**APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF A PROPERTY**

**IN THE U.S. WORLD HERITAGE TENTATIVE LIST**

**PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION**

The National Park Service Office of International Affairs is working
together with the George Wright Society to draft the new U.S. World
Heritage Tentative List (Tentative List) of sites that will serve as the
inventory of properties in the United States which the U.S. considers
suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List. The Tentative List
is being prepared with the involvement of property owners and other
stakeholders, including the public, to guide U.S. nomination of future
sites for inscription on the World Heritage List.

This **Application** is available to be filled out on a strictly
voluntary basis by or for property owners of nationally important sites.
Information provided by all the submitted applications will form the
foundation for Department of the Interior decisions on which sites to
include in the new Tentative List. Property owners who wish their
properties to be considered for addition to the U.S. Tentative List must
submit their completed applications on or before April 1, 2007.

**GENERAL INFORMATION**

**Background:**

The World Heritage Convention was initiated in 1973 to organize
international cooperation for the recognition and protection of the
world's natural and cultural heritage, first and foremost for sites
inscribed in the World Heritage List established by the Convention, but
also for all the heritage of humanity. The World Heritage Convention
today has 182 signatory countries.

World Heritage Sites are internationally recognized through UNESCO
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as
the most outstanding examples of the world's cultural and natural
heritage. Currently, there are 830 World Heritage Sites in 138
countries. There are 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States, of
which 8 are designated for culture and 12 for nature. The U.S. is among
the top 10 of countries in terms of the number of sites on the World
Heritage List.

A Tentative List is a national list of natural and cultural properties
that a country believes appear to meet the eligibility criteria for
nomination to the World Heritage List. It is an annotated list of
candidate sites which a country intends to nominate within a given time
period. (A section of the World Heritage Centre's website, which is
accessible at **http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelist,** provides
information on the Tentative List process and access to the current
lists of other countries.)

The U.S. is now updating its Tentative List to serve as a guide for at
least the next decade (2009-2019) of U.S. nominations to the World
Heritage List. The Tentative List will be structured so as to meet the
World Heritage Committee's December 2004 request that any one nation
nominate no more than two sites per year, at least one of which must be
a natural nomination. The number of individual sites planned to be
included in the new U.S. Tentative List may be somewhat larger than 20
to permit discretion in selecting nominations and because some sites may
become grouped together as a single nomination, e.g., to represent
jointly an important historical theme or shared ecological relationship.

**Introduction:**

The National Park Service Office of International Affairs, working on
behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the
Department of the Interior and together with the George Wright Society,
is soliciting recommendations of sites to be considered for the
inventory of properties which the U.S. considers suitable for
inscription on the World Heritage List. This document provides both a
general explanation of the project to prepare the new Tentative List and
an **Application**, which is designed to solicit public participation in
the process to develop the new list. Additional information appears in
the document **"U.S. World Heritage Tentative List:** **Questions and
Answers**." Directions to sources of detailed advice are also provided
there.
**(http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/faqtentativelist.htm).**

To have a property be considered for possible inclusion on the Tentative
List, the property owner or the owner's authorized representative must
complete the attached **Application** and submit it no later than April
1, 2007. The National Park Service will use the submitted information to
help determine whether a property meets the legal prerequisites for
World Heritage nomination and otherwise appears to be a strong candidate
for nomination during the next decade. If a property is selected for
possible inclusion in the Tentative List, the owner may be asked to
provide additional information on a case-by-case basis. The Department
of the Interior will make the final determination of which sites to
include in the U.S. Tentative List.

This **Application** is available on request. It is also being
distributed to all who have previously requested it. In addition, it is
available on the Office of International Affairs website at
[http://www.nps.gov/oia/worldheritage.application.htm](http://www.nps.gov/oia/worldheritage.questionnaire.htm)
and on the George Wright Society webpage at
**http://www.georgewright.org.**

The Tentative List prepared through this process will be submitted by
the Secretary of the Interior through the Secretary of State to the
World Heritage Centre of UNESCO by February 1, 2008. The United States
will become eligible to begin the process of nominating any of the sites
contained in the new Tentative List for inscription to the World
Heritage List starting in February 2009. The new Tentative List will
supersede a similar list of sites, previously referred to as the
Indicative Inventory, that was completed in 1982.

**Legal Property Rights:**

Inclusion of a property in the U.S. Tentative List or the World Heritage
List does not in any way affect the legal status of, or an owner's
rights in, a property. Final inclusion of a property in the World
Heritage List includes recognition that the property remains subject to
all U.S. laws applicable to the property.

**APPLICATION PROCESS**

U.S. law and program regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations 73)
require that **[all property owners must concur in any World Heritage
nomination and in any proposal that their property be included in the
U.S.Tentative List.]{.underline}** Thus, to be eligible for proposing a
property for the new Tentative List, an application must include the
signatures of all the owners or their representatives.

**In the event that owners of properties that are included in the
Tentative List change their minds as to whether they wish their
properties to be considered, their properties will be withdrawn from the
Tentative List and corresponding adjustments will be made in the
composition of the Tentative List.**

**First Step: Completion of Questionnaires:**

Only owners or those authorized by owners may apply. Applicants must use
the accompanying **Application**, which may be submitted electronically
by e-mail, on paper by mail or fax, or by mailing a compact disc
containing a MS Word file.

Only a single copy is required. Please provide the necessary information
if you would like receipt of the **Application** to be acknowledged**.**

E-mail submissions should be sent to:

> [**jcharleton@contractor.nps.gov**](mailto:jcharleton@contractor.nps.gov)

Mailed submissions should be sent to:

> **U.S. World Heritage Tentative List Project**
>
> **Office of International Affairs (0050)**
>
> **1201 Eye Street, NW, Suite 550A**
>
> **U.S. National Park Service**
>
> **Washington, DC 20240**

Faxed submissions should be addressed to U.S. World Heritage Tentative
List Project and faxed to:

> Fax: 202-371-1446

To receive full consideration, completed **Applications** must be
returned on or before April 1, 2007.

**Second Step: National Park Service Evaluation of Applications and
Consultation with Owners**

Only properties whose owners submit, or authorize to have submitted on
their behalf, complete **Applications** will receive full evaluation for
possible final inclusion in the Tentative List.

The National Park Service Office of International Affairs will notify
owners of properties that appear, based on professional staff evaluation
of the initial **Application**, to be the most likely candidates for
inclusion in the Tentative List. Depending on the number of responses
received and an assessment of other factors, including the completeness
and accuracy of the information submitted, those owners may be asked to
correct or amend their original **Applications.** Joint revision of
**Applications** may be recommended in some cases, if it is being
suggested that some properties be grouped for inclusion together. Owners
of properties which are selected for the second step of the process
should be notified by May 1, 2007, with an estimated deadline for their
further responses of June 15, 2007.

Owners whose properties are not recommended for further consideration
for inclusion in the Tentative List will also be notified of the results
and provided with a statement of the reasons their properties were not
included. Owners who disagree with an initial recommendation by the
National Park Service that their properties not be selected for
inclusion in the Tentative List may submit a written response, which
will be provided to the next level of reviewers of the draft Tentative
List for their consideration.

**Third Step: Developing the Tentative List:**

The National Park Service recommendations will receive additional
reviews, including comments by interested organizations and members of
the public. After these reviews, the Secretary of the Interior, through
the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and in
accordance with the World Heritage program regulations, will approve and
finalize the official U.S. Tentative List and forward it to the U.S.
Department of State for submittal to the World Heritage Committee by
February 1, 2008. An accompanying

report will explain in detail the process and reasoning by which the
sites included in the final Tentative List were selected.

**Evaluation Criteria:**

The criteria that will be used in evaluating and selecting sites for
inclusion in the Tentative List will include the World Heritage
criteria, obtaining a good balance among types of sites, and technical
judgment, based on past experience, of which sites are most likely to be
favorably received by the World Heritage Committee and its Advisory
Bodies.

Some criteria for selecting sites will involve the scholarly process of
identifying "gaps" and reviewing and conducting comparative studies of
related types of sites. Comparative studies conducted by the World
Heritage Committee's Advisory Bodies on the listing of sites\--IUCN (the
World Conservation Union) and ICOMOS (the International Council on
Monuments and Sites) will be carefully consulted. Because these studies
leave unaddressed many types of sites, such as marine sites and
multi-national nominations, it will be difficult in the short term to
achieve a well balanced list for closing "gaps" in the U.S. list,
especially given the small number of sites that will be nominated during
the next decade.

Another factor in the selection process is that it is not possible to
predict in advance how many owners will complete **Applications**
requesting that individual properties be considered for the new
Tentative List and how quickly nominations for those properties that are
selected can be finalized and submitted. The number of **Applications**
that are returned will affect the task of grouping sites and developing
a long-term schedule for their consideration.

**IMPLEMENTATION OF THE U.S. TENTATIVE LIST**

Once the new Tentative List has been established, it may not be feasible
or practical to develop a schedule of the sequence for nominations that
might be offered in particular years. There are a number of
considerations that will impact that process including changes over time
in Administrations and the need to consider owners who have already
requested inclusion---in some cases a number of years ago\--and who have
already expended substantial efforts toward nominating their sites.

**HOW TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION**

Before completing the body of the **Application**, please review the
next few pages that deal with "Prerequisites" to determine if you should
proceed.

This **Application,** designed to obtain key information about
properties being proposed for inclusion in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List, is a simplified version of the World Heritage nomination
form (**Format)** **(<http://whc.unesco.org/en/nomination>)** used to
nominate properties to the World Heritage List. A few questions have
been added at the beginning to make it appropriate for use in the United
States.

Please use this **Application** as a template. If you prepare it on a
computer, you should be able to open up space between the questions so
that you can avoid the use of continuation sheets. You should also feel
free to adapt the language of the questions and your responses to fit
the circumstances of the site or sites that you are proposing (as, for
example, plural rather than singular forms).

Please try to complete the **Application** as fully as possible. If you
do not know or are not sure about how to respond to a certain question,
please indicate that you do not know the answer by noting that it is
"unknown" or "uncertain," rather than not responding at all.

