Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic

Preservation

September 1986

NTIS order #PB87-140166
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic

Preservation, OTA-E-319 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September

1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-600574

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Foreword

Archaeological remains and historic structures and landscapes are important tangible reminders of this Nation’s rich and diverse cultural heritage, They provide a sense

of our past and contribute in other ways to our quality of life. Yet, in recent years,

as the resuIt primarily of population shifts, urban growth, and energy development,

the stresses on these unique, nonrenewable cultural resources have increased dramatically. As this assessment makes clear, the appropriate use of a wide variety of preservation technologies, many of which were originally developed for applications in natural

science and engineering, could reduce many of these stresses.

This report presents the primary findings of an assessment requested by the House

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The Subcommittee on Public Lands is carrying out a major review of how Federal agencies implement Federal preservation policy. This assessment directly supports the Committee’s review by showing how the

uses of certain methods, techniques, as well as tools and equipment can assist Federal, State, and local preservation efforts.

The assessment takes the unusual step of focusing on the applications of preservation technologies rather than preservation disciplines. It examines the current use of

preservation technologies and identifies research and development needs. It also explores how improvements in Federal policy and implementation can facilitate the more

effective use of technologies appropriate for managing this country’s prehistoric and

historic cultural resources.

In undertaking this assessment, OTA sought the contributions of a wide spectrum

of knowledgeable and interested individuals. Some provided information and guidance,

others reviewed drafts of the report. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions

of time and intellectual effort. OTA also appreciates the timely help rendered by a number of individuals from the National Park Service.

 JOHN H. GIBBON S

Director

. . . ///
Review Panel

Robert Baboian

Corrosion Laboratory

Texas Instruments

Attleboro, MA

Carole L. Crumley

Department of Anthropology

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, NC

Hiroshi Daifuku

Historic Preservation Consultant

Washington, DC

James Ebert

Ebert & Associates

Albuquerque, NM

Joel Grossman

Grossman & Associates, Inc.

New York, NY

Robert Harvey

Department of Landscape Architecture

Iowa State University

Ames, 1A

Ruthann Knudson

Woodward-Clyde Consultants

Walnut Creek, CA

Charles Mazel

Klein Associates

Salem, NH

John H. Myers

College of Architecture

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

Patricia O’Donnell

Walmsley & Co.

New York, NY

Mimi Rodden

Carson City, NV

Reynold Ruppe

Department of Anthropology

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ

Susan E. Schur

Technology and Conservation

Boston, MA

Thomas Spiers

Benatec Associates

Harrisburg, PA

M. Jane Young

Department of Anthropology

University of Texas

Austin, TX

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the review panel and workshop

participants. The panel and workshops do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes

full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA Project Staff on Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Richard E. Rowberg, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Ray Williamson, Project Director

Mary Lee Jefferson, Analyst

Jannelle Warren-Findley, Contractor

until December 1985

Administrative Staff

Lillian Chapman Linda Long
Workshop Participants

Technologies for the Preservation of Archaeological Sites and Structures,

Dec. 3-4, 1985

Department of

Annetta Cheek

Archeology Assistance Division

Office of Surface Mining

Washington, DC

James Ebert

Ebert & Associates

Albuquerque, NM

Jeffrey Eighmy

Department of Anthropology

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO

James Judge

Fort Burgwin Research Center

Southern Methodist University

Dallas, TX

Dena Dincauze, Chair

Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

Mark Leone

Department of Anthropology

University of Maryland

College Park, MD

Charles Pearson

Coastal Environments, Inc.

Baton Rouge, LA

G.R. Rapp, Jr.

College of Science and Engineering

University of Minnesota

Duluth, MN

Joseph Schuldenrein

Commonwealth

Jackson, Ml

Timothy Kohler

Department of Anthropology

Washington State University

Pullman, WA

Technologies for the Presentation

Associates

of Historic

Thomas Sever

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

National Space Technology Laboratories

Bay St. Louis, MS

R.E. Taylor

Department of Anthropology

University of California

Riverside, CA

Leslie Wildesen

Colorado Heritage Center

State Historic Preservation Office

Denver, CO

Structures, Jan. 28-29, 1986

James Marston Fitch, Chair

Department of Historic Preservation, Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners, New York, NY

Terry Amburgey

Forest Products Laboratory

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS

Jan C.K. Anderson

RESTORE

New York, NY

Robert Baboian

Corrosion Laboratory

Texas Instruments

Attleboro, MA

Hiroshi Daifuku

Historic Preservation Consultant

Washington, DC

Tomas H. Spiers

Benatec Associates

Harrisburg, PA

Geoffrey Frohnsdorff

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD

Larry Jones

Old House Journal

Brooklyn, NY

Robert Kapsch

National Park Service

Washington, DC

Judith Kitchen

Ohio State Historic Preservation Office

Columbus, OH

John H. Myers

Center for Architectural Conservation

College of Architecture

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA

Susan E. Schur

Technology and Conservation

Boston, MA

Norman Weiss

Center for Preservation Research

Columbia University

New York, NY

vi
Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation, Feb. 20,1986

Reynold Ruppe, Chair

Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

J. Barto Arnold Daniel Lenihan J.K. Orzech

Texas Antiquities Committee Submerged Cultural Resources Unit Scripps Institute of Oceanography

Austin, TX National Park Service La Jolla, CA

Frank Busby

Busby Associates, Inc.

Arlington, VA

Calvin R. Cummings

National Park Service

Denver, CO

Anne G. Giesecke

Underwater Archaeologist

Arlington, VA

Santa Fe, NM Sheli O. Smith

Charles Mazel Mariners Museum

Klein Associates Mariners Drive

Salem, NH Newport News, VA

Craig Mullen

Eastport International

Upper Marlboro, MD

Carol Olsen

Department of Maritime Preservation

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Washington, DC

Technologies for the Preservation of Planned Landscapes

and Other Outdoor Sites, Feb. 27=28, 1986

Shary P. Berg

Frederick Law Olmsted National

Historic Site

Brookline, MA

Carole L. Crumley

Department of Anthropology

University of North

Chapel Hill, NC

Nomi Greber

Cleveland Museum

Cleveland, OH

Robert Harvey

College of Design

Carolina

of Natural History

lowa State University

Ames, 1A

Catherine Hewett

Bunting Institute

Radcliffe College

Cambridge, MA

Patricia O’Donnell, Chair

Walmsley & Co., Inc., New York, NY

Thomas J. Kane

Kane, Liede, and Ratyna, PC.

Pleasantville, NY

Timothy Keller

Land and Community Associates

Charlottesville, VA

Setha M. Low

Department of Landscape Architecture

and Regional Planning

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA

Martin McGann

Institute of Historic Horticulture

Sleepy Hollow Restorations

Tarrytown, NY

Hugh C. Miller

Historic Architecture Division

National Park Service

Washington, DC

Darwina L. Neal

National Park Service

National Capital Region

Washington, DC

Ford Peatross

Prints and Photographs Division

Library of Congress

Washington, DC

Scott Weinberg

School of Environmental Design

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

M. Jane Young

Department of Anthropology

University of Texas

Austin, TX

vii
Technologies for the Physical Protection of Prehistoric and Historic Sites, Apr. 14=15, 1986

David G. Battle

National Park Service

Denver CO

Richard Bierce

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Washington, DC

Fred Blackburn

White Mesa Institute

College of Eastern Utah

Blanding, UT

Joel Grossman

Grossman & Associates, Inc.

New York, NY

Mimi Redden, Chair

Carson City, NV

Richard Haines

Bureau of Land Management

Division of Lands and Renewable

Resources

Portland, OR

James Hester

Waterways Experiment Station

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Vicksburg, MS

Captain Alvin Hinton

U.S. Park Police

Washington, DC

Tom King

Office of Cultural Resource Preservation

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Washington, DC

Ruthann Knudson

Woodward-Clyde Consultants

Walnut Creek, CA

Felix Lavicka

Analytics, Inc.

Tinton Falls, NJ

J. Rodney Little

State Historic Preservation Office

Annapolis, MD

Constance Ramirez

Department of the Army

Washington, DC

Tupper Thomas

Prospect Park

Brooklyn, NY

. . . Vlll
Acknowledgments

The following individuals contributed to this study in a variety of ways. OTA is grateful for their assistance:

Mary Lee Allen

Gunston Hall

Bruce Anderson

National Park Service

Christy Arrington

Bureau of Land Management

Rick Athern

Bureau of Land Management

Carl Barna

Bureau of Land Management

John Belshe

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Walter Bender

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Jim Bradford

National Park Service

John Burns

National Park Service

John Byrne

National Park Service

Tony Carrell

National Park Service

Elliott Carroll

Office of the Architect of the

Capitol

Beth Cole

International Masonry Institute

John Cullinane

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation

Karl Ludwig Dasser

Bayerishes Landesamt fur

Denkmalpflege, Munich

Robert B. DeBlieux

Louisiana Office of Cultural

Development

Evan de Blois

U.S. Forest Service

Tom De Haven

National Park Service

Diane Dimkoff

National Archives and Records

Administration

Paul Dolinsky

National Park Service

James R. Druzik

The Getty Conservation Institute

Robert Dunnell

Washington State University

Mark R. Edwards

Maryland Historical Trust

Mary Farrell

National Park Service

Laura Feller

National Park Service

Helen C. Fenske

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection

Cynthia Field

Smithsonian Institution

Charles Fisher

National Park Service

Carl Fleischauer

American Folklife Center

Library of Congress

George Frison

University of Wyoming

Diana Gelburd

Soil Conservation Service

Leland Gilsen

Oregon State Historic Preservation

Office

Nancy W. Hawkins

Louisiana Division of Archaeology

Helen Hooper

Society for Historical Archaeology

Advisory Council on Underwater

Archaeology

Stanley M. Hordes

Consulting Historian

Santa Fe, NM

Barbara j. Howe

Department of History, West

Virginia University

Mary Hufford

American Folklife Center

Library of Congress

Winston Hurst

Edge of the Cedars Museum

Heather Huyck

National Park Service

Ken Ireland

National Park Service

Mary Ison

Library of Congress

Jake Ivy

National Park Service

Alan Jabbour

American Folklife Center

Library of Congress

Squire Jaros

Michigan Historic Preservation

Section

Neal C. Johannsen

Alaska Department of Natural

Resources

James Jordan

National Trust for Historic

Preservation

Debra Katz

National Park Service

Bennie C. Keel

National Park Service

John J. Kneed

National Park Service

Bruce Kriviskey

American Institute of Architects

Kathryn M. Kuranda

Nevada Division of Historic

Preservation and Archeology

William Lebovitch

National Park Service

Suzanne Lewis

National Park Service

Richard Livingston

Environmental Protection Agency

Nellie Longsworth

Preservation Action

Shiela MacFarlin

Bureau of Land Management

Ed Malony

Bureau of Land Management

Thomas E. Marceau

Wyoming State Archives, Museums, & Historical Department

Daniel Martin

Bureau of Land Management

ix
Jim Maxon

Bureau of Reclamation

Judith McCulloh

University of Illinois Press

Edward Miller

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Nancy Miller

National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers

Page Putnam Miller

National Coordinating Committee

for the Promotion of History

James Mueller

National Park Service

Lee H. Nelson

National Park Service

Marilyn W. Nickels

National Park Service

Michele Pacifico

National Archives and Records

Administration

Richard Pankratz

Kansas State Historical Society

Paul Pearson

Historic Inns of Annapolis,

Maryland

George W. Percy

Florida Division of Archives,

History and Records

Management

Charles Peterson

Architect

John Peterson

National Park Service

Kenneth Peterson

Bureau of Land Management

Dwight Pitcaithley

National Park Service

AlIan Postlethwaite

Smithsonian Institution

Paul Putz

South Dakota Historical Society

Board of Trustees

John W. Renaud

National Park Service

Jerry Rogers

National Park Service

Todd Rutenbeck

Bureau of Reclamation

Michael Scardaville

Department of History

University of South Carolina

Curtis Schaafsma

New Mexico State Historic

Preservation Office

Pony Schaafsma

Santa Fe, NM

Gunter Schelling

Bayerische Verwaltung der

Staatlichen

Schlosser, Garten und Seen,

Munich

Peter Schmidt

Museo Regional Instituto

Nacional Antropologia & Historia,

Yucatan

Donna J. Schober

Arizona State Parks

Payson Sheets

University of Colorado

Susan Sherwood

National Park Service

Steve Sigstad

National Forest Service

Brona Simon

Massachusetts Historical

Commission

Rolf Snethlage

Bayerishes Landesamt fur

Denkmalpflege, Munich

Jacob E. Thomas

Washington State Office of

Archaeology and Historic

Preservation

Jim Trott

National park Service

Nicolas Veioz

National Park Service

Ken Verana

National Park Service

Walter Wait

National Park Service

Alicia Weber

National park Service

Douglas Reid Weimer

Congressional Research Service

Library of Congress

Thomas E. (Ted) Weir, Jr.

National Archives and Records

Administration

Bill Westermeyer

Office of Technology Assessment

Margaret F. Will

Historic Preservation Consultant

St. Clair Wright

Historic Anna[

Barbara Wyatt

State Historica

Wisconsin

olis, Inc.

Society of
Contents

Page

Chapter l: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2: Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chapter3: Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Chapter4: Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 5: Preservation information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .........107

Chapter6: Public Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........121

Chapter 7: Technology and Preservation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..133

Appendix A: Cultural Resources Management Laws and Regulations . ........161

Appendix B: Documentation and Conservation of Rock Art . ...............165

Appendix C: Registration and private Ownership of Archaeological Objects ...169

Appendix D: National Register Criteria From the Introduction to:

“How To Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation”. . ...........174

Appendix E: National Register of Historic Places Inventory–

Nomination Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....176

Appendix F: U.S. National Park Service Cultural Programs . ................178

Appendix G: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. . ..................184

Appendix H: National Trust for Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..187

Appendix 1: National Building Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........186

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................189

xi
The United States is losing important parts of its cul- kmproving~rdinati~ and inbr-

?Ura$ hwitafy% atarl &%rming ** % “ agencies; and focusing~ uslrfg

prehistoric and histotic sites coratritis to W? ;Ma$- nevq technologies.

ity of life, and that of future generation, by incr@as- $b@efk@gn countries have been using advanced

ir%g our of U.S. history. & also provides

economk benefks such as joksand increased

for preservation Ion&r than the United

S&t@M. Mmcsses their technologia represem sigTo carry ovt thei~ legal responsibilities for pr4MWv* over LJ.S. practices. Foreign experiing these impo@nt hi@odcd rewurces, f%derd agp $vith pwsewatim techniques, methods, an d

cies must have cost~ @MW#d be examined closely for possible

pectin@wm. MO&M techndogb @w . to U.S. . applications.

cost4’fec$i$$@ methods to help St- the M *-~

 -

Hlstmric $tructures.-Tax incentivm irqjlaceabk resources, especially ~ *

veloped in other fields can be transferred to pttwerrmw awdlable for rehabihtating qualified histdc buMkqys success of the pubiic-private secvation. The lack of adequate tecbo@JY bwwb’ dem tot wrtw@@in historic prese~ati~n.T1’@coow

onstrates a conspicuous need for an instittin to

coordinate research, di=inateinfotrrmti~, and

tirwed avaikbi[ity would assist the retention of many

provide training about new technologies. CorWeSs rno&3 0$ Americars historic structures.

could establish: rmervatkm.-Significant prehistoric

● a Fe4!eWJ C4mtet *~-~~

8M histMc laodsca~ continue to be lost because

within the Department of the Inter@? W safm!

they am rwt recognized as important to U.S. history.

other apjenq; irnpkrn~mtion of the C)!msted ~eri%age

● a Natkmd CZfttwfit p~atkm Teeknokmf LWX$SC~gMS Ad d 1985 (t+.R. 37) could aid the CO!W

managed by a consortium of universities; or

_~ information on all U.S. historic designed

dW!ckU@y B@aJ’d Wrnflosed of kmdscttpes. R could also enhance public awareness

. a Pmsetv preMstoric and historic land-~. professionals from all parts of the presewation

community, to provide guidance for a Center. Pteaetv ation.-t+istoric shipwrecks in

The stewardship of prehistoric and historic cultural

~e~ WatWS, receive very little protection from curresources has not received Mfkient attention within

rent Adrniraky Laws. Yet they contain a weakh of imthe Department of the Interior and other Federal agenportant information concerning the exploration and

cies. Congress ccxdd consider altering the institutional settlement of this country. Passage and implemen@-

tion of tb proposed Abandoned !%ipwr=b Ad 0+.R*

structure of Federal preservation efforts by: 35w/s. 2569) would make it possible to presefve sigestablishing a separate agency to manage alf Fed- nificant historic shipwrds for future generations by

eral cultural programs; ceding thei~ judsdi~i~t ownership! and oversight tO

creating an independent agency devoted to the the states.

care and protection of prehistoric arid historic CUL

.

tural resources;

StemM@ ting and VandaKsm=–Both are serireorganizing the Department of the Interior to

ous tlweiW to prehistoric and historic cultural reprovide fix an Assistant Secreta~ for Natural and

sourcQs. AdvwIced monitoring devices may aid the

(Mural Resources; or

law emforc@m@nt process, but the United States also

leaving the current Federal pmservatiOn structure

needs to improve enforcement of policies dealing with

i]~i~ eXCW@OrJ and trafficking in stolen artifacts. Conintact. gresscouid consider arnendin~the Archaeobgica[ ReEven if the struare were left in~a, Federal af!e~ wtces Prott?ction Act of 1979 and other statutes to

cies could still improve their efforts by developing MW- pmWt private registration of antiquities obtained in

tained, organized maintenance programs for historic superv%d archaeological excavations on private land.
Chapter 1

Summary
Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Context . . . . . . ....+.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Major Findings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Preservation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applying Technologies in Prehistoric and Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Management of Historic Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Survey of Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Historic Shipwrecks and Other Submerged Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . .

Protection of Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Preservation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recording and Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Restoration, Conservation, and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Protection From Catastrophic Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preservation Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .....O

Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table

5

7

8

10

11

13

14

14

15

16

16

20

21

21

23

23

25

Table No. Page

l. Prehistoric and Historic Preservation Laws and Executive Orders . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chapter 1

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The preservation of this country’s prehistoric

and historic heritage has a long tradition of community support and academic and political interest. Federal preservation legislation, commencing in 1906,1 reflects the national value and

significance that U.S. prehistoric and historic cultural resources possess, whether managed by

Federal, State, or local governments or private

citizens. As the National Historic Preservation Act

asserts,

. . . the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage

is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of

cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained

and enriched for future generations of Americans.2

Virtually every congressional district contains federally managed sites, structures, or landscapes of

prehistoric and historic interests The ability of

Federal agencies to carry out their preservation

responsibilities, within the context of managing

public lands4 and other duties, rests increasingly

on discovering and using cost-effective techniques,

methods, and equipment for studying and protecting these important cultural resources.

This assessment was requested by the House

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to assist the committee’s legislative authorization and

oversight of Federal preservation efforts. During

1986, the 20th anniversary of passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Subcommit1 The Antiquities Act of 1906 (Public Law 59-209).

2National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665), Sec. 1 (b)

(Purpose of the Act), para. 4.

3See, for example, the National Register of Historic Places, which

Ilsts significant prehistoric and historic places throughout the United

States.

4

For example, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976, Sec. 102(a)(8), calls for “the public lands [to] be managed

In a manner that WIII protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition;

that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. ”

tee on Public Lands initiated a major review of

how Federal agencies implement the provisions

of laws relating to prehistoric and historic properties (table 1). The findings of this assessment

support the subcommittee’s efforts to review how

the use of technologies, including methods and

techniques, as well as tools and equipment, can

assist historic preservation.

As the population of this country has grown

and urban centers have become more dense and

expanded into the countryside, the stresses on

cultural resources have increased dramatically.

The destruction of shipwrecks and submerged archaeological sites, particularly along the coasts

of Texas and Florida, has also increased significantly in recent years. Currently, the United

States is losing its prehistoric and historic cultural

resources at an alarming rate5 in spite of the best

efforts of preservation professionals to identify

and protect them. Because the national inventory of these cultural resources is far from complete, sites, structures, and landscapes that may

have prehistoric or historic significance may not

be cataloged and protected before they have

been destroyed or dramatically altered.

This assessment provides an overview of technologies relating to the care and preservation of

cultural resources. I n this assessment, preservation technology refers broadly to any equipment, methods, and techniques that can be applied to the discovery; analysis; interpretation;

restoration; conservation; protection; and management of prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and landscapes. The assessment also examines a variety of options related to the use of

preservation technologies and suggests improve5

For example, experts estimate that fewer than 10 percent of the

prehistoric Mimbres sites in southwestern New Mexico are free from

damage due to looting and vandalism. See Carol Ann Bassett, “The

Culture Thieves,” Science, July/August 1986, p. 22. In addition, see

the extensive discussion in Leslie E. Wildesen, “The Study of impacts on Archaeological Sites, ” Advances In Archaeological Method

and Theory 5, 1982, pp. 51-96.

5
6 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Table 1 .—Prehistoric and Historic Preservation Laws and Executive Orders

Laws:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

b

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59-209 (6 U.S.C.

431-433)

The National Park Service Organic Act (An Act of Aug. 25,

1916), (39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C. 1)

The Historic Sites Act of 1935, Public Law 74-292 (16 U.S.C.

461-467)

The National Historic Preservation Trust Act of 1949, Public

Law 81-408 (63 Stat. 927, 16 U.S.C. 468 et seq.)

The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, Public Law 83-31 (67

Stat 29, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.)

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 83-212 (67

Stat. 462, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)

The Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955, Public Law 84-69 (16 U.S.C. 18f)

The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, Public Law 86-523 (16

U.S.C. 469-469c)

The Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Public Law

89-670 (80 Stat. 931)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law

89-865 (16 U.S.C. 470)

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law

90-190 (16 U.S.C. 470)

Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of

the Cultural Environment,” May 13, 1971. (36 F.R. 8921)

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 92-203

(85 Stat. 688,43 U.S.C. 1601-1624)

The Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974,

Public Law 93-291 (88 Stat. 174, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.)

American Folklife Preservation Act of 1976, Public Law

94-201 (20 U.S.C. 2101-2107)

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Public

Law 95-341 (92 Stat. 46a, 42 U.S.C. 1996)

Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980, Public Law 96-312

(94 Stat. 948, 16 U.S.C. 1274)

National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980,

Public Law 96-515 (94 Stat. 2987, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Public Law 96-95 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)

Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Public Law 97-446 (96 Stat. 2360-2-%3,’ 19 U.S.C. 2601-2613)

Legislation under consideration In the 99th Congress:

● R.M.S. TITANIC Memorial Act of 1985 (H.R. 3272)

● The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1985 (H. R. 3558 and S.

2569)

● The Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act of 1985 (H. R. 37)

Regulations: a

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

43 CFR 3 (Antiquities Act)

43 CFR 7 (Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979)

36 CFR 60 (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

(NHPA) and EO 11593)

36 CFR 61 (NHPA and EO 11593)

36 CFR 63 (NHPA and EO 11593)

36 CFR 65 (Historic Sites Act of 1935)

36 CFR 66 (Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of

1974)

36 CFR 68 (NH PA)

36 CFR 800 (NHPA and EO 11593)

40 CFR 1500 (NEPA) “Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy

Act. ”

Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation:

“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilita.

tion and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,”

National Park Service (revised 1983), booklet.

“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

for Archeology and Historic Preservation,” Federal Register

48, No. 190, Thursday, Sept. 29, 1983.

“Final Uniform Regulations, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979,” Federal Register 49, No. 4, Friday, Jan.

6, 1984.

