Anthropology 645 Historic Preservation Week 2 King provides a useful organization for sorting the federal statutes into those of similar kinds: Authorities that deal with all types of cultural resources (e.g., NEPA, EO 12898 Environmental Justice), historic preservation authorities (NHPA, Historic Sites Act, Federal tax code), Archaeological authorities (Antiquities Act of 1906, ARPA, Abandoned Shipwrecks Act), Native American cultural resource authorities (NAGPRA, American Indian Religious Freedom Act), and Historical Documents (Federal Records Act). Will help us as we discuss the changing emphases of the federal government. Synopsis of early history of Americanist historic preservation. What are some of the events that Tom King and his colleagues think most likely led to the development of historic preservation in this country can be traced to: Glorification of George Washington as the founder of United States. Other colonists involved in the War of Independence, or places associated with early colonies were imbued with special qualities by many of the citizens of the country. This began before the Civil War, but then took on additional significance after it as a means of emphasizing the origins of the country and its long term integration. Creation of Library of Congress-books represent cultural resources. Regional diversification of the country, which despite the Civil War continued on (and remain with us). Various axes to this: northeastern, atlantic, southern, and west. Much is made of the east and western division of the country and the different interests represented in each and thus the attitudes reflected in historic preservation. Rothman identified the regionalism of preservation after Civil War. Beginning of recognition of value of different kinds of historic properties depending on location. In east, associated with Euroamerican history; in west, with pioneering, Spanish missionary, and native American history. In east, further divided between north and south, each tending to glorify different aspects of history. The policies of manifest destiny on which the federal government embarked in the 19th century, and which led to the acquisition of new lands, especially to the west. The U.S. became an Empire, and though not immediately realized, the country began the process of developing a federal bureaucracy to oversee these lands. Much of the land began as federal domain, which was released to settlers through homesteading and other means, but in many parts of the west the federal government remains the largest landowner. In late 19th century federal government sponsored research on ethnography and archaeology through the Smithsonian Institution and Department of Interior and to acquire battlefields through the War (now Defense) Department. What is going on here? Why in first half of 20th century is historic preservation of sufficient concern that twice the federal government took a particular legislative stand on this topic? Not surprisingly the early historic preservation movement was linked by race and culture to those places associated with Euro-American colonization and establishment of the new country. The participants were for the most part, white, Protestant, men (but also a surprising number of women), usually of western European origin. Tended to be successful and politically powerful. The presence of women is interesting for it suggests that historic preservation was considered a suitable hobby or volunteer effort for women, who would not otherwise be employed or have a public personae. Historic preservation classed with other good deeds. Thus, historic preservation was a means for recognizing the accomplishments of historic men in ways that tended to validate the control of the country by their figurative (if not literal) descendants. Icons for the success of the population. None of this very problematic at a time when control of political, economic, and social institutions lodged in hands of white, largely Protestant, eastern educated elites. The historic properties they wanted to preserve for the most part were associated with individuals of similar characteristics. It was also a way of developing and reinforcing a federal nationalism. This was a continuing problem throughout the first century of the nation. Gave a common sense of identity to people scattered throughout the nation and divided by the Civil War (could all usually agree on the value of the figures involved in the American Revolution). Reinforced existing control. Sense of competition at work, as well. Competition with European nations, all of which had long histories, monuments and treasures (often stolen from other countries). Historic preservation served as a basis for international relations-to indicate to foreign powers that U.S. had a legitimate history. Interesting that it is a form of emulation. Using the same attributes as European countries to establish one's own value. Yet, at most this history of European interests in the U.S. went back only a few centuries. But in contrast to Europe, early historic preservation undertaken under private sponsorship. Very little state sponsorship. This reflects the then current political view of the state as having relatively few interests (defense, economy). And although we will see this change, it is interesting to note that in U.S. we continue to emphasize the decentralized implementation of historic preservation. Alternatively, we might see that the distinction between private and public sponsorship not all that great, since many of these individuals acting privately had connections to positions of considerable political and economic power. F. Near the close of the 19th century, another change signals a new perspective on historical properties in the U.S. With the defeat of the last American Indian insurgents by the late 19th century, their subjugation, placement on reservations or dispersal to other areas, the Euroamerican colonization of the U.S. was largely completed. Fear of Indians now often replaced in the East with concern about documentation of their ways and history. Also, the ruins which had formerly been ignored or treated as the remnants of other groups, increasingly thought to be associated with Native Americans. Ironic, when no longer a threat to U.S., the history of these people became a suitable topic of interest. Reflects, in part, our tendency to romanticize the past. Here, too, it enables the country to talk about a longer history than that represented solely by European colonization, even taking the generous view of Viking colonization of portions of the NE portion of North America and Greenland. By the close of the century, further expansion in North America by the United States was pretty much brought to an