For this **Application**, it is not necessary for you to include
documentation in the form of full footnotes and bibliography, but please
do give the source of any key quotations upon which you are justifying
the property's importance in the *Justification (Section 3).*

**For Additional Information and Assistance:**

A written [Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program]{.underline}, which
includes detailed instructions on how to complete World Heritage
nominations and which follows the numbering scheme of the **Format**, is
available to help with resolving questions that arise in filling out
this **Application**. The Guide is available upon request or can be
downloaded at. <http://www.nps.gov/oia/worldheritage.application.htm>
Applicants may also find it useful to consult the **[Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention](http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=57)
(http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf),** the main written
working tool on World Heritage issues at the international level.

Technical assistance and additional information about how to complete
this Application will be available from:

> James H. Charleton
>
> World Heritage Advisor
>
> Office of International Affairs
>
> National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW (0050)
>
> Washington, DC 20005.
>
> E-mail: [james\_
> charleton@contractor.nps.gov](mailto:james_ charleton@contractor.nps.gov).
>
> Fax 202-371-1446.

Phone inquiries may also be placed to him at 202-354-1802 or to April
Brooks at 202-354-1808.

In completing the **Application**, it will be useful for you to consult
not only with the NPS Office of International Affairs, but also to seek
advice from the U.S. International Council on Monuments and Sites
(US/ICOMOS) and the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature of the U.S. (IUCN USA), depending on the nature
of the sites being proposed. Contacts for them are:

**USICOMOS IUCN USA & Caribbean Multilateral Office**

401 F Street, NW, Suite 331 1630 Connecticut Ave. NW, 3^rd^ floor

## Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20009 

202-842-1866 202-387-4826

Learned societies, museums, professional organizations, etc., may also
be asked to assist.

**OMB Control #: 1024-0250**

**Exp. Date:** 08/31/2009

**APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF A PROPERTY**

**IN THE U.S. WORLD HERITAGE TENTATIVE LIST**

**PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT:**

16 U.S.C. 470 a-1 authorizes collection of this information. This
information will be used to help the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks prepare a "Tentative List" of candidate sites for
possible nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List. Response to this
request is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for refusing to
supply the information requested. A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

**ESTIMATED BURDEN STATEMENT:**

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 64 hours per response (ranging from 40 to 120 hours,
depending on the complexity of the site), including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing
and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this form to the Office of International Affairs,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.

### 

### 

### 

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter**

### 

### Prerequisites for U.S. World Heritage Nominations

An application for a property that does not meet all of the
prerequisites A through G, or for which answers are uncertain, should
not be completed or submitted. Such a property cannot be legally
considered. If you are in doubt about the answer to all these questions
being anything other than "yes," please contact the World Heritage
Advisor at the address and phone number provided for further guidance.

**Prerequisite 1 - Legal Requirements:**

**A. National Significance:**

Has the property been formally determined to be nationally significant
for its cultural values, natural values, or both (in other words, has it
been formally designated as a National Historic Landmark, a National
Natural Landmark, or as a Federal reserve of national importance, such
as a National Park, National Monument, or National Wildlife Refuge)? If
not, are there on-going processes to achieve any of the above
designations and what is their status? *(Listing in the National
Register of Historic Places is [not]{.underline} equivalent to National
Historic Landmark status.)*

YES: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_[Designated National Historic Landmark, April
2005]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

**B. Owner Concurrence:**

Are all the property owners aware of this proposal for the inclusion of
the property in the U.S. Tentative List and do all of the property
owners agree that it should be considered? If any agreement is uncertain
or tentative, or if the ownership situation is disputed, otherwise
complicated, or unclear, please explain the issues briefly.

YES: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**C. Willingness to Discuss Protective Measures:**

If the property is nominated to the World Heritage List, it will be
necessary for all of the property owners to work with the Department of
the Interior to document fully existing measures to protect the property
and possibly to devise such additional measures as may be necessary to
protect the property in perpetuity. Are all the property owners willing
to enter into such discussions?

YES: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**D. Scheduling:**

If you wish a property to be nominated to the World Heritage List in a
particular year during the period 2009-2019, please indicate the
reason(s) why and the earliest year in which you feel it will be
possible to meet all requirements for nomination*. (Please review this
entire **Questionnaire** before finally answering this question.)*

Preferred Year:
\_\_\_[None]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Reasons:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Prerequisite 2 - Specific Requirements for Nomination of Certain Types
of Properties:**

**E. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

If you are proposing a nomination that includes separate components that
could be submitted separately over several years, do you believe that
the first property proposed would qualify to be placed on the World
Heritage List in its own right?

*Explanation: There will be a very limited number of sites nominated
over the next decade. Owners of similar properties likely will be
encouraged to work together to present joint proposals for serial
nominations. An example would be a proposal to nominate several
properties designed by the same architect. It is critical to note that
the first property presented in a serial nomination must qualify for
listing in its own right.*

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_[N/A]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**F. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

Are you proposing this property as an extension of or a new component to
an existing World Heritage Site?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO \_\_\_\_\_\_

Name of Existing Site:
\_\_\_[N/A]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Prerequisite 3 - Other Requirements:**

**G. Support of Stakeholders**

In addition to owners, please list other stakeholders and interested
parties who support the property's proposed inclusion in the Tentative
List. Also note any known to be opposed.

*Explanation: The purpose of the Tentative List is to propose candidate
properties that are likely to be successfully nominated during the next
decade. It is clear that a consensus among stakeholders will be helpful
in nominating a site and later in securing its proper protection. Thus,
only properties that enjoy strong, preferably unanimous, support from
stakeholders will be recommended for inclusion in the U.S. Tentative
List.*

*In addition to owners, stakeholders primarily include:*

*\--Governors, Members of Congress and State legislators who represent
the area where the property is located,*

*\--the highest local elected official, or official body, unless there
is none,*

*\--Native Americans, American Indian tribes, or other groups and
individuals who possess legally recognized claims or privileges in the
area or at the site being proposed (e.g., life tenancy or hunting and
fishing rights),*

*\--organizations established to advocate for protection and appropriate
use of the property proposed for nomination.*

*If definitive information is not available at the time you filled out
this Questionnaire, please so indicate.*

Supporters[:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell**

**U.S. Senator Arlen Specter**

**U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr.**

**U.S. Congressman Tim Murphy (PA 18^th^ District)**

**U.S. Congressman Phil English (PA 3^rd^ District)**

**Pennsylvania State Senator J. Barry Stout (46^th^ District)**

**Pennsylvania State Representative Jesse White (46^th^ District)**

**Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (Barbara Franco,
Executive Director & SHPO)**

**National Trust for Historic Preservation**

**Preservation Pennsylvania**

**Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation**

**Washington County Commissioners**

**Jefferson Township Supervisors**

**Washington County Tourism Promotion Agency**

**Dr. James M. Adovasio (Principal Investigator) []{.mark}**

Opponents:\_\_**[None]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_**All of the stakeholders are enthusiastic about including the
Meadowcroft Rockshelter on the Tentative List.**

**Information Requested about Applicant Properties**

**(The numbers of the sections and subsections below are in the same
order as and correspond to sections of the World Heritage Committee's
official [Format]{.underline} used for the nomination of World Heritage
Sites. This is to allow easy reference to and comparison of the
material.)**

**1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES**

**1.a. Country:**

If it is intended that the suggested nomination will include any
properties in countries other than the United States, please note the
countries here.

*Explanation: Please note that the United States can nominate only
property under U.S. jurisdiction. You are not expected to contact other
governments and owners abroad, although you may do so if you wish. Each
national government must nominate its own sites, although the United
States will consider forwarding your suggestion to another government
for that government to consider as a joint nomination with the United
States.*

Names of
countries:\_\_\_[N/A]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**1.b. State, Province or Region:**

In what State(s) and/or Territories is the property located? Also note
the locality and give a street address if one is available.

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter is located at 401 Meadowcroft Rd., Avella,
Pennsylvania 15312**

**1.c. Names of Property:**

What is the preferred or proposed name of the property or properties
proposed for nomination? If the site has multiple names, explain why you
chose the primary choice or choices. (*The name should not exceed 200
characters, including spaces and punctuation.)*

\_\_**[Meadowcroft
Rockshelter]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***Popular and Historic names***

What are any popular or historic names by which the property is also
known?

\_**[Referred to historically as "The
Cliffs"]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***Naming of serial (multiple component) properties and transboundary
sites*.**

Try to choose brief descriptive names. In the case of serial
nominations, give an overall name to the group (e.g., *Baroque Churches
of the Philippines*). (*Give the names of the individual components in a
table that you insert under **1f.)***

Group or Transboundary
Name:\_\_[N/A]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***Other names or site numbers***

*Explanation: If a site has multiple names, explain why you chose the
primary choice or choices. If the site has no common name or is known
only by a number or set of numbers, please explain.*

**[Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey \# 36WH297]{.underline}**

**1.d.-e. Location, boundaries, and key features of the nominated
property**

Include with this **Application** sketch maps or other small maps,
preferably letter-size, that show:

\- the location of the property

\- the boundaries of any zones of special legal protection

\- the position of major natural features and/or individual buildings
and structures

\- any open spaces (squares, plazas) and other major spatial
relationships (the space between buildings may at times be more
important than the buildings)

Please provide here a list of the maps that you have included.

1.  Pennsylvania Department of Transportation map showing location of
    Meadowcroft Rockshelter & Museum of Rural Life.

2.  U.S.G.S topographical map showing proposed World Heritage Site
    boundary.

3.  Satellite photograph of site showing proposed World Heritage Site
    boundary.

4.  Meadowcroft Rockshelter site plan. (Pfaffmann & Associates)

5.  Map of Meadowcroft Rockshelter Excavation

**1.f. Area of nominated property (ha.)**

*Explanation: State the approximate area proposed in hectares (1
hectare=2.471 acres). Give corresponding acre equivalents in
parentheses. Insert just below this question a table for serial
nominations that shows the names and addresses of the component parts,
regions (if different for different components), and areas.*

**Actual Archaeological Excavation Area = approximately 0.198 hectares
(0.080 acres)**

**Proposed Boundary Area (excavation plus surrounding natural area) =
approximately 2.416 hectares (5.970 acres)**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**2. DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY**

**2.a. Description of the Property**

(select the one following category that best fits the property)

###### Cultural property

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages should be all that is required.

