+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ## IMPLEMENTIN                    | Kathleen D. Browning              |
| G THE ANTIQUITIES ACT: A SURVEY O |                                   |
| F ARCHEOLOGICAL PERMITS 1906-1935 | Archeology and Ethnography        |
|                                   | Program                           |
| *Studies in Archeology and        |                                   |
| Ethnography #2*                   | National Center for Cultural      |
|                                   | Resources                         |
| ## \<[**ht                        |                                   |
| tp://www.cr.nps.gov/pubs/studies/ | National Park Service,            |
| study02a.htm**](http://www.cr.nps | Washington, DC                    |
| .gov/pubs/studies/study03a.htm)\> |                                   |
|                                   | 2003                              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Chapter 1: Introduction

Public archeology in the United States received a long-sought and hard
won legislative boost for antiquities protection in 1906. On June 8,
1906, a federal law, an Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities
(16 U. S. C. 431-433) was signed into law by President Theodore
Roosevelt after several arduous decades of dedicated attention to the
issue. Better known as the Antiquities Act, its enactment responded to a
growing concern over the issues of looting and vandalism of American
archeological resources. Proponents of the Act\'s passage intended to
provide appropriate mechanisms to halt the plundering of antiquities and
destruction of archeological sites, which was pronounced in the
southwestern United States. Additionally, supporters envisioned a
statute to shelter irreplaceable archeological deposits, ancient
architectural ruins, and natural resources from destruction or pillage
by homesteaders, curious tourists, and pothunters increasingly known to
frequent the American West (Lee 1970/2001; Rothman 1989: 12; Thompson
2000a).

The Antiquities Act initiated a federal system and infrastructure to
protect American antiquities on public land, regulate public
archeological activities, and punish malefactors known to have disturbed
ancient sites and ruins. By declaring antiquities, scientific objects,
and places as public sources of education, scientific information,
and/or commemorative value, the Antiquities Act established fundamental
policies for the treatment of cultural resources that influenced
archeology and historic preservation throughout the twentieth century
(McManamon 1996, 2001). The law empowered the President to establish
protected reserves of public land, referred to as national monuments, by
simple proclamation without congressional action. Additionally, it
regulated all excavations, investigations, or removals of objects of
antiquity from public land. Potential investigators were required to
apply for and be issued a permit that validated their studies.
Supporters hoped the passage of antiquities protection legislation would
provide a mechanism through which the Federal government could prosecute
and punish those who violated the Act\'s provisions.

This study explores two aspects of the Antiquities Act's impact on
public archeology between the Act's passage and 1935. The first is a
consideration of the many administrative developments within the
Department of the Interior required to implement the Act. During this
twenty-eight year period, the Department of the Interior developed a
permit system for the review and issuance of applications; the National
Park Service was created; new functions, such as the Department
Archeologist, were established; and other challenges that arose were
addressed. Secondly, this survey explores some of the projects
undertaken by the earliest Antiquities Act permit recipients, and
discusses some of the troubles that plagued field and federal
archeologists throughout the initial third of the twentieth century.

The research and analysis here reflects the contents of only one
archival collection, albeit a large one, of Antiquities Act permits
records from the period 1907-1935. The permit data reviewed for this
project and discussed in the text that follows are derived from an
archival holding of Department of the Interior documents now housed at
the National Archives Records Administration II (NARA II), located in
College Park, Maryland. The collection consisted of 338 permits issued
by the Department of the Interior between 1907 and 1935 as well as
copious amounts of associated correspondence. The data documented and
discussed in this report provide a presentation of the initial
scientific archeological and palaeontological excavation projects
approved by the Department of the Interior with hopes of enhancing
knowledge of ancient America.

Records of additional Antiquities Act permits issued by the Department
of the Interior during these years may be located in other facilities.
Other collections and depositories may contain additional permits that
could result in further findings. Several permits, for instance, are
mentioned in the different editions of the *Annual Report of the
Department of the Interior*, but I was unable to locate the permit
records in the archives. Similarly, departmental queries and documents
within this collection also shed light upon several permits I had no
success in finding or documenting while conducting my research at the
archives with the primary source data.

Why There is an Antiquities Act

National Park Service historian Ronald Lee wrote a detailed,
informative, and interesting history of the Antiquities Act (Lee
1970/2001; see also Thompson 2000a). Historian Hal Rothman has published
a detailed history of the implementation of the statute, in particular,
the National Monuments section (Rothman 1989). Readers are referred to
these sources for more information than can be provided in this brief
historical summary section.

As the last quarter of the nineteenth century began, the American
Southwest accumulated increasing numbers of settlers, as well as
adventurous or curious visitors. Some sought collections of antiquities
valued strictly for private or financial gain (Fowler 2000:92-219;
Hinsley 1991, 1996; Ise 1961:144). The resultant looting, vandalism, and
increased homesteading escalated the destruction and removal of American
antiquities from public land (Bandelier 1890-92; Baum 1904; Hewett 1906;
Nusbaum in Ise 1961:145). As early as 1891, an extensive collection of
archeological material was exported from Mesa Verde to Sweden, the
result of excavations conducted by Gustav Nordenskiold (1893; see also
Lee 1970/2001; Wegner 1980; Lister 1991). Substantial local protests
were raised when the removal of the excavated artifacts became known.
Yet, despite legal challenge, the export proceeded.

Fifteen years later, the continued threat to America\'s past resulted in
an extensive national campaign to protect the valuable traces of the
ancient past that remained undisturbed. At the same time adventurers and
early archeogists in the Southwest were digging up archeological
remains, public fasciniation with native people and the rapidly closing
American western frontier was growing (Cronin 1994; Hinsley 1991; Lister
and Lister 1981; Runte 1987). This public appeal attracted additional
attention to American antiquities, highlighting the looting problem, but
also increasing the commercial value of genuine antiquities. In an
attempt to combat its national perceptions of inferiority felt in
comparison to ancient European cities, castles, and other cultural
marvels, \"the agelessness of monumental scenery instead of the past
accomplishments of Western Civilization was to become the visible symbol
of the new \[American\] nation (Runte 1987: 12).\" The natural
environment of the United States, as well as archeological and cultural
vestiges throughout the Western landscape, became tied to a wave of
American nationalism.

The natural and cultural resources, the \"jewels\" of America, gained an
appreciation that surpassed monetary value and natural resource
extraction. Areas and sites, such as Casa Grande, Mesa Verde, and
Yellowstone began to be cherished by more Americans for the valuable
natural, cultural, scenic, and scientific contributions they offered the
nation (Cronin 1994:612; McManamon 2000). Private citizens and civic
organizations, increasingly alarmed and informed by reports of the
removal of American antiquitites organized to combat the problems caused
by archeological looting, site vandalism, and modern development. The
Anthropological Society of Washington, The American Anthropological
Association, the Archaeological Institute of America, and others
provided steady and eventually successful support for political and
legislative action to protect American archeological sites (Lee
1970/2001; Thompson 2000b).

Following many unsuccessful attempts, interested parties were able to
secure the enactment of \"An act for the preservation of American
Antiquities\", on June 8, 1906. By 1906, passage of antiquities
legislation had been building for twenty-four years. As early as 1889,
George Hoar from Massachusetts entered a petition before the Senate
seeking special status for areas in the Southwest in order to protect
and preserve the natural and cultural resources being discovered. Hoar's
measure failed, as would many others (see Lee 1970/2001; Rothman 1989;
Thompson 2000a, b). Ultimate success in the early summer of 1906 was
hard won; only the steady perseverance of concerned parties gave the
United States its first general protective statute for any kind of
American cultural resource or historic property. In addition to
providing a foundation for regulating public archeological
investigations and protecting archeological sites, the Antiquities Act
established key principles from which future historic preservation
policies and statutes would be derived (McManamon 1996).

Chapter 2: Implementing the Antiquities Act

Passage of the Antiquities Act had three particular impacts of lasting
importance for American archeology, historic preservation, and natural
resource conservation. First, it was now possible for the President to
unilaterally set aside federal land for preservation as a national
monument. This authority provided for swifter, more expedient protective
action than through the congressional process required for the
establishment of national parks. Second, potential archeological
investigators were required to secure a permit from the land managing
officials, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior or War, to conduct
any type of archeological or paleontological research on federally owned
or controlled land. Third, individuals who removed, disturbed, or
destroyed antiquities on federal land without obtaining an Antiquities
Act permit were subject to punishment by fine and/or imprisonment.

Permit requirements included an obligation to provide proper long-term
care for collections in a public facility. As the preservation and
presentation of cultural artifacts and scenic wonders for the visiting
public were gaining importance both with archeologists and the American
people, the remaining vestiges of the past were to be used to benefit
the country as a whole, not merely wealthy collectors. The threat of
penalties, including jail imprisonment and a \$500 fine, were
anticipated to be a deterrent to non-scientific excavation of
antiquities on federal land holdings.

Developing a Permit System

Administrative records associated with the Antiquities Act permits
reflect the permit application process. Individual researchers, normally
an associated member of a nationally recognized public institution, were
required to submit a permit application to the appropriate federal land
managing department, Agriculture, Interior, or War. The required
informaiton for permit application is described in the Act\'s rules and
regulations (43 CFR 3). According to a Departmental letter from 1909,
permits were required for \"examinations, excavations, and gathering
taking place on public lands, Indian reservations, National Monuments
within public lands and Indian lands, National Parks, etc. . ." (Pierce
1909).

All applicants were required to provide the name of trained field
workers\' formal affiliation with a public institution, and a location
where the collection would be properly housed, studied, and eventually
publicly displayed. Additionally, a specific description of the research
site was to be plotted on a sketch map, and a realistic scope of work
for the field season(s) was to be suggested for all projects. The first
permit issued under these procedures was to Edgar Lee Hewett, on behalf
of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1907. [Figure
1](../STUDY02_fig1.pdf) shows Hewett\'s application seeking the initial
Antiquities Act permit.

Section 3 of the Antiquities Act (16 U. S. C. 431-433) expressed the
need for a process to monitor and regulate archeological investigations
and artifact collection on public lands, stating:

That permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of
archeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the
lands under the respective jurisdictions may be granted by the
Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and War to institutions which
they may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination,
excavation, or gathering subject to such rules and regulations as they
may prescribe: Provided, that the examinations, excavations, and
gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums,
universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational
institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects,
and that the gathering shall be made for permanent preservation in
public museums.

The idea for a permit system gained momentum in years prior to the
statute\'s passage. The Rev. Henry Mason Baum, one of the most active
lobbyists for antiquities protection at the turn of the century, clearly
mentions the idea for federally issued permits as early as 1904. In
*Records of the Past*, a journal dedicated to reporting the preservation
of antiquities worldwide, Baum declared:

Of course, we should welcome the scientific men of foreign countries to
investigate our prehistoric monuments and ruins and permit them to
retain some of the archaeological treasures recovered, *but it should be
done under government permits and supervision* \[emphasis added\], and a
record should be left of their work and whatever they are permitted to
take back with them (Baum 1904: 100).

In March, the same year, the federal permit concept was introduced, in
draft form, into the Congressional consideration as bill H. R. 13349, by
Representative W. A. Rodenberg from Illinois (Lee 1970/2001: 44).
Several additional drafts and bills were considered later, until the
Act, with its permit provision, passed in 1906.

The permit applications examined in this study were submitted to the
Secretary of the Interior\'s office. These applications were reviewed at
the Secretary's office and then submitted for collaborative approval to
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Some of the permits were
also submitted by the Secretary\'s Office to the General Land Office
(GLO), a branch of the Department of the Interior established in 1912 to
\"superintend, execute and perform all such acts and things touching or
respecting the public land of the United States.\" Additional
responsibilities of the GLO included disposing of public land and
overseeing the withdrawal from availability for homesteading land of
cultural significance as a step towards prior to formal preservation
(Lee 1970/2001; Townsend 1999).

In most cases, if adequate information was provided in the initial
application by a recognized expert and public institution, the
application was approved. A permit issued by the Secretary, upon
recommendation by the Smithsonian Institution, and other relevant
Department bureaus and offices resulted. If requests to excavate did not
interfere with the work of other research institutions, project
approvals materialized via a departmentally issued letter that
reiterated the information provided by the applicant. The permit
represented a contractual agreement between the federal government and
the permitee that all rules and regulations of the Antiquities Act would
be upheld.