end. Although U.S. would acquire additional lands and extend its influence, recognition that continental lands were finite brought with it a realization that management of the federal lands might need to involve conservation. Initial focus on natural resources, forests but quickly came to include cultural resources. Establishment of NPS in 1916; battlefields' protection moved to NPS as well. Established Mesa Verde as a NP early this century. After the turn of the century, we see historic preservation developing within the realm of academic professionalism (the rise of anthropology and archaeology, in addition to the widespread creation of museums throughout the country). This often pitted, untrained amateurs and semi-professionals with an increasingly university trained professional class as well as their elite and usually rich allies. Part of the goal of historic preservation as used by these emerging professionals was to limit access to historic properties to only those with proper credentials. The political economy of the university elite. Some of this was done out of a concern with preserving the archaeological record, and having some ability to document provenance for artifacts--but it was also designed to professionalize the discipline and limit the study of the past to those with training. Non-professionals were not helped by the fact that many made part of their living by the lucrative sale of artifacts to collectors and to museums. That they were also making homestead claims largely on the basis of the archaeological sites they contained, did not help their case. H. There is also a regional dimension to the political organization of the country. With established, monied, industrial eastern representatives interested in controlling what occurred in the west. And of course the West preferred to have its destiny in its own hands. This persists up to today. Theodore Roosevelt's presidency represented the first time a relatively conservationist philosophy represented in the Executive Office. This pitted interests of the newly colonized or incorporated west against the east. Westerners resented federal control of lands, and attempts by easterners to limit their abilities to advance economically. Economic advancement in their eyes, largely predicated on resource extraction. Archaeological sites seen as a resource (for selling artifacts) or archaeological sites seen as secondary to agricultural potential or the natural resources (timber, ores, water) that might also serve to support western colonists. Westerners opposed federal actions that extended the government's reach and limited individual access to public lands. This is continues today. During the Clinton administration, his secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbit, proposed raising user fees on most land managed by federal government an on which large numbers of cattle graze. I. However, at the turn of the century, it was Richard Wetherill, trader and artifact collector, who was the most prominent individual involved in this matter and came ultimately to represent the unchecked exploitation of the West's historical resources and whose activities almost singlehandedly provoked the passage of the Antiquities Act. The 1906 Antiquity Act is important because it for the first time established a role for the federal government in historic preservation. There are two main thrusts to the statute. What's the first and most important of these? Jurisdiction over antiquities located on federal property through formal permitting system. What's the second? That National Monuments (later to become Landmarks) could be established by Presidential decree on federal lands. Whereas the 1906 Act grew out of the concern over vandalism primarily in the American SW, the 1935 Historic Sites Act had a different history. What was its impetus? The make work archaeological and historical documentation projects of the New Deal, specifically archaeology done under WPA especially within the TVA, and the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). What, then, was its lasting impact on historic preservation? First, it established the broad policy within the federal government for the protection and preservation of historic properties, and placed the NPS and the Dept. of Interior as the primary organizations within the federal government with historic preservation objectives. Second, it affirmed many of the New Deal programs involving building and engineering documention (HABS and HAER), and investigation of archaeological sites, especially those threatened by public projects. It also went somewhat beyond those programs by instituting federal archaeological survey of most important archaeological and historical sites, buildings, and objects--this went unfilled until much later. What do these 2 statutes tell us about the scope of federal involvement in historic preservation in the first half of this century? That intervention often followed something on the order of an emergency. Rarely ever followed up or well organized, especially after the threat of the emergency lapsed.. Federal agencies responsible but not very ambitious. Very limited federal scope that was characteristic of this era. Nonetheless, they mark a change with the past. We also see the beginning bifurcation of historic preservation into that which focused on archaeology and that focused on historic buildings and architecture. With the former retaining a re-active stance: emergency or salvage work in advance of some other governmental developmental activity and in which research was ostensibly the reason given for the work (but quite often little reported). The latter, tended towards more systematic documentation, often in the absence of an overt research framework (an indication of the more practical or engineering emphasis within historic architecture) At first, as Rothman notes the emerging professionals were unable to compromise with the political interests of the west and with the federal congress, both of which sought to control excessive expansion of the executive powers. Thus, the Antiquity act remained in a state of limbo for several years during which no one could agree on a suitable arrangement. Not too surprising then that the individual most responsible for breaking the logjam was an archaeologist, Hewett (with only marginal training), who lived and worked in the West. Recognized the need to limit the Executive Branch's ability to create archaeological reserves. At same time initiated the role of three Departments: Agriculture, Interior, and War as lead agencies in permitting archaeological research on their lands, and allowed them to identify Interior as the lead agency in these matters. Finally, found a legislative way to limit