*Explanation: This section can describe significant buildings, their
architectural style, date of construction, materials, etc. It can also
describe the setting such as gardens, parks, associated vistas. Other
tangible geographic, cultural, historic, archeological, artistic,
architectural, and/or associative values may also merit inclusion.*

[]{.mark}

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter represents one of the largest extant and
intact natural rockshelters in southwestern Pennsylvania. It was used
and reused as a short-term hunting and/or gathering campsite during the
Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland and Historic Periods. Meadowcroft
Rockshelter has produced one of the longest, if not the longest,
continuous (although not continually occupied) stratified sequence of
cultural remains in North America. Cultural materials recovered from its
lower levels have been radiocarbon dated to 16,000 B.P. and Pre-Clovis
times. It is the Pre-Clovis remains and well-stratified cultural
sequence above them that makes this shelter an exceptional place to
study the initial occupations of the New World and subsequent
adaptations by various groups living in North America.**

[]{.mark}

**The Meadowcroft Rockshelter is a natural sandstone re-entrant that
lies along the north bank of Cross Creek, a small tributary of the Ohio
River, which is located 12.16 km to the west. Meadowcroft Rockshelter is
formed beneath a cliff of Morgantown-Connellsville sandstone; a thick
fluvial or channel sandstone within the Casselman Formation (Upper
Conemaugh) of the Pennsylvania Period. The site is located in the
unglaciated portion of the Pittsburgh Plateaus Section of the
Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province. It is oriented roughly
east-west with a southern exposure and stands some 15.06 meters above
Cross Creek and 244.92 meters above sea level. The area protected by the
extant overhang is ca 65 square meters while the overhang itself is some
13 meters above the modern surface of the site. In addition to the water
potentially available from Cross Creek, springs are abundant in the
immediate vicinity of the shelter. The prevailing wind is west to east
across the mouth of the shelter providing almost continuous ventilation
and ready egress for smoke and insects. The Cross Creek floodplain below
and bluff face and bluff top immediately around Meadowcroft Rockshelter
are currently covered with a mixed deciduous forest.**

[]{.mark}

**Prehistoric occupations of Meadowcroft Rockshelter can be assigned to
the Paleoindian (pre-10,000 B.P.), Archaic (10,000 to 3000 B.P.),
Woodland (3000 to 450 B.P.) and Historic Periods (450 B.P. to Present).
The prehistoric and historic components found at Meadowcroft Rockshelter
are summarized below.**

**Paleoindian (pre-10,000 B.P.)**

**The Late Pleistocene Paleoindian inhabitants of Meadowcroft
Rockshelter had to deal with a late glacial environment. Laurentian ice
sheets were retreating through the northwestern portion of Pennsylvania
and New England and had formed Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes by
the end of the period. Paleoindians found a variety of macro- and
micro-environmental zones available for exploitation. However, most Late
Pleistocene climate reconstructions were made prior to the Meadowcroft
excavations, were overly generalized (i.e., looked only at
macroenvironmental reconstruction), were based on data from widely
separated points, and did not take into account differences in sample
elevations, topography, etc. Nevertheless, they indicated a generalized
succession of spruce and pine forests during the Late Pleistocene (Flint
1971; Andrews 1973). Megafauna, including mastodon, mammoth, caribou and
*Symbos* sp., were present along with most of the modern fauna of the
region. In general, Late Pleistocene environments were unlike anything
present in modern times.**

**The Paleoindian occupations of Meadowcroft Rockshelter are represented
by people who made an unfluted lanceolate spear point, unifacial and
bifacial knives and blades, all made from a variety of local and
nonlocal cherts. Several hearths were excavated and remains of
white-tailed deer, flying squirrel, chipmunk and an unidentified mouse
were found in the lowest occupation levels. All of the Paleoindian
remains were recovered from Stratum IIA at Meadowcroft. Radiocarbon
dates for these materials range from 16,175[+]{.underline}975
radiocarbon years B.P. to 12,800[+]{.underline}870 radiocarbon years
B.P. These predate Clovis, usually dated between 12,500 and 11,500
radiocarbon years B.P., and represent some of the earliest indisputably
human-produced materials found in the New World.**

**Archaic Period (10,000 B.P. to 3000 B.P.)**

**The Archaic period coincides, for the most part, with the transition
from the Pleistocene environments to the establishment of the modern
floral and faunal regimes in North America. Pleistocene megafauna were
either extinct or had moved to regions much further to the north.
Archaic inhabitants at Meadowcroft hunted and gathered wild forest
animals (e.g., white-tailed deer, elk, black bear, etc.) and plants
(e.g., walnuts, hickory nuts, berries, etc.) and learned to exploit
riverine resources (i.e., fish, shellfish, etc.) that continue to be
found in the area today or which were recently extirpated. Throughout
the period, Archaic peoples were living in bands, and the bands probably
controlled well-established territories.**

**The Archaic Period has been subdivided into Early, Middle and Late
Archaic based largely on temporal differences and changes in lithic
technologies through the period. The Early Archaic dates between 10,000
B.P. and 8000 B.P. Diagnostic Early Archaic lithics recovered at
Meadowcroft include Kirk Stemmed and Kanawha stemmed points that have
serrated blade edges or basal notching. It appears that the Early
Archaic inhabitants utilized local lithic resources more so than the
pre-Clovis groups at the site. It is during the Early Archaic that the
transition from Late Pleistocene to modern environments largely
occurred. Thus, these inhabitants had to quickly adapt to rapidly
changing environments.**

**The Middle Archaic use of the shelter dates between 8000 and 6000 B.P.
There is a change in projectile point styles from ones with serrated
blades and basal notching to stemmed and side notched styles (e.g.,
Morrow Mountain and Big Sandy II points) which rarely had serrated
blades. In addition, there is greater use of ground stone tools (i.e.,
axes, manos, metates, pestles, etc.) than is noted during the Early
Archaic.**

**The Late Archaic occupations date between 6000 and 3000 B.P. They are
characterized by a number of different notched and stemmed point styles
(e.g., Brewerton Corner-notched, Brewerton Side-notched, Steubenville
Lanceolate, Steubenville Stemmed, etc.). The end of the Late Archaic is
sometimes called the Transitional or Terminal Archaic Period (3800-2800
B.P.) and is characterized by the use of broad-bladed spears (e.g.,
Lehigh Broad) and the use of stone bowls for cooking. Floral and faunal
remains from Meadowcroft suggest a summer through fall utilization of
the site. The increase in the number of base camps in the Cross Creek
Drainage and in regional surveys suggests there was an expansion of the
population during the Late Archaic.**

**Materials from Late Archaic site excavations demonstrate a continued
hunting and gathering existence during the Late Archaic. However,
investigations also indicate an increase or intensification in wild
plants and riverine resources exploited. The earliest shell middens
identified in the area, the Globe Hill and Steubenville sites, are from
this period. The earliest domesticated plant remains have been recovered
from Late Archaic Period sites located to the west or southwest of
Pennsylvania, but to date no unequivocal domesticated plant remains have
been recovered from Late Archaic levels of Meadowcroft Rockshelter.**

**Woodland Period (3000 to 450 B.P.)**

**The Woodland Period is subdivided into Early (3000 to 2000 B.P.),
Middle (2000 to 1000 B.P.) and Late Woodland (1000 to 450 B.P.) Periods.
The early portion of the Woodland Period is characterized by a more
sedentary lifestyle focused on extensive exploitation of wild plant,
animal and riverine resources that are supplemented by domesticated
plant foods. By the end of the Woodland Period, people in the Eastern
United States are living in permanent year-round villages, domesticated
plants provide most of the food and are supplemented by wild
resources.**

**The Early Woodland Period (3000 to 2000 B.P.) at Meadowcroft
Rockshelter is characterized by many technological and ritual
innovations. The earliest ceramics recovered at the site, Half-Moon
Ware, are from this period and the characteristic point styles are
stemmed forms (e.g., Adena, Robbins). The earliest domesticated plants,
squash and possibly maize, have been recovered from Early Woodland
strata at Meadowcroft.**

**The latter half of the Early Woodland period is noted for the rise of
the Adena Culture in the Midwestern United States and use of burial
mounds with central log or bark tombs for the burial of important
members of the society. This suggests the development of complex society
and institutions during the Early Woodland. The Early Woodland remains
from Meadowcroft represent small Adena family groups or hunting parties.
They provided information about the every day lives of the Adena
peoples, and not just their ritual burial customs.**

**The Middle Woodland Period (2000 to 1100 B.P.) is characterized by the
development of settled village life in the Eastern United States by the
end of the period. Burial ceremonialism and mound construction
continues, but they are gradually deemphasized in importance until they
are phased out by the end of the period. It should also be noted that
the Middle Woodland Period, as it is used herein, follows the pattern
used in the Midatlantic region and includes cultures that would be
assigned to the Middle and Late Woodland Periods in the Midwestern
system.**

**The early portion of the Middle Woodland Period (2000 to 1400 B.P.)
coincides with the Hopewellian efflorescence and demise in the Midwest.
Diagnostic artifacts recovered at Meadowcroft included limestone
tempered Watson Ware pottery and Chesser Notched projectile points.
Charred hickory nuts, walnuts, and other wild plant remains found in
these strata at Meadowcroft suggest fall occupations by small family or
hunting groups.**

**The late Middle Woodland (1400 to 1000 B.P.) is not as well documented
as some of the earlier materials from Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, it
is during this period that maize horticulture must have developed into
an important part of the local economy. Burial mounds continued to be
built, but they are all very small and most burials lacked substantive
grave goods. It is during the late Middle Woodland that grit tempered
Mahonning Ware pottery becomes the primary ceramic form recovered at
Meadowcroft. In addition, the diagnostic points recovered at the site,
Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Kiski Notched and Levanna, help document the
replacement of the spear thrower by the bow-and-arrow as the primary
hunting weapon in the Eastern United States.**