Uniform rules and regulations were developed quickly by the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Interior, and War to implement the Antiquities Act. On
December 28, 1906, just six months after the law was issued, the three
Secretaries issued the regulations, which immediately took effect. The
regulations outlined specific conduct and procedures required of
Antiquities Act permit recipients. All applicants were provided a copy
of the conditions regulating examinations on federal land and were
expected to abide strictly by them. The regulations (43 CFR 3.1-3.17)
were relatively short and described responsibilities and requirements.
The main points are summarized below:

-   The Department of the Interior had jurisdiction over all federal
    land holdings, excluding the forest reserves held by the Secretary
    of Agriculture and military reservations controlled under the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary of War. Jurisdiction included ruins,
    archeological sites, historic and prehistoric monuments and
    structures, objects of antiquity, historic landmarks and other
    objects of historic and scientific interest.

-   No permits for removal of ancient monuments or structures will be
    granted if in situ preservation is an option for the structure.

-   Permits for the examination, excavation or gathering of antiquities
    will be granted to reputable museums, universities, colleges, or
    other recognized scientific or educational institutions or their
    duly qualified agents.

-   Exclusive permits for excavation will not be granted for areas
    larger than can be explored systematically and fully within a
    reasonable amount of time estimated in the permit application.

-   All applications must include an outline of proposed work, the name
    of the institution, the date to begin field work, expected length of
    excavation, persons involved in the excavation, character of the
    work, and the public museum where the objects excavated, examined,
    or gathered will be deposited.

-   No permit will be issued for more than a three-year period, although
    extensions of original permitted activity are possible if renewal is
    approved.

-   Failure to begin work within six months of permit issuance, or
    insufficient progress with the work undertaken will result in the
    permit that was issued to be declared void by the Secretary without
    any order or proceeding.

-   All applications are referred to the Smithsonian Institution for
    recommendation.

-   All permits are to be in writing, referred to the Smithsonian
    Institution and the appropriate field officer in charge of the land.
    Recipients are to receive a copy of the rules and regulations with
    their permit.

-   All permit recipients are required to submit two copies of a report
    at the close of each field season, one to the Smithsonian and one to
    the Department of the Interior. Reports are to include a catalog of
    collections and photographs and indicate any material available for
    exchange.

-   At the close of a field project, permit recipients are to restore
    the site to the specifications of the appropriate field officer in
    charge.

-   Permits may be terminated at the discretion of the Department.

-   Field officers shall occasionally report to the Department on the
    existence of archeological ruins, monuments, objects of antiquity,
    historic, or scientific interest found on public land.

-   Authorities of various Departments may apprehend or arrest
    individuals who illegally obtain objects or damage ruins and
    monuments located on federal land.

-   Illegally obtained collections from federal land may be seized
    wherever found at any time by persons authorized by the Secretary of
    the Interior and deposited in a national depository or otherwise.

-   All collections made under Antiquities Act permits are to be stored
    in public museums, accessible to the public. Museums or collections
    facilities that close will transfer their material to a national
    facility at the United States National Museum.

The National Park Service and Early Federal Archeology

Because the number of permit applicants was quite small in the years
immediately following the Act\'s passage, the existing modest Department
of the Interior administrative staff shouldered the new responsibilities
of reviewing applications, coordinating with the Smithsonian
Institution, and issuing permits. Similarly, the numbers of new national
monuments grew only gradually and initially were managed within the
existing administrative framework. Within ten years of the passage of
the Act, however, the amount of activity had increased substantially.
The Department was responsible not only for supervising permit-related
regulation, but also monitoring, protecting, and regulating activities
in more than twenty national monuments and sixteen newly-created
national parks (Cameron 1922; Lee 1970/2001; Rothman 1989; Interior
1912:697). The increased responsibilities included also additional
national parks created during this decade by statute (Albright and Cahn
1985).

Walter L. Fisher, then Secretary of the Interior, presided over a
conference of park superintendents in Yellowstone National Park in 1911
to address the growing inadequacies of the fatigued administrative
structure plaguing the Department (Albright and Cahn 1985:7; Cameron
1922). The Department of the Interior annual report described the state
of the administrative problem as follows:

The consensus of opinion . . .at the conference was that development of
the national reservations should proceed along more liberal lines than
has heretofore obtained, and that the supervision of the various parks
should be centralized in a bureau especially charged with such work . .
. presently supervision in many instances is necessarily limited, and
considerable difficulty has been experienced in protecting monuments
from vandalism, unauthorized exploration, and spoliation (Interior
1912:61).

A proposal for a coordinated system to manage the rapidly expanding
national parks and monuments was presented by the Taft Administration to
Congress. A similar presentation was made to the attendees of the
American Civic Association\'s annual meeting in 1911 in an attempt to
garner additional support for the cause (Albright and Cahn 1985:8).
National parks, as expressed by Frederick Law Olmsted, a prominent
advocate for creating a national park system, were to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein
and to provide for the enjoyment of future generations, a sentiment
ultimately incorporated into the law that established the National Park
Service. The proposed restructuring would increase supervision of vast
amounts of often isolated land and sought to reduce the continued
assault of vandals and looters on sites and ruins located on public
land.

Despite President Taft\'s pleas recommending the establishment of a
bureau of national parks, a bill proposed to Congress in 1911 failed to
become a law (Interior 1915). Subsequently, bills to establish a Bureau
of National Parks were introduced in both the House and the Senate from
1912 through 1915. All the bills died in the committees despite
assistance and support from Representatives William Kent and John E.
Raker from California, and Senators Reed Smoot from Utah and Edward T.
Taylor from Colorado (Albright and Cahn 1985: 35; Albright and Schenck
1999; Ise 1961; Lee 1970/2001).

Success in the campaign to create a formally recognized, systematic
administrative federal bureau finally came on August 25, 1916, when an
Act to establish a National Park Service was signed by President Woodrow
Wilson. Years of continuous lobbying and political persuasion led by
Stephen Mather, with important assistance and support from Horace
Albright, Frederick Law Olmstead, and other advocates, including many
volunteers working for the American Civic Association and the General
Federation of Women\'s Clubs, resulted in the passage of a successful
bill. Preservationists were armed now with an improved administrative
system for the management of national parks and monuments.

However, limitations on funding continued to impede progress in national
park and monument protection, especially for the relatively small and
isolated national monuments with archeological sites (Rothman 1989: 93).
Appropriations for the sustained operation of the newly authorized
system of parks still needed to be approved by Congress. Without
adequate funding, the newly authorized service was paralyzed; no staff
could be hired and no progress made. Stephen Mather, who was named as
the first Director of the Park Service, and his deputy Horace M.
Albright continued to press for adequate funding. Generous
appropriations for the newly established service initially were
dismissed. \"It was felt the bureau should first prove its worth to the
country and start with a moderate personnel\" (Mather 1923: 3).

As a result of continued efforts, \"supplemental appropriations\" in
1917 provided the bureau with \$19,500 to employ a director, an
assistant, a chief clerk, and several other employees to administer the
managerial tasks regarding the national parks and monuments (Mather
1923: 3). Unfortunately, the funding coincided with the declaration of
war on Germany. Many potential new park service employees volunteered or
were drafted into the military. Despite Mather and Albright\'s eagerness
to proceed (Albright and Cahn 1985: 57-58), establishing an effective
administrative structure and expanding responsibilities to address the
needs of the vast protected lands were again delayed.

Although there was scant opportunity to hire new staff, Horace Albright
wasted no time in beginning his assessment of the parks and monuments.
In the fall of 1917, he traveled to Utah to inspect a federally
protected national monument, previously unseen by park service
officials. Mukuntuweep, a site at the core of what would eventually
become Zion National Park, was just one monument in a system that
Albright referred to as the \"forgotten orphans of the service.\" The
Antiquities Act made it possible to set aside these diverse tracts of
natural and historical wonders, yet each monument received an annual
allocation of only \$120, plus a dollar a month for a custodial salary
(Albright and Schneck 1999; Rothman 1989).

Despite Antiquities Act protections secured more than a decade earlier,
efforts to protect antiquities and prosecute those who violated the
Act\'s provisions had not improved by the mid-1920s. A small
administrative structure and limited field personnel did their best to
monitor federal property throughout the United States, but ten
monuments, including Yucca House and Hovenweep, had no appointed
custodian (Cammerer 1924). Vast tracts of federal land holdings also had
little or no staff to ensure illicit archeological looting was not
on-going (Albright and Cahn 1985). Under these circumstances, the
monuments languished on the western landscape.

Creating the Departmental Archeologist Position

The difficulties created by limited funds appropriation and the outbreak
of World War I had stifled the newly formed National Park Service\'s
ability to address the pervasive problems of archeological looting and
vandalism and to deal effectively with the tourism influx on public
land. However, the National Park Service personnel were trying more
attentively to correct the lack of archeological site protection. As
early as 1918, Neil Judd and Horace Albright discussed the possibility
of creating an archeological division of the National Park Service to
concentrate on the continuation of scientific research and the
restoration of deteriorating ruins (Albright and Schenck 1999: 279). At
the time, Judd, who was employed by the Smithsonian Institution, was
working to restore Betatakin within Navajo National Monument (Brew
1978). Once again, a lack of funding made the hiring of an archeologist
by the Park Service impossible at the time.

However, within a few years of the initial discussion proposing an
archeological division of the National Park Service, a persuasive
advocate for archeological site preservation and protection was hired as
Superintendent of Mesa Verde National Park. Jesse L. Nusbaum, an
archeologist with ample experience and a first hand knowledge of
archeological sites throughout the Southwest and Central America, became
the first archeologist employed by the Department of the Interior. He
was entrusted with the task of managing the first national park
established for its archeological and historic significance. Nusbaum was
an early employee of Edgar Hewett and a friend and colleague of Alfred
Kidder, Sylvanius Morely, and other early American archaeologists (R.
Nusbaum 1980). Since Nusbaum and his prior work were well-known, he
served as an effective liaison between the government and other
professional archeologists working in the field to enforce existing
American antiquities protection and advance archeological
interpretation.

One such attempt to increase attention and activity to fight
archeological looting within the Department of the Interior materialized
in the 1920s. The President of the American Anthropological Association
(AAA), Walter Hough, organized a committee comprised of himself, as well
as established archeologists A. V. Kidder and Neil Judd, to investigate
the problem of archeological looting. Their findings, transmitted to the
Secretary of the Interior by letter, concluded:

The difficulty lies in the fact that no government official seems to
have been authorized to enforce the Antiquities Act of 1906. . . . In
other words, the department\'s under whose authority the law places all
ruins on the public domain seems unwilling, or unable to assume the
responsibility of enforcing the law (Judd 1924a:429).

Neil Judd, then Curator of American Archeology at the United States
National Museum, wrote three letters to the Secretary of the Interior in
the spring of 1924 to pursue these concerns (Judd 1924b, 1924c, 1924d).
He and the committee members reminded the Department of the unchecked
looting of archeological sites and unauthorized excavations being
carried out in direct violation of the Antiquities Act. Violations most
commonly were carried out "within the Indian Reservations in New Mexico
and Arizona and on adjacent public lands, including those in southern
Utah and southwestern Colorado" (Judd 1924a). The AAA committee strongly
recommended use of the sanctions in the Antiquities Act to encourage
enforcement. Four recommendations were made to the Department:

-   Indian superintendents should be granted permission to confiscate
    illegally excavated material and forward them to approved
    depositories;

-   All traders in antiquities cease immediately or face revocation of
    their trading permits;

-   Copies of the Antiquities Act should be posted in visible places on
    federal land;

-   Field officers should be authorized to confiscate looted antiquities
    and monitor federal land for Antiquities Act violators (Judd 1924c).

The Department of the Interior responded to several of the AAA committee
recommendations less than a year later. Judd\'s ideas for improvements
in enforcement were shared with the Office of Indian Affairs (Burke
1924a), which in turn forwarded the concerns to park and monument
superintendents and their administrative staff (Burke 1924b). Late in
1924, multiple copies of the Antiquities Act were sent to the parks and
monuments for posting (Wickham 1924). \"Superintendents or others in
administrative charge\" were reminded of their authority to confiscate
looted artifacts from traders and alert individuals trafficking
antiquities that their trade permits on Indian reservations could be
revoked if traders were caught excavating for cultural material on
public land (Burke 1924b). Park superintendents began to post signs on
federal land bearing the following text in 1925 (Interior 1925:93):

WARNING.---THIS ANCIENT RUIN IS LOCATED ON PUBLIC LAND. IT BELONGS TO
YOU---HELP PROTECT IT.

All persons are warned that it is unlawful to remove any object from,
excavate on, damage, destroy, or remove any portion of, an ancient ruin
located on lands owned and controlled by the Government of the United
States, except under permit issued in accordance with the act of
Congress approved June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225); that any person violating
the law may be arrested by an officer of the United States and may be
fined not more than \$500 or imprisoned for more than 90 days, or may
suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Help
preserve for the future the records of the past.