“Draft Guidelines for Historic and Archeological Resource

Management: Federal Agency Responsibilities Under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act,” National

Park Service, Feb. 5, 1986.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Executive Director’s “Procedures for Review of Proposals for Treatment of

Archaeological Properties: Supplementary Guidance,” 45

Federal Register 78808.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “Protection of

Historic Properties,” 36 CFR Part 800, Federal Register 51,

No, 169, Sept. 2, 1986.

aRegulation9 are promulgat~, adopted, and then compiled in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in order to Implement Provisions of !leneral laWS. The name Of

the act it implements follows each Citation.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior and OTA.

ments in implementing current policy. It does not 2.

address the preservation of paintings, books, and

other artifacts; however, some technologies used 3.

for their preservation are also applicable to sites,

structures, and landscapes. 4.

In the course of this assessment, OTA held a 5. series of five workshops that explored the range

of issues raised by the application of technologies

Technologies for the Preservation of Historic

Structures,

Technologies for Underwater Archaeology

and Maritime Preservation,

Technologies for the Preservation of Planned

Landscapes and Other Outdoor Sites, and

Technologies for the Physical Protection of

Prehistoric and Historic Sites.

to prehistoric and historic preservation: - More than 100 individuals participated in the

1. Technologies for the Preservation of Archae- workshops, either as invited participants or as observers. ological Sites and Structures,
Ch. l—Summary • 7
8 • Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

MAJOR

The boundaries separating the practice of archaeology and the preservation of historic structures and historic landscapes are becoming increasingly indistinct. Preservation professionals

apply many of the same technologies to the study

and conservation of sites, structures, and landscapes. In addition, preservationists in all the

associated disciplines share problems of obtainFINDINGS

ing access to information about technologies,

training, and coordinating research. Finally, they

share the constraints of inconsistent funding and

a serious lack of coordinated implementation of

Federal policy.

New technologies can extend the scope of our

understanding and care of the U.S. cultural her-
Ch. l—Summary Ž 9

itage by improving the quality, quantity, type,

and usefulness of data gathered. Certain technologies can also improve the authenticity of restoration, and the effectiveness of conservation

and maintenance. Yet, a variety of educational,

institutional, managerial, and cost barriers inhibit the broad application of new methods,

techniques, and equipment to preservation.

In many cases, the technologies appropriate

to prehistoric and historic preservation have been

developed for use in natural science and engineering disciplines, but have not been adequately

adapted to preservation requirements. The efficient transfer of technology developed in other

disciplines to preservation is impeded by preservation specialists’ frequent lack of familiarity

with natural science and engineering. It is also

slowed by a general lack of formalized interdisciplinary approaches to preservation problems.

Similarly, many natural scientists and ‘engineers

are unfamiliar with the needs and goals of preservation, yet would be receptive to assisting the

preservation community in applying new technologies.

If advanced technologies are to assume a

greater role in preservation, it is important to

find more effective means of transferring technology developed in other fields to prehistoric

and historic preservation. These will include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

training in the use of technologies,

studying ways to apply known technologies

to preservation problems,

improving information-sharing and coordination,

finding the appropriate fit of technologies to

preservation problems,

reducing costs of new technologies, and

developing standards for the application of

new technologies.

Improved transfer of technology will also require greater acceptance among preservation

specialists of the role technologies play in solving cultural resource problems. It will also require

more effective training in the management of cultural resources.

Other countries, particularly in Europe, have

been applying technologies to preservation longer

than the United States. In part this stems from

their longer histories as nations. In part, it is the

result of stronger and better coordinated national

support for preservation from their Ministries of

Culture.

In some cases foreign technologies may represent significant advances over U.S. practices.

For example, German methods for recording historic structures are far more complete and result

in more detailed drawings and data than U.S.

methods. Archaeologists in the United Kingdom

employ advanced methods of physics and chemistry in analyzing artifacts more readily than many

U.S. archaeologists. European art historians also

use more advanced techniques to preserve their

prehistoric rock paintings and carvings. European

techniques of preserving submerged wooden

ships and other maritime artifacts have led U.S.

efforts. The French have developed a sophisticated airborne infrared scanner for investigating

landscapes, as well as advanced methods for

using it effectively. Foreign experiences with

preservation techniques, methods, and equipment should be examined closely for possible

transfer to U.S. applications. The United States

would also benefit by increased cooperation with

other nations in developing and testing new preservation methods. it could strengthen channels

of communication between the United States and

other countries by reinforcing its participation in

the International Council on Monuments and

Sites (lCOMOS).

The preservation of the U.S. cultural heritage

often results in economic benefits (such as jobs

and increased tourism) to individuals and communities. In order to convince decision makers

of the value of retaining the best or most significant historic structures and landscapes, preservationists must better quantify and measure the

economic benefits of restoring and rehabilitating

them. They must also articulate more effectively

the benefits related to quality of life. For example, rehabilitating a historic structure may be

cheaper than replacing it with a modern one. In

addition, the intangible benefit of retaining a

sense of belonging and place by retaining the

historic integrity of a neighborhood may outweigh the purely economic benefits.

prehistoric and historic preservation can contribute to our quality of life by increasing our
10 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

appreciation and understanding of our Nation’s

cultural and political history. Public education

and interpretation play vital roles in preservation by enhancing the public’s appreciation of

our cultural heritage and involving the public

in the preservation process. Yet competing mission demands within Federal agencies often

cause them to neglect public education and interpretation. Hundreds of non-Federal historic organizations, such as Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia; Plimoth Plantation, Massachusetts; Cahokia

Mounds State Historic Site, Illinois; and Santa Barbara Mission, California, have made significant

contributions to the interpretation of prehistoric

and historic cultural resources by instituting a variety of innovative volunteer and public-participation programs.

Because only a limited number of our cultural

resources will be preserved with a high degree

of authenticity, we must be able to understand

the historical context in which prehistoric and

historic activities took place. It is important to recognize the national, regional, or local significance

of those sites, structures, and landscapes we wish

to preserve. Documentary research conducted

at the outset of a project helps define the approach and focus of the preservation efforts.

Historic materials are diverse and may include

drawings, letters, maps, photographs, printed

records, oral histories, and articles. Even the existing data archives from any government agency

are so numerous that current analytical techniques

are often inadequate to search and evaluate them

satisfactorily. The vast amount of information

available suggests preservation professionals

need to gain intellectual and technological control over the knowledge base. New information

databases, automated finding aids, and related

techniques are needed. A database of technical

information would be particularly important.

Underwater archaeology and maritime preservation have made significant contributions to the

understanding of our past, in many cases, as the

direct result of the application of sophisticated

technologies. If these gains are to continue, the

information acquired in such studies must be integrated into the larger body of prehistoric and

historic preservation information.

FEDERAL PRESERVATION POLICY

The Federal Government, “in cooperation with

other nations and in partnership with States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private organizations and individuals, ” is responsible for

providing leadership in preserving the Nation’s

prehistoric and historic cultural resources.6 The

National Historic Preservation Act charges the

Secretary of the Interior and the independent

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with

administering and guiding Federal preservation

efforts. The National Park Service (NPS) acts as

the lead agency in technical preservation matters for the Federal Government, and for State

and local efforts. NPS, through a variety of “external programs, ” oversees the National Register of Historic Places, assists in historic survey and

planning, and extends technical assistance to the

preservation community, including other Federal

agencies, States, and local governments. it adminbNational Historic Preservation Act, Sec. 2(2)

isters, with the Internal Revenue Service, the tax

incentives program to encourage private sector

investment in rehabilitating certified incomeproducing historic structures. NPS also reviews

State historic preservation programs and administers the matching grants-in-aid to the States for

historic preservation projects. NPS protects and

manages the cultural resources within the National Park system.

Every Federal agency has certain responsibilities for the prehistoric and historic properties under its control,’ and must designate a qualified

historic preservation officer.8 The historic preservation officer plans for and coordinates the

agency’s preservation activities within the agency

and with NPS.

7“The heads of all Federal agencies shall assume responsibility

for the preservation of historic properties which are owned or controlled by such agency. ” National Historic Preservation Act, Sec.

1 IO(a)(l ).

ENational Historic Preservation Act, Sec. 11 O(C).
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 1

The National Historic Preservation Act also

established an independent Advisory Council,

whose membership is composed of individuals

from the private sector appointed by the President, to “advise the President and the Congress

on matters relating to historic preservation, [and

to] recommend measures to coordinate activities

of Federal, State, and local agencies and private

institutions relating to historic preservation. ”9 It

also review[s] the policies and programs of Federal Agencies” 10 and writes and distributes general information on historic preservation. W/hen

a Federal undertaking wouId affect a historic

property, the Advisory Council must be afforded

“a reasonable opportunity to comment” on it. 11

Additionally, the National Historic Preservation

Act authorized and directed the establishment of

a National Museum of the Building Arts. Among

other things, the museum “shall collect and disseminate information concerning the building

arts . . . and research relating to the building

arts, "12 which include information concerning

building technologies and skills.

Each State has established a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act. The SHPOs and

the Certified Local Governments (CLGs), receive

yearly matching grants from the Historic Preservation Fund to ensure that regional, State, and

community preservation projects are carried out

according to the nationally accepted standards.

CLGs are approved by States and receive funding from them.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation,

chartered and partially funded by Congress,13 is

also a source of information and expertise about

technologies for preservation.

Applying Technologies in Prehistoric

and Historic Preservation

Federal agencies can provide a variety of means

for encouraging and facilitating the use of new

technologies for prehistoric and historic preser-

‘National IHlstorlc Preservation Act, Sec. 202(a)(1).

locational Historic Preservation Act, Sec. 202(a)(6).

I I National Historic Preservation Act, Sec. 106.

IZNational Hlstorlc Preservation Act, Sec. 306(a)(l ).

I JThe National Historic Preservation Trust Act of 1949 (Public Law

81 -408; 63 Stat. 927).

vation. However, participants in this assessment

cited the following impediments to the adoption

and widespread use of advanced preservation

techniques:

●

●

●

●

●

inadequate experience with and acceptance

of new technologies,

inadequate coordination among and with in

agencies,

inadequate funding for technologies,

inadequate training in the application of

technologies, and

inadequate technical information exchange.

Bird Control Technologies

The imitation snake represents a “low-tech” solution

to the problem of damage from bird droppings.

Photo credits: Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service

The device behind Lincoln’s head is an ultrasonic

device for preventing birds from roosting on the statue.
72 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Participants in this assessment cited the critical need to establish a federally funded institution as a mechanism to coordinate research,

disseminate information, and provide training

about new technologies for preservation. Several institutional structures are possible.

Federal Center for Preservation Technology.–

Congress could establish such a center within the

Department of the Interior or some other Federal agency. The center would assist the transfer

of technology from other areas into prehistoric

and historic preservation by developing new applications for existing technologies, providing

training for preservation professionals, and serving as a clearinghouse for disseminating information on preservation technologies. A center

should have a small but highly trained staff and

the facilities for developing technologies relevant

to all phases of the preservation process.

A Federal center, based within the Department

of the Interior, would have the advantage of consolidating much of the specialized technological

expertise now spread throughout the Department

of the Interior and other Federal agencies. It could

also increase administrative efficiency and lower

costs by reducing redundancy of personnel and

consolidating overhead. In addition to serving as

the focal point for technology-related preservation information within the Federal Government,

such an institution would provide needed assistance to State and local governments and to the

private sector. All agencies and private individuals and groups would have a central place

within the Federal Government to look for technical help with preservation problems.

National Center for Preservation Technology.

–Alternatively, Congress could create a National

Center for Preservation Technology, outside the

Federal Government and managed by a consortium of universities. Such an institution would be

able to draw on a multitude of different skills in

several universities, and in many university departments. Like the Federal center, it would develop and test new applications of technologies,

conduct training, and distribute information.

However, it would be free to contract with agencies and with States and the private sector to develop technologies of specific interest to them.

Because it would also otherwise be free of the

institutional constraints and pressures imposed

by being housed within the Federal structure,

such an organization might be more innovative

than a Federal laboratory. Though a National

Center would serve as a resource for the Federal

Government, like the Federal center outlined

above, it would also serve State and local needs.

The National Astronomical Observatories, which

are managed by the Association of Universities

for Research in Astronomy, Inc., and funded by

the National Science Foundation, might serve as

an appropriate model. They not only provide

research facilities for the entire astronomical community, but also conduct their own research

projects.

Because a national center based in the university community would support Federal preservation efforts, it would require some Federal funding.

This option would be an excellent opportunity

to strengthen pubIic/private ties for prehistoric

and historic preservation, which have always

been important features of the preservation movement. Thus, the center could derive a significant

percentage of its operating expenses from State

and private sources.

Preservation Technology Board.–Additionally,

Congress might wish to consider supporting a

Preservation Technology Board. Even if one of

the two options for creating a Center for Preservation Technology were adopted, a board composed of professionals from all parts of the preservation community would be needed to provide

guidance for a center, and to determine current

needs for technology, develop standards for the

application of new technologies, and assist in disseminating information. The professional societies concerned with archaeology, historic structures, and historic landscapes are likely to be

highly supportive of such a Board.

The preservation efforts of the Federal agencies would benefit immeasurably by a Preservation Technology Board. Congress could foster its

creation by directing the Federal agencies with

major responsibilities for prehistoric and historic

preservation to provide initial funding.
Ch. l—Summary ● 1 3

Federal Management of Historic

Cultural Resources

A thorough assessment of the Federal institutional structure for prehistoric and historic preservation is beyond the scope of this assessment.

However, participants in the OTA workshops expressed marked concern over the institutional impediments within the Federal Government that

limit its effectiveness in applying a fuller range

of technologies to preservation.

The stewardship of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, historic structures, and

historic landscapes has not received sufficient

attention within the Department of the Interior.

Even within the National Park Service, which carries out many of the Federal responsibilities for

prehistoric and historic preservation, the management of programs relating to other Federal, State,

and local cultural resources often conflicts with

NPS’s priorities in caring for natural resources in

the Nation’s parks. Yet, of the 337 units of the

National Park system, two-thirds were established

because of their prehistoric and historic resources.

All NPS parks contain some prehistoric and historic cultural resources.

In order to implement fully the provisions of

historic preservation legislation (table 1), it would

be important for the Federal Government, including Congress, to increase its attention to prehistoric and historic preservation. Federal programs have often served as models for the States,

local governments, and private preservation

efforts.

In view of the concern over the management

of the Federal Government’s preservation efforts, Congress may wish to consider changing

the structure of the Federal Government’s preservation efforts. The following paragraphs present

options for improving Federal management of

cultural resources.

Establish a Separate Agency To Manage and

Coordinate All Federal Cultural Programs.–In

addition to providing a central focus for all the

government’s programs in preservation, such an

agency would be responsible for administering

the National Endowment for the Humanities, the

National Endowment for the Arts, and other culturally oriented programs. It would in essence be

similar to a Ministry of Culture, which most foreign governments have.

Create an Independent Agency Devoted to the

Care and Protection of Prehistoric and Historic

Cultural Resources.–Such a policy has the major advantage of providing coherence for the

management of U.S. prehistoric and historic preservation programs. It would remove the primary

responsibility for cultural resources management

from the Department of the Interior, yet it would

create a new institution that must be staffed and

funded (though many staff, and some funding

would result from transfers from existing programs). An independent agency would be the

logical place for the Federal Center for Preservation Technology suggested above. However, it

would lack the benefits of in-house expertise in

the actual ownership and management of historic

properties.

Reorganize the Department of the Interior To

Provide for an Assistant Secretary for Natural

and Cultural Resources.—This option would

bring all the cultural programs from NPS and

other DOI agencies under the aegis of one office. It would be simpler to effect than creating

an independent agency, and would increase the

visibility and importance of preservation within

the Department of the Interior. However, it would

continue the current arrangement of maintaining the preservation function within the department, which as noted earlier, carries disadvantages

as well as advantages for the national preservation

programs.

Work Within the Current Preservation Structure.–Even if the overall management structure

for the Federal preservation effort were left largely

unaltered, the agencies could make several

changes to improve this Nation’s preservation effort, within the direction provided by the National

Historic Preservation Act, and other legislation.

The initiation and execution of such programs will

require direction and continued oversight by

Congress. The agencies could:

● inventory their preservation needs and plans

for carrying them out;

● develop sustained, organized maintenance

programs for historic Federal properties;
14 ● Technologies for prehistoric and Historic Preservation

●

●

●

improve coordination and information-sharing among agencies with respect to historic

preservation;

develop a stronger focus on the application

of new, efficient technologies for preservation; and

establish a central office to collect and disseminate information about preservation

technologies.

Survey of Prehistoric and Historic

Landscapes

The United States has made no comprehensive

survey of significant national prehistoric and

historic landscapes comparable to its efforts for

historic structures. Because prehistoric and historic landscapes are an especially ephemeral resource, some groups are now surveying them.

For example, the State of Ohio has an ongoing

survey of historic landscapes. New Mexico has

also conducted landscape studies.

In 1984 the Historic Preservation Committee

of the American Society of Landscape Architects

initiated a national survey of historic designed

landscapes, which is endorsed by the National

Park Service. This important example of a public/private partnership depends primarily on volunteer assistance from many regions of the United

States. However, without professional, full-time

leadership, relying entirely on volunteers from

different regions may lead to inconsistent survey

results. The National Park Service could assume

a stronger role than it has taken in this effort, in

order to assure timely completion of the survey

and to standardize the information collected.

Congressional oversight may be necessary to assure that this process takes place.

Significant prehistoric and historic landscapes

continue to be lost through lack of recognition.

The proposed Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act

of 198514 (Olmsted Act—H.R. 37), seeks to “encourage the identification, preservation, and commemoration of historic designed landscapes. ”15

Idsee, however, The National Historic Preservation Act: An Assessment (Washington, DC: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

September 1986) for a discussion of many of the broader institutional issues faced by preservation efforts in this country.

ISsec, 4 of H.R. 37.

Photo credit: HABS/HAER, National Park Service

Cascade area, Meridian Hill Park, Washington, DC

Limited surveys have been conducted on Olmsted

landscapes by the National Association of Olmsted Parks and the Massachusetts Association of

Olmsted parks. These primarily volunteer efforts

cannot discover all significant Olmsted landscapes.

Although the Olmsted Act is directed toward the

parks designed by Frederick Law Olmsted’s firms,

which include some of the most famous and historically significant of U.S. parks,16 passage and

implementation of the Olmsted Act would materially aid the collection of information on all

U.S. historic designed landscapes. Focusing attention on the Olmsted landscapes would also

enhance public awareness of other significant

landscapes.

Historic Shipwrecks and Other

Submerged Cultural Resources

The United States has not undertaken a national inventory of submerged cultural resources,

which include submerged villages and other sites

as well as shipwrecks. Although some States have

made substantial progress in surveying their own

coastal and riverine areas, and locating submerged

resources, no States have comprehensive data on

file. — . — 16@erthree generations, the OImsted firms, whose Brook line,

MA, office is now a National Historic Site, managed by the National Park Service, designed such parks as Central Park in New

York City, Franklin Park in Brookline, MA, and Prospect Park in

Brooklyn, NY, as well as estates, universities, park systems, institutional properties, and urban plans.
Ch. I—Summary . 1 5

Historic shipwrecks in coastal waters contain

a wealth of important information concerning the

exploration and settlement of this country. Yet

efforts to protect them for research and public

interpretation are hampered by current Admiralty

Laws, under which historic shipwrecks are treated

as abandoned property. Their contents may be

recovered by salvers. Such recovery often destroys valuable information related to the Nation’s

maritime history. Passage and implementation

of the proposed Abandoned Shipwrecks Act

(H. R. 3558/S. 2569) would make it possible to

preserve significant historic shipwrecks for future generations by ceding jurisdiction, ownership, and oversight of them to the States. The

Senate version is almost identical to the House

version, and maintains incentives for sportdivers

and salvers to continue searching for historic shipwrecks. It would also guarantee salvers “reasonable compensation’ for work undertaken u rider

its terms.

The important additional attention to submerged

prehistoric and historic cultural resources that

passage of the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act implies may require the National Park Service and

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to increase their funding and other support of submerged cultural resources activities.

Congressional oversight may be necessary to

guarantee that such requirements are met.

Protection of Prehistoric and Historic

Cultural Resources

Looting and vandalism are serious threats to

the management and conservation of prehistoric

and historic cultural resources. The activities of

looters are particularly damaging to prehistoric

sites because they destroy important and valuable scientific information. Painting graffiti, breaking windows, destroying shrubs, and other acts

of vandalism reduce the value of historic structures and landscapes and make them much less

attractive to visitors. Advanced monitoring and

observation devices may aid the law enforcement

process. However, they cannot substitute for the

presence of trained officers in the field. Adaptive reuse of cultural resources imparts a natural

element of protection by giving them value beyond their historic value.

The high value placed on some items in national and international markets and the lack of

consistent law enforcement in dealing with illicit

excavation on public lands and trafficking in stolen artifacts, make protection of sites and structures as well as prosecution for illegal activities

extremely difficult. Professional thieves are technologically well-equipped and motivated by

strong economic incentives to continue their

activities. In addition to employing trained personnel and applying appropriate technologies,

the United States needs to improve the enforcement of its policies for dealing with illicit excavation and trafficking in stolen artifacts. Congressional oversight of the implementation of

existing legislation may be necessary to encourage such enforcement.

Recent technological advances could enable

relatively easy registration and coding of artifacts

for sale. To assist in stemming the illegal loss of

irreplaceable artifacts from public lands, and the

concomitant damage that looting causes, it may

be appropriate to amend the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and other statutes to permit private registration of antiquities

obtained in the course of archaeological excavations, conducted by trained archaeologists on
16 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic preservation

private land. Registration would make it easier

for law enforcement officials to obtain convictions

for illegal sale of unregistered artifacts taken from

public lands, by shifting the burden of proof that

the artifact was dug on private land from the government to its owner. To be most effective, registration should include sufficient information

about the artifact to allow the owner to understand its archaeological origins and connection

to the prehistoric peoples from which it derives.

Registration of scientifically excavated artifacts

is likely to enhance the value of registered artifacts

relative to unregistered ones. Such increase in

value might provide economic incentives for private landowners to have their sites properly excavated and recorded, rather than dug solely for

their marketable artifacts. Registration might also

assist in educating landowners to the scientific

value of using the best possible excavation methods. However, sale of artifacts from excavations

would have the disadvantage of dispersing some

collections, rendering them less available for

restudy.

The Convention on Cultural Property implementation Act17 prohibits importation of stolen

cultural property that is documented as belongI TPublic Law 97-446.

ing to the inventory of a public monument, museum, or similar institution in a State party to the

UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and

Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.18 It

also restricts archaeological or ethnological materials from other countries upon request and

subsequent agreement by the United States.

However, it is just being implemented and further experience will be needed to test its efficacy

in stemming the international flow of cultural

property.

U.S. law does not protect against export of irreplaceable items of U.S. cultural history from the

United States to other countries. The UNESCO

Convention encourages each State party to register cultural property19 for the purposes of controlling import into other countries. As experience

is gained with implementing the Convention on

Cultural Property Implementation Act, it may

be appropriate for the United States to explore

ways in which the registration of artifacts suggested above could be expanded to other prehistoric and historic cultural property for international trade.

I aFifty.eight countries have signed the UNESCO Convention.

lqsee a~icles 6 and 10 of the UNESCO Convention on the Means

of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

THE PRESERVATION PROCESS

The process of sound cultural resource research

and management is extremely complex and involves individuals from a variety of disciplines.

It can be divided into the following components,

which are not necessarily listed in order of application:

. discovery (identification and survey);

● recording and measurement;

● analysis and evaluation;

● restoration, conservation, and maintenance;

● protection from catastrophic losses;

● data and information storage and retrieval;

and

● public education and involvement.

These components make use of a broad array

of rudimentary, as well as sophisticated, technologies. Many new technologies promise to enhance the process of prehistoric and historic preservation. However, they must be appropriate to

the task to which they are applied. In some cases,

traditional methods (so-called low-tech solutions)

may be the most appropriate and cost-effective.

