# 

###### Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology         Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, May 2007.

Archeological site stewardship programs can be a valuable component of         protection plans for archeological resources on both public and private         lands. These programs provide important assistance to land managers, who         are often constrained by limited budgets and staff support. Site stewardship         programs also involve landowners in the protection of archeological resources         on private property. These programs facilitate communication among professional         archeologists, government agencies, and the public. This technical brief         explores the necessary components of successful development and implementation         of an archeological site stewardship program.

## Introduction

Archeological site stewardship programs involve volunteers in archeological       site monitoring activities. Typically, stewardship programs are developed       in response to the damage or destruction of sites on a parcel of land, or       the fear that fragile sites will be damaged in the future. This technical       brief is meant to guide the development of new stewardship programs, and       to provide an introduction to these programs for those interested and/or       unaware of their use in cultural resource protection. Twelve site stewardship       program coordinators from both terrestrial and underwater programs provided       information about the efficient development of site stewardship programs.       Their experiences and insights were compiled for this brief. 

## What is an Archeological Site Stewardship Program?

Archeological site stewardship programs are organizations of volunteers,       often with some full-time professional coordinators, that assist with the       protection, preservation, and/or interpretation of archeological sites.       Archeological site stewardship programs can be divided into two categories:       1) stewardship of sites on public lands, 2) stewardship of sites on private       lands. Stewardship programs on public lands are either run through non-profit       organizations that have allied with government land managers, or are administered       directly by agency land managers. Public lands are monitored by volunteer       site stewards who visit sites to check on their condition. Stewardship programs       on private lands involve the cooperation of landowners who act as stewards       of cultural materials on their own property. Although both types of site       stewardship programs are discussed in this brief, programs that monitor       sites on public lands are the focus of discussion. (Refer to       Table 1 for a listing of site stewardship       programs and archeological easement programs by state.)

Archeological site stewardship is often incorporated within larger volunteer       programs. Volunteers may perform various tasks in addition to site monitoring       activities. Some programs use volunteers to assist in managing collections,       performing laboratory work, providing site interpretation and even excavating       at archeological sites. One example of the use of volunteers in these settings       is the Arkansas Training Program for Avocational Archeologists (Davis 1990).       However, this brief will focus on programs that predominantly involve volunteers       who monitor archeological sites. 

## Developing Public Concern and Participation in Cultural Resource Protection

American site stewardship programs are a relatively recent phenomenon stemming       from new attitudes about the protection and management of archeological       resources. Over the past few decades professional archeologists and government       agencies have shifted their approach from avoidance tactics to more proactive       conservation initiatives (McManamon 1991; Thorne 1996:2). Increased awareness       and concern for archeological and historic properties are reflected in federal       laws such as the Reservoir Salvage Act (1960), National Historic Preservation       Act (1966), Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974), Archaeological       Resources Protection Act (1979), Abandoned Shipwreck Act (1987), and the       Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990).

Although proactive management of archeological materials has stimulated       state and federal agencies to step up to new responsibilities, the growing       tasks of land managers strain already sparse resources. Site stewardship       programs play a critical role in supporting land managers through the work       of volunteer monitors. Due to the extensive participation of volunteers,       these programs can be run on relatively small budgets.

Site stewardship programs engage the supportive public in archeological       site protection. Prior avoidance strategies limited and controlled public       access to archeological resources rather than incorporating the public into       protection plans. Land managers now realize that they underestimate the       number of people that are both interested and willing to donate their time       to help protect archeological sites.

Public involvement in cultural resource management has increased through       time. State and federal agencies first acknowledged public interest in the       protection of archeological resources in the late 1960s. In the mid-to late-1980s       federal agencies began to systematically address the increasing problem       of looting on public lands and created plans to curtail damage to archeological       sites (McManamon 1991, 2000). In addition, amendments to the Archaeological       Resources Protection Act (ARPA) required federal land managers to “…establish       a program to increase public awareness of the significance of the archeological       resources located on public lands and Indian lands and the need to protect       such resources” (1988 amendment to ARPA, Sec. 10c). This mind-set       is emphasized in professional organizations such as the Society for American       Archaeology, whose guiding principles encourage archeologists to cultivate       public support for the protection and preservation of the archeological       record (Lynott and Wylie 2000; SAA 1996; see also SHA 2003). Site stewardship       programs are an integral part of a new movement towards public stewardship       of archeological resources.

## Threats to Site Preservation

Archeological site preservation strategies differ greatly from region to       region because the type and location of archeological sites varies by region.       The type and the location of sites are the most significant factors in determining       the structure of site monitoring programs. Site stewards who monitor archeological       sites typically are charged with identifying and recording two types of       degradation to archeological sites: 1) environmental and 2) human.

Environmental degradation can include rodent, root, and insect disturbances.       In addition, wind, water damage, and particularly erosion are significant       factors that affect the condition of sites. Environmental degradation can       worsen as an indirect result of human activities such as logging, development,       and agriculture, which strip vegetation and make nearby sites more vulnerable       to wind and water damage. Rodents and other pests are also attracted to       areas of human occupation, and thus pose a greater risk to sites near population       centers.

Although environmental degradation can be significant, human degradation       is generally the main source of site damage and is the most difficult type       of site destruction to control. Human degradation can take several forms,       including development, unintentional damage, vandalism, looting, and mismanagement.       These types of damage are discussed below.

In recent years, development has posed a significant threat to archeological       sites across the country. Although Section 106 of the National Historic       Preservation Act (NHPA) requires an assessment of historic properties (which       include archeological sites) affected by federal undertakings, many sites       on private lands are destroyed by construction projects. Development poses       a greater risk to sites on non-federal land because few laws regulate private       property.

Visitors are often unaware of damage they inflict on archeological sites,       but can wreak havoc on delicate archeological remains. Climbing or sitting       on masonry walls can displace stones and undermine the structural integrity       of the architecture. Eating or camping on or near sites attracts rodents       and other pests that may damage the site. Fires can leave stains on the       ground as well as nearby stone walls. Artifact collection by uninformed       visitors reduces the interpretability of the site and removes precious and       irreplaceable archeological materials from their original contexts. In cases       such as lithic scatters, which may be all that remains of a small, ancient       camp, artifact collection may obliterate the site entirely.

Much more destructive than the accidental damage caused by visitors, vandalism       and looting pose a serious risk to archeological resources. Although vandalism       and looting can occur together, their perpetrators tend to be different       types of people with different motivations. Vandalism refers to intentional       damage to or destruction of resources that is not motivated by profit. Vandalism       includes relatively random acts of desecration. The thrill of destruction       or the desire to visibly “tag” archeological remains such as       masonry walls or petroglyph panels is the primary motivation for vandal       behavior. Looting is intentional destruction and theft with the aim of obtaining       artifacts with economic or market value. Looting is motivated by the opportunity       to profit from the archeological record or the desire to possess archeological       materials.

Although environmental and human degradation pose threats to site preservation,       the mismanagement of archeological sites on public and private lands also       can lead to serious site damage. To protect sites adequately, land managers       must be aware of the resources on their lands. They must consider site preservation       to be a priority, and they must be informed of measures needed to protect       and preserve archeological sites. Up-to-date survey information and educated       land managers are two critical components for proper management of archeological       materials.