After many years of inaction, direct steps were taken by the Department
to inform the public of the Act\'s existence and intent and to increase
efforts by field personnel to reduce violations of the Antiquities Act.

Another important breakthrough occurred in 1927. The final provision of
the AAA committee's recommendations of 1924, the designation of a field
officer \"to compel observation\" on federal land and \"confiscate all
antiquities illegally attained\" (Judd 1924b) was realized. Department
of the Interior Order No. 229 named Jesse L. Nusbaum as \"Archeologist
for the Department\" on July 9, 1927 ([Figure
2a](../STUDY02_fig2a.pdf)).

The Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1928 provides a
brief description of Nusbaum\'s new responsibilities:

Mr. Jesse L. Nusbaum, who is also superintendent of the Mesa Verde
National Park, renders advisory service to all branches of the
department, as well a scientific and educational institutions
contemplating archeological investigations upon the public domain under
jurisdiction of the department. This official is also engaged in
developing methods for the better protection of the many archeological
sites located mainly throughout the Southwest; the prevention of
unlawful excavation on these sites, the orderly conduct of work
authorized by department permits, and proper publication of the
scientific information derived therefrom (Interior 1928: 216).

In 1929, Departemnt Order No. 393 affirmed Nusbaum\'s designation
([Figure 2b](../STUDY02_fig2b.pdf)). The text of the order summoned the
authority of his new position regarding permits:

All requests for permission to explore prehistoric ruins on the public
domain, in the national parks, and on Indian reservations, are, under
existing orders, referred to him for report. The request should be
routed through the Office of the Secretary, and no permission will be
given to any scientific or other party to carry on investgations or
remove prehistoric relics without the consent of the Secretary and in
accordance with interdepartmental regulations on the subject.

Nusbaum\'s appointment as Departmental Archeologist was an
administrative development adopted to secure additional protection for
archeological and other scientific resources on federal and Indian land
in the Southwest. As a field officer, Nusbaum communicated the pressing
need to monitor public lands more closely and to report all violations
of the Antiquities Act to him or to National Park Service personnel. For
the first time, park superintendents and field archeologists had an
advocate and advisor for archaeological protection and to guarantee
fieldwork was carried out in an orderly and professional manner. After
decades without direct professional attention given to the Antiquities
Act permits, the Department now had an employee to process a growing
number of incoming permits and ensure proper scientific fieldwork
([McManamon and
Browning](http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/22-4/22-04-7.pdf) 1999).

Nusbaum\'s position title \"Departmental Archeologist\" changed to
\"Consulting Archeologist\" when he took a leave of absence in 1930 from
his post at Mesa Verde to direct the newly- opened Rockefeller-sponsored
Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe. He remained active in both his
position at the Laboratory of Anthropology and the National Park Service
throughout this early period of his appointment as Consulting
Archeologist. Nusbaum promoted archeological protection and increased
public outreach with interpretive programs and displays featuring
archeological specimens (Nusbaum 1930). For example, the museum
buildings at Mesa Verde National Park were designed and constructed
under Nusbaum\'s supervision to house, display, and interpret \"newly
excavated material of prime importance\" (National Park Service 1930:
20). Public exhibits for interpretation at parks, including
archeological material, were viewed by the National Park Service as
\"museum exhibits that have exceeded our most sanguine expectations. .
.the beginning toward museum exhibits that have promise and will be
valuable and popular exhibits for the National Government when
completed\" (National Park Service 1923:20).

Among the most helpful products for understanding Nusbaum\'s activities
and goals following his appointment are the Annual Reports he prepared
for the Secretary of the Interior (Nusbaum 1929, 1930, 1931). Their
content was similar to the general Annual Report of the Secretary of the
Interior, but Nusbaum\'s specifically addressed archeological issues.
The Department from 1929-1931 published copies of the reports. A fourth
report, dated 1932, appears never to have been published by the
Department, although a draft copy of Nusbaum\'s findings for 1932 was
found at the NARA II facility with the permit documentation. Each of the
four Annual Reports discusses Nusbaum\'s tasks and responsibilities and
describes authorized on-going permit excavations. In each, the problems
of looting, vandalism, and increased visitation are discussed and
remedies for problems advocated. The reports are an excellent tool to
monitor federal progress with its Antiquities Act responsibilities.
Although they are only able to provide a small window into federal
archeology\'s past, Nusbaum\'s reports provide valuable insights into
the conditions confronting archeologists concerned about archeological
protection during the first third of the twentieth century.

Developments in the 1930s

Despite administrative gains and modest personnel increases, the
inadequacies of Antiquities Act enforcement continued to plague the
archeological community in the 1930s. Jesse Nusbaum made several
requests in his Annual Reports for help in administering and overseeing
the Department of the Interior's archeological field resonsibilites:
\"One lone field representative. . .can not protect an area that extends
over the major portion of the Southwestern states. Help is needed\"
(Nusbaum 1929:v). In addition to the enormity of the land to be managed,
the number of permit applications was increasing steadily ([Table
1](#table1)).

Table 1. Number of Antiquities Act permit applications received by the
Department of the Interior 1906-1935

  --------------- -------------------- --------------- --------------------
  **1900-1909**                        **1910-1919**   

  **YEAR**        **\# OF              **YEAR**        **\# OF
                  APPLICATIONS**                       APPLICATIONS**

  1900            n/a                  1910            2

  1901            n/a                  1911            1

  1902            n/a                  1912            1

  1903            n/a                  1913            7

  1904            n/a                  1914            4

  1905            n/a                  1915            13

  1906            0                    1916            13

  1907            4                    1917            11

  1908            7                    1918            4

  1909            7                    1919            10

  subTOTAL:       18                   subTOTAL:       66

  **1920-1929**                        **1930-1935**   

  1920            13                   1930            25

  1921            8                    1931            32

  1922            4                    1932            25

  1923            14                   1933            25

  1924            8                    1934            21

  1925            8                    1935            23

  1926            9                    1936-1939       No Data

  1927            15                                   

  1928            13                                   

  1929            11                                   

  subTOTAL:       103                  subTOTAL:       151

  **TOTAL NUMBER                                       **338**
  OF APPLICATIONS                                      
  RECEIVED:**                                          
  --------------- -------------------- --------------- --------------------

By the 1930s, the number of permits applied for and issued were nearly
double the number dealt with annually during the 1920s. The quantity of
permit requests was too large and permit application inconsistency was
exacerbating an already difficult situation. Nusbaum reported:

Many applicants for permits normally supply but a brief and often
indefinite outline of the work contemplated under the permit, in a few
cases so much so that the purpose and aim of the project could be
construed by this office as an attempt to simply legalize sporadic
excavations without definite aim other than securing material and
without apparent consideration of the coordinated effort of other
institutions (Nusbaum 1930:8).

In a coordinated effort to adopt a standardized form for Antiquities Act
permits application, as well as to discuss the Antiquities Act's
continued ineffective enforcement, an interdepartmental meeting was held
in Washington, D. C. Nusbaum met with representatives from the
Smithsonian Institution, the National Park Service, the General Land
Office, Indian Office, the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and
War, and a few private institutions in April, 1932. In two sessions,
April 13 and April 19, held at the Smithsonian Institution, attendees
were able to adopt a standard application form to systematize
Antiquities Act permit requests, as well as compile a list of
recommended procedures proposed for greater Antiquities Act protection
on federal land (Abbot 1932).

Greater regulation and standardization of archeological procedures in
the field through the Antiquities Act permitting procedures was one
means of increasing professional responsibility and ensuring the
adoption of scientific excavation procedures by all applicants.
Participants in the conference at the Smithsonian Institution agreed:

-   Prehistoric remains found in the United States are of such great
    value and importance that any and all means to \"conserve\" and
    \"safeguard\" those located on federal land should be pursued;

-   The \"fullest practical enforcement\" consistent with the
    Antiquities Act and its regulations should be a priority;

-   Excavations should be for scientific aims, not for
    \"self-gratification or profit\";

-   All excavations authorized by each Department overseeing federal
    land should be in full compliance with the specific rules and
    regulations of the Antiquities Act, as passed in 1906;

-   The Antiquities Act is an adequate piece of legislation, if properly
    enforced.

There appears to have been no discussion about artifacts and materials
excavated from historic period sites during this 1932 meeting. No
changes in the Antiquities Act regulations resulted from this meeting
held at the Smithsonian, though two amendments were proposed which would
have:

-   Permitted the arrest of persons found on land of the United States
    and in possession of archeological material for which they could not
    establish ownership or right of possession, and the seizure and
    impounding of such material pending final determination of its
    origin and legal ownership;

-   Prohibited the interstate shipment of archeological material except
    under permit issued by an authorized Federal or State officer. The
    present acts of that tenor in Arizona and New Mexico would be
    strengthened and made more effective by such an amendment (Abbot
    1932).

The amendments do not appear to have been pursued, and no changes to the
regulations were made. Action was taken to more explicitly state the
requirements expected by the Departments, as compliance with them was a
major concern of conference participants. The responsible Secretaries
eventually agreed on a standardized application form to be used by all
permit applicants. The three page standardized form began to appear for
approval at the Secretary of the Interior's office by 1935 (Keur 1935b).
See [Figure 3](../STUDY02_fig3.pdf) for a copy of a completed
application using the 1935 detailed form.

During the early 1930s, an average of twenty-five permit applications
were received (see [Table 1](#table1)) and initial field reports flooded
into the Department with unprecedented frequency. Permitted excavators,
now aware of repercussions for non-compliance, increasingly observed
requirements they largely had ignored for many years.

*Added Requirements for Studies on Indian Lands*

The process of granting permits to individuals seeking to excavate
ancient sites on Indian land occasionally was controversial. The
Antiquities Act itself required permits for examinations, excavations,
and gatherings taking place on all lands "owned or controlled by the
government of the United States" (Pierce 1909). It did not require
tribal approval of permits for investigations on reservation lands.
However, the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs examined
permit applications for those proposing archeological activity on an
Indian reservation or tribal land. For instance, Alfred Kroeber and the
American Museum of Natural History applied for a permit in 1916 to study
the Zuni on their reservation. During administrative review of the
permit, Dr. Charles Walcott of the Smithsonian Institution recommended
that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Superintendent of the
Zuni Indian School be consulted:

Desired permission to conduct anthropological investigations on the Zuni
Reservation, so far as they do not involve the excavation of ruins or
the gathering of objects of antiquity is one which should be passed on
by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs as involving the question of
administration only (Walcott 1917).

Consideration of the impact of scientific investigations on Native
American groups was a condition of the approval of this permit in
February 1916. The permit stated \"permission of the Indian agent and of
the Indians themselves should be secured\" prior to any anthropological
research.

Another permit issued the same year to the American Museum of Natural
History carried a similar provision for consultation. The permit issued
by the Department of the Interior recommended the applicant \"should be
instructed to confer and cooperate with Superintendent Ellis of the
Blackfeet Reservation and make no excavations that will interfere with
the rights of the Blackfeet Indians or any work of the United States
government\" (Sells 1916).

Despite an apparent lack of documented incidents during the previous two
decades, occasional entanglements over Antiquities Act permits in the
1930s required Departmental intervention. Increased tourism and the
proliferation of isolated Indian trading posts and recreational
accommodations on federal land had elevated knowledge of and demand for
archeological materials. The market for American antiquities continued
to grow and tensions between scientists and pothunters were escalating
as well (*U. S. Daily* 1931). Some encounters raised tensions between
American Indians residing in the Southwest and investigators in search
of additional scientific information from the past.

In 1934, a recently buried, historic Native American skeleton and the
associated funerary objects were excavated by investigators working
under federal permit. The conduct of the scientists raised serious
concerns. Carl H. Skinner of the Phoenix Indian School alerted the
Department of the Interior of his concern about the conduct of
scientists operating under an Antiquities Act permit on tribal land
(Nusbaum 1935a). The Superintendent and related tribal members met with
representatives from the Office of Indian Affairs to negotiate a
compromise. Tribal members received the human remains and the funerary
objects were kept by the excavation team from the University of Arizona
(Collier 1934).

In order to prevent future conflicts of this sort, the Department
devised a solution intended to respect both the Native American graves
and the scientific interests of Antiquities Act permit recipients. An
initial proposal protected graves younger than 200 years from exhumation
and study. Several archeologists, including Julian Steward and Jesse
Nusbaum, objected to the two hundred year limitation. Archeological
investigations were expanding to federal land outside of the Southwest
and the possibilities of new data and research were growing in the
consciousness of the archeological community, such that an exclusion
would have prohibited the study of some time periods. For example,
prohibiting the excavation of graves postdating 1700 on federal land
eliminated the possibility of excavating sites pertaining to the contact
period on the Great Plains and elsewhere (Nusbaum 1935b, 1935c).

