecognized archeo- logical components that are equally eligible for the National Register. The National Register has made amending nominations to include the archeo- logical portions of currently listed historic properties, a relatively simple and straightforward process. Nomina- tions may be quickly prepared or amended using the computer - resident nomination forms available from the National Register. Specific procedures for amending nominations can be found in National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Nomination amendments should be used to increase or decrease the boundaries of a property or district, as well as adding or subtracting criteria and areas of significance. National Register nominations should not be considered static documents. Indeed, as land uses at a site change, or as further information is gathered, it may be desirable to update the nomination to reflect current conditions. Over the years, a National Register nomination may require a certain amount of "informa- tion maintenance" in order to recon- sider the property's description, contributing elements, period of significance, applicable criteria, and of course, boundaries. 50 11. WHAT IS AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE? The main text of this bulletin (p.30) defines a site as "the location of a significant event, prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or building or structure, (whether standing, ruined, or vanished) where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value" and goes on to note that "the most com- mon types of resources classified as sites are archeological resources." Most archeologists practicing their craft today would agree that together with the artifact and the feature, the "archeological site" is one of the fundamental concepts in our disci- pline. Yet, it is sometimes difficult to find a simple, meaningful definition of what an archeological site is, and what it is not. Archeologists have always recog- nized the site as one of the founda- tions of all research on past cultures. In his 1956 work, A Short Introduction to Archaeology, the British archeologist, V. Gordon Childe described how although "antiquities' could be commonly found either on the surface of the ground or through excavation, "such objects in themselves are only potential archeological data." Arti- facts only become data "when classi- fied in light of their associations, of the contexts in which they have been found" within archeological sites - Thus, for Childe, a "site" was simply the source of archeological informa- tion. Field manuals for archeologists provide common definitions of archeological sites. A site is "a fairly continuous distribution of the remains of a former single unit of settlement" (Dancey 198I:13). An archeological site is usually the scene of past human activity. It may be marked by the scanty remnants of a brief en- campment, or by the abundant remains of a settled village. If a site shows evidence of repeated occupation or use, it is still considered a single site, but various levels or periods of use may be distinguished within it (Hester, Heizer, and Graham 1975:13). Each archeological site is a unique time capsule. Each has its own distinct character and problems. Sites represent a body of data relevant to their setting and their cultural patterning and must be interpreted in relation to both this local setting and to their function as a link between cultures (Joukowsky 1980:35). outlining the mysteries of archeol- ogy in an effort to protect sites on private property, National Park Service archeologist Susan Henry (1993:6 -7) relates several characteris- tics of sites: The focus of the archeo- logical attentions is the site —a place where human activity occurred. An archeological site has horizontal and vertical dimensions. Few archeo- logical sites are simple and straightforward. Most are complex, containing diverse elements, or components, each of which may represent a different activity. All site compo- nents bear a relationship to one another, and all components, including the buildings and landscapes, need to be studied in order to understand the way of life once carried out at [a site]. Archeologists occasionally have pointed out that the site concept is inadequate because the archeological record often is not clustered. Several researchers have supplemented the site concept with that of "nonsite sites" (for example, Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Lewarch and O'Brien 1981). "Distributional archeology" (Ebert 1992) focuses on surface material rather than sealed sites in order to concentrate on human use of the whole landscape rather than on discrete, rare places. For the purpose of nominating an archeological site to the National Register, there must be clearly defined and justified boundaries. See Cases 15 and 16 for examples of delimiting site bound- aries where the artifact record is continuous.