Discovery

Archival investigation is an important first step

in the discovery phase of the preservation process. Before beginning actual fieldwork, archival

materials and oral histories related to the project

should be collected and studied. They are especially helpful in focusing the research problem

and aiding creation of a detailed research plan.

Efficient data management systems are needed
Ch. I—Summary ● 1 7
[page omitted]

This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.

The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.
for archival investigation. These include subjectaccessible keyword systems and finding aids that

relate to the geographic location of sites. Careful notation of the field survey and inventory data

for later use and archival storage requires the design of collection forms that can be easily read

by automated information systems.20

Remote sensing techniques using both aircraft

and spacecraft, as well as close-range sensors, appear to offer great promise in extending our ability

to discover, characterize, and study archaeological sites and historic landscapes. Yet, high costs

of equipment and lack of familiarity with remote

sensing techniques have inhibited their use i n archaeology and landscape studies. Although remote sensing techniques are little used in identifying historic structures, they can improve our

understanding of the significance of these structures by revealing new contextual information.

Geographic information systems and predictive

modeling methods are also finding utiIity for survey and identification of archaeological sites and

landscapes. Ultimately, locational predictive

modeling techniques, analytical tools for predict-

 the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation 

has devised a sites and structures form, which can be read efficiently

by an optical character reader.

Ch. l—Summary ● 1 9

ing the distribution of archaeologically significant

material across large regions, are likely to prove

powerful aids for research and management of

cultural resources, especially in the vast public

lands of the Southwest and West. However, such

models need considerable refinement, and may

never reduce the overall costs of surveying and

identifying archaeological sites.

Underwater archaeology depends primarily on

technologies borrowed from the oil and gas exploration industry. The costs of using such survey technologies as side-scan sonar, sub-bottom

profilers, remotely operated vehicles, and precision positioning systems are likely to remain extremely high. However, the data for initial surveys in shallow coastal waters may be available

from the exploration firms and the Minerals Management Service at extremely low cost. Magnetometry, the most widely used of underwater

locational technologies is less costly, but responds

only to ferrous material. Using airborne magnetometers would reduce the costs of surveys by

allowing rapid coverage of large areas of water.

Video technology, because it is relatively simple and inexpensive to use has broad applications

for survey and identification, can store vast

amounts of information about the context of hisRadar Image of Death Valley, California

Photo credit: Jet Propulsion Laboratory and National Aeronautics and Space Administration

A variety of geologic features can be seen in this radar image acquired by the Shuttle Imaging Radar-B carried aboard

the space shuttle, Oct. 11, 1984.
20 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

toric structures, and is capable of imparting a

sense of presence, place, and context that individual photographs cannot. It has also found considerable use in underwater archaeology, for survey and interpretation of submerged resources

to the public.

During the last two decades, significant strides

have been made in the drive to recognize significant landscapes. However, only within the last

year have landscapes been incorporated within

the significance categories for the National Register of Historic Places.21 Such an omission has

constituted a major barrier to nominating landscapes to the Register.

Recording and Measurement

Photogrammetric stereo recording of archaeological sites, historic buildings, and landscapes

is underutilized in the United States, in large part

because of a lack of appreciation of its benefits

ZISee j. Timothy Keller and Genevieve P. Keller, “How TO Evaluate

and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, ” Bulletin #18, National Park Service, 1986. This document represents the first attempt

within the U.S. preservation movement formally to signify the importance of landscapes to the U.S. cultural heritage. The preservation of cultural landscapes has also received relatively little attention. See Robert z. Melnick, Cu/tura/ Landscapes: Rural Historic

Districts Within the National Park Service (Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984).

Photo credit: Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service

Stereo photogrammetry in Rome

in heightened accuracy and speed of execution,

as well as the requirement for trained staff and

specialized equipment. Recent advances in computer software, brought about by extensive research on remote sensing from aircraft and spacecraft, coupled with relatively inexpensive image

digitizers, promise to lower costs dramatically.

Stereo photogrammetric techniques are also being applied to documenting submerged cultural

resources.

Excavation is necessarily destructive. There is

therefore a strong need to improve the quantity

and quality of archaeological data recording. It

is also important to refine the techniques for locating the most suitable sites for excavation.

Many experts feel that archaeologists need to

excavate less and record sites more carefully.

They might also benefit from standardizing the

process of gathering data so there is less onsite

analysis. Microanalytic soil and plant techniques

have improved dramatically in the past decade.

in addition to storing records and artifacts, archaeologists would benefit from saving soil samples, corings, and excavation profiles for future

reanalysis of sites when techniques have improved still further.

Underwater archaeologists need greater access

to the dramatically improved deepwater remotely

operated exploratory vessels developed for the

U.S. Navy, and the oil, gas, and mineral industries. Because submerged wooden vessels, the

largest of all artifacts, are extremely fragile, they

would also benefit from the development of technologies that would enable shipwrecks to be examined and their contents excavated with minimal disturbance to the structures themselves.

The detailed examination of the surfaces of

historic structures benefits immeasurably by using

infrared and ultraviolet techniques. X-ray and

neutron-gamma ray devices make possible the

nondestructive examination of internal or hidden

structural details.

Optical disk technology allows the storage and

retrieval of diverse kinds of information on all

preservation issues. Photographs, videos, test resuIts, field notes, and other kinds of information

can be stored together in one place to facilitate

access.
Ch. l–Summary ● 2 1

Analysis and Evaluation

Accurate dating of archaeological materials

plays an important part in understanding prehistoric cultures. The several dating techniques

developed for archaeology are excellent examples

of the transfer of technology from the natural sciences into archaeology. Traditional radiocarbon

dating techniques, which were developed by

chemists, have proved powerful tools for determining the ages of organic material. However,

because many of the artifacts archaeologists wish

to date are extremely small, they are limited by

the amount of the sample (about a gram) needed

compared to the size and mass of the artifacts.

Recent advances in radiocarbon dating yield acceptable results with samples 1,000 to 1 million

times smaller. Other advances in dating techniques, such as archaeomagnetic dating, which

was developed by geophysicists and depends on

measuring changes in the Earth’s magnetic field

over time, have dramatically extended the

archaeologists’ ability to date archaeological

remains.

Archaeologists have usefully applied the analytical techniques derived from soil science and

geomorphology for many years. Techniques derived from the earth sciences have much to contribute to the management of archaeological sites

and historic landscapes. Continued improvements

i n such techniques will be important i n assisting

the research of archaeologists and landscape historians.

Landscapes are subtle and constantly changing as a result of both natural and human processes. Computer modeling and remote sensing

techniques provide a powerful set of techniques

for the analysis and evaluation of large-scale landscapes. Analysis of landscapes requires understanding of plant types and plant variations. For

historic gardens, the identification and retrieval

of historic plant types is particularly important.

There is a strong need to develop databases on

the types of plantings used historically. Such databases will also depend on maintaining archives

on the types of plants used historically in the

United States.

Even though historic structures were built in

stages and are composed of many different subsystems, they nevertheless function as a total interdependent system. It is essential to analyze

their performance as a whole, rather than a sum

of independent component parts. Architects

must be trained correctly to analyze and predict

the behavior of structural elements over time in

different environmental conditions. Structures

also exist as part of a total landscape and should

be analyzed within that context rather than being

considered independent of their surroundings.

Considerably more progress is needed in nondestructive assessment of structural condition.

X-ray and gamma-ray devices can locate hidden

features of structures. They can also be used to

determine and diagnose moisture and deterioration of structural elements.

Restoration, Conservation,

and Maintenance

Regular, periodic maintenance plays a crucial

part in conserving prehistoric and historic sites,

structures, and landscapes and enhances their

value. Yet relatively little attention has been

given to training for maintenance or applying

technology to improving maintenance management. Long-range management is especially important. Expert systems and optical disk technology can vastly improve the delivery of quality

training in restoration, repair, and maintenance.

Craftspeople skilled in restoration techniques

should be made part of the decision making process for restoration, conservation, and maintenance.

Proper cyclic maintenance for sites, structures,

and landscapes includes a thorough understanding of both traditional and advanced techniques.

Materials recovered from submerged sites pose

particularly difficult conservation problems. They

become highly vulnerable to the process of decomposition almost immediately after being removed

from the water, and require perpetual, not just

cyclic, attention.

Because local residents often have a major

stake in the subsequent use of a preservation

project, they should be consulted during the analysis of sites, structures, or landscapes prior to

restoration. A variety of analytic interview techniques speed this process and make it more ac-
22 ● Technologies for prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Structural Damage

,

Photo credits: Preservation Ass/stance Division, National Park Service

Upper photo, brownstone deterioration as a result

of splashback from traffic on stairs. Lower photo,

ice damage to stone.

curate. It is also important to gather and store interview materials properly in archives so they may

be used effectively.

participants in this assessment noted that many

contemporary buildings reflect inadequate knowledge of materials and construction methods.

They could become the preservation problems

of the future. It is important to give more attention both to understanding materials and developing standards for construction. Information that

is collected in the investigation of historic building materials may be extremely useful for refining current building techniques and developing

proper maintenance plans. In particular, reinforced concrete, one of the most common of

building materials, is failing in both modern and

historic structures because its behavior has not

been well understood. Reinforced concrete constitutes a growing and burdensome conservation

problem for the future. Effective conservation

treatments should be found and that information

widely shared.

Environmental stresses on historic structures

have increased markedly in the last century.

Technologies for conserving historic structures

against rapidly accelerating degradation by chemicals and water in the atmosphere and soil are

needed.

In an effort to reduce costs, or meet local building codes, substitute materials are often employed in restoring historic structures. The behavior of these substitute materials also requires

detailed analysis before they are used in order

to assure that they will last and will be compatible with the original materials and appropriate

to the structure.

The Federal effort at stabilizing and conserving prehistoric and historic sites and structures

suffers from lack of agency coordination. Considerably more research needs to be done, for

example, on technologies for site monitoring, and

the stabilization of adobe, stone, and wood.

The conservation of prehistoric and historic

rock art22 has received very little attention from

 rock painting and rock carving, incising, and pecking 
Ch. l—Summary Ž 23

Federal agencies. Because of the importance of

rock art to understanding prehistoric Native

American culture, a focused effort to develop

appropriate conservation technologies is very

important. Conservation of rock art is also important to many contemporary Native Americans

as it is part of their cultural heritage.

As a result of the multitude of stresses that the

urbanization of the United States places on the

natural environment, it is more important than

ever to identify and manage significant prehistoric

and historic landscapes. The United States is losing significant numbers of historic plant species.

In order to reduce such losses, and make it possible to restore historic gardens accurately, it

may be necessary to establish arboretums to

conserve and propagate historic plant species.

Arboretums, such as the one at Jefferson’s home,

Monticello, and many historic gardens, could also

play an important role in maintaining the diversity of plant species.

Records that document the maintenance and

preservation of sites, structures, or landscapes can

be used to make informed decisions about which

technologies will work best and be most costeffective. Yet such important documents are often

not retained because they are considered unimportant as “housekeeping” information.

Protection From Catastrophic Losses

Prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and

landscapes are subject to a variety of catastrophic

losses, including fire, earthquake, looting, and

vandalism. Under certain circumstances, technologies for the detection and surveillance of

intruders and potential arsonists or vandals can

enhance the protection of cultural resources.

However, the costs of such technologies are extremely high. In addition, patrols by trained law

enforcement officials are also necessary. Urban,

rural, and underwater environments require different approaches to law enforcement. Public

educational and other reguIar and constant uses

of historic properties can contribute to their protection by ensuring that people are often present

at times of high potential risk.

Cultural resources on Federal lands belong to

the Nation and are held in trust by Federal agencies for the benefit and enjoyment of al I citizens.

Increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement

for the protection of cultural resources on Federal lands will require better coordination among

Federal agencies for training and sharing of information.

Methods for protecting historic structures located within earthquake zones, particularly in cities, has begun and should continue. However,

historic structures are more frequently lost from

neglect than from catastrophic events. Some are

deliberately destroyed by their owners because

they have little notion of why they should be

preserved.

Historic structures are particularly vulnerable

to arson and intrusion. Devices designed to monitor for fire and intrusion must be simple to operate and maintain. Those that can be operated and

understood only by trained experts may do more

harm than good if they malfunction or create a

false sense of security.

Preservation Information

Efficient access to information remains one

of the greatest impediments to effective management of cultural resources. New means of

recording, storing, retrieving, and manipulating

data and information promise to improve dramatically our ability to identify and preserve significant prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and

landscapes. The most consequential advances are

expected from the application of optical disk

technology in various forms, which will allow the

storage and retrieval of prints, photographs, and

video as well as text. Optical character readers

for translating text to machine readable format

will improve preservationists’ ability to create

databases and enhance the flow of information.

However, making effective use of such technologies will require the development of standardized formats for data collection and recording.

Improved coordination within the preservation

community could assist the development of such

standards.

Participants in this study expressed considerable concern about the long-term stability and

storage quality of new data and information media and equipment. It will be essential to con-
Z4 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Photo credit: Jack Boucher, National Park Service

Carson House, Eureka, California
Ch. l—Summary Ž 25

tinue to study the longevity of such media and

equipment and to develop systems that are evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, in order to

reduce the costs and disruption to records that

abrupt technological shifts might cause.

Public Education

Public education and interpretation are among

the most effective means of preserving prehistoric

and historic sites, structures, and landscapes for

future generations to enjoy. Long-term storage issues aside, creative use of video and interactive

optical disk technologies can significantly enhance

the quality of preservation education and interpretation. Electronic media make possible public involvement with the educational materials

because they allow direct interaction with the

media. Programs on optical disks, especially,

couId encourage viewers to select different paths

of information and to individualize their educational experience.

Many people are simply not aware of the threat

that vandalism and looting pose for this country’s

cultural resources. Improved education concerning the benefits of preserving our cultural resources would enhance efforts to protect them.

The Federal Government should take a leading

role in educating citizens about the loss of U.S.

cultural resources and what they can do to help

preserve them. It should also demonstrate strong

management policies with respect to the properties it oversees.

Museums are a major source of public education about U.S. cultural resources. Yet they often

fail to inform the public adequately on the need

to preserve prehistoric and historic cultural resources. They should be encouraged to provide

better education concerning the threats to cultural resources in the United States and abroad.

This may require modest amounts of additional

funding for museums.

Techniques that allow the public to observe

safely the course of an excavation or restoration

add significantly to its understanding and sympathy for the goals of prehistoric and historic preservation. The process itself then functions as an

educational tool.

Historians can provide the broad historical context needed for interpreting the past. Historians,

particularly those involved in public history

studies and programs, shouId be involved in the

interpretation process from its beginning through

production of the end product or performance.

Chapter 2

Background
Contents

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Preparation of This Report .....,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Technologies for Preserving Archaeological Sites and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation . . . . . . 31

Technologies for Preserving Historic Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Technologies for Preserving Planned Landscapes and Other Outdoor Sites . . 33

Technologies for the Physical Protection of Prehistoric and Historic Sites . . . . 34

Common Preservation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A Centralized Conservation

Organization of the Report

The Chapters . . . . . . . . . .

Table No.

Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Tables

Page

2. Representative Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3. Representative Disciplines Participating in Prehistoric and

Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. Areas of Significance and Activity Represented by Historic Structures . . . . . . 33
Chapter 2

Background

INTRODUCTION

In recognition of the growing importance of

preserving our prehistoric and historic heritage,

over the last 80 years Congress has enacted a variety of laws to protect and preserve U.S. cultural

resources. These laws include, among others, The

Antiquities Act of 1906,1 The Historic Sites Act

of 1935,2 The National Historic Preservation Act

of 1966, as amended in 1980,3 The Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974,4 and

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of

1979.5 The ability of Federal agencies to carry out

provisions of these laws rests increasingly on discovering and using cost-effective advanced techniques, methods, and equipment for prehistoric

and historic preservation.6

Nearly every congressional district contains federally managed prehistoric and historic structures,

landscapes, and archaeological sites. This assessment was requested by the House Committee on

Interior and Insular Affairs to assist the Committee’s legislative authorization and oversight of

Federal preservation efforts.7 The Subcommittee

on Public Lands has initiated a major oversight

review of the national historic preservation program. The results of this assessment should support the Subcommittee’s efforts to review how

‘ Public Law 59-209; Stat. 335; 16 U.S.C. 431-433.

‘Public Law 74-292; 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S. C. 641-467.

JPublic Law 89-665; 810 Stat. 915; 16 U.S. C. 470.

qPublic Law 93-291; 88 Stat. 174.

SPublic Law 96-95; 93 Stat. 712; 16 U.S. C. 470.

%ee U.S. Department of the Interior, “The Resource Protection

Planning Process,” Preservation Planning Series, September 1980,

for concepts that define historic preservation.

7“The physical remains of our heritage, both prehistoric and

historic, are unique, non-renewable resources. It may be that new

methods and technologies, including some of those developed in

the space program and other high technology endeavors, could

be put to use to help us better understand and manage these resources and the information they can provide us. Accordingly, we

ask that the Office of Technology Assessment undertake a study

of technologies for the identification, recordation, interpretation,

protection and management of prehistoric and historic sites.” From

the requesting letter, Sept. 10, 1985, signed by Morris K. Udall,

Chairman, Don Young, Ranking Republican Member, John F.

Seiberling, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, and Ron

Marlenee, Subcommittee Ranking Republican Member.

the use of technology, including methods and

techniques, as well as tools and equipment, can

assist historic preservation. I n this report, preservation technology refers broadly to any equipment, methods, and techniques that can be applied to the location, analysis, interpretation,

management, conservation, and protection of

prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and

landscapes.

In order for preservation professionals and the

general public to appreciate and learn from the

record of past human behavior, these cuItural resources must be preserved for both the present

and the future. As the National Historic Preservation Act notes:

. . . the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital

legacy of cultural, educational, esthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be

maintained and enriched for future generations

of Americans.8

Yet, in recent years the stresses on cultural resources have increased dramatically. The identification of such stresses and the desire to limit

their deleterious effects has led to an increased

interest in the development of technologies for

prehistoric and historic preservation.

This report provides an overview of preservation technologies. It also assesses a variety of

policy options related to the use of these technologies and suggests improvements in implementing current policy. More specifically, the report: 1) identifies and discusses effective current

technologies for prehistoric and historic preservation; 2) evaluates promising new technologies

that could be applied; and 3) suggests areas for

research and development. The report also identifies and assesses nontechnical constraints on the

use of technologies. Finally, it explores the use

of preservation technology in other countries.

8National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Sec.

1 (b) (Purpose of the Act), para. 4.

2 9
30 ● Technologies for prehistoric and Historic Preservation

The assessment focused on technologies for:

1 ) locating, identifying, surveying, and analyzing

prehistoric and historic structures, sites, and landscapes; and 2) conserving and protecting them.

It does not address the preservation of paintings,

books, and other artifacts, except insofar as techPREPARATION

In order to identify and refine the many preservation issues discussed in this report, OTA convened a series of five workshops, held at OTA

between December 1985 and April 1986. For

each workshop, OTA selected participants from

government, academia, and private enterprise

with a broad range of expertise in the use of preservation techniques, and experience in public

policy. Observers from a variety of Federal agencies and public and professional interest groups

also attended and contributed to the discussion.

Each workshop identified and examined preservation technologies appropriate to the specific

subject under discussion, and discussed impediments to their effective use, Workshop participants developed and discussed a long list of issues

related to the use of technologies for prehistoric

and historic preservation. They also examined

how Federal, State, and local agencies, the universities, and the private sector use preservation

technologies, and suggested a variety of options

for improving historic preservation policy and implementation.

Technologies for Preserving

Archaeological Sites and Structures

Many U.S. prehistoric and historic cultural resources in the United States are buried or submerged. This workshop identified and examined

technologies for locating, recording, analyzing,

and preserving archaeological sites. It dealt only

briefly with underwater archaeology.

Archaeology is the scientific study of structures,

artifacts, and other material remains of earlier

peoples, and of the ways in which they adjusted

to their environments and modified the landscape. The results of such studies enable arnologies used for their preservation are applicable to structures, sites, and landscapes. The

assessment also considers technologies for storing, sharing, and retrieving historic preservation

information.

OF THIS REPORT

chaeologists to draw inferences about past human activities and behavior. In the Americas,

prehistoric archaeology refers to the study of cultural materials from native peoples who inhabited

these continents prior to about A.D. 1500.9

Historic archaeology treats materials of peoples

who have lived in the historic period, for whom

written records also exist.

Although curiosity with regard to the practices

of other cultures plays a strong motivating part

in the discipline of archaeology, the opportunity

to broaden our understanding of how people

have responded to the challenge of wresting a

living from the Earth is also important. Both prehistoric and historic archaeology share the goals

of locating, analyzing, and protecting cultural material. Sites, or loci of concentrated human activity,10 which are the focus of much archaeological research, may range from a simple surface

scatter of stone tools and toolmaking remains to

a complex of wood and stone structures covering many acres (table 2). They may be found on

the surface, partially covered by earth or water,

or entirely buried or submerged. All sites include,

as an important part of their makeup and meaning, some portion of the surrounding landscape.

9The precise delineation between prehistoric and historic periods

varies depending on the region under consideration.

IOSome archaeologists have argued that because the boundaries

of any given site are arbitrary, and that the definition of a site depends on regional analysis, the site concept is deficient as a research

and management tool. See, for example, R.C. Dunnell and William S. Dancy, “The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy,” Advances in Archaeo/ogica/ Method and Theory, vol. No. 5, Michael B. Schiffer (cd.) (New York: Academic Press,

1983), pp. 267-287. Although OTA recognizes the term’s limitations in adequately reflecting the object of archaeological research,

OTA nevertheless uses it for this study in the absence of a more

precise and generally accepted term.
Ch. 2—Background Ž 31

Table 2.—Representative Prehistoric and Historic

Archaeological Sites

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

agricultural terraces, canals, and raised field systems

battlegrounds

boats

burials

causeways

cities

dwellings

farm steads

fences and stone walls

field houses

footpaths

gardens

hunting blinds

hunting camps

kill sites

Iithic scatters

manufacturing sites

mills

mounds and earthworks

plant processing sites

quarries

ritual structures

roadways

rock art sites

ships

stone alignments and forms

stone fences, corrals, fishweirs

submerged villages

trash dumps

villages and towns

water control features

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.

Archaeological research and preservation are

extremely complex and involve individuals from

a variety of disciplines (table 3). They are also

highly labor-intensive. Much archaeological research involves excavation in which scores of

laborers are required to dig, sift, examine, and

collect a variety of cultural and environmental

remains. Archaeological analyses require the curation, storage, and handling of many kinds of

information and artifacts, as well as consideration of many different ecological and cultural

variables.

Prior to proceeding with fieldwork, archaeologists must develop a research rationale and plan

appropriate to the archaeological resources under investigation. Archaeologists depend on the

development of technologies that simplify the

process of gathering and processing data and improve the quality of archaeological information.

Such developments are especially welcome if

they lead to lower costs.

Table 3.—Representative Disciplines Participating in

Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

anthropology

archaeology

architectural history

architecture

art history

astronomy

biology (including

palynology)

botany

chemistry

climatology

ecology

engineering

●

●

●

●

b

●

b

●

●

●

●

b

●

geography

geology

geomorphology

geophysics

history

hydrology

land planning

landscape architecture

maritime history

materials science

physics

volcanology

zoology

folklore

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986

Archaeologists have a strong interest as well as

a responsibility to preserve sites even after they

have been excavated, as archaeological data still

remain in the architecture and in the cultural deposits not excavated in the site.11 In addition, considerable information may exist in the site

which extraction techniques have not been

veloped. 12

Technologies for Underwater

Archaeology and Maritime

Preservation

for

deBecause the technologies for locating, surveying, analyzing, and protecting submerged cultural

resources differ substantially from those used on

land-based archaeological sites, OTA convened

a separate workshop to consider them. This workshop discussed the special problems related to

underwater archaeology and maritime preservation.