**The Late Woodland Period (1100 to 450 B.P.) is the best documented
period in the region with excavations conducted at many Late Woodland
sites. The Late Woodland, also referred to as the Late Prehistoric
Period, is characterized by the development of the Monongahela culture
in western Pennsylvania. Monongahela peoples lived in hamlets (early)
and oval villages with central plazas. Larger Monongahela sites were
usually located on saddles or benches along major stream drainage
divides. Many villages were surrounded by an exterior palisade. The
houses were circular and often had an attached storage appendage.
Monongahela ceramics may be limestone tempered (usually early forms) or
shell tempered. The diagnostic projectile point form was the small
triangular Madison Point and it was an arrow point. Maize agriculture
was the predominant economic activity. The maize diet was supplemented
by wild plant, animal, fish and shellfish. Domesticated beans appear in
the region toward the middle of the period and are another dietary
supplement. The Monongahela components of Meadowcroft represent small
hunting camps of these peoples.**

**Historic Period (450 B.P. to Present)**

**The early portion of the Historic Period sees the demise of the
Monongahela Culture and the movement through the area of various
historic Native American tribes (e.g., Delaware, Shawnee, etc.) who were
being pushed west by the expanding European populations. European trade
goods (e.g., glass beads, brass kettles, brass ornaments, etc.) appear
at Historic Period Monongahela villages. However, the Monongahela
apparently acquired European trade materials through Native American
intermediaries since there are no definitive records of direct European
contact with them. Sometime during the 17^th^ Century A.D., the
Monongahela disappear from southwestern Pennsylvania. We do not know if
they became extinct, moved away and became a group that was not
recognized as descendents of the Monongahela or were absorbed by another
historic tribe. Why they disappeared remains a mystery that needs to be
solved by additional archaeological investigations.**

**European settlers started to move into southwestern Pennsylvania in
the middle of the 18^th^ Century A.D. and all Native American peoples
had been pushed out of southwestern Pennsylvania by the later portion of
the 18^th^ Century. The 19^th^ Century A.D. was a period of expanding
European populations in the region. Early European migrants into the
area were primarily farmers. By the middle of the 19^th^ Century, the
iron industry started to develop. By the end of the 19^th^ Century the
area was noted for its coal mines, coke furnaces and steel mills. Small
towns and villages, like Avella in the Cross Creek Drainage, developed
in response to these industries. These continued to be the main
industries in the region through the middle of the 20^th^ Century A.D.
when the steel industry went into decline. Today, southwestern
Pennsylvania remains a largely rural area. The small towns and villages
associated with the coal and steel industries are also in decline. Coal
mining, particularly longwall deep mining, remains the primary industry
in the region, and cattle and sheep farms are still fairly common
businesses in the rural areas.**

**The modern surface of Meadowcroft Rockshelter was utilized by
Euroamericans as a small campsite and party location (probably by
teenagers) during the 20^th^ Century. A hearth, beer and soft drink cans
were found on the surface of the shelter when it was first
investigated.**

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

**The Pre-Clovis occupation of Meadowcroft Rockshelter represents the
first real challenge to the Clovis-first view of the peopling of the New
World. Prior to work at Meadowcroft, it was believed that the first
migrants to the New World crossed the Bering Land Bridge into Alaska
circa 13,000 radiocarbon years ago. They were blocked from entry into
the continental United States by glacial ice sheets. An ice-free
corridor was believed to open around 12,500 radiocarbon years ago
through the McKenzie River Valley, permitting people to move south into
the United States where they became the Clovis mammoth hunters. The
early remains from Meadowcroft, and now from a few other New World
sites, demonstrated that this Clovis-first view could not be supported.
People were present in the New World prior to Clovis and had to arrive
via some other method.**

**New hypotheses have been developed to explain the earlier arrival of
people in the New World because of the Meadowcroft Pre-Clovis materials.
Some now believe the earliest Americans arrived in some type of
watercraft from either northeast Asia or from Europe. However, there is
no consensus concerning where the earliest Americans ultimately
originated. The data from Meadowcroft, and its potential for providing
additional information from unexcavated sections of the shelter, makes
Meadowcroft Rockshelter a site with international implications for
determining migration patterns of the first Americans.**

**In addition to its remarkably long and complete occupational sequence,
Meadowcroft Rockshelter also yielded an enormous corpus of floral and
faunal material. The ecofactual assemblage presently includes more than
956,000 animal bones, the largest collection of its kind recovered from
an archaeological site in the New World. The faunal assemblage contains
more than 120 species, again the most diverse of its kind in the
Americas. The floral collection includes more than 1.4 million specimens
ranging in size from pollen and spores to substantial sections of trees.
Like the faunal assemblage, the floral collection is without peers in
the Americas. The invertebrate faunal suite includes more that 20,000
aquatic and molluscan remains with more than 20 climatically sensitive
species represented.**

**Taken together, the components of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter
ecological assemblage permit the detailed reconstruction of more than
16,000 years of late Pleistocene and Holocene climate, thus providing an
incredible backdrop and context for the long record of human cultural
adaptation and change at the site.**

**The later levels of Meadowcroft also specifically provide important
information about how peoples adapted to changes from the late
Pleistocene to Holocene climates once they arrived in the New World.
Data from Meadowcroft show how people adapted to different wild plant
and animal foods during the early portion of the Holocene and later
started growing squash and maize. The change from a largely hunting and
gathering life style to one of food production has parallels around the
world. However, the peoples of each region of the world modified their
local environments by domesticating different plants and animals.
Meadowcroft Rockshelter has the potential to help explain just why
people made these adaptive changes during the late Pleistocene and
Holocene.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

**During the prehistoric period and into the historic period, this
property was used as a sheltered campsite. This is no longer the case
since the time of the initial archaeological excavation in 1973. The
present and proposed uses of the property are twofold: continued
scientific study and public access.**

**Because a portion of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter has yet to be
excavated, the site almost certainly contains additional deposits
representing prehistoric occupation. Future excavations will likely add
to the enormous body of evidence already produced from the site. Since
the initial excavation in the summer months of 1973, the Meadowcroft
Rockshelter has been visited and studied by members of the scientific
community representing a variety of disciplines. These scholars have
come and continue to come from countries all around the world. It is the
property owner's intention that the Meadowcroft Rockshelter, as a key
site in understanding human migration to the New World, continue to be
accessible for scientific study.**

**Public access to this National Historic Landmark is also an important
part of the future use of the site. The Historical Society of Western
Pennsylvania is committed to the preservation and public interpretation
of the Meadowcroft Rockshelter. The permanent enclosure now being
constructed at the Rockshelter is designed to provide proper protection
of the archaeological resource and visitor access without a negative
impact to the site.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Cultural landscapes (*combined works of nature and humans*)**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List ?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

Consider how both natural and cultural processes have contributed to
creating the cultural

Landscape and give special attention to the interaction of humans and
nature. All major aspects of the history of human activity in the area
need to be considered.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

###### Natural property

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

*Explanation: This section can describe* *the property's important
physical features and scientific values, including geography, geology,
topography, habitats, species and population sizes (including an
indication of any that are threatened), and other significant ecological
features and processes.*

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it (e.g., to
what extent and by what methods are natural resources being exploited)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property (one that meets at least one natural criterion and one
cultural criterion---see Section 3a just below for criteria)**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

**2.b. History and Development of the Property**

*( select the one following category that best fits the property)*

**Cultural property**

When was the site built or first occupied and how did it arrive at its
present form and condition? If it has undergone significant changes in
use or physical alterations, include an explanation.

*Explanation: If the property was built in stages or if there have been
major changes, demolitions, abandonment and reoccupation, or rebuilding
since completion, briefly summarize these events. For archeological
sites, the names of archeologists and dates of their work should also be
noted, especially if the site is regarded as important in the history of
archeology as well as for its intrinsic merits.*

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter has been in existence as a natural reentrant
shelter for over 30,000 years. The oldest radiocarbon dates on
noncultural materials from the bottommost stratum I at the site are
31,400[+]{.underline}1200, 30,900[+]{.underline}1100 and
30,700[+]{.underline}1140 radiocarbon years B.P. However, it was not
occupied by humans until circa 16,000 radiocarbon years B.P. The area
covered by overhanging rock was much larger than that of the modern
shelter during these times. There was a major rock fall, called the Old
Roof Fall, at 14,900 radiocarbon years ago that reduced the covered area
of the shelter. The effect of the Old Roof Fall was to shift site use
toward the interior of the modern shelter. A second major roof fall, the
New Roof Fall, occurred between 1665 and 1290 radiocarbon years ago. The
New Roof Fall increased the sedimentation rate on the eastern side of
the shelter. Other, smaller rock falls have occurred throughout the
existence of the shelter, but these did not reduce the actual size of
the overhang. They have covered some areas that might have been occupied
prior to their fall and shifted areas of use within the shelter.
Meadowcroft Rockshelter was periodically occupied from 16,000 years ago
until the present (see above discussion for more details about the
occupation of the site).**

[]{.mark}

**Archaeological excavations were conducted each spring and summer at
Meadowcroft Rockshelter under the direction of James M. Adovasio of the
Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh from 1973 to 1979
(6 field seasons, 417 excavation days of 12 to 14 hours) and, more
briefly in 1983, 1985, and 1987. Additional work was conducted under the
direction of James M. Adovasio of the Mercyhurst Archaeological
Institute, Mercyhurst College during the 1990s and on into the 21^st^
century primarily, but not exclusively, as site maintenance activities
to clean up slumps in the shelter. A wooden shelter was built over
excavation units to protect them when actual excavation work was not
being conducted in 1973. Various modifications were made to the covering
shelter over the years as the excavations expanded into its current
configuration. The wooden shelter protects the excavation units from the
weather and additional roof falls from the rockshelter. The excavated
section of Meadowcroft Rockshelter remains braced, but unfilled under
the current shelter. Work is currently underway to construct a more
substantial structure over the excavation units with walkways so the
general public will be able to actually visit and view the site. That
structure is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2007.**

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter was not entirely excavated. Portions along the
eastern side of the site remain for all occupation zones. Potential
Archaic and Paleoindian occupations are covered by various rock falls on
the northwest side of the site. Thus, Meadowcroft has the potential to
yield additional data concerning the first Americans and later
adaptations in the Eastern North America.**

*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_*

**Cultural landscape**

What have been the major aspects of the history of human activity in the
area and their impact on the landscape?

***\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_***

**Natural property**

What are the most significant events in history or prehistory that have
affected the property? How have humans used or affected it?