Complete and comprehensive survey information is essential to protecting       archeological sites on large tracts of land. Land managers cannot adequately       protect resources that they do not know are in their care. Out-dated or       incomplete survey data, particularly if it was not collected for management       purposes, can pose several problems for cultural resource management. Often       surveys lack detailed site descriptions, site condition reports with disturbances       and threats to the sites, and location information. Artifact scatters and       soil and water control features are often missing from survey data. In addition,       out-dated survey information can pose serious problems to initiating site       preservation. The condition and environment surrounding archeological sites       can change quickly. Frequent assessments of sites every 1-5 years (or more       frequently for high risk sites) are necessary to stay up to date. Finally,       smaller ephemeral and/or poorly preserved sites and sites that are difficult       to recognize may not be adequately represented in survey data.

No less important than adequate information about site location is the       attitude and commitment of the land manager. Land managers who do not recognize       or emphasize the need for cultural resource protection will not be good       stewards. Because resource managers may be strained by limited budgets and       staff, they may not allocate sufficient attention to archeological resources.       In addition, lack of communication between land managers, archeologists,       the public, and state and federal agencies can undermine site preservation.

## Addressing Problems through Site Stewardship Programs

Site stewardship programs can help alleviate threats to archeological sites.       A site stewardship program typically begins with recognition of damage to       sites. In some cases, land managers do not know the extent to which sites       have been impacted by environmental and human degradation and acknowledge       that their staff and funding cannot fully protect the area they supervise.

Site steward programs can provide support to land managers in several critical       ways. First, site stewardship programs help land managers establish long-term       protection strategies for sites. One of the most common site steward activities       is regular visits to site areas and visual inspection of the sites. With       consistent monitoring, the effects of environmental and human degradation       are regularly observed and recorded, a basic requirement for developing       a protection plan.

Second, site stewardship programs that are external to public agencies       can help bring the attention of resource managers to the archeological resources       on their lands. In some cases, the focus of land managers may not include       archeological sites. External interest by a group of concerned people may       provide the impetus to rethink how archaeological resources are treated       and protected on parcels of public land. Site stewardship programs can help       emphasize the importance of archeological resource protection while providing       support for this protection.

Third, site stewardship programs play an important role in educating the       public about the fragile nature of archeological sites. This type of education       can prevent unintentional damage to archeological resources. Stewards are       the first and main recipients of this training. However, stewards play a       role in educating the wider public. They may operate information booths,       give public lectures on stewardship, contribute to workshops for the public,       and participate in other activities that impact a wide range of people.       Most importantly, stewards act as informal liaisons between the public,       archeological community, and land managers. Simply knowing someone who is       a site steward may affect the way that other people think about and treat       archeological materials. Agency employees are often seen as outsiders, while       a site steward can offer a local perspective on resource management within       communities.

Fourth, site stewardship programs are “watch-dogs” for archeological       sites. Many site stewardship programs have noted that the intentional damage       of sites, either through vandalism or looting, significantly decreased after       the implementation of their programs. The knowledge that the area is regularly       patrolled by site stewards is often enough to deter would-be vandals and       looters.

Site stewardship programs can also provide a conduit through which local       law enforcement and archeologists can reach out to the public about the       protection of archeological resources in a positive manner. In general,       people do not respond to negative messages that emphasize sanctions against       looting and vandalism (Hoffman 1991; Simon 1994). Programs such as the Arizona       Site Stewardship Program have adopted a positive approach to address site       destruction, that includes educating the public about these resources so       that they will have a greater appreciation for their value. Allowing people       information and access to sites not only provides the public with a positive       way to experience archeology, but it deters would-be vandals and looters       (Hoffman 1991; Lerner and Hoffman 2000).

Most importantly, site stewardship programs facilitate interaction and       collaboration among government agencies, resource managers, archeologists,       and the public. Site stewardship programs keep cultural resource protection       in the minds of land managers. Land-managers may be more willing to meet       stewardship programs with organized volunteer labor half-way on certain       initiatives.

## Initiating a Site Stewardship Monitoring Programs

Site stewardship programs can be a highly effective means of preventing       damage to archeological sites. Many programs, such as the Alutiiq Museum       site stewardship program, report that site damage has decreased dramatically       as a result of program initiatives. However, the success of a site stewardship       program is largely dependent on public land ownership and the type of archeological       sites present. Site stewardship programs are most active in states that       have large tracts of federal and state-owned lands. Archeological sites       are ostensibly protected on public lands, but large tracts prove difficult       to monitor. Site stewardship programs provide support for federal and state       land managers who are often unable to provide sufficient coverage of archeological       sites in remote areas.

Site stewardship programs are also more prevalent in areas where archeological       resources are readily visible from the surface. The visibility of sites       depends both on the surrounding vegetation and on the nature of the materials       themselves. Visibility both attracts public interest as well as potential       looters and vandals—two catalysts for the development of site stewardship       programs. For instance, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have well-developed       site stewardship programs in part because many archeological sites are readily       visible in these areas and are thus most prone to damage.

If the need, resources, and interest are ripe for a site stewardship program,       most agencies or organizations begin by providing funds to organize the       program. Budgetary concerns are often the primary factor influencing program       initiatives. Establishing the site stewardship coordinator’s position       is also an important step for establishing a site stewardship program. This       person will be essential to the day-to-day operation of the program.

Once funding and the coordinator position have been secured, site stewardship       coordinators begin by gathering data on the preservation quality, site type,       site occupation period, and location of archeological sites on a land parcel.       If possible, extant survey data should be evaluated before the program is       implemented. However, correcting survey data represents a great deal of       work and many programs may have to forgo this step if they do not have sufficient       staffing and training. In most cases, site stewardship coordinators evaluate       site condition components and develop preservation plans specific to the       types of archeological sites present. Some stewardship programs implement       stabilization methods, if needed. Finally, coordinators produce a plan to       monitor sites, prioritizing sites that have already sustained damage, are       in locations that make them susceptible to damage, or that are of a unique       and fragile nature. The plan establishes methods to monitor sites and to       record site condition. Additionally, coordinators organize the recruitment,       education, and training of site stewards.

Training volunteers is one of the most important tasks in implementing       a site stewardship program. The site stewardship coordinator should first       establish what the volunteers need to know, and how this information should       be effectively conveyed. In most cases, volunteer training consists of both       classroom and field components that include information about archeological       resources in the region. More detail on the importance of proper training       is discussed in the section on careful recruitment below.

## Critical Components to the Success of Site Stewardship Initiatives

Site stewardship programs vary with respect to organizational structure,       funding, and management. However, certain components are necessary to the       successful implementation of any site stewardship program. The following       sections are based on coordinators’ experience with the critical components       of leadership; budget; program goals; partnerships; recruitment; advertising;       and volunteer motivation, retention, benefits and recognition. (Refer to       Table 2 for a summary of the topics discussed.)

### 1. Leadership

Leadership is a vital component to the success of site stewardship initiatives.       In most cases, both local and government leadership are essential. Some       programs are initiated at a grass-roots level and then gain support from       legislative bodies, government agencies, state historic preservation offices,       or other organizations. In contrast to these “bottom-up” approaches       are programs such as the Arizona Site Stewardship Program, which was initiated       by the Governor (Hoffman and Lerner 1988; Hoffman 1991). Most site stewardship       programs are state-based, however, many federal agencies are actively involved       with these programs.