non-professional access (although there were really no penalties that would keep the determined pot-hunter out of these sites). Nonetheless, the days of the entrepreneurial and untrained archaeologist were largely over. At the same time, the federal government on record as having made a commitment of preserving the pre-European, that is the Native American historical record in the United States. I think archaeologists also learned something important that they have tended to practice well: the art of legislative involvement and compromise at both state and federal levels. But this also tells us something else about the early period of historic preservation in the U.S., that as the perceived threat or concern diminished, so too did the articulation of those with historic preservation interests with the federal government. This was partly because the bureaucracy of federal government was much smaller at this time, and the activities of the bureaucrats and agencies more strictly constrained both by the Executive and congressional interests. This doesn't change until the mid to late 1930s and didn't become complete until well after WW II. Again, the passage of the 1935 Historic Sites act is informative. Broadened the scope of the Department of Interior's mandate with respect to historic properties and enlarged the kinds of activities it should undertake to help preserve and protect properties. In this sense, it consolidated the gains made during the previous decade in bringing historic preservation within the domain of federal undertakings. Did so, in part, because both the documentation of historic buildings, and the archaeological work done by WPA crews keep alot of people busy, and seemingly resulted in substantial amounts of information. Accomplished this at relatively low cost. Yet, this legislation failed to establish a realistic appropriation for the Dept. of Interior to achieve its objectives, especially those having to do with survey of historic properties within the National Parks or to continue the work of HABS and HAER. Nor was Interior able to adequately represent its own interest here. This, in fact, has been a longstanding criticism of Interior--that it has played a subordinate role in historic preservation until the past decade. Yet, a number of senior archaeologists got substantial field work experience during WPA, and while the archaeological experience may have been important, the link between archaeology and the federal government was established. But note that much of this was salvage archaeology, and its relationship to historic preservation was stretched thin-- these were sites which otherwise would have been covered by the waters from dammed rivers, or destroyed by road building or bridge construction. Still, when after the War the federal government began a large scale program of highway building and dam construction, archaeologists were prepared to engage the government on behalf of the sites affected, and to argue for salvage work. This occurred, despite, limited federal obligation to conduct such work and was often written into specific federal legislation which appropriated funds for such projects. Nothing permanent provided. Reactive rather than proactive. Represents failure among most archaeologists to build interdisciplinary bridges to other related disciplines and to historic preservation. This, of course, was a time of relative economic prosperity and full employment, and impact of economic growth on the landscape of our country had still to be anticipated. What's missing from all of this? Native Americans and other ethnic groups (particularly African Americans) which had lived in the U.S. for some time, and in the case of Native Americans had a potentially long history. Virtually no appreciation for the accomplishments of N.A. Can understand why. They were being systematically decimated. Population loss with the advent of disease, warfare, and then relocation to the west. Cultural discontinuity, especially when disease effects spread faster than European population movement, and native peoples much diminished by the time of first or sustained contact. And in some areas, California and the SW, people other than the English were the first European colonizers. This when combined with the racism of Europeans (i.e., that Native Americans did not develop the land efficiently, could not survive as a people, did not progress in the same way) made their cultural properties nonexistent or attributed to other groups. At the same time, U.S. had only a limited higher education system, and few trained in the natural history disciplines found in Europe. No discipline of anthropology or archaeology to speak of. History meant European or colonial history. Native Americans written out. Late in the 19th Century, have beginnings of archaeology and anthropology. often grounded though in fantastic ideas about Native Americans. Assumed that they would become extinct. Assumed there had never been many of them. Assumed they had only been in the New World for a short period of time before the arrival of Europeans. Assumed they had not achieved much--certainly never developed a civilization. In short, early archaeology was affected by the unfounded ideas that most white Americans had about Native Americans. Early anthropology was conducted as if it were salvage work--that Indians wouldn't be around another generation to study. Emphasized their unchanging qualities, or projected these into the past. Despite this, archaeologists soon became involved in the recovery of antiquities from Native American sites. Amounted in many cases to a form of looting. The same often took place at contemporary Indian settlements. Fueled by the growth of museums in the late 19th century and their desire to acquire new materials for their collections. Archaeologists got funding and provided materials to collectors and museums. Led to the emphasis, still prevalent today, that the defining quality of an archaeologist is as a person who conducts field work through excavation. Archaeologists and anthropologists also began to set their discipline apart from history (never much interested in indigenous peoples). To sensationalize their findings. This effort to document and to study Native American peoples and their historic properties done by white men for the most part. Very little attempt to encourage Native Americans to take up this task. Effort was in some ways a mirror of what happened with historic period sites. Nationalism--in this case nationalizing a discipline--anthropology. Create a common boundary, and separate it from other natural sciences and social sciences. Audience for this was limited to the wealthy and powerful and to other intellectuals or collectors of antiquities.