*Explanation: This discussion can include changes in the use of the
property and its natural resources for hunting, fishing or agriculture,
or changes brought about by climatic change, floods, earthquake or other
natural causes.*

***\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_***

**Mixed property**

Consider the questions raised just above for both natural and cultural
properties.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**2.c. Boundary Selection**

Propose a boundary for the property and explain why you chose it. Is the
boundary reasonable on logical grounds, such as if it conforms to
topography or landforms or (for natural areas) to the range of wildlife
or (for cultural properties) to any historical boundary or defining
structures (such as walls)?

**UTM References: Zone Easting Northing**

**17 543220 4459460**

**Verbal Boundary Description:**

**A quadrilateral (see map and satellite photograph with boundaries)
formed by lines connecting the following UTM points, all from Zone 17:**

**Northwest: Easting: 543190 Northing: 4459500**

**This point is out in woods with no close identifying feature. The
western NHL boundary formed by this point and the southwestern point
basically is the dividing line between the direction of drainage above
the bluff line. Areas to the west drain away from Meadowcroft
Rockshelter; to the east of the line, they drain over or around the
rockshelter.**

**Northeast: Easting: 543290 Northing: 4459500**

**The line from the northwest to northeast point goes through the woods
and crosses just north of the existing ponded area north of the site -
the erosional features (which include this modern pond) that contributed
sediments that washed over the bluff and became slopewash into
Meadowcroft Rockshelter are included by this northern boundary.**

**Southwest Easting: 543190 Northing: 4459400**

**This point is basically at the northwest corner of the old metal
bridge that crossed Cross Creek to the southwest of the shelter -- it
has subsequently been replaced by the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation with a new bridge crossing over at a point further to the
west than the original bridge. A line from this southwest point to the
southeastern point basically follows the northern bank of Cross Creek.**

**Southeast: Easting: 543290 Northing: 4459400**

**The eastern NHL boundary line formed by this point and the
Northeastern point is located about 23 m due west of the southwestern
corner of the parking lot for the Meadowcroft Village parking lot. It
also is the dividing line for bluff drainage where areas to the west
drain down and over the bluff toward Meadowcroft Rockshelter and away
from it to the east of the line.**

**Boundary Justification:**

**The boundaries for the Meadowcroft Rockshelter were based on GPS
readings taken in the deciduous woods around the shelter. They include
the immediate uplands that contributed and contribute soil sediments via
sheetwash to Meadowcroft Rockshelter, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter cliff
face, the cliff face immediately east and west of the current
excavations, and the talus slopes below the shelters down to Cross
Creek. All of these features or locations either contributed to or have
the potential to contribute additional information about the occupations
of and/or geological processes at work at Meadowcroft Rockshelter.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are all the elements and features that are related to the site's
significance included inside the proposed boundaries?

*Explanation: Careful analysis should be undertaken to insure that the
proposal embraces the internationally significant resources and excludes
most, if not all, unrelated buildings, structures and features.*

YES: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If no, please explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any enclaves or inholdings within the property and, if so, do
they contain uses or potential uses contrary to the conservation or
preservation of the site as a whole?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

If yes, please explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**3. JUSTIFICATION FOR INSCRIPTION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST**

**3.a. Criteria under which inscription is proposed**

From the World Heritage criteria listed below, identify each criterion
that you believe applies to your property and briefly state why you
believe each criterion you have selected is applicable.

*Explanation: You may find the discussion under this heading in
"Appendix A" to the **Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program** to be
helpful in completing this section. Please refer to a paper copy or
follow the hyperlink.*

*To be included on the World Heritage List, a site must be of
outstanding universal value and meet at least one of these ten selection
criteria in a global context:*

i.  *represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

ii. *exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
    time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
    architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
    landscape design;*

> \_[X]{.underline}\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am
> proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> **The Meadowcroft Rockshelter has provided evidence for Pre-Clovis
> Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and historic Euro-American use of the
> rockshelter in good stratified contexts. Meadowcroft has produced
> floral and faunal remains from all occupational strata and these
> provide a means of studying the economies of the cultures and how they
> changed through time. These remains demonstrate that the early
> Paleoindians were not merely big game hunters, but also hunted smaller
> game. They also show how Archaic groups adapted to the establishment
> of the modern Holocene environment by increasing their reliance on
> locally available faunal and floral resources as well as utilizing an
> increasing amount of riverine resources.**
>
> **The appearance of cultigens in the Eastern United States remains one
> of the more important questions that can be addressed by the
> Meadowcroft samples. Domesticated squash appeared during the Early
> Woodland period at Meadowcroft Rockshelter and only supplemented wild
> food resources at that time. Samples of maize have also been recovered
> from the rockshelter in Early Woodland contexts. However, the maize
> was dated only by associated charcoal radiocarbon dates. New dating
> methodologies, particularly TAMS radiocarbon dating, could be
> conducted in the future to conclusively confirm the early nature of
> the maize and squash remains from Meadowcroft. Even if the squash and
> maize remains date later than what is suggested by their stratigraphic
> placement and associated charcoal radiocarbon dates, they would still
> represent some of the best samples for studying cultigens from the
> region.**
>
> **The stratified Meadowcroft materials document the general change in
> cultural and subsistence practices from one based on largely wild
> foods to one based on food production that is noted around the world
> after the end of the Pleistocene. Meadowcroft provides information
> about how developments in eastern North America are similar to and
> different from those found in other regions of the world.**

iii. *bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural
     tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
     disappeared;*

> \_[X]{.underline}\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am
> proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> **The Meadowcroft Rockshelter has provided well-stratified evidence
> for some of the earliest inhabitants of the New World. The earliest
> materials from Meadowcroft were radiocarbon dated from circa 16,000 to
> about 12,000 years ago. They represented the first real challenge to
> the Clovis-First view that indicated people arrived in the New World
> only 11,500 years ago. These Meadowcroft "Pre-Clovis" occupations,
> so-named because they are earlier than Clovis, indicated people had to
> migrate into the New World prior to the very end of the Pleistocene.
> They could not have simply walked across the Bering Land Bridge and
> down an ice-free corridor into the New World as the Clovis-First model
> claimed. At the time Meadowcroft was occupied the ice-free corridor
> would have been closed to migrants. They had to arrive using some
> other method of access. The ultimate origin of these First Americans
> remains to be determined, but the data from Meadowcroft will aid in
> making that determination. The Pre-Clovis remains have generated
> several new hypotheses concerning the peopling of the New World. One
> hypothesis is that the earliest groups are derived from Asiatic
> populations living in Siberia or the northeastern coastal area of
> Asia. These peoples would have used some type of watercraft to skirt
> around the ice sheets covering the northwestern coast of North America
> to get into the New World. Another hypothesis is that the earliest
> peoples are descendants of Solutrean peoples from Europe. These people
> also would have to arrive in the New World utilizing some type of
> watercraft to cross the north Atlantic and come down to the eastern
> coast of North America. Whatever their ultimate origin, Meadowcroft
> was the first site to provide good evidence for these early migrants
> and how they adapted to conditions in the New World once they arrived.
> It is the site that others from around the world are compared to when
> investigating Pre-Clovis origins.**
>
> **Meadowcroft Rockshelter is cited in all recent North American
> archaeology textbooks and its importance in interpreting the peopling
> of the New World is generally recognized by North American
> archaeologists. Textbooks from outside the United States also
> recognize the significance of the rockshelter in interpreting the
> prehistory of the New World. For example, Gowlett (1993:142) states,
> \"the early date for Meadowcroft seems established beyond most
> reasonable doubt. Arguments that the radiocarbon dates were
> contaminated by \'old\' carbon from coal are not supported by the
> evidence.\" Gowlett (1993:142) also indicates \"the early dates for
> the South American sites and for Meadowcroft provide a sound basis for
> assessing the spread of human occupation through the Americas.\"**
>
> **Meadowcroft Rockshelter is also well known in the popular
> literature. Examples from the popular press are as follows:**
>
> **\"At Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Avella, PA, for instance, where for
> 26 years Adovasio has been excavating under an overhang that juts out
> from a rock face 43 feet above the ground, scientists are now
> reconsidering his claim that the charcoal, stone tools and woven
> material buried there are at least 14,000 and possibly 17,000 years
> old\" (Begley and Murr 1999:26).**
>
> **\"In light of recent developments, skeptics may reconsider these
> claims. One site sure to be revisited is the immaculately excavated
> Meadowcroft Rock-shelter in Pennsylvania; its chief proponent, James
> Adovasio of Mercyhurst College in Erie, has long contended that
> Meadowcroft is at least 17,000 years old\" (Wright 1999:58).**
>
> **\"Critics told him the charcoal that he presumed came from wood may
> actually have been contaminated by ancient coal or carbon in the local
> sediments, which would carbon-date much earlier. Adovasio retorts that
> what he calls the \'Clovis Mafia\' particularly rejects only dates at
> his site that are older than Clovis but not younger material.
> Contamination would skew ages for everything, he points out, not just
> for the finds that run counter to standard theory\" Petit (1998:59).**
>
> **\"...en el yacimiento paleolítico de Meadowcroft. Con Ellas, este
> investigador (i.e. Adovasio), echó por tierra las teorías Clovis, que
> databan la presencia de los primeros pobladores americanos hace no más
> de 11.5000 años. Adovasio encontró vestifios de culturas pre-Clovis
> que alcanzaron el continento hace 18.000 años\" (Fernández 2000:31)**
>
> ***\[...at the Paleolithic site of Meadowcroft. This investigator
> {Adovasio} threw out forever the Clovis theory that dated the first
> American populations to no more than 11,500 years. Adovasio
> encountered remnants of pre-Clovis culture which colonized the
> continent before 18,000 years ago.\]***
>
> **\"En Estados Unidos, cerca de Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) se ha
> encontrado el yacimiento de *Meadowcroft*, con abundantes restos
> arqueológicos, incluyendo carbones que permiten datar el yacimiento
> con el método del C14 en 14.500 años BP\" (Lozano Ruiz 2000:11)**
>
> ***\[In the United States, near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is located
> the site of Meadowcroft, with abundant archaeological remains
> including carbon, which permitted dating by the radiocarbon method to
> 14,500 years B.P.\]***
>
> **In addition to textbook and popular references, Meadowcroft has also
> been featured in numerous films about the initial colonization of the
> New World including productions by BBC, Nova, National Geographic and
> the History Channel. German and French teams also filmed stories at
> the site in the fall of 2000.**
>
> **Thus, Meadowcroft Rockshelter is recognized around the world as one
> of the most important sites from the United States.**
>
> **References Cited:**
>
> **Begley, Sharon, and Andrew Murr**
>
> **1999 The First Americans, Newsweek 26 April:50-57.**
>
> **Fernández, Daniel**
>
> **2000 EEUU Elogia el Yacimiento do Grandas De Salime. *La Voz de
> Asturias***
>
> **26 July:31.**
>
> **Gowlett, John A. J.**
>
> **1993 *Ascent to Civilization: the Archaeology of Early Humans*.
> McGraw-Hill,**
>
> **New York.**
>
> **Lozano Ruiz, Marina**
>
> **2000 Los Primeros Pobladores de América: Evidencias de un Nuevo
> Paradigma.**
>
> ***Revista de Arqueologia* 216:6-12**
>
> **Petit, Charles W.**
>
> **1998 Rediscovering America. *U.S. News and World Report* October
> 12:56-64.**
>
> **Wright, Karen**
>
> **1999 First Americans. *Discover* 20(2):52-63.**