Although most programs are run through state and federal land management       agencies, the investment and enthusiasm of local leaders are essential to       developing and implementing successful site monitoring programs. Site stewardship       programs are, more often than not, the results of the efforts and commitment       of one or two people. However, some site stewardship program coordinators       note that local leadership should not be too greatly invested in one person.       When a founding member moves from their position, some programs lose momentum       through lack of continuity and changing priorities under new supervision.       To maintain continuity and consistency in leadership, most site stewardship       programs advocate funding at least two central leadership roles. Ideally,       both of these roles are paid, full-time positions. Most programs agree that,       at the very least, there should be one paid position devoted to managing       site stewardship activities. Statewide programs such as those in Nevada,       Arizona and California, require larger numbers of leadership roles.

Central leadership roles should be filled by people who are familiar with       the archeological resources of the region. Preferably, these people also       have connections to agencies that will provide support to the program. Most       importantly, site stewardship program leaders should be able to devote considerable       time to the development and implementation of the program. Consistency in       program administrators and coordinators is essential during all stages of       program development. The most successful site stewardship programs, such       as Arizona’s program, have had consistent management over a long period       of time. The Arizona program recommends that a site stewardship coordinator       be able to commit to a minimum of five years in the position (Lerner and       Hoffman 2000:236-240).

Leadership structure in site stewardship programs varies with respect to       the size and needs of the program. In large, statewide programs, general       managers may organize the volunteer training, support, and education while       local leaders organize day-to-day volunteer activities. In all programs,       but especially in larger programs, communication between leadership levels       is essential. Large programs often hold their own conferences and regularly       scheduled meetings to make communication predictable and effective. 

***Role of Site Stewardship Coordinators.*** The site       stewardship coordinator is one of the most important roles in a site stewardship       program. The coordinator organizes volunteer labor, directs volunteer training       and education, directs advertising and recruitment, and is each volunteer’s       main contact within the program. For this reason, the coordinator position       is essential to the smooth operation of any site stewardship program at       the local level.

The coordinator’s relationship with volunteers is the backbone of       the program. Regardless of the size of a stewardship program, consistent       communication between coordinators and stewards is crucial to the efficient       operation of the program and to the motivation of volunteers. In particular,       volunteers should be involved in some aspects of planning. They should be       solicited for their opinions and should be kept abreast of changes in requirements.       Stewardship coordinators should keep volunteers up-to-date on developments       that impact the program such as land closures, reports of looting or vandalism       in neighboring regions, and budget changes.

Volunteer coordinators in site stewardship programs external to government       agencies must develop relationships with agencies or organizations that       will serve as funding or working partners. The involvement of sponsors at       the local, state, and/or federal level is essential for both monetary and       administrative support. Preferably, the site stewardship coordinator is       involved in aspects of the decision-making process for that agency/organization       as well as in the allocation of program monies. 

### 2. Funding Sources and Budget

Budget concerns are the main limiting factor to the implementation and       development of site stewardship programs. Although programs can function       on a relatively small budget, funding may be difficult to come by. Often       funds must be portioned from other projects to fund stewardship initiatives,       which are then susceptible to abandonment if money becomes tight. Several       site stewardship program coordinators suggested that at least two to three       years of funding should be identified at the on-set. Budgets should include,       at the very least, funding for a full-time site stewardship coordinator.       However, consistent funding is also necessary for basic operational needs       such as additional staff, promotional materials, equipment, food and beverages       for activities, and awards. If possible, funding sources should be diversified       to protect against budget cut-backs that impact stewardship programs.

Monetary aid from federal and state governments, and partnerships with       other institutions that provide budget support are essential to any site       stewardship program. The stability of funding sources is also contingent       on whether a program is managed and supported with state resources or whether       it is operated as a non-profit organization with partial funding from state       and federal partners. Non-profit groups, such as the San Juan Mountains       Site Stewardship Program in Colorado and the stewardship program run through       the New York State Submerged Heritage Preserves, have to devote more time       and energy to fundraising and writing grant proposals for external funding       than programs such as Arizona’s which has a state-supported budget.       The San Juan Mountains Site Stewardship program notes that it is more difficult       to acquire consistent funds for day-to-day operational costs through donations       and grant sources than to raise money for a specific project or event.

The expansion of stewardship programs is generally due to federal funding       or successful partnerships that provide secure monetary support. In the       case of the Nevada Site Stewardship program, funding through the Southern       Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) and a partnership with the Nevada       Archaeological Association enabled the program to expand to cover an extensive       portion of the state. The site steward program manager for the program is       a full time employee within the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office.

Although it is ideal to secure funding early on, several successful programs       took a risk and began developing volunteer activities before a budget was       settled. Regardless of how secure funding is for a site stewardship program,       programs succeed through the determined and mostly unpaid labor of the public,       archeologists, and local agency representatives. For instance, the now successful       Nevada Site Stewardship Program was initiated without the support they now       rely on (SNPLMA and the Nevada SHPO) and operated for over three years before       this support came through.

### 3. Clear Program Goals

Site stewardship program goals should be clearly understood by both the       partnering agencies and volunteer site stewards. Concise and well-articulated       goals allow programs to devote time and attention to the most pressing matters.       In addition, the progress of the program can be measured in relation to       these goals. A well defined mission statement is important for effective       program advertising and volunteer recruitment as well as effective partnerships       with other agencies/institutions. Clear goals are a prerequisite for applying       and obtaining grant money.

In addition to establishing goals for site stewardship initiatives, programs       should acknowledge their limitations. Often establishing what a program       will *not* do is just as important as establishing what it *will*       do. In particular, many programs note that their site stewards do not and       should not have any role in law enforcement. (This issue is discussed further       in the section on The Limits of Volunteerism.) Also,       many programs state that stewards are not involved in site stabilization,       land surveys, or other types of research projects on the lands that they       monitor. Although many coordinators express a desire to carry out these       activities, lack of resources prevent them from realistically doing so.       Over-spreading already thin resources can jeopardize program success in       the long run. In addition, site stewards are not synonymous with certified       archeological technicians who are trained to complete archeological surveys,       data recovery, and other research projects.

### 4. Partnerships that Work

Incorporating outside agencies and institutions into site stewardship initiatives       facilitates program success in a variety of ways. First, cooperating agencies/institutions       may provide monetary support. Even if funding is not available, partnerships       can contribute valuable resources to developing programs. These resources       may include fundraising capabilities, advertising, volunteers, professional       expertise, equipment, and facilities for meetings. In particular, academic       institutions are a relatively untapped resource for site stewardship programs.       University professors and staff can provide professional advice and support       while students may become volunteers. Student participation helps programs       reach out to young people in the community, a demographic group that has       the potential to make major and long-lasting contributions to the protection       of archeological sites.

Second, multiple partnerships provide a safety mechanism that protects       the stewardship program from bureaucratic vicissitudes that may befall individual       partnership agencies. With several different partnerships, programs are       able to buffer themselves from the internal politics of agencies and withstand       budget crises.

Third, programs may have a surplus of volunteer labor. Partnerships occasionally       allow this “overflow” to be distributed to other programs that       need help. In this way, partnerships can help even out the distribution       of volunteer labor and provide support to programs during times when they       need help.

To be effective, site stewardship programs need to create partnerships       that are both strategic and explicit. Partnerships can provide enormous       benefits to low-budget initiatives such as site stewardship programs. However,       like any other relationship, they require upkeep and maintenance. By strategically       selecting partners for site stewardship initiatives, a program can maximize       the benefits it receives from contributors and can minimize the costs associated       with partnerships.