Six months later, on August 7, 1935, Oscar Chapman, Assistant Secretary
of the Department of the Interior, agreed to an Antiquities Act permit
modification restricting excavation on Indian reservations and land to
"qualified archeologists" only. Any work done in present and former
burial grounds \"abandoned for less than a century\" required permission
of the governing Indian Tribal Council and registering of any activity
with a BIA Superintendent or those in administrative charge of the
designated area (Chapman 1935b). A new rule limited the activities of
archeologists who were known to have disturbed recent burial sites while
conducting archeological studies or making museum collections.

*Other Changes*

Additional requirements and conditions were added to the permit approval
procedures as new issues and problems demanded immediate attention.
Initially, the Antiquities Act permit text established a procedure and
informed applicants of the legal parameters of the agreed upon contract.
Each permit issued carried the same general message for almost two
decades:

Pursuant, therefore, to the act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225) and to
interdepartmental regulations (copy herewith) adopted and approved under
said act, dated December 28, 1906, the \[Institution\] is hereby granted
permission to prosecute archaeological research within the territory
mentioned. The report required by the regulations should be submitted at
the end of the season to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,
and a copy thereof forwarded to this department for information and
record (Interior 1915).

A variety of conditions were inserted in permits on an as-need basis
throughout the years, but by 1931 another paragraph became necessary for
all permit recipients requesting to study ruins and sites located on
Indian reservations and tribal land. The Office of Indian Affairs issued
Order No. 7. It was approved by Department of the Interior Assistant
Secretary, John H. Edwards, and required the insertion of a new
paragraph into all letters of introduction to persons working on tribal
land. The new paragraph read:

The holder of this permit, and those operating there under shall hold
the Department of the Interior, its bureaus and employees, blameless for
any and all events, acts, deeds, or mishaps arising while on the
reservation, regardless of whether they arise in the performance of such
study or research or not. The government assumes no legal or other
responsibility in such matters. Such protection will be afforded as is
consistent with the Superintendent and other employees (Edwards and
Scattingwood 1931).

The Department was clearly distancing itself from the liability and
safety issues manifesting themselves within the business of managing the
federal lands of the United States.

Chapter 3: Exploring the Implementation of the Act

The Applicants

The many different individuals, organizations, and institutions involved
in the development and success of the Antiquities Act are listed in the
appendices of this report. Hundreds of applications were approved in the
years following the initial application and permit issued to the
Archaeological Institute of America and Edgar L. Hewett in 1907 ([Figure
1](../STUDY02_fig1.pdf)). [Appendix A](../STUDY02F.htm) provides an
alphabetical listing of all institutions and individuals from whom the
Department of the Interior received Antiquities Act permit applications
for excavation on public lands, as well as the years in which permit
applications were received, and the quantity of work requested by each
institution throughout the period. Appendix A can be checked to identify
active institutions and determine the extent to which various
establishments became involved in the collection and protection
movement. [Appendix B](../STUDY02G.htm) lists specific individuals who
either excavated archaeological material from public land under
Department Antiquities Act permits or those who were affiliated with a
museum or university department and sought permission on their employees
behalf. Appendices A and B should be consulted to answer specific
questions about individual Antiquities Act applicants and
permit-requesting organizations.

*Problematic Applications*

More than 300 applications for permits to conduct investigations were
received by the Department for evaluation and review between 1907 and
1935 ([Table 1](../STUDY02B.htm#table1)). Only eleven permit denials
were documented during this period. Over half of these denials (6)
occurred in the earliest years, between 1907-1910.

Denials most commonly were due to an applicant's inability to
demonstrate the investigation and resulting collection would benefit the
American people. Of the six permit applications denied within five years
of the Antiquities Act\'s passage, four were denied for this reason.
Section 3.3 of the rules and regulations (43 CFR 3.3) requires all
investigators to demonstrate a verifiable public use of the material
obtained while from excavations on federal lands. Charles Auld, Charles
Baker, John Uri Lord and J. H. Nauerth were applicants unable to
demonstrate an ultimate public use of the objects. While their intent
may have been noble, they established no firm connections to approved
public institutions where the excavated material and records would be
cared for and interpreted for the public. Unsuccessful applicants
received a rejection letter with a copy of the rules and regulations.
Applicants who were turned down also had the option of reapplying for
permission in the future.

Between 1907 and 1912, a desire for specimens of petrified wood from
Arizona resulted in a flood of both qualified and unqualified applicants
requesting Antiquities Act permits. A. B. Bibbons of the Department of
Geology, the Women's College of Baltimore (later Goucher College), the
State National Bank of Illinois, and four other individual collectors
wrote the Department requesting permission to obtain samples. All of the
unaffiliated, individual applicants were denied permits. However, the
Department and the United States National Museum did allow a previously
collected sample of petrified wood to be sent to the only educational
establishment requesting a sample: the Women\'s College of Baltimore.

Applicants were rejected later for more varied reasons. The lack of
affiliation with a public educational institution remained a problem,
but new circumstances also arose. The Department expanded the reasons
for declining to issue a permit to include:

-   Requests made for land not managed by the Department of the Interior
    (University of Utah-1923);

-   Overly ambitious projects monopolizing huge tracts of federal land
    (University of Colorado-1927);

-   Overcrowded areas with too many excavators requesting the same area
    or site to study (Eastern California Museum Association-1930;
    Princeton University-1932).

Even during these early years of implementing the Antiquities Act, when
the Department of the Interior had an overextended staff and fledgling
administrative structure in place, ensuring the prohibition of illegal
excavations on federal land was a serious concern. Jesse Nusbaum and
others actively worked to prevent private collectors from illegally
capitalizing on the antiquities trade from public land. Closely
monitoring the Antiquities Act permit applicants enabled the Department
to consistently grant permits only to those applicants who submitted
realistic fieldwork proposals and who demonstrated an interest in
educating the American people.

*Institutions, Museums, and Universities*

The earliest permits generally were granted to the large, firmly
established East Coast universities and museums. Individuals from
establishments such as the American Museum of Natural History and the
Museum of the American Indian in New York City, the United States
National Museum in Washington DC, the Carnegie Institute of Washington,
and the Peabody Museum at Harvard University had worked for passage of
the Antiquities Act for decades prior to its passage (Lee 1970/2001).
They began building archeological collections prior to the Antiquities
Act and continued to collect and display additional artifacts from the
American Southwest in their exhibits and collections. From the permit
files examined for this study, these five scientific giants were granted
over one hundred permits for investigations in ten states between
1907-1935 (only 13 states total were represented by the permits in this
collection). Their work accounted for slightly less than one third of
all the permits issued for this entire period.

The great number of permits granted was the result of large museums and
institutions having the resources and staff to send several teams of
excavating crews out each year. They also were able to commit to the
care of excavated material and records and to the public interpretation
of the results of the investigations. Often, parties would be seeking to
continue excavations begun at known sites, while simultaneously scouting
out unspoiled new areas for future investigations. In 1916, for example,
three Antiquities Act permits were granted to the American Museum of
Natural History. Barnum Brown was conducting paleontological work on the
Blackfeet Reservation in South Dakota (Brown 1917). Earl Morris explored
Pueblo Bonito at Chaco Canyon. A. L. Kroeber surveyed abandoned sites on
the Zuni Reservation in an attempt to develop a chronological sequence
for the sites he studied. The collections derived from these
investigations, some which were initial efforts and others continuations
of past studies, were added to the assortment of artifacts
systematically growing in the American Museum of Natural History in New
York City for several decades. These multi-project capabilities were
matched by many of the museum\'s East Coast peers.

Archeologists made famous by their work with large establishments and
pioneering interpretations or methods in this period shared terrain with
numerous, less prominent institutions and individuals. Less powerful but
very active preservation societies such as The Ohio State Archaeological
and Historical Society and the Allen County (Ohio) Historical Society
were permitted to build collections of southwestern paleontological
antiquities through their own early investigations in the 1910s. Smaller
college and university departments like the University of Vermont and
Georgia Normal College also desired the coveted petrified wood samples
sought in the 1910s and received permits for their collection.

As western establishments, such as the Laboratory of Anthropology (Santa
Fe), Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation, and the Southwest Museum
(Los Angeles), materialized on the western landscape, they too joined
the excavation and discovery efforts. New western university departments
undertook Antiquities Act investigations and used the excavated
artifacts to establish study and display collections. By 1919, western
universities were rapidly expanding and establishing departments of
anthropology. Antiquities Act permit applications were received and
granted to state universities in Boulder, Colorado, Tucson, Arizona,
Lincoln, Nebraska, and Salt Lake City, Utah. These universities and
others worked to define their anthropological vision through federally
permitted independent research and were able to study collections of
newly acquired antiquities in university laboratories and display
artifacts in public museum exhibitions (MacCurdy 1919:48-49).

*Women in Federal Archeology*

The archeology of the early twentieth century was largely a male
enterprise, although the spouses of famous archeologists often actively
participated or contributed to their husbands' research. Women like Ann
Axtell Morris, Mary Russell Colton, and Rosemary Nusbaum contributed to
or supplemented their husband's fieldwork between the wars (Babcock and
Parezo 1988; Eliot 1995; R. Nusbaum 1980), but only a few women applied
to receive permits to conduct their own directed research projects. Less
than ten Antiquities Act permits were issued to female applicants by the
Department of the Interior between 1907 and 1935. Female pioneers who
were approved for permits during the Department of Interior's early
involvement with antiquities excavations included Frederica de Laguna,
Katharine Bartlett, Winifred Gladwin, Florence Hawley Ellis, Louise
Parcher, and Dorothy Keur.

Frederica de Laguna was the first woman to be granted an Antiquities Act
permit from the Department of the Interior. Twenty-four years after the
Antiquities Act passed, in July 1930, de Laguna received her first
permit to conduct extensive field reconnaissance "in the Seward
peninsula of Alaska, in the vicinity of the coast" (Interior 1930). On
behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, Frederica de Laguna returned
to Alaska four more times between 1930 and 1935 under Department of
Interior permits. She was able to use her research to complete her
doctoral thesis on Upper Paleolithic and Eskimo art. In 1933, she
received the first Ph.D. in archeology granted to a woman by the
Anthropology Department of Columbia University; her thesis may be the
earliest completed by a female archeologist in the United States (Levine
1994:12).

De Laguna\'s excavation notes and reports that were deposited in the
NARA II facility, along with her permit data, show she maintained
precise collections data and drafted maps of discovered sites and areas
surveyed. Her exploits in Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet, Alaska
(de Laguna 1934, 1936, 1956; McClellen 1988) allowed de Laguna the
opportunity to collaborate with a male colleague and fellow Antiquities
Act permit recipient, Kaj Birket-Smith, a representative from the Danish
National Museum. The pair had initially planned a joint expedition, but
Birket-Smith's ill health forced him to stay behind while de Laguna
began initial fieldwork. Later they co-authored several articles on
their combined work in Arctic archeology (Birket-Smith and de Laguna
1938).

Florence Hawley, an instructor at the University of Arizona, joined de
Laguna in the Antiquities Act permit application process in 1931. Able
to combine her field excavation knowledge with statistical and
scientific specialization, Hawley ensured herself a place within
American archeology. While teaching in Arizona, Florence Hawley directed
a major excavation on an undeveloped portion of the Fort Apache Indian
Reservation under an Antiquities Act permit (Interior 1931). She had
previous experience working on National Park Service land, having
excavated and performed collections work at Chetro Ketl in Chaco Canyon
beginning in the 1929 (Babcock and Parezo 1988:124-129; Claassen
1994:13-14) that led to her Ph.D. in 1934. Hawley then used material
from a site within the boundaries of one of the first declared national
monuments to conduct pioneer dendrochronological analysis (Levine
1994:14). A specimen of architectural timber collected from Chetro Ketl
at Chaco Canyon was dated by Hawley in 1931(Douglass 1934:197). She also
was able to collaborate with an established male colleague working for
the Carnegie Institution of Washington. While studying at the University
of Arizona under A. E. Douglass, Hawley's tree ring dates aided in the
construction of a meaningful chronology of tree ring dates back to about
A. D. 200 (Douglass 1934:197).

Dorothy Keur (Babcock and Parezo 1988:142-145; Levine 1994:15-16) was
the last female archeologist to apply for Departmental permission to
conduct an archeological investigation of ruins a public land during
this period. However, her 1935 permit application file compiled by the
Department of the Interior does not contain a copy of the actual permit
allowing Keur permission to conduct her archeological investigation in
Alcove Canyon, located near the Round Rock Trading Post, Arizona (Keur
1935a). She and her husband, a Dutch biologist, proposed to take
extensive photographs of the area and collect surface material to help
them plan for a future investigation. Work was to be completed for and
the collection deposited at the Bronx Branch of Hunter College, New York
City (Keur 1935b).