The specialty of underwater archaeology has

developed in the last three decades and still has

relatively few qualified practitioners. ’ 3 The study

1 IAS a result of the expense of excavation, as well as the desire

to preserve as much information as possible for future archaeologists to study, few sites are ever totally excavated (see Chapter 3:

Research, for further discussion of this point).

llFor example, archaeomagnetic dating techniques (see Chapfer 3: Research) were not developed until the 197os. Yet many sites

excavated before the 197os could yield additional information by

using such techniques on them today,

13Before the 1960s, less than a dozen scientists were engaged i n

underwater archaeological activities anywhere. Even 10 years ago

only two dozen archeologists directed their research toward submerged cultural resources in the United States.
32 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

of underwater prehistoric and historic cultural

materials is possible in large part because a variety of advanced technologies have been brought

to bear on the identification, recovery, analysis,

and conservation of these important remnants of

U.S. heritage. Such resources may include not

only shipwrecks and their contents, but also inundated villages, towns, even cities, farms, warehouses, piers, and wells. They may also include

sites that were once submerged, but are now located under dry land after a change in the course

of a river channel, or those incorporated within

landfill extensions. As one archaeologist, who

specializes in studying submerged cultural resources has put it:

. . . archeological theory and philosophy encompass all cultural remains wherever they may

be found, including material covered by water.

The only difference between an underwater site

and a site in any other environment is the techniques and methods required to investigate that

site. 14

Submerged and maritime resources constitute

a significant part of the Nation’s cultural diversity. Yet, the destruction of submerged cultural

resources has intensified dramatically as a result

of increased offshore drilling for oil and gas,

dredging, pipeline laying, looting, and salvaging.

Various water projects such as reservoir and dam

building have inundated dry land and buried

many other cultural resources, Until recently,

however, submerged and maritime resources

have been largely neglected by both government

and the historic preservation community.

Technologies for Preserving

Historic Structures

An important part of the historical record of the

United States consists of structures (the so-called

“built environment”). This workshop discussed

a variety of technologies that are used for the

identification, physical analysis, interpretation,

and protection of historic structures. Among

other things, the workshop discussion focused on

preservation techniques related to cyclical main-

“’’lntroduction” Underwater Archeology in the National Park

Service, Daniel Lenihan (cd.) (Santa Fe, NM: Division of Archeology, Southwest Region, 1974), p. 1.

tenance of historic structures and determination

of the causes and extent of materials failures.

Historic structures, which include houses, public buildings, bridges, monuments, as well as

others represent to the general public the most

obvious and important tangible reminders of the

diversity and richness of the country’s cultural

heritage.15 The U.S. historic preservation movement began over 100 years ago, when a group

of private citizens, the Mount Vernon Ladies’

Association of the Union, led by Anne Pamela

Cunningham, recognized that the Virginia home

of George Washington constituted a national

historic treasure. The association worked to acquire the property when neither the State nor

Federal governments would accept the responsibility of caring for it. The association still holds

stewardship over Mount Vernon and has prevented encroachment on the grounds and surrounding lands by purchasing real estate, and securing easements from nearby property owners.16

The National Historic Preservation Act, “encourages the public and private preservation and

utilization of all usable elements of the Nation’s

historic built environment,” not only buildings

that have belonged to men and women significant in U.S. history. In 1976, the first of a variety

of tax incentives to encourage the rehabilitation

of qualified historic structures became available,

all of which have been highly effective in promoting the goal of preserving historic structures.17

Because the number of both privately and publicly owned structures actually designated as

historic and listed on the National Register of

Historic Places individually or as elements of

listed historic districts is ever increasing, the scope

of the technical problems associated with restor-

‘

5

” A structure is a work made up of interdependent and interrelated parts in a definite pattern of organization. Generally constructed by man, it is often an engineering project. ” How To Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC:

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, June 1982).

16Albefi Rains, Chairman, and Laurence G. Henderson, Dir ec -

tor, With Heritage So Rich (A Report of a Special Committee on

Historic Preservation Under the Auspices of the United States Conference of Mayors With a Grant From the Ford Foundation) (New

York: Random House, 1966).

I Zsee u ,s. Congress, General Accounting Office, Fact sheet for

the Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee on interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Tax Policy and

Administration, Historic Preservation Tax Incentives, August 1986.
Ch. 2—Background Ž 33

ing and rehabilitating them becomes ever more

challenging. in the absence of regular maintenance, which is ultimately the best and most economic approach to saving historic structures, only

a limited range of often expensive treatments and

singular skills are available. New conservation

techniques and products must undergo careful

testing and evaluation before being applied.

Table 4 represents areas of significance and

activity used by the National Register of Historic

Places. These areas of significance reflect a range

of historical contexts within which the Nation’s

development can be understood and the historical value of prehistoric sites, structures, and landscapes can be established.

Technologies for Preserving Planned

Landscapes and Other Outdoor Sites

Landscapes, whether in the form of highly

structured designed landscapes such as parks and

gardens, or less well-defined “cultural landscapes,” such as historic farms or prehistoric

shaped earthworks,18 are an important part of

U.S. cultural heritage. In order to focus attention

on the technologies for preserving landscapes,

this workshop primarily examined technologies

associated with the preservation of planned landscapes. However, it also discussed technologies

for the preservation of cultural landscapes and

rock art sites.

— — 113 For example, see the overview of prehistoric earthworks presented In William N. Morgan, Prehistoric Architecture in tlte Eastern Urrite~ States (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980).

Table 4.—Areas of Significance and Activity

Represented by Historic Structures

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

agriculture ●

archeology ●

architecture ●

art ●

commerce

communications ●

community planning and ●

development ●

economics ●

education ●

engineering/technology ●

entertainment/recreation ●

environment ●

ethnic heritage ●

exploration/settlement ●

health/medicine

industry

invention

landscape architecture/

horticulture

law

literature

military

performing arts/theater

philosophy

politics/government

religion

science

social history

transportation

SOURCE: US. Department of Interior, National Park Service, “How To Apply the

National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” Washington, DC, 1984

The landscape preservation effort is relatively

new.19 The historic preservation movement has

established and refined methodologies for preserving structures and archaeological sites over

the past 50 years and has only recently begun

to turn its full attention to landscapes.20 The term

“landscape” does not even appear in the categories of sites that are eligible for nomination to

the National Register of Historic Places.21

Landscapes have a profound effect on our lives.

Throughout human history, societies have both

affected and been affected by their physical surroundings.22 The result of such interactions is a

landscape. Although different landscapes exhibit

distinct characteristics, because landscapes may

lack clear boundaries and include structures and

sites as well as natural components, landscape

values may be elusive, making precise and standard definitions difficuIt to achieve i n practice .23

Establishing a progression of landscape types

based on the scale of intentional human intervention can assist in developing common definitions. At one end of such a scale is the wilderness, where natural processes predominate, In

a wilderness landscape, human activities certainly

exist, but they do not appreciably modify the

IgSee the discussion in W. H. Tlshler, “The Landscape: An Emergi ng Historic Preservation Resource, The Associaf/orr for Preservation Technology Bu//etin 11, No. 4, 1979, pp. 9-26,

Zosee UNESCO, 1‘Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites. Adopted

by the General Conference at its 12th session, Paris, Dec. 11, 1962,

for a relatively early attempt to define landscape preservation values.

Zlsee ). Timothy Keller ancf Genevieve P. Keller, “HOW l_o Evaluate

and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, ” Nationa/ Register

ofllistoric P/aces Bu//etin 18 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, in draft), for a discussion of

types of designed landscapes.

Zzsee the discussion in H irostli Daifuku, ‘‘1 ntroduction, The ManMade Landscape (Switzerland: UNESCO, 1977).

zJpa~ of the difficulty in defining the term is illustrated in the following: In general parlance, we use landscape in the broadest sense

to mean environment (including both natural forms and those

achieved by art). However, landscapes are often considered simply the ambiance of buildings, as when we speak of “landscaping

a building.” In that sense, landscapes then become equivalent to

nature, in spite of the fact that in order to achieve such a landscape, the natural forms must be molded to a plan. For example,

in the eyes of some observers, President Jefferson’s home, Monticello, is a landscape of which the central buildlng is the most important part. Others consider only the form and structure of the

house and ignore its ambiance.
34 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

landscape.24 We might call the next stage in the

progression settlement patterns, as human manipulation of the earth becomes more obvious but

there is no conscious planning. As humans manipulate the land for particular purposes reflective

of their cultural values, such settlement patterns

merge into cultural landscapes. Characteristically,

the cultural landscape is the product of many

groups or individuals working interdependently

within a broad cultural context. Finally, the designed or p/anneal lanclscape,25 in which the scale

of manipulation of the earth is high, is a subset

of the cultural landscape that reflects the conceptual model of a single individual or small

group of individuals. All of these landscape types,

whether wilderness landscapes, cultural landscapes, or designed landscapes, mirror values of

the peoples who live within them.

241n ~o~t cases, it is not correct to talk about an untouched natural landscape. Even hunter/gatherer societies may have deliberately burned the grasses, and otherwise altered the landscape over

time. For example, see Clive Gamble, “The Artificial Wilderness, ”

New Scientist, Apr. 10, 1986, pp. 50-54.

ZSBecause designed landscapes are generally thought of as deriving from a high art tradition, certain historical vernacular landscapes

might be overlooked or considered of less historical importance

than, for example, formal gardens. However, folk traditions are design traditions that involve master builders and sophisticated learning

and wisdom. lt is therefore extremely difficult to separate vernacular

landscapes from design intention and from planning.

Technologies for the Physical

Protection of Prehistoric

and Historic Sites

This workshop identified the various human

and natural threats to cultural resources and discussed a range of technologies that could be used

to mitigate or eliminate them. A major component of this workshop dealt with the educational

programs and technologies for alerting the public to those threats and to the importance of

historic preservation. The workshop also explored impediments to effective utilization of

technologies for assuring the physical security of

structures, sites, and landscapes. Technologies related to the following categories were considered:

● problem identification and analysis,

● stress or threat evaluation and resolution,

● public education and interpretation, and

● data treatment and archives.

Following each workshop, OTA staff summarized the discussion, expanding, where possible,

on the points offered by participants. These were

then reviewed by workshop participants as well

as by others in the preservation community. The

final workshop reports became the basis for the

chapters that make up this report.

COMMON PRESERVATION ISSUES

During the first four workshops OTA concluded

that many of the issues raised are common to

historic preservation as a whole. The concluding fifth workshop on protection enlarged on

these common issues. This section presents and

analyzes such common issues.

Cultural resources are unique, nonrenewable

resources subject to continual stress from human

and natural agents. The recognition of the need

to limit such stresses and manage the cultural resources base, within the context of other competing uses for the land, has led to the development of a body of knowledge, practices, and

techniques called cultural resources management

(CRM).26 CRM is the process of preserving our

zbsee, William D. Lipe, “Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources,” Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, Henry Cleere

cultural heritage (sites, structures, artifacts,

records, landscapes) for the benefit of the American people through the application of management skills within the political process.27 it “is the

primary context within which most professional

or avocational archaeologists [and other preservation professionals] address the public nature

of the resources and their treatment. ”28

(cd.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 1-11, for

an exposition of the relationship of historic cultural resources to

human values.

27L. E. Wildesen, “Cultural Resource Management: A Personal

View, ” Practicing Anthropology 2(2), 1980, p. 10. For a general

discussion of cultural resources management, see Don D. Fowler,

“Cultural Resources Management, ” Advances in Archaeological

Method and Theory 5 (New York: Academic Press, 1982).

28 Ruthann Knudson, “Contemporary Cultural Resource Managemerit, ” American Archaeology Past and Future, D. Meltzer, D.

Fowler, and J, Sabloff (eds.) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press,

1986), p. 395.
Ch. 2—Background • 3 5

Prehistoric and historic preservation (and therefore CRM) rely increasingly on the application of

a wide variety of technologies, many of which

are discussed in chapters 3 through 6. Technologies can extend the scope of our understanding and care of U.S. cultural heritage by improving the quality, quantity, type, and usefulness

of data gathered. They can also improve the authenticity of restoration, and the long term effectiveness of conservation and maintenance.

The boundaries between the practice of archaeology and the preservation of historic structures

and landscapes are becoming increasingly less

distinct. Professionals in all these disciplines apply many of the same technologies to the study

and conservation of sites, structures, and landscapes. They should be aware of the assistance

each discipline can give to another. For example, it is impossible for the landscape architect

to reconstruct and rehabilitate with accuracy an

18th century formal garden without the professional assistance of archaeologists.29 Architects

can help archaeologists to understand some of

the choices prehistoric peoples made in the construction of houses and sacred buildings.30

A wide array of techniques and associated

equipment already exists for the discovery, analysis, and conservation of cultural resources. A

core of experienced professionals is also available. Yet a variety of educational, institutional,

managerial, and cost barriers inhibit the introduction of new methods, techniques, and equipment. Preservationists in all preservation disciplines share problems of obtaining access to

information about technologies, training, and

coordination of research on technologies. They

also share the constraints of inadequate and decreasing funding and Iack of coordinated implementation of Federal policy.

The following common issues identify and describe some of these barriers. OTA did not attempt to list the issues in priority order.

Zgpaul Brace, “Archeological Resources and Land Development:

A Guide To Assess Impact, ” Landscape Architecture Technical lnforrnation Series 5, No. 1, September 1984.

josee Ralpt-1 Knowles, Energy and Form (Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 1974), which discusses energy-related design choices prehistoric peoples have made, as revealed in the remains of their

buildings.

ISSUE 1:

Too few preservation practitioners and

managers who contract with them have sufficient experience with advanced technologies.

This stems from a variety of causes, principal

among which are the difficulty in obtaining reliable and accurate information about new techniques, the lack of educational programs to train

preservation practitioners in their use, and their

great expense. The complexity of some advanced

technologies means that most practitioners must

depend on the work of trained specialists.

For example, no project to restore a major

historic structure can proceed without the involvement and interaction of individuals from

several disciplines—architects, historians, structural engineers, and perhaps, chemists. No one

individual can acquire the necessary expertise to

tackle every task. Yet the project manager must

be knowledgeable enough about the techniques,

methods, and equipment used to make informed

decisions about their use. Acquiring such expertise requires additional training and accessible

sources of information. It is important for preservation professionals to keep abreast of the range

of increasingly more sophisticated technologies,

and who is using them.

Archaeologists and landscape architects share

similar problems obtaining and assimilating information on new technologies. In underwater

archaeology, the extremely high costs of acquiring and using appropriate new technologies have

severely limited the opportunities for their use in

the field. Training opportunities are therefore

limited as well.

Assimilating information on new technologies

requires appropriate education and training. New

technical information becomes available almost

constantly from science and industry. Yet, too few

preservationists have even minimal training in

natural science and engineering. Few training

programs or courses apparently offer either information or hands-on experience with technologies. Nevertheless, archaeologists, and historians

who specialize in the study of tangible cultural

resources and are charged with studying and interpreting a site, structure, or landscape should

have a general knowledge of the technologies,

and their capabilities and limitations.
36 ● Technologies for prehistoric and Historic Preservation

ISSUE 2:

Few standards exist for the use of some new

preservation techniques.

This is unavoidable in the research and testing stages of a new technique or instrument.

Once it becomes part of the repertoire, standards should be developed and promulgated. Even

those preservationists who are experienced in the

applications of new technologies have experienced difficulty tracking the rapid growth and

proliferation of some advanced techniques and

methods. Because there exists no national, central clearinghouse for critically evaluating historic

preservation technical information, and no institution, or group of institutions, specifically

charged with charting and sponsoring the research, development, testing, and use of advanced technologies, standards have often not

been set.

At present, because few standards exist for new

archaeological field methods, in some cases, research funds are not well used. In the preservation of historic structures, the lack of adequate

standards has led to occasional unfortunate experiences with some “high-tech” solutions to the

problems of restoring, rehabilitating, and maintaining such structures (see Chapter 4: Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection

for examples). Many of these approaches, developed to serve other fields, have proved ineffective and unsuitable for conservation. Until the results of applications made in the laboratory and

the field are assessed and available, many preservationists will for the most part remain wary of

new techniques.

In cases where the volume of product sales is

potentially large, for example, with techniques

for stabilizing and extending the life of wood,

stone, or other structural materials in wide use

throughout the United States, the marketplace

may serve to dictate the need for standards.

Nevertheless, even with growing private sector

interest, the preservation field would benefit from

an organization that would provide leadership for

the development of standards, and stimulate research into the behavior of new products or the

benefits and drawbacks of new techniques. Such

an organization would be most useful where the

overall market tends to be small, as with many

archaeological techniques.

ISSUE 3:

There is a strong need for better coordination

in the use of new technologies for preservation.

As noted, the basic analytical tools and a core

of professionals are available. However, there is

no existing permanent organization of national or

regional scope with the knowledge and resources

required to assemble a network of collaborators

and consultants prepared to tackle specific scientific problems associated with preservation.

Much of what is being accomplished is ad hoc

or piecemeal, often in the universities. Although

some preservation work is of excellent quality,

there is a lack of overall direction by Federal and

State agencies, as well as a lack of communication among research specialists and agency planners and managers,

Because prehistoric and historic preservation

involves many different disciplines and many

different agencies at all levels of government, coordination of preservation activities is often difficult. The agencies with primary responsibility

for leading preservation efforts have considerable

independence and relatively few incentives for

coordinating their activities directed toward developing new technologies or funding their use.

Even regional offices within the agencies have

great autonomy. Because agency staffs tend to

be small and underfunded, they have little incentive to increase their workload by coordinating

with other offices, as they view such initiatives

as difficult and time-consuming. Although such

autonomy does allow regional offices to tailor

programs to meet their own needs, lack of adequate coordination and information transfer can

result in lost opportunities to apply new and more

efficient techniques. Some agencies have greater

access to advanced technology and information

than others.31

JI For example, the Army historic preservation office has access

to highly capable mapping systems, not generally available in other

agencies.
Ch. 2—Background Ž 37

Better coordination among Federal and State

agencies would result in more effective technology transfer and application of technology. The

Federal grant awarding mechanism for supporting state historic preservation programs could be

used to further and enhance such coordination.

ISSUE 4:

New techniques are slow to become part of

preservation research planning and research

design.

New technologies, many of which provide new

categories of information,32 must be fully integrated into the data-gathering process. Difficulties of integration result in part from lack of training, but also from the rapid changes that take

place in some new technologies. For example,

the rapid changes in remote sensing technologies,

driven by the technology’s potential for mineral

exploration, forestry, and agriculture, are outstripping the ability of most preservationists to

keep up.

ISSUE 5:

The application of older, well-understood

technologies is often inadequate.

Although certain new technologies may lead

to advantages for preservation, too much emphasis on their use may divert effort from more effective use of traditional methods and tools. For

example, a variety of efficient, simplified techniques are available for organizing and storing

moderate amounts of records. Yet, regional Federal agency offices often maintain incomplete,

disorganized and unprotected document collections and inadequate archaeological site files, use

poor methods for curating collections, have not

adequately identified cultural resources, and do

not provide adequate protection for known sites,

even with more traditional methods.

~ZFor example, in archaeology, the information on an Cient Cllmate provided by analysis of stable carbon isotopes in wood, instead of the older, well-established technique of analyzing fossil

pollens, or data on celestial alignments provided by archaeoastronomy.

ISSUE 6:

Many traditional preservation methods will

continue to be useful, effective, and economical.

Participants in each of the OTA workshops emphasized that certain traditional technologies for

preserving historic structures will continue to be

useful, effective, and economical. For example,

periodic or cyclical maintenance still provides the

best line of defense against many kinds of threats.

in general, the more advanced, and often more

expensive, technologies are of high utility for the

discovery and documentation phases of preservation. These include nonintrusive and nondestructive methods such as remote sensing, and

infrared and X-ray analysis. Traditional technologies, including some truly historic methods, tend

to be more applicable to the restoration and conservation phases of the preservation process.

ISSUE 7:

In certain areas, technologies used by other

countries may represent significant advances

over U.S. practices.

Many other countries, particularly those of Europe, have long engaged in historic preservation

coordinated through ministries of culture, which,

whether regionally or nationally focused, have

supported the research, development, and use of

appropriate techniques for preserving prehistoric

and historic sites, structures, and landscapes.

Preservation efforts among the industrialized nations, through such organizations as the United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

organization (UNESCO), International Council

on Monuments and Sites (lCOMOS), and international Centre for the Study of the Preservation

and Restoration of Cultural Property (lCCROM)

have accelerated dramatically in response to

growing environmental threats. Some of these efforts have resulted in the development of techniques, methods, and equipment that are more

advanced than U.S. technologies.

For example, archaeologists in the United Kingdom and some European countries have generally been highly innovative in developing advanced technologies. The universities also offer

an archaeological curriculum that includes train-
38 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic preservation

ing in the natural sciences.33 In part, this is the

result of the fact that in Europe, archaeology is

not necessarily thought of as a subdiscipline of

anthropology, as it is in the United States, but as

a science and art in its own right. The Europeans

have used remote sensing methods, including

aerial photography and photogrammetry, since

the early decades of this century.34 In addition,

the application of magnetometry and electrical

resistivity to ground survey began earlier in Europe. Even some developing countries, such as

Indonesia, Peru, and Turkey, which lack the financial resources for extensive preservation of

their cultural heritage, have made widespread use

of photogrammetry for documenting their public

buildings.

Two outstanding underwater archaeological

and maritime conservation efforts in Sweden and

England are providing models for the Monitor

preservation project in the United States. These

two efforts illustrate the level of commitment,

time, energy, expertise, and funding that are necessary in first-rate conservation of submerged cultural resources. The Wasa is a well-preserved

Swedish warship built in 1628 and recovered virtually intact from Stockholm Harbor in 1961. It

was the first such recovery of its type and size

ever realized and has proved the model for subsequent ship recovery projects. Most of the advances in technology for the long-term conservation of submerged materials were achieved

during its rescue.35 The Mary Rose, a Tudor warship built in 1545, was recovered in 1982 near

Portsmouth, England. The effort that went into

its preservation represents an excellent model of

interdisciplinary research and project management.

West German methods of recording historic

structures (so-called measured drawings) are far

more complete and result in more accurate and

detailed drawings than U.S. methods. European

countries have also made extensive use of stereo

photogrammetry to make high-quality drawings

of buildings, monuments, and historic landscapes.

They also use photogrammetry to monitor secular changes in buildings and landscapes,

The European preservation community has

been very active in using various forms of remote

sensing for studying landscapes. For example, the

city of Amsterdam used an airborne infrared camera to detect ailing trees in historic parks. Many

stresses to pIants, trees, and shrubs are apparent

in the infrared before they appear at visible wavelengths. In the United States, such techniques

have been used to detect crop stress in corn and

other agricultural commodities.

Foreign experiences with preservation techniques, methods, and equipment should be examined closely for possible transfer to U.S. applications. The United States would also benefit by

increased cooperation with other nations in developing and testing new preservation methods,

JJFor example, the University of Bradford in England.

JqHowever, within the United States, recent advances, stemming

in part from the advent of remote sensing from space (in 1972) and

the development of the associated computer software have enhanced the U.S. application of such data for archaeology.

35The MONITOR AlatjOna/ Marine Sanctuary in Perspective, Dr.

Nancy Foster, Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division, Office of Ocean

and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A CENTRALIZED CONSERVATION FACILITY

The previous discussion led all five workshops opment of advanced technologies, the training

to conclude that a new institution (or expansion of professionals in their use, and the disseminaof an existing institution’s mandate) or center is tion of accurate technical information. Several

needed that would foster the research and devel- museums maintain first-rate analytical facilities for
Ch. 2—Background ● 3 9

conserving artifacts, but no comparable facility ing chapter, most workshop participants agreed

exists for conserving sites, structures, and land- that a center for preservation technology should

scapes. be federally supported, primarily because of the

Chapters 3 through 6 discuss numerous pres- Iarge stake the Federal Government has in fosterervation Problems that such a center might work ing and guiding excellence in preservation.

on. As discussed in more detail in the concludORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

During the workshops, and especially in preparing the draft workshop reports, it became clear

that the boundaries between each broad subject

area are becoming increasingly indistinct. Those

who seek to preserve prehistoric and historic

sites, structures, and landscapes share many

problems in obtaining access to information

about technologies, training, and coordination

of research in new techniques. In addition, they

share most of the same technologies. Finally, they

all experience the constraints of ever more limited

funding and lack of coordinated Federal policy

and implementation. Hence, it seemed appropriate to organize this report, which focuses on

preservation technologies, around the issues

raised by the technologies themselves, and how

they are applied in the various stages of the research and preservation process, rather than

force discussion of these issues into a disciplinary

mode.