Effective partnerships are based on a series of explicit expectations between       the two parties. If an institution/agency is not fully aware of its function       within site stewardship initiatives, its contribution will most likely be       minimal and/or unsuccessful. Site stewardship programs that best utilize       partnerships establish a concrete series of obligations between their program       and the institution/agency with which they work. Furthermore, concrete personal       contacts between representatives within the institution/agency and the site       stewardship program coordinator facilitate and cement partnership relationships.

For example, the California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program (CASSP)       has successfully used a Memorandum of Understanding to streamline interaction       between the program and partnership agencies. The document is signed by       local and regional managers from participating agencies to ensure that they       are aware of the program’s goals and will support program initiatives.

Several site stewardship programs advocate the use of an advisory body       to create a liaison between site stewardship coordinators and partners from       government agencies. Advisory bodies are most effective when they include       members from the local community, museum staff, members of the academic       community, tribal cultural resource staff members, and others who have a       vested interest in the program’s success.

The involvement of Native American groups, state and federal agencies,       and local archeologists contributes to the successful operation of a site       stewardship program. Strategies to develop and sustain these types of partnerships       are discussed below. 

***Native American Involvement in Site Stewardship Programs.***       Eliciting the support and involvement of Native American groups in site       stewardship initiatives is essential in areas where the majority of the       archeological sites are Native American. Although great strides have been       made in developing tribal archeology programs (Anyon and Ferguson 1995;       Anyon et al. 2000; Ferguson et al. 1993; TwoBears 1995), the majority of       the people working with Native American archeological resources are not       tribal members. Therefore, it is important for both land managers and the       public to understand the connection between the protection and preservation       of Native American archeological resources and respect for Native traditions.

The ability to incorporate Native peoples into site stewardship programs       either as advisors, administrators, or stewards depends on the interest       of local Native groups as well as the nature of the archeological resources       in the region. In some cases, local Native American populations have no       cultural affiliation with the archeological sites to be monitored. Although       some groups participate in monitoring these resources anyway, it is much       easier to incorporate Native groups in such efforts when they have a sense       of connection to the archeological remains in question.

Effective interactions between site stewardship programs and Native American       communities require frequent and sustained communication between program       coordinators and local tribes. Site stewardship coordinators may have to       tailor their program goals to accommodate those of local tribal governments.       Site stewardship programs should not simply ask for the tribe’s blessing       or support, but should strive for active Native involvement in the program.

The Alutiiq Museum Site Stewardship Program in Alaska and the California       Site Stewardship Program involve Native Americans to a large degree. The       Arizona program involves Native American groups in volunteer training and       at their regional conferences. In New Mexico, some tribes are considering       developing their own site stewardship program in partnership with the New       Mexico SHPO to monitor sensitive cultural resources off and on tribal lands.

***Recognition by Public Agencies.*** The recognition       and involvement of public agencies is essential to the development and implementation       of stewardship programs on public lands, regardless of whether the program       is operated through a public agency. Agencies provide funding, access to       public lands, survey information, administrative support, and staff for       site stewardship programs. Some site stewardship programs are supported       by volunteer programs established by major land management agencies. These       include the Forest Service’s “Passport in Time” (PIT)       program and the National Park Service’s “Volunteers in Parks”       (VIP) program.

The type of partnerships between private stewardship programs and public       agencies vary according to the structural relationship between the program       and the government agency. Although many site stewardship programs are run       through state and federal agencies, some site stewardship program coordinators       are not government employees. In the latter case, clear communication and       cooperation within the partnership are pivotal to program success.

Some federal agencies have established site stewardship programs themselves,       such as the BLM’s “Adventures       in the Past”, the Forest Service’s “Partners in Preservation”       <www.passportintime.com/>, and the Tennessee Valley Authority’s       “A       Thousand Eyes” program. In addition, some stewardship programs       are run through several federal agencies. For example, in partnership with       the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest       Service, the New Mexico SHPO has initiated the New Mexico SiteWatch program       to monitor sites. The SiteWatch       program has several different chapters across New Mexico.

Although multiple partnerships allow programs to cover larger tracts of       land, stewardship programs involved with several different federal and state       agencies occasionally experience frustration with inconsistent requirements.       One problem that larger programs, such as the Nevada Site Stewardship program,       experience is the difficulty collecting information that will satisfy all       the land managers with whom they work. Communication between agencies can       be difficult and if it breaks down, programs may experience set-backs.

The willingness of local representatives from federal and state agencies       to participate in site stewardship programs may vary considerably. A lack       of participation can impede the development of some programs. Some agencies       many not agree to partnerships across an entire state, for instance. Local       agency representatives in certain areas may be unwilling to cooperate. State       field offices may refuse to provide site information to stewards and program       coordinators. In such cases, program coordinators will have to decide how       best to proceed. Sometimes success stories in other geographic areas can       help persuade reluctant land managers to participate.

In the event of site damage, some agencies will not respond unless criminal       activity is currently in progress. Authorities are seldom able to immediately       respond to site damage reports due to limited law enforcement personnel       in many areas. Volunteers may become frustrated when their efforts to report       damage are not met with swift and positive responses from the agencies that       manage the land.

Occasionally, the goals of state and federal agencies are in opposition       to those of site monitoring programs. For instance, grazing on public land       can conflict with the preservation of archeological sites. Site stewardship       programs must fit the goals of their program within preexisting agency initiatives       without compromising their original intentions.

***Working With Professional Archeologists and Organizations.***       The support and involvement of local professional archeologists and the       professional archeological community is important to the education of volunteers       and to the success of site stewardship initiatives. Advising archeologists       are often volunteers as well. Local professionals and professional organizations       often donate their time and expertise to provide training to site stewards,       lectures to the volunteer community, and consultation on the recording,       protection, and stabilization of sites.

### 5. Careful Recruitment & Protecting Site Information

The black market trade of antiquities looted from archeological sites has       placed profitable prices on archeological resources. As a result, looters       see archeological sites as sources of income and seek them out. Land managers       carefully guard archeological site locations under the requirements of ARPA.       A site stewardship program that includes site monitoring provides site locations,       which are typically hidden from the public, to volunteer site stewards.       The stewardship program takes a considerable risk by providing site stewards       with this valuable information. As such, site stewardship programs must       engage in careful and discriminating volunteer recruitment.

Most site stewardship programs only recruit volunteers through word-of-mouth.       This way, program coordinators know at least something about the background       and motivation of potential applicants. In addition, studies indicate that       volunteer recruitment is much more effective if it is done face-to-face       and involves volunteers already committed in some way to the volunteer work       that they will undertake (Midlarsky & Kahana 1994:219; McAdam &       Paulsen 1993:644). Additionally, individuals recruited via personal contact       with program staff or volunteers are more likely to remain committed to       their work.

To further ensure that volunteers will do no harm to sites, some site stewardship       programs require a reference for steward applicants. In addition to a reference       to enter the program, the Arizona Site Stewardship Program requires an exit       interview for volunteers leaving the program. These measures are important       to ensuring that site stewards are attracted to the program with the interest       of protecting archeological resources and that they leave the program with       the same intent.