Despite the fact she had submitted two copies of the recently adopted
standardized application form (see [Figure 2a](../STUDY02_fig2a.pdf)),
specific information as to whether the project ever received approval
(although there is a permit issued to her non-archeologist husband,
John) was not evident. What is clear from Dorothy Keur\'s application
file is that its approval was recommended by the Smithsonian Institution
(Abbot 1935) and also by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist, Jesse
Nusbaum, in early June 1935 (Nusbaum 1935d). The Keurs planned to travel
to the Laboratory of Anthropology in late May 1935 and asked that
approval, if granted, be sent to them in the Southwest, care of Nusbaum.
Whether or not this particular project was launched, Dorothy Keur later
completed extensive archeological work in the late 1930s and early 1940s
at Big Bead Mesa, northeast of Santa Fe, New Mexico (Keur 1941). Big
Bead Mesa is now protected by the Bureau of Land Management (James
1988).

The research efforts of these pioneering women reflect the growing
intellectual independence of American women in the early twentieth
century. Previously, women became involved with archeology through
philanthropic efforts, provided support for legislation through existing
professional clubs and organizations, and assisted their spouses in the
field and laboratory. However, the Antiquities Act permits allowed
female archeologists the opportunity to explore the cultural and
architectural wonders of America. The permits issued to female
applicants in the 1930s reveal a diversity of interests and various
accomplishments. De Laguna conducted the majority of her work in Alaska
outside the typical southwestern perimeters, while Hawley combined
necessary field skills with then uncommon statistical mastery and
specialized scientific analysis. Their work and other attempts made in
the 1930s established a place for women in archeological research and
represent the pioneer roles played by women directly involved in the
Department of the Interior's archeology program.

*Applicants from Abroad*

In addition to the applications received from throughout the United
States, several applications were received from foreign countries. The
rich cultural and natural resources of the American southwest attracted
worldwide attention through exhibitions, such as the Columbian
Historical Exposition held in Madrid in 1892, and applicants applied
from Russia, France, Germany, Denmark, Canada and Sweden.

Foreign excavators were not new on the public lands of the United
States. In 1891, one of the first foreign excavators to visit
southwestern archeological sites, Gustav Nordenskiold, arrived in
Mancos, Colorado, and proceeded to excavate sites such as Painted Kiva
House and Long House at Mesa Verde (Bauer 1991; Lee 1970/2001;
Nordenskiold 1893; Wegner 1980). Although this Swedish excavator
conducted his work with exemplery professionalism for his time (Fowler
2000:189-192; Howard and Hamilton \[n.d.\]; McNitt 1966; Nordenskiold
1893), the export of ancient American artifacts to foreign soil upset a
great many Americans and spurred efforts for antiquities protection
(Elliott 1995; Lee 1970/2001; Wegner 1980).

Shortly after the Antiquities Act passed, the Department of the Interior
began to receive permit applications from foreign individuals and
organizations. Perhaps the protection provided by the Act made
archeologists and Department of the Interior employees less apprehensive
of foreign requests. In June 1908, the first Antiquities Act permit was
issued to a foreign applicant from Russia. Vladimir Jochelson, a
representative of the Imperial Geographical Society of Russia and former
Siberian leader for Franz Boas\' Jessup North Pacific Expedition in 1898
(Dzeniskevich and Pavlinsksia 1988), proceeded to the Aleutian Islands
to conduct archeological field work and socio-cultural anthropological
studies for his country. The collection, if one was made, was to be
housed in the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia (Interior
1908a).

Archeological materials were not the only southwestern items drawing
attention. Along with the domestic craze for petrified wood in the
1910s, representatives from two foreign institutions requested
Departmental permission to have samples shipped overseas. Both W. Theile
(University of Strassburg) and Alfred LaCroix (Museum of Natural
History, Paris) visited the area surrounding the Petrified Forest and
collected samples of petrified wood. However, both gentlemen were unable
to transport the specimens without securing the requisite Antiquities
Act permit. Through overseas correspondence, both samples were shipped
under that the conditions the specimen weighed less than five hundred
pounds and were collected from outside the Petrified Forest's boundaries
(Interior 1913a, 1913b).

Additional permits issued to overseas applicants were either to survey,
study, or excavate in Alaska or to conduct paleontological research and
collection within the boundaries of Indian reservations in South Dakota,
Nebraska, and Wyoming. As with the female applicants, foreign interests
were diverse. The studies by the Danish National Museum, the University
of Upsala, and the Royal Ontario Museum of Paleontology resulted in a
greater worldwide appreciation of the natural and cultural wonders of
the American West and the vastness of a distant and not well explored
Alaska.

Field Activity and Responsibilities

The 1910s through 1930s represent an era when some of American
archeology's earliest and most famous projects were launched at Mesa
Verde, Pecos and Chaco Canyon. Archeological research conducted on
federal lands at the beginning of the twentieth century continues to
benefit and educate the American people in several ways. The carefully
excavated artifacts from these field projects are useful to modern
researchers. The American public benefits by the expansion of their
knowledge of archeology through both permanent and changing museum
displays and exhibitions. Architectural repair work from the early
twentieth century has provided generations of national park and monument
visitors with an opportunity to view structures that otherwise might
have been destroyed (e.g., Fewkes 1909, 1911; Matero 1999). Today they
inform both visitors and experts about ancient and modern repair work on
historic masonry structures. Excavations reports and photos from classic
studies open an exciting window into popular field techniques and the
cultural landscape as it appeared almost a century ago.

*The Projects*

Antiquities Act permits granted during the period of 1907-35 encompassed
a wide range of archeological activities. Archeological projects ranged
from major excavations over multiple years at sites such as Aztec Ruin
(Morris 1926) and Chetro Ketl at Chaco Canyon (Hewett 1920) to simpler
requests by the American Scenic and Preservation Society in 1907 to
photograph ancient ruins on federally owned and controlled land
(Interior 1907). Requests to survey new land containing unspoiled ruins
and to collect surface artifacts on public land were common. More
specific requests asked permission to dig small test pits into refuse
heaps and trash dumps located at Pueblo Bonito (Nelson 1926). One such
limited testing project, requested by the Peabody Museum at Harvard
University, resulted in excavated test trenches and an archeological
survey at Antelope Mesa on the Hopi Indian Reservation in north central
Arizona. This was the first year of the Awatovi Expedition, in
preparation for more extensive work. Investigators hoped additional
studies would shed light on the cultural sequence of the people who had
occupied the area and show "the diffusion and interrelation of culture
groups during this period\" (Scott 1935).

Although some of the earliest archeological excavations involved ruins
reconstruction (Fewkes 1909), the need for repair and stabilization of
crumbling ruins at increasingly popular national parks and monuments
became more urgent. It was often reported to the Department that
\"apparently well preserved and unusually interesting ruins have been
excavated and then abandoned without any measures taken to prevent their
subsequent destruction by the elements\" (Sherman 1932). Projects
specifically seeking to restore crumbling structures on federal land
were issued by the Department of the Interior, but all applicants were
instructed to take any measures possible to uphold the existing
structural integrity of the ruins surrounding their project areas.

By the 1930s, the National Park Service began ruins stabilization
activities and programs that still exist today. Workmen, including many
Native Americans and public works laborers, began projects to strengthen
and preserve existing walls at Park Service sites such as Pueblo Bonito
and Chetro Ketl. National Park Service projects concentrated on
stabilizing and reinforcing existing walls with modern materials, not on
attempts to completely rebuild the structures (Lister and Lister
1981:119). At the same time as the repair projects were becoming more
commonplace, Dorothy Keur\'s husband, John, was granted a permit to
document the architectural achievements at Chaco Canyon. Simultaneously,
the Department of the Interior had approved projects that both
documented the archeological ruins found within the national monuments
prior to their total destruction and concentrated upon the stabilization
and salvage of existing ruins.

Archeological projects and investigations of ancient Native American
remains were not the only undertakings requiring the approval of the
Department of the Interior. The Antiquities Act also included the
protection of \"other objects of historic and scientific interest that
are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the government of the
United States.\" Within a year of the Department of the Interior's
issuance of its initial permit to Edgar L. Hewett, representing the
Archeological Institute of America, paleontologists sought their own
\"antiquities\" in the form of dinosaur bones and petrified wood
samples. Several institutions including Brown University, Los Angeles
Museum of History, Science, and Art, the Kansas Academy of Science, and
the University of Michigan focused their efforts and resources on areas
rumored to contain magnificent specimens of enormous ancient reptiles.

On November 9, 1908, W. J. Holland, Director of the Carnegie Museum in
Pittsburgh was granted permission from the Department (upon consultation
with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs) to search for and excavate
paleontological remains found on the Uintah Indian Reservation (Interior
1908b). Local Utah residents assisted the Carnegie team and led them to
a quarry containing the fossilized remains of prehistoric reptiles
(Holland 1912).

Almost ten years later, a crew from the Carnegie Museum returned in 1917
to the site now lying within the boundaries of the recently declared
Dinosaur National Monument (Rothman 1989). Earl Douglas and an
excavation crew received a permit to excavate in Uintah county for a
period of six years. At the end of the 1922 field season, the Carnegie
Museum had spent a large sum and had gathered an impressive collection
of dinosaur specimens. The Carnegie Museum decided to cease work at
Dinosaur National Monument but agreed to protect the exposed remains of
a sauropodous dinosaur, Diplodocus, until a replacement excavation team
was located. The following year, the Smithsonian Institution resumed
excavations at the site under the direction of C. W. Gilmore, Curator of
Vertebrate Paleontology at the United States National Museum.

Additional excavators of dinosaur remains explored sites such as Catlow
cave in Oregon and loci such as the Blackfeet Reservation in Wyoming.
Permits issued under the Antiquities Act enabled the Royal Ontario
Museum of Palaeontology (Toronto, Canada) to explore Wyoming, Nebraska,
and South Dakota in 1929. The American Museum of Natural History
returned to Arizona in the late 1920s, and C. C. O'Hara of the South
Dakota School of Mines launched additional projects on the Pine Ridge
and Rosebud Reservations. In all during this period, 64 permits were
issued for paleontological fieldwork on United States public lands.

*Site Location*

Institutions and individuals excavating sites under Department of the
Interior permits often concentrated their studies in specific regions at
sites that are now well-known to American archeologists and tourists.
The most frequently investigated regions included the southwestern Four
Corners states, along the West Coast, and eventually northward into
Alaska. Applicants for permits hailed from throughout the United States
and from overseas nations, but the permit files examined for this study
contained no requests to excavate further east than South Dakota.
Throughout the 1907-35 period, Department of the Interior Antiquities
Act permit applicants requested permits to study in Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

Oregon and Wyoming attracted only paleontologists and fossil collectors.
Arizona and New Mexico were the most desirable settings for Antiquities
Act permits in the early decades of the twentieth century. Of a total of
338 permits granted for this twenty-eight year period, over half of the
excavations, surveys, reconnaissance and ruins stabilization took place
in these two states.

Neil Judd\'s work (Judd 1925, 1954, 1964) at Pueblo Bonito from 1921 to
1927, A. V. Kidder's exploration of Pecos from 1915 through 1929 with an
interruption for World War I (Kidder 1920, 1923, 1926), and Earl
Douglas' work in Dinosaur National Monument from 1917 to 1922 required
as many as five renewals of the original permit before these projects
were completed. However, most investigators submitted modest
applications for work in the remaining states. Sites in Utah and
Colorado appealed equally to both archeologists and paleontologists who
had learned of archeological sites and dinosaur bones at national
monuments such as Dinosaur, Yucca House, and Hovenweep. Through the
1910s and 1920s eastern institutions continued to pursue their
archeological investigations in New Mexico and Arizona while newer
western establishments protected their own interests and local ancient
history.

*Fluctuations in Field Activity*

Excavations approved through the Department of the Interior permit
process generally increased steadily from 1907 into the 1930s. The
Department of the Interior issued the first permit to Edgar L. Hewett,
affiliated with the Archaeological Institute of America, on August 6,
1907, just weeks following the initial application ([Figure
1](../STUDY02_fig1.pdf)). In addition to two permits issued to Hewett
and the Archaeological Institute of America, the American Scenic and
Preservation Society and an individual named Charles H. Auld submitted
applications in 1907 Auld\'s application was denied. The number of
permit applications and approvals continued to rise. Nine were issued in
1908, and nine more applications were received in 1909. Application
activity as documented by the Department of the Interior collection held
at the archives at NARA II inexplicably dropped off in the early 1910s,
but numbers began to climb again by mid-decade. A record number of
sixteen permits issued by the Department of the Interior was reached in
1916.