iv. *be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
    technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a)
    significant stage(s) in human history;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

v.  *be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,
    land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or
    cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when
    it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

vi. *be directly or tangibly associated with events or living
    traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary
    works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee
    considers that this criterion should preferably be used in
    conjunction with other criteria);*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

vii. *contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
     natural beauty and aesthetic importance;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

viii. *be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth\'s
      history, including the record of life, significant on-going
      geological processes in the development of landforms, or
      significant geomorphic or physiographic features;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

ix. *be outstanding examples representing significant on-going
    ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development
    of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and
    communities of plants and animals;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

x.  *contain the most important and significant natural habitats for
    in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those
    containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from
    the point of view of science or conservation.*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**3.b. Proposed statement of outstanding universal value**

Based on the criteria you have selected just above, provide a brief
**Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value** summarizing and
making clear why you think the property merits inscription on the World
Heritage List. If adopted by the World Heritage Committee, the statement
"will be the key reference for the future effective protection and
management of the property."

*Explanation: This statement should clearly explain the
**internationally** significant values embodied by the property, **not**
its **national** prominence.*

*"**Outstanding Universal Value**" **is formally defined as "...
cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to
transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present
and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent
protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the
international community as a whole."***

**Cultural property**

*For example, a cultural World Heritage Site may be a unique survival of
a particular building form or settlement or an exceptional example of a
designed town or the best work by a great internationally recognized
architect. It may be a particularly fine or early or rich survival and
it may bear witness to a vanished culture or way of life, or ecosystem.
Elements to consider for inclusion in the statement may be such cardinal
facts about the site as:*

> *- Historic Context*
>
> *- Period of International Significance*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Dates*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Groups, Persons, Events*
>
> *- Cultural Affiliation*

**The Meadowcroft Rockshelter has produced exceptional evidence for the
early arrival of migrants into the New World prior to 11,500 years ago.
The earliest occupations at Meadowcroft Rockshelter were recovered from
deeply stratified contexts and were radiocarbon dated to circa 16,000
B.P. These remains represented the first real challenge to the
Clovis-First model of New World cultural development that stated the
first migrants to the New World arrived circa 11,500 years ago. The
ultimate origin of these Pre-Clovis New World migrants remains to be
determined. Some believe they were derived from peoples living in
Siberia during the late Pleistocene. Others suggest they represent
descendants of Solutrean cultures from Europe. The early remains from
Meadowcroft Rockshelter represent one of the very few well-documented
Pre-Clovis settlements that will be used to determine where the first
New World migrants ultimately originated.**

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter also provides stratified evidence for all of
eastern North America's major cultural stages. These show how the early
migrants and their descendents adapted to changes in the environment
after the end of the Pleistocene. The data provided evidence for the
transformation of hunting and gathering peoples, during the early
Holocene, into the later horticultural societies in eastern North
America. The later Meadowcroft materials document the general change in
cultural and subsistence practices from one based on largely wild foods
to one based on food production that is noted around the world after the
end of the Pleistocene.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Cultural landscapes**

*Such landscapes illustrate the evolution of human society and
settlement over time under the influence of the physical constraints
and/or opportunities presented by the natural environment and of
successive social, economic, and cultural forces, both external and
internal**.***

**Natural property**

*For example, a natural World Heritage Site may be a unique existence of
a type of habitat or ecosystem. It may comprise assemblages of
threatened endemic species, exceptional ecosystems, outstanding natural
landscapes or other natural phenomena.*

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

*A mixed property must be justified under at least one cultural
criterion (i-vi) under 3a above and one natural criterion (vii-x) under
3a above.*

***\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_***

**3.c. Comparison of proposed property to similar or related properties
(including state of preservation of similar properties)**

Please provide a statement explaining how the property being proposed
compares with all other similar or related properties anywhere in the
world, whether already on the World Heritage List or not..

*Explanation:* *Examples of questions that may be useful to consider
include whether the proposed property is part of a series or sequence of
similar sites belonging to the same cultural grouping and/or the same
period of history. Also, are there features that distinguish it from
other sites and suggest that it should be regarded as **more**,
**equally** or **jointly** worthy than they are? What is it that makes
this property intrinsically better than others and qualifies it for the
World Heritage List? For example, does it have more features, species or
habitats than a similar site? Is the property larger or better preserved
or more complete or less changed by later developments?*

*It will be especially helpful if specific reference can be made to a
study placing the property in a global context. The absence of
comparative information may indicate that the property is either truly
exceptional (a difficult case to prove) or that it lacks international
importance. If the results of the comparative review reveal that
multiple sites possess roughly comparable merit and may possess
international significance as a group, you may wish to recommend that
more than one site be proposed, as a serial nomination or as a joint
nomination by the United States and another country.*

*Also please make note of any major works that evaluate the property in
comparison to similar properties anywhere else in the world.*

**The site most similar to Meadowcroft Rockshelter is Cactus Hill,
Virginia. Cactus Hill is an open site that has produced Early Archaic,
Clovis and Pre-Clovis remains in a stratified dune. It is not as deep a
site as Meadowcroft. The Pre-Clovis artifacts from Cactus Hill date to
circa 16,000 years ago and consist of two "Early Triangle" points that
are similar in form to the Miller Lanceolate point from Meadowcroft,
blades and cores. The raw materials utilized to make most of the
Pre-Clovis artifacts at Cactus Hill is largely a local quartzite while
the Meadowcroft materials are made from a variety of cherts, some of
which are not local. There are no Pre-Clovis hearths associated with the
Pre-Clovis occupation of Cactus Hill while those were found at
Meadowcroft. Meadowcroft has produced more actual lithic artifacts from
its Pre-Clovis strata than Cactus Hill and it is a different type of
site locale.**

**Saltsville, Virginia is another site that has been touted as having
Pre-Clovis remains. However, there are few lithic artifacts in the three
Pre-Clovis loci and the few that have been found are a couple of
sandstone choppers or wedges, and a few waste flakes. A possible
butchered mastodon and an apparently worked tibia from a musk ox
(*Bootherium bombifrons*) were also recovered. The tibia was AMS
radiocarbon dated to around 14,500 years ago. Saltsville has produced no
lithic materials resembling that from Meadowcroft. If the mastodon and
musk ox remains are the result of human predation and work, then
Saltsville differs from Meadowcroft in showing the Pre-Clovis people
were hunting now extinct animals.**

**The Topper site, South Carolina is another open, stratified site with
possible Pre-Clovis remains stratified under a Clovis level. There is an
upper Pre-Clovis level that has been OSR dated to circa 16,000 years ago
and a much deeper level with an alleged hearth that has been radiocarbon
dated to greater than 50,000 years ago. The lower level is very
controversial at present time and may not represent a real human
occupation. The 16,000 year ago level has produced a series of unifacial
tools, bladelets, cores, burin-like flakes and chert debitage. The
burin-like flakes were produced using a technique that has been named
the "bend/break technology." Some people do not believe the Topper
remains are real human-made tools, but are the result of freeze-thaw
actions on the local chert outcrop located just up the hill from the
early locality. However, unifacial tools would be difficult to produce
through random freeze-thaw actions, which should also produce an
occasional biface-like tool and other items. They appear to be real
human-made artifacts. Conversely, the Topper unifacial tools are
radically different from the bifacial tools found at Meadowcroft. Topper
appears to represent a different group of Pre-Clovis peoples from those
at Meadowcroft.**

**Monte Verde, Chile is another important Pre-Clovis New World site. It
is located down near the tip of South America and dates to around 12,500
years ago. Monte Verde has produced partially preserved wood and bone
structures for the people living at the site. Narrow, bipointed El Jobo
points represent the diagnostic spear point recovered from the site.
These are unlike the early projectile points found at Cactus Hill or
Meadowcroft. Monte Verde confirmed the fact that people were in the New
World well before Clovis. It also showed that people were in the New
World long enough to develop disparate adaptations and cultures in North
and South America.**

**These are the main Pre-Clovis sites that have been compared or
contrasted with the Pre-Clovis levels at Meadowcroft Rockshelter. These
and a few other possible Pre-Clovis sites show that there is a lot yet
to be learned about these early occupants of the New World. Meadowcroft
has the potential to yield additional information about these early
peoples since it was not excavated in its entirety.**

**Additional information about Pre-Clovis investigations in general, the
Meadowcroft Rockshelter site and Meadowcroft's place in world prehistory
can be found in the following references.**

**Bonnichsen, Robson, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael R.
Walters, editors**

**2005 *Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis*. Center for the Study of
the First**

**Americans, Department of Antropology, Texas A&M University, College**

**Station, Texas.**

**Madsen, D. B., editor**

**2004 *Entering American: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last
Glacial***

***Maximum*. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**3.d. Integrity and/or Authenticity**

*Explanation: As with a site's international significance, the clear
intent of this requirement is that a World Heritage Site's authenticity
or integrity must rise to a superlative level. Thus, for example, it is
quite important to understand that reconstructions of historic
structures or sites or largely restored ecosystems will usually be
disqualified from inscription in the World Heritage List.*

**Cultural property**

[Authenticity]{.underline}: Does the property retain its original
design, materials, workmanship and setting?