Site stewardship programs often require extensive training for their site       stewards to ensure that volunteers will not intentionally or inadvertently       harm sites. In most cases, training includes both classroom and fieldwork       components. Through training, programs emphasize the necessity to keep site       locations secret. Often programs do not allow site stewards to bring visitors       on their monitoring trips and require that volunteers sign confidentiality       agreements. These measures help to ensure that only trained persons will       visit archeological sites.

Some archeological sites are so fragile and/or important that stewardship       programs have only professional staff monitor them. By selecting sites that       are suitable for volunteer stewards and sites that are not, programs are       able to provide different levels of protection to archeological resources       on an appropriate case-by-case basis.

Finally, site stewardship programs help ensure the longterm protection       of archeological sites by creating and supporting a local archeological       community that includes steward volunteers. Several studies have indicated       that norms of expected behavior are powerful determinants of an individual’s       actions within a social group (Feldman 1984; Leary 1995). Social pressure       to do the “right” thing is reinforced by group approval and       disapproval of particular actions (DeRidder et al. 1992; Festinger et al.       1950). By incorporating the public into the archeological community, the       protection of archeological sites becomes a high priority to local residents.

### 6. Program Advertising

In addition to recruitment, site stewardship programs can help prevent       human degradation to sites on public and private lands through strategic       advertising. Advertising is a double-edged sword in cultural resource protection.       Unfortunately, press about sites on public or private lands attracts both       desired and unwanted attention. To avoid negative attention, site stewardship       program newsletters and websites should focus on volunteer activities that       do not directly involve site monitoring. Advertising should avoid describing       resources on a particular land parcel and should only post photographs of       sites that cannot be identified by topographic features. Program advertising       initiatives should discuss the penalties for looting sites, publicize the       prosecution of any looters in the area, and advertise that site stewards       patrol sites at regular intervals. Several programs have noted that vandalism       and looting were reduced in their areas due to publicity about site monitoring.       For example, New Mexico SiteWatch program, Nevada Rock Art Site Stewardship       program, and Alutiiq Museum Site Stewardship Program reported that advertising       deterred looters.

In addition to notifying would-be vandals and looters of monitoring activities,       advertising helps programs recruit volunteers (if they decide to expand       beyond word-of-mouth recruitment), educate the public about cultural resource       protection, and inform local residents of program activities. Programs advertise       through newsletters, publications, billboard postings, announcements at       conferences and lectures, and brochures.

In particular, internet sites are an excellent but under-used tool to disseminate       information about stewardship programs. The following are critical components       in a successful site stewardship webpage.
      - Clearly state the name of the stewardship program.
      - Highlight the goals of the program as specifically as possible.
      - Outline the role of volunteers in the program.
      - Most importantly: Prominently display the name and contact information         for the site stewardship coordinator. If possible, email, phone, and mailing         address for the coordinator should be included.

The following elements are extremely useful to have on the webpage if the       program wants to recruit broadly.
      - Site stewardship volunteer application: An electronic application form         streamlines the application process. Applicants do not have to go through         the additional step of contacting the program coordinator for a hard copy         of the application.
      - Site steward monitoring forms: Forms provide a preview of what types         of recording site stewards undertake. Interested applicants can get a         feeling for the duties of site stewards.
      - Copies of newsletters, meeting minutes, and bulletins: Newsletters provide         a sense of the site stewardship community, opportunities for site stewards,         and on-going activities.
      - A calendar of stewardship activities: Often volunteers are motivated         not only by the causes that they donate their time to, but opportunities         to meet like-minded people and to socialize.
      - Pictures of stewards and stewardship activities: Pictures of stewards         and stewardship activities provide a glimpse of the community that a volunteer         becomes a part of. Additionally, potential volunteers can see the types         of activities in which they may be participating. Visual materials are         effective in providing information to interested persons. Programs should         be sure to get signed permission forms from individuals before posting         recognizable likenesses on the internet or including them in any publication.

Some programs try to limit the areas where they advertise to moderate and       control the growth of the program. For these programs, mass media announcements       of volunteer opportunities are not necessary. Too many volunteers can be       just as detrimental to a site stewardship program as too few, because a       minimally-staffed program can get overwhelmed. As noted in the discussion       about partnerships above, it may be possible to distribute a surplus of       volunteers to other programs that need help.

If possible, stewardship programs should avoid focusing solely on negative       messages about vandalism, looting, and other forms of site destruction in       their advertising. Rather, advertising should route interested people to       opportunities to learn more about the archeology in the region, and perhaps       visit some designated sites. Site etiquette procedures should be advertised.

### 7. Volunteer Motivation & Retention

Volunteer labor is the backbone of all site stewardship programs. Volunteers       provide services that are not replicated by the paid workforce. Successful       site stewardship programs recognize the reasons why people volunteer and       address these motivations in volunteer activities. The decision to volunteer       is motivated by a variety of different factors. Although volunteers are       not paid for their work, they often have a stake in volunteer programs in       which they participate. Typically, volunteers hope to gain something by       contributing their time and effort to a particular cause. The benefits that       they seek may be personal satisfaction, public recognition, improving something       in which they have personal interest, or socializing.

Site stewardship program coordinators agree that volunteer motivation is       important to the success of their program. Similar to other volunteer activities,       volunteers in site stewardship programs are a self-selected group of people.       Most site stewards are older, retired individuals or couples who are interested       in archeology and concerned about the loss of archeological sites. For the       most part, these people have some working knowledge of archeological resources       in the region and are at least aware of the scope of factors that negatively       affect sites. In most cases, prior interest and awareness motivates volunteers       to contact stewardship programs.

Although volunteers are often drawn to site stewardship programs through       their interest in archeology and concern for the protection of archeological       sites, loss of motivation is always a concern. Volunteers are not paid,       and are therefore recruited from a small subset of the population. The population       base for potential volunteers is further constricted by the desire and ability       to donate time to monitor sites. Loss of volunteers can be devastating because       most site stewardship programs have little time or funding to devote to       recruitment and advertisement.

Loss of volunteer motivation occurs in two different ways: 1) the stewards       feel that their abilities are underused and undervalued, and 2) the stewards       are overwhelmed by the responsibilities of a program. Programs have implemented       measures to curb both of these types of losses.

To prevent stewards from feeling that their time and efforts are underused       and undervalued, many stewardship programs actively involve volunteers in       the planning and operation of the program. By involving volunteers in integral       aspects of program management, volunteers feel that they have a stake in       the program. In many programs, stewards are invited to attend program meetings       and presentations and are incorporated into the local archeological community.       Stewards can be trained as public educators and site docents. Some stewards       are invited to attend regional conferences, and report various aspects of       the stewardship program’s progress and initiatives. Stewards are invited       to attend meetings with land managers and state and federal officials. Stewards       can also participate in other fieldwork activities under professional supervision,       such as special recording projects (e.g. documenting rock art panels), site       damage assessments, land surveys, and site stabilization. Many stewardship       programs, including Arizona Site Stewardship Program, New Mexico SiteWatch       Program, and New York State Submerged Heritage Preserves, actively involve       volunteers in the planning and operation of the program.

Regular communication between site stewardship coordinators and volunteers       greatly enhances the volunteer experience as well as the efficiency of the       program. Interaction with archeologists and other people trained in cultural       resource management is one of the most important things that volunteers       seek and respond to in site stewardship programs. Volunteers should have       a great deal of personal contact with program administrators and should       get face-to-face feedback on their contributions to the program. Personal       contact was cited by several program coordinators as the most important       factor in volunteer retention rates.