World War I interrupted the increase in the number of permit
applications. Alhough permit applications continued to be filed
throughout 1917, a few applicants expressed the possibility that their
work might be delayed due to war commitments. Jesse Nusbaum, future
Superintendent of Mesa Verde National Monument and Department
Archeologist, was one such applicant. In 1917, he planned to accompany
members of the Heye Foundation of the Museum of the American Indian to
Canyon de Chelly (Interior 1917b) for a major excavation at the site.
However, a letter report submitted to the Department of the Interior
explained, "because of circumstances incident to the war, which made it
impossible for the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, to
enlist the services of Mr. Jesse L. Nusbaum owing to the need of holding
himself in readiness for military duty" the permit went unused (Interior
1917c). Permits granted by the Department of the Interior plummeted in
1918 to one of the lowest levels of the three decade period. Only four
projects were launched by the American Museum of Natural History,
Carnegie Institution of Washington, the Bureau of American Ethnology,
and the Museum of the American Indian. Large institutions continued
their excavations despite the complications that world events had
imposed upon smaller establishments in the country.

The number of excavation applications quickly increased after the war.
Throughout the 1920s, Antiquities Act applications and permits once
again began a gradual and fluctuating rise to the highs of the
mid-1910s. Large ruins repair projects and the growth of western
academic and museum institutions renewed an interest World War I had
interrupted. The National Geographic Society emerged as a major East
Coast sponsor, conducting multi-year excavations in the southwest. The
University of Arizona (Byron Cummings) expanded work on the Navajo
Reservation and the School of American Research (Edgar L. Hewett)
increased its investigations at Chaco Canyon.

The 1930s represented a period of constant growth and expansion with the
issuance of Antiquities Act permits. For the first time since the
Antiquities Act passage, there was an administrative structure to handle
permit applications more efficiently. As described above, the Department
of Interior could look to Jesse Nusbaum who began in 1927 to serve as
the Department Archeologist. In this role he provided direct
professional review of permit applications as well as periodic
inspections of field investigations (McManamon and Browning 1999).

The fluctuations in activity that were common in the early years of the
Antiquities Act permit process are apparent in [Table
1](../STUDY02B.htm#table1). The inconsistent trends of the 1910s
eventually gave way to regular and continued growth of an increasingly
professional American archeology. Department Archeologist Nusbaum found
himself busy monitoring the permit activity spread throughout an
increasingly large area of the country in the late 1920s and early
1930s. Permit activity for the Department in the late 1920s surpassed
all previous years. On the eve of a new era characterized by public
works archeology projects and overshadowed by economic hardship, the
annual permit application numbers peaked at 32 in 1931.

*Reporting on Excavations*

Proponents of the Antiquities Act and the permit system did not limit
their efforts to the protection and preservation of archeological sites
*in situ* and the curation of artifacts and records in public museums.
They also wished to ensure professionalism and technical competence in
the conduct of investigators. All federally approved researchers were
obligated by the conditions of their Antiquities Act permits:

at the close of each season\'s field work\...\[to\] report in duplicate
to the Smithsonian Institution, in such form as its secretary may
prescribe, and shall report in duplicate a catalogue of the collections
and the photographs made during the season, indicating therein such
material, if any, as may be available for exchange (43 CFR 3.10).

The purpose underlying the rules and regulations of Section 3.10 was the
creation of a lasting written record of materials collected from public
land and the scientific analyses and methods used by American
excavators. Without the careful excavation and documentation required in
the regulation, the artifacts collected under permit would have differed
little from those more haphazardly removed by casual collectors,
looters, and vandals. However, in the 1920s, Department Archeologist
Jesse Nusbaum found many permitees had not filed reports with the
Department in the early years of the Antiquities Act implementation.
Some had published findings in scholarly journals, but failed to
identify with any clarity what collections resulted from the projects,
what photos of the work were taken, and exactly what actions were taken
at the site.

The failure to file reports and subsequently publish articles upon
completion of a field project was clearly a problem (Nusbaum 1929, 1930,
1931). Perhaps the permit process had been growing too rapidly and had
become too great a burden for the clerks to effectively enforce the
requirement of excavation reports. The assignment of an archeologist in
the Department to renew permit applications, conduct field checks on
investigators, and monitor site protection efforts boosted the federal
government\'s ability to monitor the administrative aspects of the
Antiquities Act permit process. A significant increase in the number of
reports filed coincided with the assignment of Nusbaum to this new
function. The administrative record of permit activity documents that
letters were sent out to individuals in charge of projects and their
institutions, universities, and museums if draft reports were not
received with a few weeks of field season completion. More often, the
applicant would request a renewal for the original permit without having
first submitted a report from the previous season. Approval of any
renewal request was delayed until either the Department of the Interior
received a report or a letter of explanation as to why a report was not
filed.

Jesse Nusbaum played a vital role in improving adherence to the rules
and regulations (McManamon and Browning 1999). Nusbaum required that
excavators document their findings and in the process promoted
professionalism. In the annual reports prepared by Nusbaum, the topic of
report submission to the Department and the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution received attention each year. Researchers and the Department
of the Interior administration were in more direct and professional
contact, which allowed greater supervision of Antiquities Act projects
during the 1930s.

An administrative insistence upon compliance with 43 CFR 3.10 resulted
in a Department of the Interior record of associated reports and
documentation of early archeological activity on the public domain.
Style and content of the reports varied greatly depending on the
individual researcher preparing the document. Many are mere letter
reports stating problems that delayed or prevented work. Others provide
specific details of the excavations, site locations, and artifacts
recovered complete with photographs and collection inventories.
Applicants from larger and well-known universities and museums published
additional follow-up articles in popular and professional journals, such
as *Art and Archeology, American Anthropologist*, and *Science*, as well
as the *Bureau of American Ethnology Reports and Bulletins*.

Department of the Interior records at the NARA II facility contain 116
reports resulting from archeological activity on public land. A report
was produced for roughly one out of three permits issued (see [Appendix
C](../STUDY02H.htm) for a list of available reports from this period).
More than 70 percent of the reports on file with the Department were
submitted after Nusbaum was appointed as Department Archeologist. Prior
to 1927, the Department appears to have had much less effective results
mandating the responsible, professional behavior of publication and
dissemination of knowledge in the developing field of archeology.

The original site excavation reports produced as a result of the
Antiquities Act provide primary information sources often not included
in published articles. The specifics of individual projects that began
scientific archaeological excavation at world-renowned sites such as
Mesa Verde\'s Spruce Tree House (Fewkes 1909), Canyon de Chelly's White
House Ruin (Morris 1926), and many others were recorded in careful
detail. Site reports and associated publications available from the
period allow present day researchers not only access to the past, but
also a window to the techniques, methods, and theories adopted by
researchers working more than fifty years ago.

Trouble in the Field

Conflicts between individual researchers and the continued plundering of
archeological resources provided new, as well as recurrent challenges in
implementing the Antiquities Act. Professional academic and museum
competition over newly discovered sites sometimes increased tensions
between scientific investigators and encouraged looters to pillage sites
before the proper excavation of cultural artifacts. Federal officials
were aware of these problems and monitored them, but addressed the
problems with only mixed success.

*Regionalism and Depositories*

Western residents and archeologists had long been protective of the
antiquities and natural wonders dotting the regional landscape.
Archeologists, such as Edgar Hewett and Byron Cummings, left
opportunities in the east behind and established western centers of
archeological research, collection, and display. The large scale
collection and transfer of southwestern antiquities to distant museum
and universities in New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.
angered some residents of the western states. Heated disagreements
developed over the proper geographic depository of artifacts. Contention
between east and west motivated a counter-movement among westerners to
compete with the wealthy East Coast philanthropic collectors (see Fowler
1999; Hinsley 1986, 1996; Patterson 1995).

Hewett was an effective and influential advocate for the passage of the
Antiquities Act. Even as the final, ultimately successful legislative
push for passage of the Act was underway (Thompson 2000b), he began to
lobby for the formation of a research institution in the Southwest that
\"for some decades had provided a good hunting grounds for northeastern
archeologists and ethnologists\" (Hinsley 1986:219). In 1907, Hewett was
appointed the Director of the School of American Archaeology of the
Archeological Institute of America (Walter 1947). As director, Hewett
worked with many younger archeologists who shared his opinions about
maintaining a link between the environment in which the artifacts were
found and where they ought to be on display. One of the individuals to
rally on behalf of western institutions with Hewett in these years
immediately following the Antiquities Act's passage was Byron Cummings.
Cummings was at this time Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at
the University of Utah (Willey 1988).

In August 1909, while Cummings was working under a federally approved
Antiquities Act permit along part of the San Juan drainage (in northern
Arizona and southern Utah), officials of the Smithsonian Institution
interrupted his field investigation. Cummings' party was instructed to
leave the area because all materials in this pristine, undisturbed site
were reserved for the Smithsonian collections in Washington, D.C.
(Cummings 1909a). W. B. Douglass, U. S. Examiner of Surveys for the
General Land Office (GLO), opposed the permits issued to the University
of Utah. Apparently, Douglass\' goal was to keep all artifacts from the
newly established Navajo National Monument in the hands of the national
government at the Smithsonian (Jett 1992; Rothman 1993).

In a letter of protest to First Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
Frank Pierce, Cummings expressed his frustration with the situation:

\[the\] Smithsonian already has the best material from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Utah stored away in its cellars in such quantities that half
of it can never be put on exhibition or made available for study. . .
.Why should not the West and western institutions have the benefit of at
least part of these things that belong to this own region? The West
should not always be a mere feeder for the rest of the country (Cummings
1909a).

Cummings' frustration reflected other regional concerns which led to
concerted efforts to establish museums at western universities to share
the artifacts with the local citizenry as well as attract potential
students (Cummings 1909b). Upon application, the University of Utah
museum was authorized in October, 1909 to become an official depository
of artifacts for the collections made by Hewett and Cummings in the
previous seasons and those yet to come. A western institution had
achieved permission to maintain an archeological collection, to proceed
towards displaying antiquities, and tell the story of the ancient people
of the Southwest in a native environment. Despite previous
entanglements, Cummings maintained a perspective that encouraged
cooperation and civility between eastern and western researchers
(Cummings 1909c) since any newly discovered information was of benefit
to all. Ultimately, both parties united in an arrangement motivated by
pragmatism and diplomacy (Jett 1992:15; Rothman 1993) and the existing
Antiquities Act permits were not cancelled.

In the meantime, Hewett was busy between conducting his field research
through the newly designated AIA School of American Archaeology and
searching for a suitably permanent location for the transient research
institution. The school had been seeking a permanent location for almost
two years (Forrest 1965:146; Sheftel 1979) when Alice Fletcher offered
assistance. Fletcher had a long association with the region as an
associate of the Peabody Museum at Harvard, a government consultant on
American Indian affairs, and a long time advocate for antiquities
preservation in the Southwest (Claassen 1994; Rossiter 1982). Several
other important friends and colleagues from surrounding states supported
the idea of a permanent home for the research institution and site of a
field museum (Chauvenet 1983). The location ultimately chosen was Santa
Fe, New Mexico (Fowler 1999; Hinsley 1986; Walter 1947).

In 1909, efforts to establish the Museum of New Mexico in the \"Palace
of the Governors\" building in Santa Fe were rewarded. The School of
American Archeology and the Territorial Historical Society found a home
for research and preservation of archeological and ethnological
collections in a three hundred-year-old structure built by order of the
Spanish Crown (Chauvenet 1983:77; Forrest 1965:146; Hinsley 1986:221;
Sheftel 1979). In one year, the west had secured the establishment of
two major depositories to store, study, and display the artifacts their
excavations were uncovering. Hewett had accomplished his goal of taking
"advantage of local enthusiasm, regional pride, important individuals
egos and the untrained ardent talent" (Hinsley 1986:219) to establish a
major western archeological center.

Newly formed western establishments continued to emerge throughout the
1910s and into the 1930s. They launched large-scale research projects of
sizeable scientific importance to equal their eastern counterparts. By
1915, Byron Cummings had relocated to the University of Arizona where he
both headed the Department of Anthropology and the Arizona State Museum
and continued his fieldwork on the Navajo Indian Reservation. Harold
Colton and his wife began building a collection for the Museum of
Northern Arizona in the late 1920s. Beginning in 1926, Harold S. Gladwin
and Winifred Jones MacCurdy (later to become Mrs. Winifred Gladwin in
1933) began a five year project to restore ruins at Gila Pueblo, Arizona
(Haury 1985; Rohn 1973).