YES: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter is a natural rock overhang that has been in
existence for at least 30,000 years and has sheltered many different
people over a period of 16,000 years. The Pre-Clovis occupations of the
site in Stratum IIa have international significance in determining when
and from where people first came to the New World. Areas of the shelter
remain intact that might provide additional data concerning the
Pre-Clovis occupations at Meadowcroft. In addition, debris tossed out of
the shelter by its inhabitants may be covered by rocks and colluvium on
the talus slope.**

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter produced remains of fire hearths, refuse pits,
storage pits, roasting pits, and specialized activity areas from
Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Historic periods in well-documented
stratified contexts. Unexcavated portions of some of these features can
still be observed in existing profile walls at the site.
Microstratigraphy was followed during excavation, and the project
employed a large multidisciplinary team to analyze the remains and
deposits from the site. It was one of the first sites to have a computer
terminal present so data could be immediately entered as they came out
of the excavation units. A series of 52 radiocarbon assays firmly date
the various cultural deposits at Meadowcroft. Nine of these assays
directly date the Pre-Clovis occupations of the shelter. Portions of the
shelter were not excavated so that future advances in archaeological
methodology and analyses might be used to discover additional
information about the Pre-Clovis and later occupations. The unexcavated
deposits remain intact and retain their stratigraphic integrity.**

**Widely recognized as one of the finest examples of closed site (cave
or rockshelter) excavation ever conducted in the world, the intact
Meadowcroft Rockshelter deposits provide an absolutely unique outdoor
laboratory for archaeological and geoarchaeological specialists as well
as the lay public to be exposed to, and indeed, be instructed about the
state-of-the-art protocols in excavation, data recovery and
documentation. No other rockshelter or cave in the Americas affords this
unparalleled opportunity to examine cutting edge excavation strategies
and tactics than does Meadowcroft Rockshelter.**

**The surrounding environment with its wooded slope down to the bank of
Cross Creek remains much as it was during most of the Holocene. It has
not been modified by modern Euroamerican land use with the exception of
a building placed over the excavation units to protect them from the
elements and to provide access to the site by visitors. This building
was constructed in a fashion that did not impact any potentially
important deposits at the site.**

[Integrity]{.underline}: Do the authentic material and spatial evidence
inside the proposed boundaries remain in sufficient quantity to convey
the full significance of the site? To tell the full story of why the
site is outstanding? Is the integrity weakened by the intrusion of
discordant and/or abundant elements or buildings that are unrelated to
the significance and detract from the visual unity of the place?

YES: \_\_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

**The area surrounding the Meadowcroft Rockshelter is largely unchanged
since the time of its original use by early people groups. Looking
north, east, and south from the site, the view is essentially the same
as it was for the prehistoric people who camped at the site. Only the
view to the west is changed by the presence of a two lane road and
bridge which spans Cross Creek. No other development or housing is
visible in this remote valley. The archaeological site itself remains an
open excavation. Because of the importance of the excavation and the
potential for future scientific study, a roof structure was constructed
during the active excavation to protect the site from the elements. That
structure is now being replaced with a more appropriate enclosure as
described below.**

**The proposed site boundaries include all areas that contributed to the
formation of Meadowcroft Rockshelter. The area above the shelter bluff
is the source of colluvium that contributed to the deposits within the
shelter. There is a narrow two lane access road above the bluff that
goes through these deposits to Meadowcroft Village, but it does not
impact the study of these soils as the source of the colluvium.
Sufficient intact and unexcavated deposits remain within the shelter
that it remains a source of potentially significant information about
the earliest inhabitants of the New World and later cultural
adaptations. The materials excavated from the shelter also are available
for additional analyses and study by future researchers. Displays
interpreting the various occupations found at Meadowcroft Rockshelter
are located in the interpretive center of Meadowcroft Museum.**

Note that that there can be authenticity without integrity, as in a
highly eroded archaeological ruin. There can also be authenticity with
full integrity of materials, but seriously undermined by the
overwhelming presence of newer or inappropriate elements.

How do authenticity and integrity compare for this property?

**Meadowcroft Rockshelter retains its natural shelter formation without
modern intrusions except for the protective building. The protective
building does not intrude on any important or significant site deposits.
The remaining unexcavated deposits are unspoiled and retain their
stratigraphic integrity. Meadowcroft Rockshelter remains an important
intact archaeological site that can provide significant new information
about the Pre-Clovis and later occupations found there.**

[Repairs:]{.underline} If repairs have been made, were they carried out
using traditional materials and methods? If yes, please discuss. If not,
please explain the methods used and why.

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_[\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: **No repairs have been made to this natural rockshelter.
However, as described in the response to 4a, a new enclosure is being
constructed to protect the open archaeological excavation.**

**Cultural landscapes:**

Authenticity: Does the property retain its distinctive character and
components?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Natural property**

Are there intrusions by non-native animals or plants and are there any
human activities that could compromise the property's condition?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If efforts are being made to conserve or restore a site or ecosystem,
what is their nature and are scientifically directed measures being
used? If the site comprises a unique ecosystem or habitat values, is the
area proposed of sufficient size and configuration to contain as
complete a representation of an ecosystem or habitat as is practicable
or reasonable?

Nature of conservation or restoration
measures:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Proposed area is sufficient:

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

Does the property's authenticity or integrity rise to a superlative
level?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**4. STATE OF PRESERVATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY**

**4.a. Present state of preservation of the property**

**Cultural property**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

**There are two facets to the preservation of the Meadowcroft
Rockshelter: preservation of the sandstone formation itself and
preservation of the open archaeological excavation below it that has
revealed the globally significant prehistory of the site.**

**The sandstone formation has been evolving since it was first formed.
Sand particles are shed from this feature on a daily basis, freeze-thaw
cycles precipitate small rock spalling on a seasonal basis, eventually
dislodging larger portions of rock over a long period of time. Evidence
remains in situ of catastrophic roof falls which took place in
prehistory as described in the response to question 2b above.**

**Preservation measures for the sandstone formation include proper storm
water management in the areas above the cliff and protecting the area
directly above the Rockshelter from pedestrian traffic and other
potentially disturbing activity. Recent geotechnical evaluation,
associated with the construction project, has resulted in the
recommendation of installing four, anchor bolts in specified locations.
These mechanical fasteners will provide an increased level of stability
in those areas which exhibit deep fissures.**

**The open archaeological excavation contains vertically cut profiles
through the deposit which reveal the complex stratigraphy of the site
and in situ features such as fire hearths, specialized activity areas,
rock falls, and faunal remains. A single example of a profile from the
original north-south oriented trench, excavated in the first field
school of 1973, remains intact. Severe desiccation has created fragile
edges to some of the extant profiles, while water penetration from storm
damage to the existing roof has created small areas of erosion. These
areas will require further excavation upon completion of the new,
permanent enclosure.**

**Preservation measures for the excavation include daily monitoring of
the site and inspection of the roof, cyclical maintenance of the roof
and periodic removal of leaves and debris, periodic archaeological
maintenance of the excavation, storm water management, and general site
security. The site is equipped with a motion sensing alarm system and a
network of surveillance cameras.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

## 

**A major preservation effort is currently underway at the site.
Construction has begun on a new enclosure for the archaeological
excavation that will provide proper protection of the site, ensuring its
long-term preservation. This new enclosure will also provide improved
public access to the site in a way that will not have any adverse affect
on either the preservation of the site as a whole or the open
archaeological excavation. A series of steps and railed walkways will
establish the public access to the site with a cantilevered observation
deck providing an intimate view of the archaeological features without
any direct physical contact.**

**This fully funded, \$1.3 million structure is being completed with
federal, state, and local government funds and private contributions.
Federal funding for this project is provided through the Institute for
Museums and Library Services (\$149,115) and the National Park Service
(*Save* *America's Treasures* *Project* \$250,000). This enclosure is
scheduled for completion in the fall of 2007. An architectural rendering
is being submitted with this application.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Cultural landscapes:**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## 

## Natural property

What is the present state of conservation of the property (including its
physical condition and conservation measures in place)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there data on species trends or the integrity of ecosystems and are
there any on-going or planned interventions to restore natural
conditions (e.g., to restore altered topography or manage invasive
species and/or restore native ones)?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed? Are there data on species trends or the
integrity of ecosystems and are there any on-going or planned
interventions to restore natural conditions (e.g., to restore altered
topography or manage invasive species and/or restore native ones)?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**4b. Factors affecting the property**

If there are known factors likely to affect or threaten the outstanding
universal values of the property or there any difficulties that may be
encountered in addressing such problems through measures taken, or
proposed to be taken, please use the following is a checklist to help in
identifying factors.

***(i) Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, modification,
agriculture, mining)***

Are there development pressures affecting the property? Or major changes
in traditional land use? Or demographic shifts, especially in sites
still in the hands of the descendants of their creators, or, for
example, traditional ethnic communities.

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***(ii) Environmental pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change,
desertification)***

Are there major sources of environmental deterioration currently
affecting the property?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***(iii) Natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes, floods,
fires, etc.)***

Are natural disasters likely to present a foreseeable threat to the
property? If so, are there available background data (e.g., for a
property in a seismic zone, give details of past seismic activity, or
the precise location of the property in relation to the seismic zone,
etc.)

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there contingency plans for dealing with disasters, whether by
physical protection measures or staff training?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_

Comment:\_**The Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania is currently
developing an emergency preparedness plan that should be completed in
summer 2007.**

***(iv) Visitor/tourism pressures***

If the property is open to visitors, is there an established or
estimated \"carrying capacity\" of the property? Can it absorb or
mitigate the current or an increased number of visitors without
significant adverse effects?