In addition, opportunities to socialize are an important reason why people       are attracted to particular volunteer opportunities and then maintain their       commitments to these programs (Wuthnow 1998:149; Rochon 1998:102). Site       stewardship programs should recognize that volunteers want to belong to       a community. Activities outside of monitoring duties are often a welcome       and necessary addition to stewardship programs.

Site stewardship programs should keep volunteers abreast of the progress       towards program goals. Volunteers should also feel that they are a part       of a formal evaluation process for the program. The Alutiiq Museum site       stewardship program in Alaska asks that stewards complete a written evaluation       form at the end of each year. Statistics on the sites that were monitored       over the year are also provided to stewards so that they can see the impact       that they have made towards site protection.

Site stewardship programs walk a relatively thin line between providing       activities and projects to interested volunteers, and overwhelming volunteers       with duties. More often than not, there is more work to be done than there       are paid employees to do it. Volunteers can find themselves shouldering       time-consuming tasks if stewardship programs do not acknowledge that too       much work reduces motivation to participate. Most programs surveyed mentioned       that they make paperwork as simple as possible. In addition, most stewards       are only required to visit sites once a month or less. In some programs,       stewardship activities can be shared with another individual or family.

***Involving Families as Volunteers.*** In addition       to individuals, programs such as the Alutiiq Museum site stewardship program       encourage families to participate in stewardship activities together. The       San Juan Mountains Association site stewardship program in Colorado hopes       to initiate a family-oriented site stewardship program that involves activities       for both adults and children. Family stewardship activities may help volunteer       retention, spread the good word about the protection of archeological sites       to young people, and add to the community-building aspects of the stewardship       program. 

### 8. Volunteer Benefits & Recognition

Volunteer recognition is critical to recruiting and maintaining site stewardship       volunteers. Although volunteer work itself is reward enough for some volunteers,       most people want to be recognized for a job well done. Studies indicate       that volunteer retention is higher in programs that monitor volunteer activities       and reward volunteer service (Field and Johnson 1993:1629; Schwartz 1977).

Monitoring volunteer hours is an important way to recognize individuals       and indicates that the program values the time that volunteers invest. If       volunteers are not differentiated by the number of hours they put in, their       contributions are not stimulated by positive reinforcement and volunteer       motivation may slip. Volunteer hours should be acknowledged as a gift to       the program.

Volunteer recognition does not have to be elaborate or take a large portion       of the program budget. Events such as appreciation picnics, potlucks, and       other types of low-budget get-togethers sponsored by the stewardship program       are easy and effective ways to communicate appreciation to volunteers. In       addition, most programs recognize volunteers in program publications.

Awards or presents to volunteers should be personalized to reflect individual       contributions. Again, these items do not need to be expensive to convey       gratitude. For instance, the Alutiiq Museum site stewardship program gives       volunteers a small gift with a hand-written note to acknowledge their participation       in monitoring activities that year. Some programs, such as the Arizona site       stewardship program, have formal awards ceremonies to recognize volunteers.       Although these ceremonies represent more of a monetary investment, they       create an arena for acknowledging volunteer efforts to the wider community.

Many programs provide additional benefits to volunteers to demonstrate       appreciation. Benefits indicate that the volunteer has achieved a certain       status that is worthy of recognition. Some programs give volunteers t-shirts,       pins, and patches for their service. The Arizona site stewardship program       pays conference fees for volunteers to attend the Historic Preservation       Conference. In programs such as the Nevada Site Stewardship program, volunteers       have workman’s compensation insurance as agency volunteers.

## Underwater Archeological Site Stewardship Programs

Up to this point, the discussion has focused on site stewardship programs       that monitor archeological resources on land. Although underwater site stewardship       programs are not as prevalent as terrestrial programs, they represent an       increasingly important element of comprehensive protection of archeological       resources. Many underwater site stewardship programs were developed in response       to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987       and its advisory guidelines that       encourage development of shipwreck preserves and cooperation between government       agencies and the interested public in management and protection of shipwreck       sites. Guidelines on volunteer programs recognize that such programs can       be an efficient, effective and economical way for agencies to identify,       evaluate and protect publicly-owned shipwrecks, and can enhance and nurture       existing partnerships between the agencies and the public. These programs       are similar to terrestrial site stewardship programs in many ways, but also       differ in several critical areas.

First, due to specialized training and equipment requirements, fewer volunteers       are recruited into underwater archeology stewardship programs. Underwater       programs require volunteer stewards that are certified divers. Diving certificates       are not difficult to obtain, but present a barrier to volunteer recruitment.       Dive safety concerns can pose a larger issue to underwater stewards than       more general access concerns faced by stewards of sites on land. Diving       equipment and vessels are expensive and, in many cases, have to be supplied       by the volunteer. As such, fewer sites can be monitored and they are monitored       less frequently.

Volunteer retention in underwater archeological site stewardship programs       appears to be higher than terrestrial programs. Most likely this is due       to the small initial numbers of volunteers, strong ties with a diving community,       and the desire of the volunteer to participate in diving activities. The       enthusiasm of recreational divers is a great asset to programs that operate       on minimal budgets.

Underwater archeological resources are difficult to protect because they       generally cannot be seen from the water surface. Violators are hard to catch       and the monitoring activities of stewardship programs pose little threat       to potential looters. In addition, most people are aware of laws forbidding       trespassing and artifact collection on land, but are unfamiliar with laws       pertaining to submerged archeological materials. Submerged archeological       sites are threatened by the public perception that materials found in rivers,       lakes, and oceans are general property. This “finders keepers”       mentality poses a serious risk to underwater archeological sites.

Finally, underwater archeology program coordinators indicated that state       support for program initiatives is both essential and lacking. The low frequency       and severity of state sanctions against looters has not been affected by       the relatively high level of damage to underwater sites. Underwater stewardship       programs also receive little state or federal funding and spend more time       soliciting donations than terrestrial programs run through government agencies.

Recreational and heritage tourism stimulated by shipwreck preserves and       trails provides much needed attention to underwater stewardship programs.       In the case of the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Program (RIMAP)(Robinson       and Taylor 2000:111-113), the discovery of the HMS *Endeavor* was       the catalyst for public concern over the protection of underwater archeological       sites in the region. For the stewardship program operated through the New       York State Submerged Heritage Preserves, the discovery of the *Land Tortoise*       initiated the development of a shipwreck preserve system. The Texas Historical       Commission established its Marine Stewards Group as a result of diver public       interest generated from the State's recovery of French explorer Robert Cavelier       Sieur de La Salle's ship *La Belle* from the waters of Matagorda       Bay.

## Stewardship on Private Lands

Although the majority of site stewardship programs operate on public lands       and waterways, some programs protect archeological sites on private lands.       These programs are generally run through the SHPO and may include partnerships       with other state and local agencies. Some programs use volunteer site stewards       to monitor archeological sites on private lands through agreements with       the landowners. In other programs, landowners agree to become stewards of       archeological sites on their land.

Site stewardship programs on private lands are important. More laws exist       that protect archeological sites on state and federal lands than private       lands. For this reason, it is essential that archeologists register sites       on private land holdings and make efforts to protect them. In addition,       the states of the northeast and southeast mostly consist of private land       holdings and thus cannot support site stewardship programs focused exclusively       on public lands (e.g., Robinson and Taylor 2000).