Following Hewett\'s lead to keep regionally significant cultural and
archeological material in local repositories accessible to western
residents, new institutions considerably decreased the removal and
shipment of antiquities to distant locations. Increasingly,
archeological collections made throughout the West remained in
community, state, and regional museums for the appreciation and
education of the local people. These collections also enticed increasing
numbers of tourists to visit western sites and not just go to East Coast
museum displays and exhibitions.

*Ceaseless Vandalism*

The destruction and looting of antiquities for sale and trade on the
expanding antiquities market continued despite increased numbers of
official and professional field researchers, more federal employees in
agencies such as the National Park Service, and greater contact between
museum and university archeologists and Department personnel. The
federal legal protection afforded by the Antiquities Act was not
enforced effectively. For more than two decades after 1906, there is no
evidence that a single individual was been prosecuted for violating the
provisions of the Antiquities Act. In early investigations, collections
were confiscated, but remained in the custody of the individual western
residents who illegally removed them until final arrangements for
transfer to federal agencies could be made (Frazier 1932a, 1932b).

G. G. Frazier, a field agent for the GLO, filed a memo in 1932
explaining his work investigating \"ruin trespasses\" and the seizure of
illegally obtained objects of antiquities from federal land. Frazier\'s
work suggested a different approach that might be taken by the
Department of the Interior with regard to violations of the Antiquities
Act. Violations appear to have been forwarded to Frazier beginning in
the 1930s. By 1932, nine Antiquities Act violations had reached
Frazier\'s desk for investigation. He reported on each case individually
and the results of cases in Wayne County, Utah and TuWeep Valley,
Arizona were found in the NARA II permit files (Frazier 1932a, 1932b).

Two distinct opinions regarding the Antiquities Act violations were
developing on the West and East Coasts. Assistant Geologist Frazier
argued that factors including religion, commercialism, excavations on
private lands, and bitterness over the shipping of western treasures to
non-local museums impeded present and future enforcement of the
Antiquities Act (Frazier 1932c).

To address the problem of bitterness and foster the support of local
communities in the protection of antiquities, Julian Steward at the
University of Utah and Jesse Nusbaum as the Department Consulting
Archeologist and Director of the Laboratory of Anthropology agreed upon
a solution that was submitted to the Department. Steward suggested
materials seized during these illegal excavations be placed in \"branch
museums.\"

Holders of the principal collections should be notified that their
specimens are subject to seizure unless they are willing to cooperate in
such a way as to preserve the specimens for the best scientific and
educational purposes (Steward 1933).

Artifacts would continue to be available in branch museums for the
enjoyment of local residents while being curated to ensure their
preservation for the future. Both men agreed that institutions in the
Southwest, if approved by the Department, would be preferable and more
useful for determining prehistoric data regarding the area concerned.
Education about the value of archeology through museum displays and
continued postings of the Antiquities Act on federal lands were
considered means of curbing the escalating violations.

The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution had another opinion. In a
letter dated April 14, 1933, Secretary Abbot expressed serious doubts
concerning the effectiveness of the proposed branch museums to the
Secretary of the Interior. Rather than establishing field museums in
small towns with only several hundred residents, Abbot proposed a
seizure of the collections and shipment of them either to the Laboratory
of Anthropology or the United States National Museum, unless firm plans
to construct the proposed local museums already existed (Abbot 1933). In
Abbot's opinion, the problem of antiquities looting and trafficking
would be most easily halted through the confiscation of all illegally
obtained specimens.

The Department\'s position on the matter of seizure and transfer to the
United States National Museum and the confiscation of materials and
their investigation and display in the Southwest was described in a memo
and letter written in April and May 1933 respectively. Jesse Nusbaum was
authorized under Section 16 of the rules and regulations of the
Antiquities Act to take possession of the materials illegally excavated
from federal land of the Department of the Interior (Chapman 1933).
Materials would be studied and displayed at the Laboratory of
Anthropology in Santa Fe. The Department hoped that confiscation would
bring about a speedy reduction in illegal activity. Additionally, future
violations of the Antiquities Act could now be reported to Archie D.
Ryan, Special Agent in Charge in Salt Lake City, Utah. Cases of
violation could then be presented to the United States Attorney for
prosecution, if enough evidence could be secured to proceed (Glavis
1933). Despite the fact that agents from the GLO of the Department of
the Interior were now investigating cases of looting and vandalism on
federal land, no violations were reviewed by the U. S. Attorney during
the first thirty years of the twentieth century. In fact, the
prosecution of Antiquities Act violations continued to be extremely rare
for more than sixty years after the Act passed (McGimsey 1976).

Chapter 4: Summary and Conclusions

The Antiquities Act and the accompanying permit process played a vital
role in advancing responsible archeological excavations and expanding
government attention to site protection and ruins stabilization. The
Department of the Interior assumed a new preservation role with passage
of the act, although there was little or no administrative structure in
place to address the challenges that came with the role. As a result,
administrative developments to reconcile the new responsibilities were
reactive and haphazard. Despite these problems, the Department
instituted incremental procedures in an attempt to enforce the first
federal statute protecting antiquities on public land.

A systematic approval mechanism for the permit applications was created
by federal regulations within a year of the law's enactment. The
National Park Service was organized after 1916 to manage protected parks
and monuments from vandalism, illegal excavation, and other forms of
destruction. The archeologist Jesse Nusbaum was employed by the National
Park Service as Superintendant of Mesa Verde National Park beginning in
1921. In 1927, Nusbaum received the additional assignment as
Archeologist for the Department of the Interior to handle the increasing
Antiquities Act permit applications, monitor permit holders, and
investigate other archeological problems (McManamon and Browning 1999).
By the mid 1930s, the number of permits had grown to more than 30
annually and federal archeological interests were increasingly expanding
beyond the Southwest into Alaska and onto the Great Plains. The looting
problem was not solved, despite complaints to Department officials and
the more attention to the problem.

The Antiquities Act permit was closely associated with pioneers in
American archeology, including Hewett, Cummings, Fewkes, Morris, de
Laguna, Judd, Kidder, and other university faculty members,
international universities, and museums. By the 1930s, a few female
applicants completed their own research among the sites of the Southwest
and Alaska. Between 1907-35, applicants representing more than 50
institutions, organizations, museums, and universities were granted more
than 300 permits for archeological and palaeontological study throughout
the western United States.

The Antiquities Act permit procedures were the first attempt to regulate
public interest in the ancient American past. The procedure enforced a
policy focused on protection, preservation, and public interpretation.
Access to Department of the Interior archival documents indicates that
small museums and civic organizations were able to collect antiquities
alongside individuals representing famous museums from throughout the
world, provided they followed the increasingly professional requirements
of careful excavation, formal reporting, and public interpretation.
Virtually unknown applicants made their contribution to proper
Antiquities Act research and conducted work that launched early American
archeological careers.

The Antiquities Act permit process played an important role in the
growth and spread of proper excavation methods, scientific study, public
display, and interpretation of the remains of the past unearthed on
federally protected land. The commonality among all the applicants who
received Antiquities Act permits was that they had convinced the
Department of the Interior of their commitment to scientifically
collect, preserve, and share collections and information with the
American people derived from their excavations. Expanding public
education and increasing understanding of ancient relics of past
cultures remained one of the most important obligations of the
archeologists to the public.

Despite generally ineffective protection due to inadequate field law
enforcement, the Antiquities Act established essential public policies
(McManmon 1996, 2001). Antiquities Act archives, in particular the rich
permit information enables present day researchers to journey back to
the Southwest when archeology was a young discipline and federal
involvement with archeology was in its infancy. The permits provide an
opportunity to rediscover the earliest federal excavations. These
artifacts inform us about ruins stabilization techniques and materials
of the past and aid us in rediscovering excavated collections. As the
Department of the Interior continues to document the impact of the
passage of the Antiquities Act, the information, reports, and
correspondence arising from excavations both memorable and forgotten may
be used to answer the lingering questions of the past and address
problems of the present.

References Cited

Abbot, C. C.\
1932 Letter to Secretary of the Interior, dated 4-5-1932. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1933 Letter to Secretary of the Interior, dated 4-14-1933. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1935 Letter to Secretary of the Interior, dated 6-11-1935. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Albright, Horace M. and Marian Albright Schenck\
1999 *Creating the National Park Service*. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.

Albright, Horace M. (as told to Robert Cahn)\
1985 *The Birth of the National Park Service*. Salt Lake City: Howe
Brothers.

Babcock, Barbara A. and Nancy J. Parezo\
1988 *Daughters of the Desert: Women Anthropologists and the Native
American Southwest 1880-1980*. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.

Bandelier, Adolph F.\
1890-1892 *Final Report of Investigations among Indians of the
Southwestern United States, Carried on Mainly in the years from
1880-1885, Parts I and II*. MA: Papers of the Archaeological Institute
of America, American Series, III and IV. Cambridge, MA.

Bauer, Liz\
1991 *Gustaf Nordenskiold: Pioneer Archeologist of Mesa Verde*.
Colorado: Mesa Verde National Park.

Baum, Henry Mason\
1904 Pending Legislation for the Protection of Antiquities on the Public
Domain. *Records of the Past* 3(4):143-150.

Birket-Smith, Kaj and Frederica de Laguna

1938 *The Eyak Indians of the Copper River Delta, Alaska*. Det Kgl.
Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.

Brew, J. O.\
1978 Neil Merton Judd 1887-1976. *American Anthropologist*
80(2):352-354.

Brown, Barnum\
1917 A Complete Skeleton of the Horned Dinosaur, *Monoclonius*, and
Description of a Second Skeleton Showing Skin Impressions. *Bulletin of
the American Museum of Natural History* 37:281-307.

Burke, Charles H.\
1924a Letter to Secretary of the Interior, dated 3-31-1924. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1924b Letter to all park superintendents, dated 5/31/24. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Cameron, Jenks\
1922 *National Park Service: Its history, activities, and organization*.
New York: Appleton.

Cammerer, Arno B.

1924 Memo to Mr. Acker, dated 4-23-24. U. S. Department of the Interior
Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box
1980. NARA II.

Chapman, Oscar

1933 Letter to Jesse L. Nusbaum, dated 5-1-1933. U. S. Department of the
Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1987. NARA II.

1935a Letter to Jesse L. Nusbaum, dated 8-7-1935. U. S. Department of
the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1935b Permit issued to Donald Scott, Peabody Museum, dated 8-26-1935. U.
S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1987. NARA II.

Chauvenet, Beatrice\
1983 *Hewett and Friends: A Biography of Santa Fe's Vibrant Era*. Santa
Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press.

Claassen, Cheryl\
1994 *Women in Archaeology*, edited by Cheryl Claassen. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.

Collier, John\
1934 Letter to Secretary of the Interior, dated 10-10-1934. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Cronin, William\
1994 Landscapes of Abundance and Scarcity. In *The Oxford History of the
American West*, edited by C.A. Milner, III, C.A. O\'Conner, and M.A.
Sandweiss, pp. 603-638. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

Cummings, Byron\
1909a Letter to Frank Pierce, dated 8-10-1909. U. S. Department of the
Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1909b Letter to Frank Pierce, dated 9-22-1909. U. S. Department of the
Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1909c Letter to Frank Pierce, dated xx-xx-1909. U. S. Department of the
Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1980.

de Laguna, Frederica\
1934 *The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska*. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press for the University Museum.

1936 Preliminary Report of an Archaeological and Geological
Reconnaissance of the Middle and Lower Yukon Valley. *Miscellanea*
1(2):31-40.

1956 *Chagach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince William Sound,
Alaska*. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 13.
Seattle:University of Washington Press.

Douglass, A. E.\
1934 Climatic Interpretation of Tree Ring Growth*. Carnegie Institution
of Washington Yearbook No. 33*:196-198.

Dzeniskevich, G. I. and L. P. Pavlinskzia\
1988 Treasures by the Neva: The Russian Collections. In *In Crossroads
of Continents: Cultures in Siberia and Alaska*, edited by William W.
Fitzhugh and Aaron Crowell, pp. 83-88. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press.

Edwards, John H. and Henry Scattingwood\
1931 Office of Indian Affairs Order No. 7 dated 8-12-1931. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Elliott, Melinda\
1995 *Great Excavations*. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Fewkes, Jesse Walter\
1909 *Antiquities of Mesa Verde National Park, Spruce Tree House*.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 41. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution.

Fewkes, Jesse Walter\
1911 *Antiquities of Mesa Verde National Park, Cliff Palace*. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 51. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution.