YES: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: **The new enclosure, currently under construction, is designed
to allow visitors to see the excavated areas as they currently exist and
to provide protection from the elements. The number of people that will
be able to access the site at any single time will be limited to small
groups (of approximately 30 or less) to minimize any possible negative
impact to the site. Visitors will enter the site via elevated stairs and
railed walkways that will eliminate any erosion or disturbance to the
landscape surrounding the site. A viewing platform will contain visitors
to the appropriate interpretive area. This area will provide the optimum
view of the excavation and interpretive presentations, while preventing
any direct physical contact with the site.**

***(v) Other***

Are there any other risks or threats that could jeopardize the
property's Outstanding Universal Values?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT**

**5.a. Ownership**

Provide the name(s) and addresses of all owners:

**Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania**

**1212 Smallman Street**

**Pittsburgh, PA 15222**

If any of these owners are corporations or other nongovernmental
entities, identify which are public and which private. Identify any
traditional or customary owners.

Public organization
owners:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Private organization owners:\_**[Historical Society of Western
Pennsylvania, a 501(c)(3) non profit organization.]{.underline}**

Traditional or customary
owners:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If there are any other authorities with legal responsibility for
managing the property, provide their names and addresses:

\_\_\_\_\_[N/A]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

For properties having multiple owners, is there any representative body
or agent which speaks for all owners? If so, does that representative
body or agent have authority to act on behalf of all the owners? If so,
provide the name and address of that representative body or agent:

\_\_\_\_\_[N/A]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any restrictions on public access to the property?

*Explanation: Public access is not required for inclusion in the World
Heritage List. Policies in effect should be explained, however. )*

YES: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment**:**

**The site is open to the public only during the normal operating hours
of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Museum of Rural Life. Only guided tours
of the site are offered. The site and museum are open on weekends in
May, September, and October, as well as Wednesday through Sunday from
Memorial Day through Labor Day.**

**5.b. Protective designations**

What are the principal existing (and pending) legal measures of
protection that apply to the property?

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline} copies of, all
relevant known or proposed legal, regulatory, contractual, planning,
institutional and/or traditional measures that affect the status of the
property: e.g., national park, wildlife refuge, historic monument,
zoning, easements, covenants, deed restrictions, State and local
historic preservation ordinances and regulations, and the like.*

List of
measures:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1978**

**Pennsylvania Commonwealth Treasure, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, 1999.**

**Save America's Treasures Project, National Park Service & National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 2001.**

**National Historic Landmark, National Park Service, 2005.**

**Zoned "Special District", Jefferson Township, Washington County, PA**

**Covenant with Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (15 years)
executed June 7, 2005.**

Give the title and date of legal instruments and briefly summarize their
main provisions. Provide the year of designation and the legislative
act(s) under which the status is provided.

Titles, dates, and brief summaries of legal
instruments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Declaration of Covenants, June 7, 2005, recorded with the Washington
County, PA Recorder of Deeds at Instrument No. 200124729. 15 year
covenant between Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania and
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission to ensure that the
Meadowcroft Rockshelter shall be maintained and preserved in accordance
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.**

Are the protections in perpetuity or are there potential gaps in the
protection?

YES: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: **While the above mentioned covenant will expire in 2020, the
Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania, by virtue of its mission and
ethical obligation as a professionally staffed museum, is committed to
the long-term preservation and proper care of all its collections and
historic resources, including the Meadowcroft Rockshelter.**

Are there any traditional ways in which custom safeguards the property?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5.c. Means of implementing protective measures**

Will the owner(s) be responsible for ensuring that the nominated
property will be protected in perpetuity, whether by traditional and/or
statutory agencies? If no, identify who will be responsible.

YES: \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Responsible entity other than the owner:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[]{.mark}

What is the adequacy of resources available for this purpose? Please
briefly explain your reasoning.

**The Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania provides for the proper
professional care of all of its collections and historic resources
through revenue generated from a variety of sources. These sources
include earned revenue from admission fees, museum shop sales, and event
rentals; fundraising revenue from government, corporate, and private
sources; and interest income from the organization's endowment.**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**5.d. Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the
proposed property is located (e.g., regional or local plan, conservation
plan, tourism development plan)**

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline}, plans of which you
are aware that have been officially adopted or are currently under
development by governmental or other agencies that you believe directly
influence the way the property is developed, conserved, used or visited.
Include the dates and agencies responsible for their preparation and
describe their general nature, including whether they have the force of
law. It is recognized that this information may be difficult to compile
and that it may be difficult to decide what to include, but the
information will be very useful in determining how well the property is
protected.*

***Honoring the Past, Planning for the Future*. Pennsylvania's Historic
Preservation Plan, 2006-2011, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission. This plan sets forth the historic preservation action agenda
for the Commonwealth.**

**Washington County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, Washington County Planning
Commission. The comprehensive plan provides a public policy guide for
future development in the county, including strategies for historic
preservation and promotion of tourism.**

**Washington County Greenways Plan, 2006, Washington County Planning
Commission. The purpose of the plan is to address Commonwealth goals for
the creation and preservation of public routes or corridors that connect
special places and everyday destinations with the county.**

**Washington County designated a *Preserve America* Community by the
National Park Service, 2006. This designation and grant opportunity is
being used to promote heritage tourism throughout Washington County.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5.e. Property management plan or other management system**

Is there a formal management plan or other management system for the
property? If yes, when was it last updated? If not, is one in
preparation and when will it be completed? (*It is not necessary to
provide copies, but a summary can be included if one is available.)*

YES: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: **The forest resources of the 275-acre property that makes up
Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Museum of Rural Life (including the proposed
boundary) are managed under a forest stewardship plan developed in 2003
in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Forestry. The
proposed boundary is included in a management unit designed to preserve
that area in its current state.**

Is this management plan or other management system being effectively
implemented?

YES: \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[]{.mark}

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**6. MONITORING**

*Because monitoring the condition of a property is not essential to a
decision as to whether a property meets the basic qualifications for
nomination to the World Heritage List, no information about the
property's monitoring program is being requested at this time. If the
property is subsequently added to the U.S. Tentative List, a set of key
indicators for assessing the property's condition, the arrangements for
monitoring it, and information on the results of past monitoring
exercises will be required to complete the l nomination of the property
for inscription on the World Heritage List,.*

**7. DOCUMENTATION**

**7.a Photographs, slides, and other audiovisual materials**

If recent images (prints, slides and/or, where possible, electronically
formatted images, videos and aerial photographs) are available that give
a good general picture of the property, please provide a few photographs
and/or slides. If available, film/video, or electronic images may also
be provided. They should give a good general picture of the property and
illustrate the qualities/features that you believe justify the
nomination of the property to the World Heritage List. (Ten views or so
should be adequate for all but the most complicated properties.)

Please label the images you supply and provide a separate list of them
here, including the photographer's name. Please do not include any
copyrighted images or other images to which you do not possess the
rights or do not have permission.

Images being supplied and names of their authors:

1.  **View looking west of Meadowcroft Rockshelter prior to excavation,
    May 1972. Photograph by J.M. Adovasio.**

2.  **Looking southeast at the eastern side of the excavation in
    Meadowcroft Rockshelter, June 1976. Photograph by J.M. Adovasio.**

3.  **View looking northeast at Meadowcroft Rockshelter from across
    Cross Creek showing first wooden structure over the shelter,
    November 1993. Photograph by J.M. Adovasio.**

4.  **View looking north of Meadowcroft Rockshelter; looking up at
    shelter from trail to shelter, June 2000. Photograph by J.M.
    Adovasio.**

5.  **View of Meadowcroft Rockshelter looking east, October 2002.
    Photograph by David Scofield.**

6.  **Museum visitors ascend the steps to the Meadowcroft Rockshelter,
    October 2002. Photograph by David Scofield.**

7.  **Architectural rendering of the new enclosure currently under
    construction at the Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 2006. Pfaffmann &
    Associates.**

8.  **View looking north of bone flaking tool in situ from stratum IIA,
    June 1973. Photograph by J.M. Adovasio.**

9.  **Artifacts from Pre-Clovis contexts at Meadowcroft Rockshelter,
    November 1976. Photograph by J.M. Adovasio.**

10. **View looking north at Miller Lanceolate point in situ in the "Deep
    Hole", June 1976. Photograph by J.M. Adovasio.**

11. **Close up of Holocene deposits at the Meadowcroft Rockshelter,
    May 2004. Photograph by David Scofield.**

    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**8. CONTACT INFORMATION**

**8a. Preparer/Responsible Party for Contact:**

**Name: \_**[David
Scofield]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Title: \_\_**[Director, Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Museum of Rural
Life]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Address:\_\_\_**[401 Meadowcroft
Rd.]{.underline}\_\_\_\_**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code: \_**[Avella, PA
15312]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Telephone:\_\_**[724-587-3412]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Cellular phone:
\_**[None]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Preferred Days/Hours for Contact: \_**[M-F, 8:30 a.m. -- 5:30
p.m.]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Fax:
\_\_\_\_**[724-587-3414]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**E-mail and/or website:**
[**\_\_**drscofield@hswp.org](mailto:__drscofield@hswp.org)
[www.pghhistory.org/meadowcroft](http://www.pghhistory.org/meadowcroft)

**Additional Preparer:**

**Dr. Mark McConaughy, Archaeologist**

**Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission**

**Bureau for Historic Preservation**

**Bushy Run Battlefield**

**P.O. Box 468**

**Harrison City, PA 15636-0468**

**724-527-5585 x 103**

**8.b. Responsible Official or Local Institution/Agency**

If different from the preparer above, provide the same information for
the agency, museum, institution, community or manager locally
responsible for the management of the property. In the case of public
property, identify both the responsible official and the agency. If the
normal reporting institution is a national agency, please also provide
that contact information.

**Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Title:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Address:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Telephone:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Cellular phone:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Fax:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**E-mail and/or website:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**9. Signatures of All Owners of Private Properties or Authorizing
Officials for Public Properties:**

**Explanation: No property will be included in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List without the written concurrence of all its property
owners. This is because U.S. law expressly forbids nomination of such
sites. In addition, at the time of nomination, property owners must
pledge to the legal protection or the development of legal protection of
the property in perpetuity.**

![](media/image1.png){width="2.1666666666666665in" height="0.43125in"}

**Signature**

**David R. Scofield**

**Typed or Printed Name**

**[Director, Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Museum of Rural
Life]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Title**

**March 30, 2007**

**Date**

(Please attach as many additional signature pages as may be necessary.)