The Chapters

Chapter 3: Research explores issues concerning

technologies utilized in discovering, recording,

and analyzing sites, structures, and landscapes.

Many of the most dramatic recent advances in

applying technologies to preservation, such as remote sensing, geographic information systems,

and predictive modeling, have been made during the discovery stage of the research process.

Chapter 4: Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection explores the many techniques, methods, and equipment required for

conserving and protecting cultural resources for

future research, interpretation, and public enjoyment. The primary concern expressed by the

many contributors to this study is the rapidity with

which historic structures and landscapes, as well

as archaeological sites, are being destroyed as a

result of land development, vandalism, looting,

erosion, and other human and natural causes.

This chapter discusses the cultural resources management and law enforcement issues related to

such losses, and presents several advantages and

limitations of technology in mitigating them.

Computers are only beginning to affect profoundly the conduct of prehistoric and historic

preservation. Chapter 5: Preservation /formation

examines the part computers and other technologies for storage and retrieval of data and information play in preservation.

Educating the public, who provide most of the

funding for prehistoric and historic preservation,

on the results of preservation research and treatments, is a crucial component of prehistoric and

historic preservation. Chapter 6: Public Education addresses the role technologies play in public

education, and making such learning enjoyable

as well as meaningful.

The Federal Government provides much of the

leadership for historic preservation. Chapter 7:

Technology and Preservation Policy examines the

issues raised in the previous chapters and discusses

options for improving the implement ion of current Federal preservation policy. It also suggests

and analyzes new policy avenues Congress might

wish to explore. Finally, it discusses State, local,

and private sector contributions to preservation.
40 ● Technologies for prehistoric and Historic Preservation

OTA selected a review panel, composed of par- local agencies, the universities, private firms, and

ticipants from each workshop, to review the final organizations who provided information or redraft of the report. In addition, the draft was sent viewed portions of this report in draft. Their helpto a variety of others, both within and outside ful and timely comments and suggestions are an

of government, who reviewed selected portions. important part of this report.

OTA is grateful to the workshop participants

and to the many others from Federal, State, and
Chapter 3

Research
Contents

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Technologies for Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Archival Research and Oral Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Remote Sensing (Space, Aerial and Geophysical Methods) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Predictive Modeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Identification and Survey of Submerged Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Documentation and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Issues . . . . . . . +,.,.,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Underwater Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Historic Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

List of Tables

Table No. Page

5. Representative Technologies for Identification and Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6. Remote Sensing Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

7. Technologies for Gathering and Analyzing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

8. Technologies for Analyzing the Physical Condition of Wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

9. Technologies for Analyzing the Physical Condition of Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . 64

10. Technologies for Analyzing the Physical Condition

of Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

11. Technologies for Analyzing the Physical Condition of lron and Steel . . . . . . 66

12. Dating Prehistoric Sites, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

13. Major Equipment of the National Bureau of Standards’

Center for Building Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

1. Diagram of the Electromagnetic Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2. Categories of Historic Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
INTRODUCTION

Historical and scientific research, interpretation

to the public, and preserving U.S. cultural heritage

for future generations are the primary purposes

for preserving sites, structures, and landscapes.

New technologies can improve the quality and

quantity of research data gathered. They may also

make possible the investigation of lines of evidence that were previously impossible. This chapter presents many of the technologies used for

preservation research and discusses the issues

they raise. For the purposes of analysis, OTA

divided preservation research into the following

steps, which do not necessariIy represent an unfailing progression:

. discovery (SUrvey, identification);

● documentation (mapping, physical investigations, recording); and

● analysis (evaluation).

Although for the purposes of analysis and discussion it is possible to separate these research

steps, in practice, they are tightly interconnected.

In order to construct a research plan for a project,

it is necessary to decide prior to conducting fieldwork which technologies are to be used. The

choices of technologies in turn depend on the

research hypotheses the investigator wishes to explore, and on the results of preliminary archival

research. in addition, many of the technologies

employed for discovery are also useful or even

essential for the documentation phase of research.

It is therefore impossible completely to separate

the discussion of the technologies for different

phases.

The following discussion attempts to examine

technologies in the research phase in which they

are most often applied. The enumeration is far

from comprehensive; rather the technologies

have been chosen to illustrate the role of technology in preservation and are therefore representative of a much larger available array.

The research objectives of archaeology and the

study of structures or landscapes are frequently

very similar. Architectural historians and landscape architects often depend on archaeological

research in analyzing historic structures or landscapes. 1 Archaeology, by the same token, uses

historical research. This chapter focuses on the

various technologies used by all preservation disciplines. Where necessary, the specific concerns

of each discipline are discussed independently.

‘See, for example, Paul Brace, “Archeological Resources and Land

Development: A Guide to Assess Impact, ” Landscape Architecture

Technica/ /formation 5eries 5, No. 1, September 1984.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR DISCOVERY

The first step in gathering data is to locate cultural resources on the ground, under the ground,

and under water. This section discusses several

technologies (table 5) that are used primarily for

identification and survey, Some, such as the remote sensing technologies, are often applied to

the data-gathering phase of research or evaluation and assessment as well.

Archival Research and Oral Histories

Archival research and interviewing (oral history)

are important first steps in the research process.

Preliminary research, done with care and imagination, can save time and money as well as provide a focus for technological field work and a

broad basis for the establishment of significance.

43
44 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Table 5.—Representative Technologies for

identification and Survey

Technical areas Technologies

Remote sensing:

Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Space . . . . . . . . . . .

Geobased. . . . . . . .

Marine . . . . . . . . . .

Terrestrial

imaging . . . . . . .

Computer technology

and applications . .

Social science

techniques . . . . . . .

Iidar, photography, radar

radar, multispectral sensors

magnetic detection, radar,

seismic, thermography, X-ray,

infrared, gamma-ray inspection

side-scan sonar, magnetometer,

sub-bottom profiler, precision

fathometer, electronic position

finder, remotely operated

vehicles

photography

video

photogrammetry

theoretical modeling and

prediction

acquisition and interpretation of

archival data

management and dissemination

of archival data

mapping

geographic information systems

computer display

oral history and folklore:

tape recording

photography

video

archival documentary research

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Developments in archival technology of various

sorts can make the records search more efficient

and even more cost-effective than it is now (see

Chapter 5: Preservation Information).

The technical questions involved with this type

of historical research specifically concern methods of access to information in the institutions

which house it, and ways of arranging data to

make it usable for preliminary analysis and development of a research plan. Interviewing depends on the technologies for tape recording and

archiving electronic storage media if oral history

materials are to be retained.

Remote Sensing (Space, Aerial, and

Geophysical Methods)

Remote sensing, as with most other technologies used in preservation, originated in other

fields and is being adapted and molded to fit preservation requirements. The detail provided in this

section illustrates the roles played by the natural

sciences and engineering in providing technologies useful for preservation. Other technology

discussions provide much less detail.

Remote sensing2 from aircraft and from space,

and other types of remote sensing techniques (table 6), such as ground-penetrating radar, hold

great promise for the future of archaeology and

the study of historic landscapes, because they are

nondestructive and capable of analyzing vast

areas quickly and accurately. Such techniques are

less useful in the identification and survey of historic structures. Photogrammetry, which can be

thought of as another form of remote sensing, has

found greater utility for surveying historic structures, and is also used for archaeology and historic landscapes (discussed below),

Remote sensing technologies can aid substantially in recording accurately the positions of archaeological sites, and analyzing them within an

environmental context. J They can also help in

evaluating sites. They are useful both in predictive location modeling, and in onsite exploration

in lieu of extensive testing. Remote sensing techniques employing aircraft and spacecraft have

also been applied to the study of prehistoric and

historic Landscapes.d

Remote Sensing From Aircraft and

Spacecraft

Intrigued by the special perspective that balloons gave them, photographers began experimenting with aerial photography in the last cen-

--——— Zln general terms, remote sensing is the art of obtaining information about objects, areas, or phenomena through analyzing data

gathered by devices placed at a distance from the subjects of study.

Remote sensing may refer to sensing over short distances, as in medical or laboratory research applications using Iasem, or over long

distances as in environmental monitoring from spacecraft using advanced electro-optical instruments. Once the initial data are sensed,

they must be analyzed and interpreted either visually or through

sophisticated computer analysis.

3See, for example, Remote Sensing: A Handbook for Archaeologists and Cultural Resource Managers, Contribution No. 4 of the

Chaco Center, National Park Service and University of New Mexico, 1977. Also, Thomas R. Lyons and James 1. Ebert (eds. ), “Remote Sensing and Nondestructive Archeology,” National Park Service Remote Sensing Division, 1978.

4Carole L. Crumley, “Archaeological Reconnaissance at Mont

Dardon, France,” Archaeology, May-June 1983, pp. 14-17, 20; and

Scott L.H. Madry, “Remote Sensing in Archaeology,” Archaeology, May-June 1983, pp. 1819.
Ch. 3—Research Ž 45

Table 6.—Remote Sensing Instrumentsa

Type of Instrument Comments

Spacecraft:

Multispectral scanner . .

Thematic Mapper . . . . . .

Shuttle Imaging

Radar b 

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Landsat (resolution 80

meters; 3 spectral bands)

U.S. Landsat (resolution 30

meters; 7 spectral bands)

Carried on Shuttle

French SPOT (resolution 20

meters in 3 spectral bands;

10 meters in B&W)

Aircraft:

Photographic camera

Multispectral scanner

Thermal infrared

mapper

Geophysical techniques:

Proton magnetometer

Soil conductivity meter

Soil resistivity meter

Ground-penetrating

radar

Metal detectors

Terrestrial photogrammetry:

Precision camera

Stereo comparator

Stereo analog plotter Needs precision cameras

Stereo analytical plotter Uses digital techniques and a

computer

asee Robert Colwell, editor-in-chief, Manua/ of Remote Sensing (Falls Church,

VA: American Society of Photogrammetry, 1983)

bcharles Elach!, JoBea Cimlno, and M. Settle, “Overview of the Shuttle lma9in9

Radar.B Prel!mlnary Results, ” Sc/ence 232 (1966), pp 1511-1516

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

tury. They continued their experimentation from

aircraft soon after the first airplane was flown.

Aerial photography has since become an important part of soil conservation, flood control, highway design, city and county planning, and, of

course, military reconnaissance. The National Archives and Records Administration, and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

of the Department of Agriculture, maintain extensive collections of aerial photographs of the

United States. USDA field offices may hold the

most current photos for their localities.

The scientific and applications-oriented comm unities recognized the potential value of sensing the Earth’s surface from space early in the development of the Nation’s space program. Space

remote sensing was an obvious extension of remote sensing from balloons and aircraft. However, the expense of returning film from space,5

-.—.._—-——

‘The early reconnaissance satellites discharged canisters of film,

which were then caught by specially equipped aircraft. Such meththe need to manipulate data in a computer, and

the desire to sense Earth in a variety of wavelengths led to the development of electronic multispectral scanners that operate in a variety of

colors, or spectral bands (figure 1). The United

States launched its first land remote sensing satellite in 1972, which carried an experimental

multispectral scanner. Landsat 5, the fifth in the

series of civilian land remote sensing satellite, is

now providing high-quality images of Earth on

a regular basis.b The resulting electronic signals

are transmitted to Earth where they are converted

into data susceptible to computer manipuIation.

For purposes of preservation, the ability of remotely sensed data from space to resolve objects

the size of individual sites or structures has been

highly limited in the past.7 However, the SPOT

system recently deployed by the French achieves

ground resolutions of 20 meters (65.6 ft.) in three

spectral bands, and 10 meters (32.8 ft. ) in black

and white. Data of such relatively high spatial

resolution, when processed with other data, such

as those relating to soils and color, will be highly

effective in providing information concerning

preservation. Recent developments in computer

image analysis can improve on the resolution of

such images by at least a factor of 2.8

Of more importance to archaeology, because

of their better ground resolution and ability to

sense in many spectral bands, are multispectral

scanners for aircraft. Originally developed as part

of the testing program for the Landsat satellites,

they have proved extremely successful in aircraft

applications. 9 With them, surface resolutions of

a few feet can be achieved in many different specods are now being explored for possible civilian use for special

projects, such as crop or forest inspection, requiring high resolution and quick return of data.

%ee U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remote

Sensing and the Private Sector: Issues for Discussion, OTA-TM-lSC20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March

1984), for a discussion of some of the many uses of remotely sensed

data. See also U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, /international Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities, OTA-ISC-239 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1985), ch. 7.

7

For example, the multi spectral scanner on the U.S. Landsat has

a resolution limit of 80 meters, and the Thematic Mapper a resolution limit of 30 meters.

8William J. Broad, “New Power Lets Computer Depict Images

Invisible to Eye, ” New York Times, Sept. 2, 1986.

9Thomas Sever and James Weisman, ‘‘Remote Sensing and Archaeology: Potential for the Future, ” National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Earth Resources Laboratory, January 1985.
46 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Figure 1 .—Diagram of the Electromagnetic Spectrum

Spectral

Wavelength Region Sensors

Geiger Counters

+

~ Ultraviolet

Photomultipliers

- 1 T ) Visible Light Cameras/Scanners

, Near/Mid

Infrared

1

Infrared

Radiometers

, Thermal

Infrared

J

Far Infrared

[

Microwave

n’

● MSS: Multispectral Scanner

● ● TM: Thematic Mapper

tSAR: Synthetic Aperature Radar

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

V Band

T

O Band I

K Band I

Microwave

Radiometers/

X Band Radar

S Band

L Band

I
Ch. 3—Research • 47

tral bands. High surface resolution is important

in examining detaiIs of a site. The different spectral bands are extremely helpful in locating sites

according to vegetation differences that appear

near human habitations.

To make effective use of archaeological remote

sensing, one needs first to understand the general features of the region’s archaeology. It is then

possible to incorporate remote sensing into a research scheme, keeping in mind the limitations

as well as the advantages of the technology, For

example, in many cases it is not ever-t possible

to detect the archaeological sites directly on remotely sensed data. Sites may consist of small

piles of stone, or pottery, or may be lost in the

subsequent vegetation. Therefore, other indicators, such as vegetation, are necessary.10

Remote sensing is potentially useful for examining the environmental effects on a site. It can

also be used effectively for investigating how well

we can discover certain categories of sites. Remote sensing can also be useful for logistics—

finding your way in the field, locating sample

units, etc. Nevertheless, remote sensing cannot

replace archival survey or traditional walking survey and more intensive archaeological activities,

including excavation.

In the past, to use remotely sensed data to find

sites, it was necessary to hand digitize all the available surface information into a Geographical information System (see Documentation and Analysis section for a discussion of this technique),

then put known sites on the map, and look for

commonalities in the surface features that would

indicate new sites. By putting layers of information together, it is possible to extract general rules

for the likelihood of finding unknown sites.11 Such

a method will not find sites, but it does help preIOThls was demonstrated recently i n an effort to find Mayan cities in the Yucatan peninsula using data acquired by the Landsat

Thematic Mapper. Ramon trees (Brosinurn a/acastrurn) grow

preferentially in the central plazas of ancient Mayan cities. The different color channels of the Thematic Mapper can be used to detect

Ramon trees, though the instrument will not detect the plazas

directly.

‘ ‘See, for example, Jay F. Custer, et al., “Application of Landsat

Data and Synoptic Remote Sensing to Predictive Models for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites: An Example From the Delaware

Coastal Plain, ” American Antiquity 51, 1986, pp. 572-588.

diet where they are more likely to be. Now this

can be done automatically.

In a related development, optical engineers

have developed a relatively inexpensive optical

digitizer. Among other things, such devices have

helped to analyze handwriting and to translate

handwritten material to printed form from 19th

century ledgers kept by agents of the Bureau of

Indian Affairs, for example (see Chapter 5: Preservation Information). For archaeology, similar

techniques can be applied, for example, to hieroglyph on damaged Mayan carvings, allowing

experts in Mayan writing to interpret details of

the signs invisible to the naked eye.12

Although archaeologists find remote sensing

techniques extremely useful in locating individual sites, and exploring patterns of human settlement, they can also use such techniques to

choose the best sites for later excavation. However, the methods of distinguishing among a

group of suitable sites are still under development

and need to be refined before remote sensing can

be fully applied to this process.

Remote sensing technologies that hold the

greatest future promise for improving site and

landscape discovery, identification, and evaluation are those that provide a broad, overall (synoptic) view and record data in digital form for direct computer processing (e. g., multispectral

scanners on spacecraft or aircraft). However, for

most applications today, aerial photographs are

extremely valuable and much cheaper than multispectral scanners. They can also be used for

identifying and assisting in determining the significance of historic structures.

Research Needs

● More effective use of aerial photography:

Photography is still the most useful and inexpensive data source with the highest resolution, both spatial and temporal. Yet in

some regions we do not always understand

at what time of year and under what conditions (e.g., in terms of the growing cycles of

plants) to use infrared photography for best

results in archaeology.lJ Recently developed

I zThomaS Sever, NASA, personal communication, 1985.

I JSee Thomas E. Davidson and Richard Hughes, “Aerial photog-

(contlnued on next page)
48 . Technology for Prehistoric and Historic preservation

digitizing methods (see below in section on

photogrammetry) may make such photographs

of much greater utility in archaeological

research. It will be important to conduct

systematic research to determine the most

effective times and ways to use aerial photographic techniques. For example, in some

investigations, it may be cost-effective to suspend a radio-controlled camera from an inflatable blimp to document and map sites,

structures, or even landscapes.14

The use of historical aerial photographs for

monitoring site condition through time:

Many of the older aerial photographs (from

files of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Soil Conservation Service, and in the Cartographic Branch of the National Archives and

Record Administration, for example) may

provide useful historical information on sites,

but they have not been fully exploited. Aerial photographs have been taken of most

places in the United States many times since

the early 193os, and provide a unique record of changes in the landscape and in archaeological materials on and in it since that

time. Not only can the use of such photos

serve to alert managers about impending

changes or destruction of archaeological

sites and landscapes from natural or human

causes, they can also point the way to understanding a variety of natural processes

that affect them. For archaeology, historic

aerial photographs can assist in understanding those processes that affect all archaeological materials from the time they are deposited by their original users to when they

are found by archaeologists.

For example, a current study being conducted for the Army Corps of Engineers,15

focuses on understanding types and rates of

(continued from pre~ Ious page)

raphy and the Search for Chicone Indian Town, ” Archaeology 39,

1986, pp. 58, 59, 76, for a description of recent research using infrared aerial photography at different seasons to search for the remains of a Nanticoke Indian town in Delaware. One of the goals

of their research was to demonstrate the effectiveness of aerial infrared techniques for use in the Middle Atlantic States.

“J, Wilson Myers and Eleanor Emlen Myers, “Aerial Photography at Ancient Sites, ” Context 4, Boston University Center for Archaeological Studies, 1958, pp. 1-5.

I JFor the vicksburg Waterways Experiment Station, by Ebert &

Associates, Albuquerque, NM.

●

Eastern United States often enclose areas of up

to 50 acres.

erosion affecting large archaeological sites

located on Corps of Engineers’ reservoirs

along the upper Missouri River, Some of the

study sites are covered by as many as 26 series of aerial photographs taken at different

times of the day and year and at various

scales and photographic emulsions (black

and white, color, color infrared) since 1933.

The study will compare erosion rates calculated from the photographs with reservoir

dynamics, climate, and Iandform to arrive at

erosion projections for use in directing future erosion control at the sites. Studies such

as this could be effective for erosion of

historic landscapes and for erosion patterns

around historic structures.

Continued study of the spectral bands most

effective for preservation: The spectral bands

for aerial scanning spectrometers and for

space systems have been chosen for their

utility in minerals detection and in the management of agricultural or forestry resources.
Ch. 3—Research ● 4 9

The spectral bands that best display certain

kinds of archaeological sites may be different from those that are best for forestry or

agriculture. Determining how best to use

these or other spectral bands for the special

needs of preservation will require continued

study.

Such considerations apply especially to the

use of optical scanners. To be most efficient

for preservation, the total system (scanner

and associated computer software) should

be designed for the specific preservation

need. For example, the best mix of spectral

bands and ground resolution to use in studying structures is likely to be different from

the mix for agriculture or minerals exploration. Because of the different soils and vegetation, even regional differences may dictate

different approaches to optical scanners.

However, the use of existing systems, though

not designed specifically for preservation

work, may be more cost-effective, at least

in the short term.

● Problem orientation—matching preservation

data needs with appropriate remote sensing

technology: As in the application of any technology, a problem must first be defined and

the data needs appropriate to its solution

chosen realistically. This requires a sound

understanding of the limitations as well as

the possibilities offered by technologies.

Many remote sensing technologies have

not been explored systematically to determine

their potentials and limitations for archaeology. However, they may yield unimagined

new data. For example, only one systematic

series of experiments i n the use of optimum

conditions for thermal scanning for the discovery of archaeological remains has been

conducted. 16 in that set of experiments,

using the French ARIES airborne thermal

scanner, the experimenters flew the scanner

many times over several valleys in France

where Celtic field boundaries were known

to exist but were not obvious either with

ground survey or on conventional aerial

photographs. In each overflight, they reIGSee MC. perisset and A. Tabbagtl, “Interpretation of Thermal

Prospection on Bare Soils, ” Archaeornetry 23, 1981, pp. 169-188.

corded cloud conditions, air temperature,

and soil temperature, as well as the recent

history of these quantities. Their experiments

demonstrated that only during very short

“windows” of a few hours every several

months was thermal scanning useful for locating such features. Its application to different sorts of features would require different

conditions.

Costs.–Costs for processing remotely sensed

data are decreasing rapidly, so the data will be

easier and cheaper to use in the near future. Until

recently, users of data sensed from space (e. g.,

on the Landsat system) have had to rely on expensive mainframe computers to process the

data. It is now possible to purchase a microcomputer system (including both hardware and software) to analyze such data for less than $25,000. ’ 7

Users of remotely sensed data must always

weigh the costs associated with analyzing large

areas against the spatial and spectral resolution

desired. The greater the resolution, the more expensive the processing. Because the number of

data elements per area increases by the square

of the resolution, the costs of processing information increase nearly by the same rate. It is

therefore important to choose the spatial resolution most appropriate for the application. For

certain problems, enhanced spectral information

may be more important than greater spatial resolution. For example, particular spectral bands

may contain information that enables one to determine, for example, plant type, the presence

of phosphates in the soil, or the presence of

trapped moisture. All three signs may indicate the

presence of subsurface features otherwise invisible.

Geophysical Remote Sensing

Depending on the nature and depth of burial,

such instruments can find and explore buried or

partially buried archaeological sites without

I Zsee the discussion on this and related topics concerning the

development of lower cost processing for rer-rmtely sensed data from

space in an earlier OTA report entitled /nternationa/ Cooperation

and Competition in Civilian Space Activities, OTA-ISC-239 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1985), ch. 7.
50 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

damaging them by excavation.18 Some of these

sites occasionally include extraordinarily wellpreserved sites that have been hidden from looters

and occasional collectors. As many of the sites

found by such methods are not threatened by

looting, erosion, or other natural or human

threats, such methods will become increasingly

important as the more accessible sites are destroyed.

Proton Magnetometer.19–The proton magnetometer is used to measure extremely small

changes in the local magnetic field near archaeological features caused by small differences between the magnetic characteristics of buried

structural features or material and the surrounding soil.