Programs that use volunteer stewards to monitor archeological sites on       private lands are less common than programs that involve the landowner as       a site steward for several reasons. First, landowners are often reluctant       to allow access to their land for monitoring. Land ownership is a staunchly       protected American right and, in general, the public is wary of legislation       that affects personal property. Many landowners fear that the government       will seize their holdings or severely obstruct what they do with their land       if archeological sites are discovered. This attitude presents the largest       barrier to the implementation of archeological stewardship programs on private       land (Henderson 1989; Simon 1994). Second, since the sites monitored are       on private land, site stewardship programs often do not have the access       to funding, administrative support, and resources available through partnerships       with state and federal land management agencies.

The Alabama Site Stewardship program illustrates the difficulty of implementing       a stewardship program that uses volunteers to monitor sites on private lands.       This program, run through the Alabama Archaeological Society, suffered from       a lack of administrative support and local interest. To counteract these       problems, former staff from the Alabama program suggest that new programs       should find a federal, state, or private institution to provide both funding       and administrative capabilities. The Alabama program was also troubled by       avid artifact collectors who trespass on both public and private lands.       With a limited budget and staff support, landowners and archeologists were       overwhelmed with the job of preventing the damage caused by these people.       The stress and additional time necessary to run a program on private lands       stymied the Alabama program, which is no longer active.

Site stewardship programs that actively involve landowners in the protection       of archeological resources on their lands are much more successful than       those that do not. These programs rely on incentives from local and state       governments to join the stewardship program. Sanctions and restrictions       against landowners, nicknamed “big stick” methods of site protection,       are often met with hostility and prove ineffective in the long run (Simon       1994).

Incentives can encourage landowners to protect sites in several different       ways. Some states offer tax credit and easement programs for landowners       with archeological resources on their property (see       Table 1). However, most programs use intangible       incentives to their participants. The Kentucky       Archaeological Registry, one of the first and most successful landowner       stewardship programs, depends heavily on small incentives to “do the       right thing” and personal relationships with program members.

The Registry asks landowners to sign an agreement that they will do their       best to protect archeological materials on their property, will notify the       program if there are threats to the site, or if they plan to sell the property.       In return, participating landowners receive support from the Kentucky Heritage       Council to maintain and protect their sites. In addition, participants receive       periodic newsletters with updates on program activities and archeological       research in the region. The program maintains contact with landowners through       the year via newsletters, thank you notes, and periodic visits. Regularly       scheduled follow-up visits with notes and gifts to landowners help to sustain       participation in the program (Henderson 1989).

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry program has met with great success       mostly due to its emphasis on building relationships between members of       the public, the state, and archeologists. Landowners are enjoined to protect       their sites through positive reinforcement rather than negative sanctions.       Although landowner agreements are not legally binding and do not transfer       when the property is sold or inherited, few people breach these contracts       once they consent to them (Henderson 1989). Personal ties to the archeological       community and education about the threats to sites and the importance of       preserving their sites help solidify participants in the program.

Site stewardship programs on private lands play an important role in protecting       sites and involving the public in cultural resource protection. They prove       that archeological sites can be effectively monitored through a relatively       small monetary investment and that site conservation does not always require       land purchases. These programs will be increasingly important in the coming       years as more land is developed and sites are put at greater risk. For detailed       information on how landowners can become involved with the protection of       archeological materials on their property, visit the National Park Service’s       Strategies for Protecting       Archeological Sites on Private Lands. In addition, the Archaeological       Conservancy is involved with the protection of archeological sites on       private lands nationwide.

## The Limits of Volunteerism

Site stewardship programs have become the extra eyes for federal and state       land managers who are strained under limited budgets and staff. However,       volunteer labor cannot be relied on as a permanent part of long-term site       maintenance strategies. The success of stewardship programs should not prevent       government agencies from allocating more money for cultural resource protection.       In addition, there are numerous tasks that volunteers cannot do and stewardship       programs must rely on the expertise of professional staff.

Volunteers cannot be expected to visit extremely remote sites due to the       cost, inconvenience, potential danger, and liability of sending them into       these areas. Most volunteers want to monitor sites that are reasonably close       to where they live. Although sites close to developed areas often have the       highest risk potential, coverage near concentrated population centers is       often much better than more remote areas. As a result, many programs that       monitor large tracts of public lands have an uneven distribution of stewardship       volunteers, leaving some areas unmonitored. Paid or volunteer professionals       typically monitor sites that take a long time or intensive effort to visit.       However, these people often engage in monitoring activities in addition       to a variety of other tasks they are required to do. Lack of staff and funding       often means that remote sites are virtually unprotected.

Some archeological resources should be monitored by professionals because       they are too fragile or may require special expertise, such as sites with       human remains. For these resources, either the paid or volunteered time       of a professional archeologist is needed. In addition, some activities such       as site stabilization and land surveys require professional assistance.       Volunteers can be sent unsupervised to monitor sites, but cannot participate       in specialized activities by themselves.

Site stewards cannot, and should not, perform the duties of law enforcement       officials. Although site stewards are charged with protecting site information       and reporting the condition of sites to program coordinators, they are civilians       who have no official authority to stop on-going site damage. Volunteer training       sessions should emphasize that stewards have no legal capacity to make arrests       or give citations for looting or vandalism. Intervening in a crime can be       extremely dangerous. If a steward witnesses damage to a site, they should       immediately report it to local authorities and their site stewardship coordinator.

There are distinct limits to the use of volunteers to monitor and protect       archeological materials. Although volunteers do a tremendous job, they are       not a comprehensive solution to preservation problems that plague many areas       of the United States. Under inadequate budgets, volunteers shoulder the       responsibilities that should be allocated to paid employees. Site stewardship       programs that depend heavily on volunteers are one sign of a deficient budget       for cultural resource protection.

## Conclusion

The success of any archeological site stewardship program depends on the       perseverance of its staff and the commitment of its volunteers. The great       assets of volunteer labor, particularly when funds for site preservation       are limited, far outweigh the liability of using unpaid workers. Most programs       rely on the donated time and resources of professional archeologists, land       managers, and civilian volunteers. Because of this dependence on volunteer       labor, even the most motivated programs may fail without sufficient funding,       planning, oversight, and care of the volunteer force. None of the programs       included in this survey had sufficient budgets or staff to accomplish their       goals fully. To succeed, site stewardship programs need to be flexible and       plan well beyond their own establishment.

As the many successful site stewardship programs in the U.S. demonstrate       (see       Table 1), site stewardship programs *are*       effective at preventing the destruction of archeological sites through vandalism       and looting. Many programs noted that levels of site destruction were reduced       through a combination of public education, site steward liaisons to the       local community, and advertising that the areas are monitored. Site stewardship       programs will become more important in the future as development, outdoor       recreation, looting, and other threats to archeological sites increase.     

## References

Anyon, Roger, and T.J. Ferguson1995 Cultural Resources Management at the Pueblo of Zuni, New       Mexico, U.S.A. *Antiquity* 69:913-930.

 Anyon, Roger, T. J. Ferguson, and John R. Welch2000 Heritage Management by American Indian Tribes in the Southwestern       United States. In *Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society*,       edited by F. P. McManamon and A. Hatton, pp. 142-159. Routledge, London       and New York. 