Forrest, James Taylor\
1965 Edgar Lee Hewett. In *Keepers of the Past*, edited by Clifford Lee
Lord, pp.141-156. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Fowler, Don D.\
1999 Harvard vs. Hewett: The Contest for Control of Southwestern
Archaeology, 1904-1930. In *Assembling the Past*, edited by Alice B.
Kehoe and M.B. Emmerichs, pp. 165-211. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mexico
Press.

2000 *A Laboratory for Anthropology: Science and Romanticism in the
American Southwest, 1846-1930*. University of New Mexico Press,
ALbuquerque.

Frazier, G. G.\
1932a Violation of the Antiquities Act of 1906 Memorandum, dated
9-26-1932. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File
1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1932b Report on violations of the Antiquities Act in Utah, submitted to
Archie Ryan, dated 12-09-32. U. S. Department of the Interior Central
Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA
II.

1932c Report on violations of the Antiquities Act in Arizona, submitted
to Archie Ryan, dated 12-10-1932. U. S. Department of the Interior C
Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box
1980. NARA II.

Glavis, L. R.\
1933 Memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior, dated 4-29-1933. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Haury, Emil W.\
1985 Reflections: Fifty Years of Southwestern Archeology. *American
Antiquity* 50(2):383-394.

Hewett, Edgar L.\
1906 Preservation of American Antiquities: Progress during the Last
Year; Needed Legislation. *American Anthropologist* 8:109-114.

1920 The Excavation of Chetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon 1920*. Art and
Archaeology* 9(1):45-62.

Hinsley, Curtis M., Jr.\
1986 Edgar Lee Hewett and the School of American Research in Santa Fe,
1906-1912. *Archaeology Past and Future*, edited by David J. Meltzer,
Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 217-237. Washington D. C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

1991 The World as Marketplace: Commodification of the Exotic at the
World\'s Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893. In *Exhibiting Cultures:
The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display*, edited by I. Karp and S.D.
Lavine, pp.344-365. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1996 The Promise of the Southwest: a Humanized Landscape. In *In The
Southwest in the American Imagination*, edited by Curtis M. Hinsley and
David R. Wilcox, pp. 181-206. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Holland,\
1912 Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Walter Fisher, dated
2/12/12. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File
1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Howard, Bill, Kathy Howard, Doug Hamilton, and Shirley Hamilton\
n.d. *A Century's Perspective: Gustav Nordenskiold's Mesa Verde Today*.
A Volunteer-In-Park (VIP) Project, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado.

Interior, U.S. Department of the\
1907 Antiquities Act Permit issued to American Scenic and Preservation
Society dated \--/\--/07. U. S. Department of the Interior Central
Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA
II.

1908a Antiquities Act Permit issued to Vladimir Jochelson, Imperial
Geographic Society, dated 6-4-08. U. S. Department of the Interior
Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box
1983. NARA II.

1908b Antiquities Act Permit issued to W. J. Holland, dated 3-19-08. U.
S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1982. NARA II.

1912 *Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1911*. Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office.

1913a Antiquities Act Permit issued to Dr. W. Theile, University of
Strassburg, Germany, dated 5-17-13. U. S. Department of the Interior
Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box
1981. NARA II.

1913b Antiquities Act Permit issued to Alfred LaCroix, Museum of Natural
History, Paris, France, dated 10-14-13. U. S. Department of the Interior
Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box
1981. NARA II.

1915 *Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1915*. Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office.

1917a *Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1917*. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.

1917b Antiquities Act permit issued to Heye Foundation, Museum of the
American Indian, dated 5-11-17. U. S. Department of the Interior Central
Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA
II.

1917c Letter from the Heye Foundation, dated 5-11-17. U. S. Department
of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48.
Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1925 *Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior*, 1925. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.

1928 *Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1928*. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.

1930 Antiquities Act permit issued to Frederica de Laguna, dated
7-19-30. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File
1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1988. NARA II.

1931 Antiquities Act permit issued to Florence Hawley, dated 7-14-1931.
S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1988. NARA II.

Ise, John\
1961 *Our National Park Policy: A Critical History*. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press.

James, Alice\
1988 Dorothy Louise Strouse Keur. In *Women Anthropologists: A
Biographical Dictionary*, edited by Ute Gacs, Alisha Kahn, Jerrie
McIntyre, and Ruth Weinburg, pp. 37-44. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Jett, Stephen C.\
1992 The Great 'Race' to 'Discover' Rainbow Natural Bridge in 1909.
*Kiva* 58(1):3-63.

Judd, Neil\
1924a Report on Illegal Excavations in Southwestern Ruins. *American
Anthropologist* 26(3):428-432.

1924b Letter to the Department of the Interior, dated 3/7/24. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1924c Letter to the Department of the Interior, dated 3/17/24. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1924d Letter to the Department of the Interior, dated 4/18/24. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1925 Everyday Life in Pueblo Bonito. *National Geographic Magazine*,
September 1925.

1954 *The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito*. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections 124. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

1964 *The Architecture of Pueblo Bonito*. Smithsonian Micellaneous
Collections 142(1). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Keur, Dorothy L.\
1935a Letter to Department of the Interior requesting an Antiquities Act
permit, dated 5-31-1935. U. S. Department of the Interior Central
Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1985. NARA
II.

1935b Antiquities Act permit application to Department of the Interior,
dated 4-30-1935. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified
File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1985. NARA II.

1941 *Big Bead Mesa: An Archaeological Study of Navajo Acculturation
1745-1812*. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, Memoir
No. 1.

Kidder, Alfred V.\
1920 Excavations at Pecos in 1920. *El Palacio* 10:13-16.

1923 Andover Pecos Expedition. *El Palacio* 14:59.

1926 The Excavations at Pecos in 1925. *El Palacio* 20:3-32.

Lee, Ronald F.\
1970/2001 *The Antiquities Act of 1906*. National Park Service,
Washington, D.C.: Office of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern
Service Center. Originally published 1970; 2001 electronic version is
available at [www.cr.nps.gov/aad/pubs/Lee/]().

Levine, Mary Ann\
1994 Creating their Own Niches: Career Styles Among Women in Americanist
Archaeology Between the Wars. In *Women in Archaeology*, edited by
Cheryl Claasen, pp. 9-40. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.

Lister, Robert H. and Florence C. Lister\
1981 *Chaco Canyon*. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

MacCurdy, George Grant\
1919 The Academic Teaching of Anthropology in Connection with Other
Departments. *American Anthropologist* 21:49-60.

Matero, Frank\
1999 Lessons from the Great House: Condition and Treament History as
Prologue to Site Conservation and Management at Casa Grande Ruins
National Monument. *Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites*
3:203-224.

Mather, Stephen T.\
1923 *Report of Director of the National Park Service.* Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.

McClellan, Catharine\
1988 Frederica de Laguna. In *Women Anthropologists: A Biographical
Dictionary*, edited by Ute Gacs, Alisha Kahn, Jerrie McIntyre, and Ruth
Weinburg, pp. 37-44. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

McGimsey, Charles R. III\
1976 The Past, The Present, The Future: Public Policy in a Dynamic
Interface. In *Anthropology in the Public Interest*, pp. 25-28. New
York: Academic Press.

McManamon, Francis P.\
1996 [The Antiquities Act---Setting Basic Preservation
Policies](http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/19-7/19-7-5.pdf). *CRM*
19(7):18-23.

2000 The Protection of Archaeological Resources in the United States:
Reconciling Preservation with Contemporary Society. In *Cultural
Resource Management in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Managing
and Presenting the Past*, edited by Francis P. McManamon and Alf Hatton,
pp. 40-54. London and New York: Routledge, Inc.

2001 Cultural Resources and Protection under United States Law.
*Connecticut Journal of International Law* 16(2):247-282.

McManamon, Francis P. and Kathleen D. Browning\
1999 [Department of the Interior's Archeology
Program](http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/22-4/22-04-7.pdf). *CRM* 22(4):
19-22.

McNitt, Frank\
1966 *Richard Wetherill: Anasazi*. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.

Morris, Earl Halstead\
1925 Report on Archeological Investigations in Canyon del Muerto,
Arizona carried out during 1925, by the American Museum of National
History Under a Permit Issued May 15, 1925. U. S. Department of the
Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

National Park Service\
1923 Park Museums are Needed. *Annual Report of the Director of the
National Park Service 1923*. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office.

National Park Service\
1930 A Report to the Director of the National Park Service. *Annual
Report to the Director of the National Park Service 1930.* Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Nelson, Nels\
1926 Notes on Pueblo Bonito. *Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History* 27:381-390.

Nordenskiold, Gustav\
1893 *The Cliff Dwellers of the Mesa Verde*. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt
and Soner \[Reprinted with an Introduction by Watson Smith, AMS Press
for the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 1973\].

Nusbaum, Jesse L.\
1929 *Annual Report of Jesse L. Nusbaum, Department Archaeologist and
Superintendent of Mesa Verde National Park.* Department of the Interior.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

1930 *Annual Report of the Department Archaeologist and Superintendent
of Mesa Verde National Park*. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.
C.: Government Printing Office.

1931 *Annual Report of the Department Consulting Archaeologist and
Superintendent of Mesa Verde National Park*. Department of the Interior.
Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.

1935a Letter to Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
dated 1-30-1935. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified
File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1935b Letter to John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs dated
7-18-1935. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File
1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1935c Letter to Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
dated 7-29-1935. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified
File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

1935d Letter to Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
dated 6-4-1935. U. S. Department of the Interior Central Classified File
1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Nusbaum, Rosemary\
1980 *Tierra Dulce: Reminiscences from the Jesse Nusbaum Papers*. Santa
Fe: Sunstone Press.

Patterson, Thomas\
1995 *Towards a Social History of American Archaeology*. Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace.

Pierce, Frank\
1909 Letter from Pierce, dated 10-1-1909. U. S. Department of the
Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Rohn, Arthur H.\
1973 The Southwest and Intermontane West. In *The Development of North
American Archaeology*, edited by James E. Fitting, pp. 185-213. New
York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Rothman, Hal\
1989 *Preserving Different Pasts, the American National Monuments*.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press. \[Reprinted University of Kansas
Press, 1994\].

1992 *On Ruins and Ridges: The Los Alamos Area Since 1880*. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.

1993 Ruins, Reputations and Regulation: Byron Cummings, William B.
Douglass, John Wetherill and the Summer of 1909. *Journal of the
Southwest* 35(3):318-340.

Runte, Alfred\
1987 *National Parks: The American Experience*, 2^nd^ Edition. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.

Scott, Donald

1935 Letter to Secretary of the Interior, dated 7-1-1935. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Sells, Cato\
1916 Letter to Department of the Interior, dated 1916. U. S. Department
of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48.
Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Sheftel, Phoebe Sherman\
1979 The Archeological Institute of America, 1879-1979, A Centennial
Review. *American Journal of Archeology* 83(1):3-17.

Sherman, E. A.\
1932 Letter to C. C. Abbot. U. S. Department of the Interior Central
Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA
II.

Smithsonian Institution\
1924 Expedition to Dinosaur National Monument, Utah. *Annual Report of
the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for Year ending
6-30-1924*, No. 79. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Steward, Julian\
1933 Letter to Archie Ryan, Federal Land Office, dated 2-1-1933. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Thompson, Raymond H.\
2000a \"An Old and Reliable Authority,\" An Act for the Preservation of
American Antiquities. *Journal of the Southwest* 42:191-270.

Thompson, Raymond H.\
2000b Edgar Lee Hewett and the Political Process. *Journal of the
Southwest* 42:271-318.

Townsend, Jan\
1999 [The Department of Everything Else, Including Historic
Preservation](http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/22-4/22-04-3.pdf). *CRM*
22(4):5-11.

*United States Daily*\
1930 Federal Action Sought to Stop Vandalism in Prehistoric Ruins.
*United States Daily*, December 4, 1931: 1, 3 Column 4.

Walcott, Charles

1917 Letter to Clark Wissler, dated 1-17-1917. U. S. Department of the
Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record Group 48. Permits
12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Walter, Paul A. F.\
1947 Edgar Lee Hewett, Americanist, 1865-1946. *American Anthropologist*
49(2):260-271.

Wegner, Gilbert R.\
1980 *The Story of Mesa Verde National Park*. Mesa Verde National Park,
Colorado: Mesa Verde Museum Association.

Wickham, George R.\
1924 Letter to the Offices of Field Division, GLO, dated 8-4-1924. U. S.
Department of the Interior Central Classified File 1907-1936. Record
Group 48. Permits 12-1. Box 1980. NARA II.

Willey, Gordon Randolph\
1988 *Portraits in American Archeology*. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.

#