The ability to measure such differences depends

directly on the fact that protons, basic building

blocks of the atom, tend to align themselves in

the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field. The

stone or fired clay of artificial subsurface features

produce magnetic anomalies in the local magnetic field that can be measured by detecting

small changes in the tilt of protons as they spin

in the magnetic field of the Earth. As the investigator moves the instrument across the Earth in

a grid pattern, the anomalies show up as slight

changes in the direction and intensity of the local magnetic field. Plotting such anomalies on a

grid leads to a rough map of the subsurface features. Brick, fire hearths, and iron-bearing materials show up best in this technique, although

some earthen features are also measurable.

This method can markedly improve the efficiency of locating some subsurface archaeological features by avoiding the necessity for digging

test pits. Sites can be investigated at rates of 10

minutes per square meter. The method is particularly useful for shallow subsurface features. However, small, deeply buried features are extremely

18see Payson D. Sheets, “Geophysical Exploration for Ancient

Maya Housing at Ceren, El Salvador,” National Gmgraphic Society Research Report: 1979 Projects, pp. 645-656, for a discussion

of the use of geophysical exploration techniques in volcanic tephra.

lgFor descriptions of this and other geophysical techniques, see

M.S. Tite, Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology (London and New York: Seminar Press, 1972). See also John W. Weymouth, “Ch, 2: Archaeological Site Surveying Program at the

University of Nebraska,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists Technica/ Program Abstracts, Dec. 1-6, 1984{ pp. 191-193.

difficult to detect with this technique, because

the alterations of the Earth’s magnetic field produced by these features are small.

Soil Resistivity Meter.– Different soils exhibit

different resistance to the passage of electric current, primarily as a result of their varied water

content. This method involves measuring the

electrical resistance of soil to the application of

a small current between two electrodes inserted

in the ground. Archaeological features tend to

have a different water content than the surrounding soil.

Although this technique is much simpler and

cheaper than radar or magnetometer methods,

it is much more tedious and time-consuming because it requires placing electrodes in the Earth

at each point of a grid pattern over the archaeological features under study. However, because

it is simpler and can be used near buildings,

power cables, surface iron, and other materials

that would make the use of magnetometers impossible, it is sometimes the appropriate choice.

It can therefore be used more readily in urban

settings.

Soil Conductivity Meter.–This instrument is

similar to the soil resistivity meter, but measures

instead the conductivity of the soil, using electromagnetic techniques. In one form, developed

by Geonics Ltd., of Canada, the device uses a

varying magnetic field to induce currents in the

ground below the instrument that are proportional to the soil’s conductivity. These currents

in turn generate magnetic fields that can be measured with the instrument. The major advantage

of such an instrument is that it does not require

probes and can therefore be used to map terrain

as quickly as an operator can walk across it. 2o

Ground-Penetrating Radar.–Ground-penetrating radar instruments emit microwave pulses

at frequencies that will radiate below the Earth’s

surface. A receiving antenna carried along the

surface with the instrument on a cart or sled detects echoes from buried features or discontinuities in the soil. The time of return of the echo determines how deep the feature is. This method

ZOJ, D. McNeill, “Electrical Conductivity of soils and Rocks, ” Technical Note TN-5, Geonics Ltd., Ontario, Canada, October 1980.
Ch. 3—Research c 51

works particularly well for detecting buried walls,

floors, and foundations. It requires sharp differences in the radar reflecting characteristics between artificial features and the earth surrounding them. Concentrations of brick and metal

produce strong echoes.

Considerable experimentation may be necessary to determine which frequencies are appropriate for the particular region and sites under

investigation. For example, one investigator found

that in investigating two different sites in Canada,

operating with antennas at a frequency of 350

megahertz provided the ability to penetrate from

1 to 3 meters depth, and a resolution of position

in the ground of a few centimeters. Using antennas capable of operating at 100 megahertz would

penetrate much deeper, up to depths of 30 or

or 40 meters, but with resolutions no better than

one-fourth of a meter. The latter instrument is

therefore more appropriate for survey, the former

for detailed investigations of features relatively

near the surface, zl Another investigator, working

in south-central Ohio, found good results using

transmission frequencies of 650 megahertz.22 

Metal Detectors.– Electromagnetic metal detectors, of the type often used to find buried metal

pipes and cables, and to detect military mines or

buried bombs, can also be used in archaeological contexts where metal-bearing artifacts or features are expected. With these instruments, a

changing magnetic field produced by the instrument induces small currents, called eddy currents, in buried metal objects, which can then

be detected by a receiving coil connected to the

instrument. The more sensitive instruments of this

type can detect coins or small metal artifacts in

graves. They have been successfully used to

locate artifacts on historic battlefields.23 The metal

detector is an example of a technology that is also

inexpensively available to relic hunters, some of

whom may use them on public lands.24 (See

Chapter 4: Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection for discussion of such

issues. )

Proton magnetometers and other site-scale instruments, such as ground-penetrating radar, can

be used to define the structure and limits of a site,

and to plan excavation or sampling. For example, they have been successfully used to map

otherwise nearly invisible features of prehistoric

earthwork remnants in central Ohio.25 Although

the information provided by such methods cannot substitute for a detailed excavation, they may

provide important information concerning where

to excavate within a large structure or site. Additionally, where the form, orientation, or location of a site is the information sought, such methods are far less costly and take less time than

digging test pits or trenches.

To make these methods most useful, archaeologists need to refine their understanding of which

of these technologies to apply to a particular geographic area, soil type, or season. For example,

the proton magnetometer is most useful where

the archaeological features produce relatively

strong alterations of the Earth’s magnetic field.

Ground-penetrating radar can often be used over

frozen ground at times of the year when the

probes required with soil resistivity, or soil conductivity meters cannot be inserted in the soil.

In some cases, the application of several different instruments may be appropriate as the data

they generate are often complementary. In addition, for these as well as many other archaeological methods, “a sound knowledge of the living

processes of the historic and prehistoric inhabitants that occupied the site and the types of features that they might have created are invaluable for the design of data collection procedures

and subsequent interpretation of the data, ”26

.

21C. j. Vaughan, “Ground-Penetrating Radar Surveys Used in Archaeological Investigations: Two Case Histories, ” Society of Exp/orat;on Geoph~;cjstsTechnjca/ Program Abstracts, Dec. 1-6, 1984,

pp. 195-197.

ZZN ‘Omi G reber, “salvaging Clues to a Prehistoric CU ku re, ’ The

Gamut, Cleveland State University, springfsummer 1981, pp. 35-45.

ZJStephen W. Sylvia and Michael j. O’Donnell, “underground

Warfare: Hunting for Relics on Civil War Battlefields, ” Man At Arms

Magazine, July/August 1979.

2dRecently, several men were apprehended and convicted of looting the Richmond Battlefield of Civil War relics. They used a metal

detector.

Zssee N’omi Greber, “Geophysical Remote Sensing at Archaeological Sites in Ohio: A Case History, ” Society of Exp/orarion Geophysicists Technical Program Abstracts, Dec. 1-6, 1984, pp. 185-

189, for a comparison of the use of resistivity and ground-penetrating

radar.

2GRobert H uggins, “Some Design Considerations for Undertaking a Magnetic Survey for Archaeological Resources, ” Society ot’

Exploration Geophysicists Technical Program Abstracts, Dec. 1-6,

1984, pp. 210212.
52 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Several lost historic towns in Mississippi were

also located in a similar way. When the towns

were inhabited, people planted crepe myrtle and

osage orange around their homes. Though all visible signs of dwellings have since disappeared,

the trees still exist and because of how they show

up in the different spectral bands imaged by the

Thematic Mapper, they can be detected and separated from the other vegetation .*7

Terrestrial Photography and

Photogrammetry

Although terrestrial photography and photogrammetry are closely related to remote sensing,

they are generally applied over much smaller

areas and at closer ranges than aerial and space

or geophysical methods. Such methods include

stereo photogrammetry as well as conventional

photographic recording of structures28 and landscapes, archaeological sites, and rock art sites.

Traditional Stereophotogrammetric Methods

(Photo-theodolite) .–Traditional methods have

made use of a pair of large (9x9 inch) or medium

format (4x5 inch or 21/4 x 31/4 inch), high precision photographic cameras set about 40 inches

apart. Enlarged stereo pairs of photographic images of the scene under study are then placed

in an optical comparator, allowing a viewer to

see them as a single, three-dimensional image.29

In the simplest available method, a highly

trained operator traces the object of interest in

the comparator, recording contours of the threedimensional image, which are in turn transmitted

mechanically to a drafting table, Photo-theodoIites to meet several different photogrammetric

needs are available. Such equipment can be

made more effective by adding such equipment

as advanced plotters using microcomputers,

color-graphic video terminals, and tape or disk

storage.

z~homas Sever, NASA, personal communication, 1985.

28See, for example, IJ. S. Department of the Interior, National park

Service, Preservation Assistance Division, “Using Photogrammetry

To Monitor Materials Deterioration and Structural Problems on

Historic Buildings: The Dorchester Heights Monument: A Case

Study” (Washington, DC: no date).

ZgSee Hans Foramitti, “classical and Photogrammetric Methods

Used in Surveying Architectural Monuments, ” Preserving A40numerrts and Historic Bui/dings, Museums and Monuments Series 14

(Paris: UNESCO, 1972).

Until recently, photogrammetric recording has

been relatively expensive. Although basic equipment can be acquired for about $60,000, a complete, high-accuracy, system can cost as much

as $1 million. Stereo-plotters alone may cost

nearly $250,000. Some architectural and engineering firms have simply been unable to absorb

such an expense. While traditional equipment

costs have been stabilizing, labor costs have risen.

In addition, concern over rapid obsolescence

has discouraged investment in standard photogrammetric equipment. Currently, the “bread

and butter work, ” much of which is aerial, but

which uses the much the same stereo-plotters and

comparators, is conducted for industrial quality

control and State highway and transportation departments.

Recent innovations that depend heavily on digital computer applications rather than precision

optics to achieve accuracy, are dramatically

lowering the costs of precision photogrammetry.

The following two examples illustrate this trend.

Even if new developments are still inappropriate

for certain applications where extremely high accuracy is required, they will be useful in supplementing traditional methods.

Stereo Analytic Plotting Systems.–Stereo analytic systems represent a simplified approach to

photogrammetry. 30 Like traditional stereo photogrammetric methods, they use photography as

the basis for making three-dimensional measurements. However, they can often use 35mm stereo

slides, black and white, or color film, taken with

normal commercial lenses, instead of the larger

format photographs used in traditional instruments. The technology has aided in preserving

accurate images of site features, particularly those

of a subtle nature, which will be destroyed by

the process of excavation, as well as of objects

before their removal from the archaeological

context.

Such instruments allow an operator to examine a stereo pair of color slides and, to record the

JOOne such instrument is made by H. Dell Foster Associates of

San Antonio, TX, for the American Schools of Oriental Research and

field tested by archaeologists working in the Middle East. See “Computers Aid Study of Ancient Artifacts, ” New York Times, Aug. 13,

1985, for a description of the H. Dell Foster, MACO 35/70 system.

It uses either 35mm or 70mm film.
Ch. 3—Research ● 5 3

I L

1

!. + +

+

mlllllh Q I

~ul u .—

I

●

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

*

+

- t

Photo credit: Southwest Reg/on, Nationa/ Park Serwce

Drawing of Mission Espada, San Antonio, Texas, from

stereo photographs using the MACO 35/70 analytic

stereo-plotter.

three-dimensional positions of points within the

scene directly on an associated computer, which

can be a minicomputer or inexpensive microcomputer. Computer software corrects for lens

and image errors and produces high precision

measurements of features selected by the operator. One of the advantages of analytic systems

is that they require less highly trained operators

than traditional photogrammetric systems.

The NPS Southwest Regional Office is using a

stereo analytic system to prepare drawings of

buildings under its care, assess the condition of

ruined pueblos and mission buildings, and record

the petroglyphs at Inscription Rock, El Morro National Monument.

Computer Image Analysis.–Technicians at

NASA’s Earth Resources Laboratory in Bay St.

Louis, Mississippi, are developing a system that

shouId eventually circumvent the need for a

trained technician to examine the stereo image

directly .31 Instead, through a technique called

digital scanning, each photograph is optically

scanned by an instrument that converts the photographic density at each point in both stereo

photographs to a number proportional to the

density and stores it in a computer. Within a few

minutes, the device can digitize and store the information from images as large as 18 inches on

a side. Computer software then corrects for any

photographic distortions and compares the information on the two photographs.

When analyzing the images, by searching for

edges in the image, much the way a human operator of a stereo comparator does, the computer

can generate a three-dimensional line drawing

of the building or object in the pair of photographs. The resultant drawing can then be printed

out on a computer-driven plotter. At the present

time, the technique requires a mainframe computer. However, the associated digital scanner

is relatively inexpensive. The accuracy of such

a system is limited primarily by the inherent accuracy of the photographic images, and by the

accuracy of the digital scanner. It should be able

to generate high-quality drawings from highquality photographs.

These promising applications, however, have

barely begun to affect the way photogrammetric recording is undertaken in historic preservation. Architectural photogrammetry has not been

developed in the United States at a level comparable to that found in countries such as Austria, France, the Federal Republic of Germany,

and in other European countries. This is in part

because the United States has few facilities for

training in the use of these methods, and in part

because the use of accurate measured drawings

is given relatively low priority in the preservation

of structures and landscapes. High costs have also

been cited as an important factor, yet other countries have found them to be cost-effective for generating highly accurate drawings.

Even if a company has already invested in basic

equipment and trained staff, the use of architectural photogrammetry is cost-effective, as such

methods lead to a marked increase in accuracy

IIOTA site visit, March 1986.
54 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

and productivity over the labor-intensive requirements for preparing measured drawings using

traditional methods depending on direct measurements. For this reason developing countries

such as Indonesia, Peru, and Turkey now have

their own photogrammetric services.

There is a critical need for improved information exchanges between the preservation community and the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, which publishes

detailed technical information. The cheaper,

easier-to-use, photogrammetric methods resulting from the development of analytical instruments and large-image digitizers may represent

a significant breakthrough, but the benefits are

still largely unrealized.32

Video Tape and Optical Disk Methods

Video and optical disk technologies can both

be powerful tools for survey and identification.

Video techniques have proved especially helpful in the survey of underwater archaeological resources, and for rapid survey of city neighborhoods and historic structures.33 Optical disks can

be used to store video, film, and still images of

cultural resources for rapid retrieval and comparison (see Chapter 5: Preservation Information).

Issues in Remote Sensing

Training in Remote Sensing Techniques.–

Though many of the recently developed remote

sensing techniques are extremely powerful, preservation professionals have not used them effectively, primarily because they are often unfamiliar

with the utility of such techniques, and lack training in their use. Remote sensing methods, techniques, and equipment are developing so fast

preservationists often cannot keep up. * This is

JZsUCh research irlstitutiorls as the Center for Remote sensing at

Boston University, and the Center for Earth Observations and Remote Sensing at the University of Colorado, can be expected to

enhance the transfer of remote sensing techniques into preservation.

JJAndrew Lippman, “Movie-Maps: An Application of the Optical Videodisc to Computer Graph ics,” Proceedings of SIGGRAF’H

’80: Seventh Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and interactive Techniques, Seattle, WA, July 14-18, 1980.

*For example, instead of detecting 10 to 15 shades of grey in the

visible part of the spectrum from black and white photography,

digital remotely sensed data allow discrimination among 256 shades

in a variety of spectral bands, including the infrared. Processing

this enormous amount of data requires a large computer that can

quickly and efficiently process large amounts of information.

a disadvantage for preservation because it is impossible to develop technical or methodological

standards when hardware and software formats

change rapidly.

Because of the utility of remote sensing techniques, a vigorous government program (perhaps

within the Department of the Interior) to assist

archaeologists and other preservation professionals in using remote sensing techniques may

be appropriate. Recently, NASA provided training in remote sensing methods to several archaeologists through its Earth Resources Laboratories

in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Such a program

might serve as a model for other Federal efforts.

During the 1970s, the National park Service

within its Southwest Regional Office developed

a research program that successfully demonstrated the utility of remote sensing techniques

for managing cultural resources. That office has

published a series of reports of high utility for understanding and applying remote sensing technologies. However, in recent years, the staff and

funding of that office have been reduced and its

research activities have dwindled.

Predictive Modeling

Predictive locational modeling is the general

term used for a group of techniques used to predict the distribution of archaeologically significant

material in a region. Not only is it potentially useful for finding sites, it can be an integral part of

the scientific explanation of archaeological

remains.

Although such techniques are significant both

for research and for cultural resource management, misconceptions about them abound among

archaeologists and cultural resource managers.

They have in some cases been oversold. For example, some thought it would be possible to use

remote sensing and other methods to survey an

area, find all the sites, and assess their relative

significance. This has not proved to be the case.

Sites have been missed, and their significance not

appreciated. 34 With considerably more research,

IASee the various articles in Jim Judge and Lynn Sebastian, Cu/-

tural Resource Predictive Modeling, Report d Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO (in draft). This document is an attempt to bring together the theory and practice of

predictive modeling in one place.
Ch. 3—Research . 55

predictive locational modeling will likely be a

powerful tool for management as well as research.

Improvements in the techniques are of particular importance because it could give better control over the resource base which is being destroyed at an alarming rate by both environmental

and human factors.

Archaeologists use two distinct families of approaches. One is an empirical, or inferential, approach that attempts to extrapolate from known

distributions within a surveyed sample of a region to unsurveyed areas. The other, which is

complementary, is a theoretical, or deductive, approach that is based on underlying assumptions

about how people might have behaved, given a

particular paleolandscape (e.g., climate, soil

productivity, Iandform characteristics, availability of game) .35

Although the empirical, correlational models

work to a certain level, they do not explain why

people behaved as they did in the past. Deductive models, on the other hand, explain why people behaved as we observe, but they have not

been widely applied because they are more difficult to develop. Thus their potential accuracy

is uncertain.

Many archaeologists and historians have expressed severe reservations about how effective

predictive modeling might be as a management

tool and fear that it might be misused in an effort to avoid costly ground surveyor detailed archival research. The models are not likely to tell

us where all the sites are because it is unlikely

that human behavior can be determined to that

degree. Because human behavior is responsive

both to predictable needs and essentially unpredictable historical circumstances, even highly sophisticated locational models cannot be expected

to be completely accurate.

Their use for locating sites implies a set of assumptions (i e., a model) about how the culture

under study works. A model that incorporates too

few parameters may lead to incorrect results. Sites

are just one part of an entire cultural system that

~%wllllam C. smith arlcf )arnes C. Chatters, “Archaeological Predictive Modeling: The Yakima Firing Center, ” Central Washington Archaeological Survey and Geographic Information Systems Laboratory, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, March 1986.

includes intellectual (e.g., philosophy and theology) as well as material determinants. Predicting locations of sites without considering the entire organizational system (as much as can be

known) of the prehistoric society will lead to incorrect results.36 Societies include not only living and working areas, but such elements as planning, division of labor, and mobility, among

others. in addition, many have expressed the

concern that models may help in locating typical sites, but may be totally useless in locating

atypicalones. 37 Adequate protection of historic

and prehistoric properties requires unique as well

as typical sites be identified and protected.

From a management perspective, it is the anomalies that may be important because they draw the

attention of the public and are likely to suffer most

from visitation. For example, Stonehenge is celebrated throughout literature i n part because it

is unique. Yet there are thousands of smaller and

less famous stone circles throughout the British

Isles. The latter provide more information about

prehistoric culture than does Stonehenge. In the

United States, the Serpent Mound in central Ohio

is a remarkable prehistoric Iandform that often

serves as an illustrative example of the accomplishments of the prehistoric Indians who constructed the mounds. However, it too is exceptional among the thousands of mounds in the

Central United States.

From the standpoint of predictive modeling, the

anomalies may not be so important. For example, ordinary trash is of less interest to the lay person than the trash of a celebrity, but of greater

interest to the archaeologist or historian attempting to understand how the average person lives.

Nevertheless, because of this and related concerns, several participants noted that predictive

modeling may not result in great cost savings. It

may provide other benefits, including better landuse planning and better understanding of now

JbFOr example, like trying to predict the patterns of telephone

usage in a city, taking into account only the residential usage.

37fIor example, we may learn that a given cu Itu re prefers settling

within a certain distance from a stream bed and are able successfully to predict sites on that basis, However, such a model would

not necessarily allow for a variety of special-purpose sites, or for

the case of a community from the same culture that decided to

break with tradition because of political differences and settled

much farther away.
56 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

extinct subsistence and settlement systems. Finally, it may find its greatest utility as a guide to

field sampling.

One of the big problems for developing predictive locational models is the difficulty in comparing data generated by one archaeologist with data

from another. Neither predictive locational models nor the way basic field data are accumulated

exhibit very much standardization.

in using remote sensing or predictive modeling, it is essential to define the research problem

because preliminary evaluation often constitutes

the basis for research and later interpretation and

preservation.38 A search of archival materials is

extremely important.

JBFor example, Site- landform correlations. %me types Of envi -

ronmental considerations and

Identification and Survey of

Submerged Cultural Resources

Because many of the technologies used for survey and identification of submerged cultural resources are unique to underwater archaeology,

they are treated separately in this section. A variety of techniques are used to locate underwater

sites. The simplest techniques mimic those used

on Iand and include random searches as well as

controlled coverage by scuba39 divers positioned

at regular intervals along swimlines. Although

simple approaches and accidental finds have

landscape in identifiable, systematic ways. Seeing where sites cluster

in one part of the region can provide one with guidelines for sampling elsewhere.

,. . some cultural patterns change the Jqself Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus.

Point Reyes Nationai Seashore
Ch. 3—Research . 57

yielded some significant discoveries, most are

haphazard and unpredictable.

The most promising, efficient, and accurate approaches to resource location rely on nondestructive, electronic remote sensing technologies. Underwater remote sensing surveys are conducted

in compliance with environmental regulations

prior to activities such as dredging or offshore

mineral development that wouId disturb or destroy sites. These surveys employ a variety of instruments including magnetometers, sub-bottom

profilers, side-scan sonar, precision fathometers,

and electronic positioners. Refinements and advances in sub-bottom profiling, and side-scan

sonar 40 have been driven, primarily, by the demands of the miIitary and the gas and petroleum

industries. Until these technologies were incorporated into underwater archaeology, quick and

accurate large-area surveys of the ocean floor

were virtually impossible to carry out.

Surveys made with these remote sensing methods result in electronic records, patterns of images or signals in either analog strip charts or digital records. These images indicate both normal

and anomalous bottom and sub-bottom phenomena. As in land archaeology, the sources of anomalous signals can only be identified as archaeological material through examination in situ. It is

important for underwater archaeologists to continue building a “catalog” of representative signals matched with specific anomalous image

sources to examine and test new underwater contexts such as estuaries and deep water more effectively and efficiently.

● Side-sea n sonar sends out acoustic puIses

from an instrument located below a survey

ship. A receiver on the ship detects the

reflected signal and creates an image of the

ocean floor based on the return time and

direction of each reflected signal. It produces

excellent images of the topography of the

ocean floor, including structures and shipwrecks; it cannot detect materials covered

by sediments. Unlike sub-bottom profiling,

side-scan sonar can cover wide areas of the

‘C.J. Ingram, “High-Resolution Side Scan Sonar/Subbottom Profiling to 6,(?WI Mile Water Depth, ” paper presented at the Pacific Congress on Marine Technology, Hawaii, Mar. 24-28, 1986.

Side”Scan Sonar Unit

Photo credit: Nationa/ Ocesnic and Atmospheric Administration

The side-scan sonar unit is being lowered into the

water at the U.S.S. Monitor site, off Cape Hatteras, NC.

ocean bed, enabling the quick and accurate

mapping of such geological phenomena as

drowned river systems.