Davis, Hester1990*Training and Using Volunteers in Archeology: A Case       Study from Arkansas*. Technical Brief 9. Archeology Program, National       Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

DeRidder, Richard, Sandra G.L. Schruijer, and Rama C. Tripathi1992 Norm Violation as a Precipitating Factor in Negative Intergroup       Relations. In *Norm Violations in Intergroup Relations,* edited by       Richard DeRidder and Rama C. Tripathi. Clarendon, Oxford.

Feldman, Daniel C.1984 The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms. *Academy       of Management Review* 9: 47-53.

Field, David and Ian Johnson1993 Satisfaction and change: a survey of volunteers in hospice       organization. *Social Science Medicine* 36: 1625-34.

Ferguson, T.J., Kurt E. Dongoske, Leigh Jenkins, Michael Yeatts, and Eric       Polingyouma1993 Working Together. The Roles of Archeology and Ethnohistory       in Hopi Cultural Preservation. *CRM*       16-SI: 27-37.

Festinger, Leon, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back1950*Social Pressures in Informal Groups.* Harper,       New York.

Henderson, Gwynn1989*The Kentucky Archeological Registry: Landowner Participation       in Site Preservation*. Technical Brief 6. Archeology Program, National       Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Hoffman, Teresa L.1991 Stewards of the Past: Preserving Arizona's Archeological       Resources Through Positive Public Involvement. In *Protecting the Past,* edited by George S. Smith and John E. Ehrenhard,       pp. 253-259, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

 Hoffman, Teresa L. and Shereen Lerner1988*Arizona Archaeology Week: Promoting       the Past to the Public*. Technical Brief 2. Archeology Program,       National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Leary, Mark R.1995*Self-Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal       Behavior.* Westview, Boulder.

Lerner, Shereen and Teresa L. Hoffman2000 Bringing Archaeology to the Public: Programs in the Southwestern       United States. In *Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society*,       edited by F. P. McManamon and A. Hatton, pp. 231-246. Routledge, London       and New York. 

Lynott, Mark J. and Alison Wylie, eds.2000*Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the       1990s.,* Society for American Archaeology Special Report Series, Washington       D.C., second revised edition. 

McAdam, Doug and Ronnelle Paulsen1993 Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism.       *American Journal of Sociology* 99:640-67.

McManamon, Francis P. 1991 The Federal government's recent response to archaeological       looting. In *Protecting       the Past,* edited by George S. Smith and John E. Ehrenhard. CRC       Press, Boca Raton, FL.

McManamon, Francis P. 2000 The Protection of Archaeological Resources in the United       States. In *Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society,*       edited by F. P. McManamon and A. Hatton, pp. 40-54. Routledge, London and       New York. 

Midlarsky, Elizabeth and Eva Kahana1994*Altruism in Later Life.* Sage, Thousand Oaks,       CA.

Robinson, Paul A. and Charlotte C. Taylor2000 Heritage Management in Rhode Island: Working with Diverse       Partners and Audiences. In *Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary       Society,* edited by F. P. McManamon and A. Hatton, pp. 107-119. Routledge,       London and New York. 

Rochon, Thomas R.1998*Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism and Changing Values.*       Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Schwartz, Shalom H. 1977 Normative Influences on Altruism. In *Advances in Experimental       Social Psychology,* Vol. 10, ed. Leonard Berkowitzp, p. 221-279. Academic       Press, New York.

Simon, Brona1994 The Carrot, Not the Stick: Strategies for Protecting Archaeological       Sites on Private Property. In *Cultural resource management archeological       research, preservation planning, and public education in the northeastern       United States,* ed. Jordan Kerber. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.

Society for American Archaeology1996 Ethics in archaeology: Society for American Archaeology.       Principles of archeological ethics, *American Antiquity* 61: 451-52.       Online: http://www.saa.org/ABOUTSAA/COMMITTEES/ethics/principles.html

Society for Historical Archaeology2003Ethical       Principles of the Society for Historical Archaeology.       

Thorne, Robert1996*Developing an Archeological Site Conservation Database*.       Technical Brief 17. Archeology Program, National Park Service, Department       of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

TwoBears, Davina R.1995 A Navajo Sudent’s Perception: Anthropology and the       Navajo Nation Archeology Department Student Training Program. *SAA Bulletin*       13(1):4-6. 

Wuthnow, Robert1998*Loose Connections: Joining together in American’s       Fragmented Communities*. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

**Acknowledgements:** I researched and wrote this technical       brief while I was a National Council for Preservation Education intern with       the NPS Archeology Program, Washington, D.C. This brief would not be possible       without the assistance of D. Kathy Abbass (Rhode Island Marine Archaeology       Program), Debbie Corbett (The Alaska Heritage Stewardship Program), Mary       Estes (Arizona Site Stewardship Program), Ray Fahlsing (Michigan State Park       Stewardship Program), Gregory Haynes, Eva Jensen, and Sali Underwood (Nevada       Archaeological Site Stewardship Program), Ruth Lambert (San Juan Mountains       Association Cultural Site Stewardship Program), Beth Padon (California Archaeological       Site Steward Program), Teresa Paglione (Alabama Archaeological Society Site       Stewardship Program), Dennis Palm (Ventana Wilderness Alliance Heritage       Resource Site Stewardship Program), Giovanna Peebles (Vermont Archeological       Preservation Easement Program), Amy Steffian (Alutiiq Museum Site Stewardship       Program), Alanah Woody (Nevada Rock Art Foundation Site Stewardship Program),       Phillip Young (New Mexico SiteWatch Program), and Joseph W. Zarzynski (New       York State Submerged Heritage Preserves/ Bateau Below, Inc.). Michele Aubry,       S. Terry Childs, Barbara Little, Francis P. McManamon, and Karen Mudar provided       thoughtful reviews of this brief. NPS Archeology materials such as the E-Gram       on site stewardship programs and the Caring for Sites webpages provided       a starting point for my research. Most importantly, I am grateful to Barbara       Little for suggesting the topic of this brief and for serving as my mentor       throughout my internship. All errors, omissions, or oversight remain the       responsibility of the author.

Technical Briefs|next

      -  Introduction 
      -  What is an Archeological Site Stewardship Program? 
      -  Developing Public Concern and Participation in Cultural         Resource Protection 
      -  Threats to Site Preservation 
      -  Addressing Problems through Site Stewardship Programs 
      -  Initiating a Site Stewardship Monitoring Programs 
      -  Critical Components to the Success of Site Stewardship         Initiatives 
      -  Underwater Archeological Site Stewardship Programs 
      -  Stewardship on Private Lands 
      -  The Limits of Volunteerism 
      -  Conclusion 
      -  Table 1: Site Stewardship Programs Listed         by State 
      -  Table 2: Checklist: Components of a Successful         Site Stewardship Program 
      -  References 
      - Acknowledgements
      - print         version  
      -  technical briefs index 

    -  DOI 
    -  History & Culture 
    -  Search 
    -  Contact 
    -  FOIA 
    -  Privacy 
    -  Disclaimer 
    -  USA.gov 

    - archeology       in the parks  
    - archeology       nationwide  
    - professional       tools  
    - for       the public  
    - kennewick       man
    - the       antiquities act
    - what's       new

    -  
    -  
    - technical assistance
    - databases
    - standards & guidelines
    - training & education
    - reports
    - publications

    -  
    -  
    -  
    - features
    - learn and participate
    - for teachers