● Sub-bottom profiers41 are sonar instruments

that generate acoustical pulses downward.

These pulses in turn are reflected back from

sediment layers below the ocean floor. Each

layer produces a discrete echo that is received and printed on strip charts. The range

of images approximate to a high degree of

resolution (less than a meter) the sub-bottom

levels encountered. Sub-bottom profilers

were designed for use in deep water and,

41Milton B. Dobrin, /ntroc/uction to (kOph@C3/ ~raped;~g (New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1976).
58 “ Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Photo credit: Garry Kozak, Klein Associates

Side-scan sonar of the The At/antic, a wooden, side-wheel U.S. steamship sunk in 1852, in the Canadian waters of Lake

Erie. The ship rests nearly upright, 160 feet below the surface. Because it lies in cold, freshwater,

it is remarkably well-preserved.

until recently, were not well suited for use

in shallow water. However, modifications

now enable them to operate in less than 6

m of water. They are limited to surveying

only the area directly beneath their vessels

and, thus, must make many closely spaced

sweeps over large survey tracts.

● Magnetometers 42 sense the magnetic field

anomalies created by ferrous materials on

the ocean floor. Therefore they can only

locate shipwrecks and other historic sites

containing such metals. Their major shortcoming is that they must be relatively close

to their targets because the targets’ magnetic

fields attenuate rapidly (by the inverse square)

as the distance between them and magnetometric sensors increases. Magnetometers

 —

●

cannot easily trace weak signals or anomalies, such as those detected from under sediments, to their sources. Greater use of airborne magnetometry could lead to faster,

broader, and more accurate coverage within

survey perimeters. Even remote sensing from

space as it is refined to more deeply penetrate the water’s surface could soon be applied to underwater archaeological site identification and management, as it has been to

hydrography .43

Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs): ROVs

have been undergoing rapid change and development, going deeper to bring clearer

pictures than ever before of the seabed. De-

 Barto Arnold, Ill, “Remote Sensing in Archaeology, ” 

 Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater 
Ch. 3—Research ● 5 9

Photo credit: Eastport, International

Artist’s rendering of a remotely operated vehicle, DEEP

DRONE, which hovers over U.S.S. Monitor, lying 230

feet deep off the coast of Cape Hatteras, NC

veloped in response to the needs of the military and oil, gas, and minerals exploration

companies, they are replacing human divers

in a great many underwater tasks. They can

remain submerged for weeks to survey huge

areas of the ocean floor.

For example, the historic discovery of the

wreck Titanic44 in April 1985, was achieved

through an unmanned craft, the Argo,

tethered to a ship by 13,000 feet of cable.

Outfitted with television cameras, high-powered lights, and sonar scanners, it revealed

new information about an environment that

had previously been closed to archaeological research. The Titanic was later explored

by a manned vehicle, the Alvin, and a remotely operated craft, Jason, Jr. in an attempt

to gather photographic and other data on the

wreck’s condition.45

AARobert D. Ballard, “HCMI We Found the Titanic, ” National Geographic 168, 1985, pp. 696-722,

4~Walter Sullivan, “Manned Sub Descends To View the Titanic, ”

New York Times, July 15, 1986, p. Cl.

DOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS

Documentation and analysis are the heart of

the research process. It is here that a research

plan, or design, is particularly important, because

excavation, coring, test trenches, and dismantling

the outer layers of an historic structure may destroy some or all of the resource. Techniques that

provide nondestructive, objective ways of documenting cultural resources are extremely important, because the primary way for others to judge

the quality of the analytical results is to examine

the original data. It is therefore especially important that the data be as free of the investigator’s

bias as possible, and that data recovery methods

be designed to answer a wide variety of potential research questions.46

4bSee Allan E. Kane, Wi II iarn D. Lipe, Ruthan n Knudson, Timothy A. Kohler, Steven E. James, Patrick Hogan, and Lynne Sebastian, “The Dolores Archaeological Program Research Design, ”

Dolores Archaeological Program: Field Investigations and Analysis–

1978 (Denver, CO: Engineering and Research Center, Bureau of

Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, November 1983) for

a detailed view of a wide-ranging research design.

In many cases, new techniques and methods

have made possible the collection or interpretation of data far beyond what was possible just a

few years ago. For example, in the excavation of

the prehistoric Koster Site in west-central lllinois,47

the development of flotation techniques for collecting plant materials, seeds, and pollen led to

a much better appreciation of the complexity of

the prehistoric Indian societies that inhabited the

site over the centuries and their ability to adapt

to new conditions.

Refinements in radiocarbon dating have made

possible the determination of more accurate

dates for historic structures and landscapes as

well as prehistoric sites. Archaeomagnetic and

obsidian hydration dating techniques, developed

in the 197os, have restructured our understanding of the dates of certain archaeological sites for

which there is no datable wood.

47~. Struever and F.A. Holton, Koster: Americans in Search of Their

Prehistoric Past (New York: Signet, 1979).
60 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and HiStOriC Preservation

Technologies

This section discusses some representative

techniques (table 7) used by archaeologists and

historians to analyze prehistoric and historic cultural resources. The technologies discussed are

illustrative and not intended to be inclusive.

Excavation

Site Sampling and Evaluation.–As archaeologists attempt to tackle ever more sophisticated

problems, requiring finer distinctions among sites

and groups of sites, the relevance of how they

collect materials from a site and where they decide to dig within a site becomes more important.48 Site sampling and evaluation techniques

allow the archaeologist to determine: 1 ) which

qBTimothy A, Kohler, Carl J. Phagan, and Eric Blinman, “SOur Ce5

of Confounding Variability in Archaeological Collections, ” Dolores

Archaeological Program Technical Report Number DAP-282, Dec.

4, 1982.

Table 7.—Technologies for Gathering

and Analyzing Data

Excavation:

Coring tools

Probing tools

Digging tools

Screens

Sifters

Sorters

Flotation techniques

Sample collection devices

Site sampling devices

Portable generators

Soil micromorphology

Soil profile techniques (interpreting and recording)

Temporary shelters over sites during excavation

Inspection:

Visual

X-ray

Infrared

Moisture meters

Neutron/gamma-ray spectroscopy

Documentation:

Computers

Bar code generators

Drawings

Photographic cameras

Video cameras

Analysis:

Computers

Geographic Information Systems

Chemical

SOURCE’ Office of Technology Assessment.

sites to excavate, 2) whereto excavate within the

site, 3) where the site boundaries are, and 4) how

to collect materials from within each site. For example, in excavating Pueblo Alto, a major prehistoric Chaco Canyon village, in the late 197os,

only 10 percent of the structure was actually excavated. National Park Service archaeologists

used sampling techniques to decide where to dig,

and saved most of the structure for future research .49

Sampling makes extensive use of magnetometers, soil resistivity methods, subsurface radar, and

other remote sensing technologies also employed

for survey and identification, to find remnants of

structures, and other evidence of human activity.

Archaeologists and landscape architects also

employ coring techniques to sample the earth for

evidence of human activity. Refinements in these

techniques for other purposes will benefit the

sampling process. so

Inspection

Neutron/Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy .-A promising new technology, developed originally to

analyze the chemical composition of lunar soil,

makes use of neutron/gamma-ray spectroscopy.

The technique makes use of a radioactive source

(californium 252) that emits high-energy neutrons.

Because of their high energy, neutrons may travel

as much as several meters, depending on the type

of material they penetrate. In using the technique,

the experimenter places the neutron source

against the material to be analyzed, and the resulting neutrons pass through it, striking atoms

of various elements within. The atoms emit gamma

rays (high-energy electromagnetic waves) characteristic of the atom struck. A gamma-ray detector on the other side of the material determines

the intensity and energy of the gamma-rays so

emitted. Analysis of the spectrum of these gamma

rays allows the experimenter to determine the

chemical composition of the material between

the neutron source and the gamma-ray detector.

qg)ames judge, Southern Methodist University, personal communication, 1985.

50 See Julie K. Stein, ‘‘Coring Archaeological Sites, ” American Antiquity, 1986, pp. 505-527, for a discussion of coring technology

and history of its use.
Ch. 3—Research c 61

.

‘+” ‘.

‘.

.

Photo credit: Ray A. Wi///amson

National Park Service archaeologists excavating pithouse remains in Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, NM.

This nondestructive technology, recently “transferred” to preservation has been successfully field

tested on historic structures at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, and in Venice, Italy. The deeppenetrating technology enables scientists to determine the kind, distribution, and amount of

contaminants within structural materials. Such

contaminants may result in the destruction of the

material. For example, in an investigation of a

smokehouse in Williamsburg, the technique was

used to determine the concentration of damaging salts in the smokehouse roof. The technique

couId also be used to monitor the effectiveness

of stone consolidation. It constitutes a significant

advance over previous techniques, such as core

sample analysis, which is destructive; electrical

conductivity, which measures only surface moisture and is affected by salts; and neutron thermalization, which is limited to shallow surface

diagnosis. 51 

51 ). I Livingston, and T.H. Taylor, 

 Techniques for Investigating the Deterioration of

Historic Build ings, ” Nuclear Instruments and Methods Physics

Research A242 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1986).

Infrared, Ultraviolet, and X-ray lnspection.–

Such techniques, which make use of analytical

methods depending on wavelengths of light beyond the visible range for humans, have greatly

expanded the ability of architects to determine

the original colors of paint, or to “see” features

otherwise invisible to the naked eye. For example,

by using ultraviolet light, architects examining

Gunston Hall in Virginia, were able to determine

that many of the carved wooden decorations

originally on the interior walls had been removed

at some time in the past.52 Even high-intensity visible light may reveal details or “ghost” images

and contours that are invisible in normal illumination.

X-ray analysis makes possible the inspection of

features hidden from view behind structural materials, or even within a structure. For example,

it has been used to reveal the presence of handwrought nails connecting balusters to a handrail,

confirming that the staircase was original 18th

— —

‘

z

Thomas J. “Solving the Mystery of Hall, ” Historic

Preservation, June 1984, pp. 40-45.
62 Ž Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

century construction, and not a restoration. 53

Portable, relatively inexpensive units, make field

inspection practical in a variety of conditions. Xrays can penetrate most common building materials, but to varying depths. Conventional plaster and wood are most easily penetrated; most

metals, masonry, and earth absorb X-rays easily.

In practice, the )(-ray unit is set upon one side

of the construction medium under study. A film

pack containing a specially coated screen which

fluoresces when struck by X-rays, contains highspeed photographic film, which is exposed by the

fluorescent screen. By using Polaroid film in the

film pack, the structural analyst can see results

immediately and, if necessary, reposition the

apparatus to produce the desired results.

In 1981, X-ray analysis revealed the answer to

long-standing questions regarding details on the

internal structure of the dome of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia home, Monticello, whether it was,

in fact constructed “in Delorme’s manner.” The

evidence was found in Jefferson’s personal notebook on dome design and remodeling the property. That document indicates that Jefferson intended, in constructing the dome of Monticello,

to incorporate techniques he learned during his

tenure as American Minister to France. Developed by Philibert Delorme, a 16th century architect in the French court, the approach employed wooden planks laminated in short, curved

segments to form long, continuous structural ribs

that could then be used to vault arched spaces.

This technique represented an improvement over

traditional timber vaulting methods in that it was

lightweight, inexpensive, and easily and quickly

assembled.

In the absence of more detailed notes and

drawings, and because destructive analytical devices are inappropriate for such an architecturally and historically significant building, X-ray examination proved ideal for penetrating the

dome’s surfaces. X-ray techniques confirmed the

degree to which Jefferson varied his application

of Delorme’s technique.54 Important findings insJsee David MCLaren Hart, “X.%Y Inspection Of Historic Structures: An Aid To Dating and Structural Analyses, ” Technology &

Conservation, summer 1977, pp. 10-27, for a comprehensive summary of X-ray techniques.

sqDOUglaS Harnsberger, “In Delorme’s Manner, ” APT Bu//etin,

VOI. X11, No, 4, 1981.

elude the use in Monticello’s dome of four laminations per rib rather than the two per rib of

Delorme. In addition, Monticello’s dome features

wrought nails and spikes instead of mortises,

tenons, and pegs for attaching structural elements. X-ray technology showed clearly the innovation behind Jefferson’s adaptation.

Chemical and Physical Analysis

A variety of methods are used to determine the

chemical constituents and physical properties of

paint, wallpaper, and materials incorporated

within historic structures. Most involve the laboratory analysis of samples removed from a historic structure. For example, in examining fragments of wallpaper used at different times in

Gunston Hall, researchers have analyzed six different wallpapers and found that each of them

contained wood pulp, which indicated that they

all dated from later than 1825, as earlier paper

was made from rags.55

Sslbid.

Photo credlt: Preservatlon Assistance Division, National Park Service

Infrared Moisture Detection, Rome. Demonstration of

remotely operated unit.
Ch. 3—Research ● 6 3

Chemical analysis of stone can aid in determin- sounds can indicate whether or not a structural

ing the quarry from which it was mined. Chemi- member is firm or weakened. Examination of the

cal analysis of wood can aid in determining soundness of roofing systems reveals much about

whether structural and decorative or applied possible water damage.56 Tables 8 through 11

wood is part of the original fabric or newer and, present a variety of diagnostic tests that can be

therefore a replacement or addition. used in examining damage to wood, masonry,

However, proper diagnosis of the condition of iron and steel, an-d reinforced concrete.

historic structures begins with visual inspection, Information Analysis

as exterior signs of decay and degradation in

buildings are often obvious. The senses of smell Computerized Geographic Information Sysand touch and hearing also identify deterioration. tems.–Geographic Information Systems (G IS) are

Musty odors and damp surfaces suggest the pres- 5Worrest Wilson, “Building Diagnostics, ” Arch;tecfura/ Techno/- ence of damaging levels of moisture; certain ogy, winter 1985.

Table 8.—Technologies for Analyzing the Physical Condition of Wood

Diagnose Test method +Advantages – Disadvantages

Decay, species

Strength and grade

Density, strength,

degree of degradation

Moisture content

Strength, modulus of

elasticity

Moisture content

Grain direction,

irregularities, decay,

splits, knots, moisture

content, insect

damage, location and

size of members

Visual

Visual

Manual probing

Dielectric moisture

meters, power-loss

meter

Resistance-type

moisture meter

Electrical resistance

probe

Ultrasonic, pulse

velocity

Stress-wave propagation

Weight test, oven-drying

Radiographic

+good preliminary step

–other tests should follow to determine internal

conditions, stability

+Well-suited for grading inspection

+gives a measure of structural adequacy

–limited to accessibility, may be impractical if grade

marks painted over

+good to detect surface decay

+fast, easy to identify advanced decay

–other tests needed to assess internal quality

–not all surfaces may be accessible

–cannot detect internal decay

+easy to use, will not upset surface

–limited range: 0°/0 to 39% moisture content

–sensitive principally to surface of sample

–accuracy impaired when moisture gradient present

– reading affected by specimen density, chemical

treatments or decay

+ meter simple, rugged; readout in direct units

+calibrations for grades and species

–limited range: 7°/0 to 30°/0 moisture content

–data influenced by some preservatives, fire retardants

and decay

+measures changes in long-term moisture content

remotely

+can be built into structure

– used only in research

–limited range: 7°/0 to 35°/0 moisture content

+equipment portable, fast, and readily adaptable for field

use

–affected by wood characteristics that are not flaws,

such as moisture content

+portable, light, inexpensive

–requires trained personnel

+accurate at any level of moisture content

–takes time, requires lab test-equipment

+provides permanent record

+equipment light, portable, easy to use

–radiation is unhealthy, requires shielding

–initial cost high

–field development not complete

–specimen must be accessible on both sides

SOURCE: Forrest Wilson, “Building Diagnostics” ArcMtectura/ Technology, winter 1985; Neal Fitzsimmons; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.
64 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Table 9.—Technologies for Anaiyzing the Physicai Condition of Masonry

Diagnose Test method +Advantages – Disadvantages

Flexural bond strength

Shear strength or

diagonal strength

Water absorption

Size

Warpage

Imperviousness

Chemical resistance

Crazing

Leakage, water

permeance

Compressive strength

Structural soundness,

mortar bond, filled

cells

Inner cell grout, wall

thickness

Continuity, voids,

cracks, estimate of

compressive strength

Voids and

reinforcement

Location of

reinforcement

Load testing

Load testing

Weighing, dry and

saturated

Visual measurement

Visual inspection

Ink test

Acid dripping

Autoclave test

Spray test

Masonry prisms

Hammer test (light

tapping)

Probe holes

Ultrasonics (low

frequency)

Radiography

Tachometer

+ accurate

–destructive

+ accurate

–destructive

+accurate

–time-consuming

+fast, requires little skill

–will not determine strength or durability

+fast, requires little skill

–will not determine strength or durability

+fast

–will not determine strength or durability

+useful if exposure to certain chemicals is anticipated

–will not determine strength or durability

+reliable test

–safety precautions required

–will not determine strength or durability

+ rate of leakage and water permeance be observed

+ used for comparison of masonry specimen; simple

modifications make useful for in-situ testing

–will not determine strength or durability, other than

that inferred from porosity

+results reliable if taken from actual building materials

– results uncertain if materials different from actual

building

+fast approximation

– requires skilled tester with good hearing

– may require additional testing to validate findings

+small holes from test easily patched

+ requires only semiskilled evaluator

–an approximation, requires many drill holes unless

combined with fiber optics

+accurate evaluation of several parameters

– requires skilled, experienced operators

–expensive

+accurate evaluation of parameters; permanent record

on film

– requires access of both sides of specimen

–requires safety precautions; expensive

+requires fast, semiskilled operator

+gives locations and depth of reinforcement

–used only for light reinforcement; difficult to interpret

if both joint and cell reinforcement used. .– -

SOURCE: Forrest Wilson, “Building Diagnostics” Arc/#tectura/ Technology, winter 1985; Neal Fltzslmmons; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

computerized database systems in which the data

are explicitly spatial in nature and organization.

Such systems can be applied in studies of prehistoric and historic settlement patterns, and to

planning for future development.

A complete GIS includes both computer software and hardware. It is capable of merging and

analyzing a wide variety of data for their information content and displaying them graphically.

A system capable of processing large amounts of

information quickly (on minicomputers or mainframe computers) would cost on the order of

$50,000 or more, although smaller, less capable

systems for microcomputers (such as P-MAP, and

RIPS) are available at much lower costs. Examples of the more extensive systems, in the public domain, include MOSS/MAPS (Bureau of Land

Management), Geographical Resources Analysis

Support System (GRASS)57 (under development

by the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory of the Army Corps of Engineers), and

SAGIS (National Park Service).58

Jq. Westewelt, W. Goran, and M. Shapiro, “Development and

Applications of Grass: The Geographical Resources Analysis Support System,” manuscript, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign.

58RemOtely ~nsed data are ideally suited for analysis by GIS.
Ch. 3—Research ● 6 5

Table 10.—Technologies for Analyzing the Physical Condition of Reinforced Concrete

Diagnose Test method +Advantages –Disadvantages

Surface flaws

Differential movements

over time

Joint survey, expansion,

contraction, cracking,

variety of conditions

Internal cracks, voids,

flaws

Surface hardness—

relative quality of

concrete

Compressive strength

Moisture content

Slab thickness,

location

re-bar

Locate ferromagnetic

elements, location

and depth

Growing internal flaws

Visual, optical

Surveying

Visual joint inspection

Fiber optics visual

survey

Rebound hammer

Penetration, Windsor

probe

Dielectric

Electrical resistivity

Magnetic cover meters,

Tachometers

Acoustic emission,

stress waves

+ inexpensive

+ no special equipment needed

+ reveals defects other methods won’t

–provides information on surface only

+ provides cyclical relationships between deformation,

temperature and load

– immediate interpretations not available

–trained surveyor required

+ inexpensive initial first step in a more in-depth

investigation

+ most applicable to foundations, walls, slabs

–trained observer required for data collection and

evaluation

+yields clear, high-resolution image of remote

inspection areas

–requires path to surface; may require multiple

boreholes

+ inexpensive, fast; can be used by inexperienced

personnel

– indications of strength not accurate

– results affected by condition of concrete surface

– requires correlation between rebound value and

concrete

+equipment is simple, durable

+field operation requires minimum training

–accuracy depends on location of test and accuracy of

depth gauge

–slightly damages small area of concrete

– provides accurate strength determination only with

correlation of depth of penetration and concrete

strength

+equipment readily automated

– used in the past only in laboratories

– accuracy of 25°/0

–equipment very expensive, tests only for moisture

content

+ equipment easy to use

–limited to pavements and on-grade slabs

– results inaccurate, affected by air entrainment density,

moisture, salt content, and temperature gradients

+Iight, portable, easy to operate, inexpensive

–battery equipment will not operate satisfactorily below

32° F

–good results only with one layer of re-bar

–will not work well with mesh

+equipment simple, easy to operate

+data gathering requires minimal training

–data interpretation requires an expert

–background noise distorts results

–computer recommended for triangulation of flaw

location

– used only when structure is loaded and flaws

increasing

SOURCE’ Forrest Wilson, “Building Diagnostics” Architectural Teclmo/ogy, winter 1985, Neal Fitzsimmons; US. Department of Housing and Urban

Development
66 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic preservation

Table Il.—Technologies for Analyzing the Physical Condition of Iron and Steel

Diagnose Test method +Advantages – Disadvantages

- . . . . . . . . , . . , Surface characterlstlcs,

flaws, corrosion, pits,

etc.

Material separations

(open to surface)

Cracks, seams, laps,

voids, porosity, and

inclusions

Voids, porosity,

inclusions, and

cracks

Surface-finish

discontinuities,

cracks, seams,

variation in alloy

composition or heat

treatment

Yield strength, yield

point, tensile strength,

modulus of elasticity,

compressive strength

visual, optlcal,

horoscopes, fiberoptic, etc.

Liquid penetrant

containing dye

Magnetic particle

X-ray and gamma-ray

radiographic

Eddy current

Coupon

+ permits inspection of surface and hidden surfaces if

access available

–detect only visible flaws on surface or below surface

through access channels

+ permits inspection of complex shapes in a single

operation

+ inexpensive, easy to apply, portable

–shows only defects open to the surface

– messy, with irrelevant indications

– results depend on operator’s ability

– results must be carefully controlled

+simpie, inexpensive

+senses flaws down to 1/4 inch as well as surface flaws

+not applicable to nonmagnetic metals or materials

–messy, careful surface preparation required

–irrelevant indications often occur

–results depend on operator’s skill

+detects both internal and external flaws

+ portable

+ permanent record

–expensive; heavy

–health hazard, requires shielding

–complex shapes difficult to analyze

+moderate cost; readily automated

+ portable; permanent record available

+can be adapted to comparative analysis

– useful on conductive materials only

– shallow penetration

– reference standards often required

– provides only qualitative comparison

+fast, accurate results of physical and mechanical

values

–destructive to sample removed for testing

SOURCE: Forrest Wilson, “Building Diagnostics” ArcMtecfura/ Techrro/ogy, winter 1985; Neal Fitzsimmons; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

These systems are available for a wide variety

of analytical and management chores because

many cultural resource data are spatial in nature,

For example, the goal of much archaeological research is to discern patterns in the distribution

of artifacts, structures, or other cultural materials across the Earth’s surface. GIS can also be

used to relate data from different parts of a site

at a variety of scales. In archaeology, GIS methods have been used most extensively to predict

the occurrence of sites in a given region of interest (predictive locational modeling).

GIS can be especially useful for analyzing landscapes. The Army, for example, has used existing GIS technologies to map vegetation, slopes,

and archaeological sites across a Landscape.59 The

SgConstance Ramieriz, Department of the Army, personal communication, 1986.

system can plot every known site. Army technicians can even show how the landscape looks

at different times of the day or season, Although

the Army uses such information for planning military exercises, and other strictly military purposes, some of these techniques could be transferred into the civilian realm.

The expense of the technology, however, has

limited its use by archaeologists and landscape

architects. Regional GIS centers, that maintained

shared environmental and other databases,

would make it possible for these groups to gain

access to advanced GIS methods and help spread

this technological innovation more rapidly and

effectively through the preservation community.

Such centers could provide training for archaeologists and others in GIS methods. They are likely

to be highly effective within the university com-
Ch. 3—Research . 67

munity, where archaeologists and many other

professionals using GIS technology can work together on common problems.

Dating Techniques

The development of a series of physical dating techniques (table 12) by physicists and chemists provides one of the best examples of the successful application of technology to archaeology

over the last 30 years. GO The following discusses

two of those methods.

Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dating.– Developed

by W.F. Libby and his co-workers at the University of Chicago just after World War 11, radiocarbon dating is the most widely used and bestknown dating method. It relies on the fact that

all living organisms contain carbon atoms, an extremely small percentage of which (about one

part in a trillion) is the mildly radioactive isotope,

carbon-1 4. While the organism is still living, the

percentage of carbon-14 is maintained in equilibrium through exchange with atmospheric carbon. However, when it dies, no further exchange

is possible and the carbon-14 decays slowly (with

a half-life of about 6,000 years).

This technique is capable of providing ages of

organic materials for the last 30,000 to 70,000

years (depending on the size of the sample and

the experimental conditions). For periods of 5,000

years or less, and sample sizes of a gram or

bo’jee Joseph W. h4ictlels, Dating Methods in Archaeology (New

York: Seminar Press, 1973) for a general discussion of dating

methods.

Table 12.—Dating

more,61 the technique can determine the age of

a sample with a typical precision of +/-20 to +/-150

years. However, the use of radiocarbon techniques for the more recent past (1 7th to 20th century), for example to distinguish renovations from

original construction, requires special techniques.

Both natural and anthropogenic factors that have

affected the ratios of 14C to ‘2C make unambiguous dating for this time period particularly difficult.

Beginning in the late 1970s, the use of particle

accelerators G2 have made possible what is called

direct, or ion, counting (as opposed to the conventional decay counting) permitting reductions

in the size of the sample required for age determination of factors of 1,000 to 1 million.63 This

improvement makes possible the dating of extremely small samples that were impossible to

date several years ago. It also pushes back the

epoch for which carbon dating is possible by several thousand years. It might even make possible the dating of European Paleolithic cave

paintings or prehistoric American pictographs

painted with organic pigment. However, this dating method also means that archaeologists must

institute new methods to prevent contamination

by historic materials (for instance, by packaging

materials).

blA[thOugh a gram of material seems small, some fragments of

wood or other organic samples are a gram or smaller. Dating them

would therefore destroy them completely.

bzsee, for example, Christopher Chippendale, ‘‘Radiocarbon

Comes of Age at Oxford,” New Scientist, July 21, 1983, pp. 181-184.

bJDecay counting methods typically require samples of a gram

or more of carbon. The newer methods require only micrograms

to milligrams of carbon.

Prehistoric Sites

Method Materials Range of time

Dendrochronology. . . . . . . . Wood O to 7,000 years

Radiocarbon . . . . . . . . . . . . .Organic materials (wood, O to 50,000 years

seeds, bones, shells)

Archaeomagnetic . . . . . . . . Ferrous-bearing material, O to 10,000 years

heated in the past (clay,

stone firehearths)

Obsidian hydration . . . . . . .Obsidian O to 10,000 years

Thermoluminescence . . . . . Ceramics, burned rocks, O to hundreds of thousands of

stalagmites years

Fission tracks . . . . . . . . . . .Volcanic glass, minerals rich O to several hundreds of

in uranium thousands of years

Potassium-argon . . . . . . . . . Volcanic lava 1,000 to 1,000 million years

SOURCES Joseph W. Michels, Dating Methods in Archaeology (New York” Seminar Press, 1973); Tony Hackens “How Science

IJnlocks the Secrets of the Past, ” The Courier, July 1985, pp. 12-22.
68 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Archaeomagnetic Dating.—Archaeomagnetic

dating has been widely applied since the 1970s

but is still being perfected. It has been most useful in the American Southwest, where dendrochronology (tree ring dating) can be used for calibration. The method depends on the geophysical

fact that Earth’s magnetic field changes direction

and strength over time. When an iron-bearing

stone material (e.g., a fire hearth) is heated sufficiently to release molecules of ferrous materials

within the hearth from their rigid molecular alignments, they become free to realign themselves

in the local magnetic field. That orientation is

fixed as the material cools. Comparison today of

the molecules’ orientation relative to the current

field direction (which is constantly changing) can

yield an estimate of the date at which the stone

archaeological sample was last fired.

The archaeomagnetic scientist maps a set of

magnetic pole positions over time based on samples of known ages. The unknown sample is then

related to this set. The accuracy of the dates

therefore depends on: 1) the rate of the magnetic

changes through time—the faster the change, the

more accurate the date that results from the comparison; and 2) how well one can collect and

measure the orientation of the remnant magnetism in the sample. Recently, the process has

become more sophisticated, and at the same time

archaeologists have become more rigorous in

their use of archaeomagnetic results.

Because archaeomagnetic dating requires independently derived master curves of change of

Earth’s magnetic field over time, the technique

cannot be applied to regions that have no existing master curves. Therefore, every effort should

be made to collect samples in these areas so master curves can be developed. Unfortunately,

many archaeologists in areas lacking master archaeomagnetic curves are not attuned to the potential of these samples, and because such samples will not help them immediately in dating

their sites, they tend not to collect them. However, if support were made available to collect

such samples, it would be possible to develop

a national archaeomagnetism database.

Archaeomagnetic dating techniques are a direct outgrowth of the interests of geophysicists

in the magnetic history of the Earth. In archaeomagnetism, samples collected for archaeology are useful to geophysicists trying to understand the long-term behavior of Earth’s magnetic

field.

Soil Sciences, Sedimentology, and Geomorphology.–The set of techniques derived from soil

science, sedimentology, and geomorphology

have been recognized and applied by archaeologists for decades. Until recently, however, such

techniques have been invoked primarily to reconstruct likely paleo-environments, Earth sciences

have been used to explain the unique proliferation of early people sites in East and South Africa,

the movements of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers

in glacial Europe, and the conditions favorable

to the emergence of agriculture in the Near East

and Mesoamerica.

More recent interests in processes of site formation have expanded the domain of inquiry and

methodologies to the point where they can identify and often date modes of site occupation,

abandonment, and burial. Although such techniques need a great deal of further research, scientists can also explain what environmental processes cause certain sites to maintain integrity

despite weathering and the ravages of time. In

archaeologically rich areas, distinctive Iandforms

and soil layers identifiable by texture and color,

as well as soil chemistry, may serve as regional

benchmarks for locating the surfaces of sites, isolating unique environments favored by particular ancient cultures, and for marking occupation

sequences over time.

Such methods, applied to understanding the

prehistoric case, may provide important data for

modern soil problems. For example, study of soil

productivity and soil salinity in ancient Mesopotamia may suggest techniques to apply for today’s

problems of increasing soil salinity in western irrigated soils.64

The earth sciences have much to contribute to

the preservation and management of cultural resources, in part because they involve study of the

interaction of natural and cultural resources. Because of this management potential, for examGdDiane E, Gel burd, ‘‘Managing Salinity: Lessons From the PM”

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:329-331, 1985.
Ch. 3—Research ● 6 9

ple in locating archaeological sites,65 an appreciation of the benefits and liabilities of earth science

research is especially critical to Federal or State

managers of cultural resources. In particular, the

National Park Service and the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers recognize the potential of geomorphology and soil science as integral components

of large-scale research design. In the future it will

be important to focus on the potential of the specialized approaches to particular archaeological

problems, such as soils sciences, in the interests

of maximizing overall research yield, boosting

efficiency, and addressing preservation issues i n

a systematic manner.

It will also be important to characterize more

completely the chemical constituents and chemical interactions of artifacts, structures, and archaeological sediments.

Technologies for Underwater Archaeology

Individuals exploring the sea bottom have a

wide array of technologies at their disposal. Deep

water technologies such as tethered and free

roaming remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and

saturation diving are exerting a profound effect

on data recovery in underwater archaeology and

maritime preservation.

Technical improvements involving the remote

detection of submerged cultural sites completely

covered by sand and other sediments would significantly aid underwater archaeological research.

Refinements in such techniques as magnetometry, which would allow archaeologists to determine which sites to excavate and where to excavate within them, would benefit the entire

underwater archaeological process.

Scuba Diving.–Archaeologists make extensive

use of scuba diving equipment and techniques

for exploring and excavating sites in shallow

waters.

Deep Sea Diving.–The use of saturation divers

and deep-diving systems to collect samples at

depths totally unattainable to conventional divers

65L. E. W/ildesen and Y.T. Witherspoon, “Locating significant Archaeological Sites by Landform Analysis In Central Oregon, ” presented at the Northwest Anthropological Conference, April 1985,

Ellensburg, WA,

has been a major technical innovation. Saturation divers are now able to work at extreme depth

for prolonged periods. Bottom times are no

longer a function of depth, as they are with scuba

diving, and each dive can last for many hours instead of minutes. Breathing an atmosphere of

mixed helium-oxygen, divers can attain depths

of over 1,000 feet, although decompression afterward may require several days. Habitats, lockout submersibles, and tethered deep-diving systems

deploy saturation divers to their destinations.

Remote/y Operated Vehicles.–ROVs were discussed earlier in the examination of technologies

for discovery. However, they have an important

‘\

Photo credit: Institute of Nautlcal Archaeology

A lifting balloon assists underwater archaeologists in

raising artifacts.
70 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

role in gathering data, either using photographic

and video techniques, or collecting, samples.

Scorpio, a particular type of new ROV66 is now

being equipped with remotely controlled manipulators. New ROVs are now capable of achieving depths of up to 13,oOO feet and are armed

with specialized work packages capable of cleaning oil rig platforms and recovering a vast array

of objects.67 The costs of ROVs are extremely

high, however (see Chapter 7: Preservation

Policy).

Underwater Excavation Technologies. -These

techniques range from the extremely simple, such

as hand-fanning, to the complex, such as controlled blasting, and include the use of blowers,

‘ssJOndthan 6. TUCker, “submersibles Reach New Depths, ” High

Technology, February 1986.

6~he university of New Hampshire owns possibly the most advanced ROV, EAVE-EAST. It is autonomous and outfitted with five

microprocessors to sense data on altitude, depth, obstacles, and

power consumption. Research continues to impart greater dexterity

of manipulation and better systems for autonomy.

prop wash deflectors, air hammers, and chisels.

Excavation required in dark or “black” water can

be virtually impossible to carry out, even in relatively calm, shallow water. Specially designed coffer dams such as that being applied at the Yorktown Archaeological park in Yorktown, Virginia,68

are improving the ability of divers to find their

way in heavily silted waters. In Yorktown, excavation of an 18th century shipwreck is carried out

within a steel enclosure filled with river water that

is clarified by commercial filtration units. Normal

visibility in the York River is usually less than 1

foot. The filtration process increases the visibility inside the protective coffer dam to more than

20 feet, A pier connecting the dam to the shore

permits ready access to visitors who are encouraged to observe underwater archaeologists working at the site and to familiarize themselves with

part of the archaeological research process.

bsjohn D. Broadwater, Division of Historic Landmarks, York, VA,

personal communication, 1986.

Archaeology

1. Excavation is the last resort in archaeological research.

Although the public generally associates excavation of sites with archaeology, archaeologists

today generally consider excavation to be a last

resort, primarily because excavation severely disturbs or even destroys a site and prevents later

reexamination and reinterpretation. For many archaeological research problems, the examination

of surface remains can yield information just as

critical for understanding prehistoric society as

excavation. In addition, rather than focus on the

site per se, archaeologists today generally view

their research in terms of regional, rather than

site, analysis. They excavate sites in order to investigate hypotheses generated for a regional context, and investigate the climate, the zoology, and

botany of a region as well as its geology and geomorphology.

This point of view represents a change from an

earlier approach to archaeology.69 In the first

bgDaVid J. MelrZer, et al. (eds. ), American Archaeology Past and

Future (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986), for

place, not excavating leaves the remains in place

for future research as new techniques allow finer

and finer levels of analysis. In the second, techniques are continually being developed that can

provide information about a site or area without

destroying it. In general, archaeologists need to

excavate less and record the sites they do excavate more carefully .70 Not only should they record the positions and kinds of artifacts more

carefully, they should record plant and animal

remains found in different layers of the soil, as

well as soil color and chemical makeup.

In addition, as archaeologists continue to increase the amount of data recorded and materials saved when excavating, it becomes proportionately more costly to excavate. Therefore

technologies that reduce costs are becoming increasingly important.

Nevertheless, excavation is often the only way

to gather sufficient information on an ancient culture. Advanced techniques can make the task of

several articles concerning the changes that have taken place in

the practice of archaeology in the United States in the last 50 years.

ZOE Harris, Princip/e$ of Stratigraphy (London: Academic press,

1979j.
Ch. 3—Research . 71

excavation more efficient, more complete, and

more objective. Excavation methods have improved over time and are increasingly designed

to preserve more of a given site from the destruction resulting from excavation.

2. Data recording methods should be improved to make them more complete and

more objective.

New methods also allow archaeologists to

standardize the process of gathering data so they

are less prone to do onsite interpretation that

could lead to bias in their final results. Standardization is especially important as other archaeologists cannot replicate the excavation of a given

site. Even sites that are similar and located in the

same geographical area are unique in many aspects. By contrast, the science of physics or astronomy depends on the scientist’s ability to

check each other’s work by replicating crucial

experiments or observations.

Improvements are especially needed in technologies for constructing accurate three-dimensional maps in the field in order to accurately

locate artifacts found on a surface or within a

room, because the exact placement of an artifact

may provide clues as to how it was used.

One simple, relatively inexpensive technique

for recording field data is to use bar code generators to produce bar codes in the field for the purpose of characterizing artifacts. The bar code can

then be attached to the artifact for identification

in the lab.71 Recording the excavation with photographs or video cameras allows later interpretation in the laboratory. 72 Orthophotographic tech -

niques, which allow recording of an excavation

by means of overhead stereo cameras, need to

be made cheaper.

3. Adequate samples should be collected for

later analysis.

Scientific methods for archaeology are now becoming sophisticated enough that it is profitable

‘-71 Bar code readers at-lcf generators are now available even for

portable lap computers. Lap computers can also be used to record

data and for controlling processes in the field.

TZFor example, color video technology, which allows one to see

changes in soil color as the excavation takes place may improve

the accuracy of interpretation of the site. Three-dimensional holograms for recording excavation information might also improve the

excavation process.

to collect material such as soils, cores, and profile peels, that might be analyzed later by microtechniques under development today. Some archaeologists have made and stored collections

of soils and cores, but this practice appears to be

the exception rather than the rule. Nor are such

procedures generally taught in field schools

today. Here again, archaeologists need to standardize the collection and recording of samples

so material from one site may be compared with

that from another.

Material from each excavation is unique from

a biophysical and biochemical point of view, so

the requirements of data collection at a site can

become very specific. Archaeologists are well

trained in recovering artifacts, but only relatively

recently have they begun to turn their attention

to the geological, biophysical, biochemical material. They need experience in the relevant discipline to do this. It is otherwise too easy to make

mistakes in deciding exactly what to collect and

how to collect and process it. With advanced dating techniques such as radiocarbon, thermoluminescence, and obsidian hydration, for example,

it is increasingly important to know more about

the surrounding biochemical environment, because techniques now in development use much

more sensitive equipment that can date much

smaller samples than in the past.

4. Remote sensing and other locational technologies can be used by looters as well as

professional archaeologists.

Unfortunately, the same remote sensing technologies that are available for preservation can

be used for increased looting of archaeological

sites because many of the data (e. g., the Landsat

data and most aerial photos) are available to the

public. As archaeologists improve their sophistication in remote sensing techniques, so too will

those who wish to exploit cultural resources for

personal gain.

This is particularly true for shipwrecks, given

the currently clouded legal situation vis-a-vis title to submerged cultural resources (see Chapter 7: Technology and Preservation Policy). As

long as salvers and artifact hunters are allowed

to recover the contents of shipwrecks in U.S.

waters they will employ a variety of advanced

technologies for finding shipwrecks and their con-
72 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic preservation

tents. At this point, those who would protect

these aspects of U.S. cultural history are not generally finding these sites first and therefore cannot protect them. In States where laws against

the looting of historic shipwrecks within designated waters are strongly enforced, improved

monitoring and surveillance equipment (see

Chapter 4: Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection) would aid underwater archaeologists and cultural resource managers in

developing strategies to safeguard shipwreck sites

from illegal intrusion.

Underwater Archaeology

1. underwater archaeology is highly dependent on advanced technology.

More than any other preservation field, underwater archaeology depends on a wide array of

costly techniques and equipment. Underwater

archaeologists confront a host of practical problems, even dangers, that their colleagues working on dry land do not. These problems relate

to underwater environmental conditions and include breathing, currents, cold, depth, turbidity,

and hostile marine animals; they also relate to

time limitations on research and the degree to

which remains might be buried beneath sediments or concretion.

The available technologies are generally adequate to the preservation tasks but they are often

too expensive. In addition, only a small core of

professionals experienced in their use is available,

Future research should focus on developing more

sensitive, low-cost methods and instrumentation,

and on exploiting new sources of information.

2. A research design is extremely important in

determining the appropriate technology to

apply to the study of underwater cultural resources.

In part because underwater archaeology is a

relatively new subdiscipline of archaeology, some

underwater archaeologists have given relatively

little attention to developing a detailed research

plan, or design. Yet, in the absence of a detailed

research design, including plans for curation of

excavated materials, the research project may fall

short of its investigator’s intent. Archaeologists

should not excavate unless they can ensure and

specify within a research design, that the materials recovered from the marine environment can

be properly housed, conserved, and maintained.

As one archaeologist has complained:

In the real world of shipwreck archaeology,

the commitment to excavation is developed before the conceptualization of a significant rationale for doing it. This is understandable in a CRM

[cultural resources management] milieu, i.e.,

some sort of mitigation must be carried out on

a site threatened by dredging or other bottom

disturbing construction activities. This, however,

is actually rarely the case; usually an institutional

researcher has obtained money to excavate a

shipwreck, then he may or may not develop a

comprehensive statement on why he is going to

excavate it—but usually not.73

Historic Structures

1. Nondestructive analytical techniques need to

be developed for studying historic structures.

Given the pace of rehabilitation spurred by

preservation tax incentives and the sometimes

rapid degradation of some materials from air and

water-borne pollutants, the need for more powerful, nondestructive analytical techniques for determining the nature, extent, causes, and results

of deterioration and failure of materials is critical. Currently, relevant technologies range from

relatively simple, inexpensive hand-held moisture

meters to sophisticated neutron/gamma-ray detectors.

2. Knowledge of the behavior of historic building materials is insufficient.

Even many preservationists, architects, and

engineers have a relatively weak grasp of the

detailed behavior of historic building materials.

Recognition of the need for careful, scientific testing and monitoring of such materials has emerged

only recently. The reactions of historic materials

exposed to certain environments have been misTIDaniel j. Lenihan and Larry Murphy, “Considerations for Research Designs in Shipwreck Archaeology,” Underwater Archaeology: The Challenge Bdore Us, The Ptvceedings of the Tweltlh Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd.) (San

Marine, CA: Fortran Eight, 1981).
Ch. 3—Research ● 7 3

Photo credit: D. Dwornik, U.S. Geological Survey

Exfoliation of gypsum crust. Georgia marble baluster

after 75 years of exposure in Washington, DC. The

black crust containing gypsum is a result of sulfur

dioxide attack on marble.

understood, which has resulted in some serious

conservation problems today. Corrosive interactions introduced into the environment through

new and not yet fully monitored industrial and

chemical processes are compounding these

problems,

In addition, many of the Nation’s historic buildings erected between the 1880s and early 1940s

were the results of intense competition among

product manufacturers, architects, and builders,

many of whom closely guarded the secrets of

their proprietary designs and processes. This was

a very active period in building. Because building materials were not generally tested, their

strengths and shortcomings were not fully understood. Often, for example, the most easily carved

and, therefore, the least durable stones were

placed incorrectly at the tops of buildings or

within cornices where they became highly vulnerable to weathering. Poor construction methods, inadequate craftsmanship, and general corner-cutting were almost forced by timeframes and

budgets. The installation of incompatible materials in close proximity to each other has resulted

in serious problems. For example, oxidation both

stains and damages masonry in contact with iron,

steel, and copper. Also, changes over time in

building shapes toward flattened facades and profiles have all but eliminated highly effective moisture-controlling design features such as projecting string and belt courses, pediments, and water

tables, “Most systems and products were developed through trial and error. It was an age of exploitation of building materials and systems. Unfortunately, we are left with that legacy.”74

The National Bureau of Standards’ Center for

Building Technology is applying some of the most

advanced technologies for characterizing the

microstructure and the physical, chemical, and

mechanical properties of organic, inorganic, and

composite building materials. They employ an array of complex instruments (table 13) to determine and measure the mechanisms of the degradation and decay of building materials.

3. Preliminary research into the physical history of the structure can focus the use of

technology.

Where construction and repair/rehabilitation

documentation has been retained, a search of

those records can give basic information on

which to build a technological testing program.

For instance, the names of quarries for the various types of stone in many of the monuments located in the Mall area of Washington, DC, came

from construction documents saved by the Army

Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service. In a few cases, the specific vein at the quarry

could be identified. This information allows

74 See Baird M. Smith, “Diagnosis of Nonstructural Problems in

Historic Masonry Build ings, ” Conservation of Historic Stone Buildings, Report of the Committee on Conservation of Historic Stone

Buildings and Monuments, National Materials Advisory Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research

Council (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982), pp.

212-214.
74 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Table 13.—Major Equipment of the

National Bureau of Standards’ Center for

Building Technology

● scanning electron and light microscopes

● X-ray diffractometer

● thermal analyzers

● ultraviolet visible and Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometers

● mechanical testing machines

Ž environmental cabinets

● accelerated weathering chambers

Ž gel permeation chromatography

● ion and gas chromatography

● digital data-collection systems

● minicomputers and microcomputers

● image analyzer

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

managers to use chemical testing much more specifically because the material has been so closely

identified before the testing starts.

4. The sharing of technologies can make more

advanced documentation and analysis of

historic structures available.

Gulf Islands National Seashore, for example,

has cooperative agreements with many Florida

State bureaus to carry out sophisticated examinations on their historic structures.

5. Historic structures frequently include additions or have lost portions that reflect an ongoing process of use and change.

Technologies that can help to illuminate that

process of development over time by showing

where and how changes and additions have been

made will help to reveal the richness of social and

cultural change. The documentation and analysis of those changes can also be used to communicate the story of the structure to a wider audience through information developments.

6. Historic structures should be viewed and

analyzed in the context of their full setting,

rather than as single buildings divorced from

their milieu.

Thus, many of the techniques involved with

landscapes (see below) can be applied to structures and sites as well.

Landscapes

The survey of U.S. prehistoric and historic landscapes is still in its infancy. In part as a result of

the lack of adequate survey, the constituency for

locating and preserving significant historic landscapes has not yet developed fully, though it is

growing.75 An interdisciplinary team approach is

needed in which anthropologists, archaeologists,

architects, and historians work together with

landscape architects in conducting a broad-based

survey of American landscapes.76

There are three basic steps in identifying historic landscapes:

1. identifying and accessing records of the

known resources;

2. identifying previously unidentified historic

landscapes; and

3. recording, storing, and augmenting the newly

acquired data.

After being identified (see figure 2), the significance of the landscape must be evaluated against

criteria developed for the National Register of

Historic Places,77

Participants in this assessment raised the following issues related to the discovery and analysis of prehistoric and historic landscapes:

1. Public officials and individuals are often unaware of the value and significance of

historic landscapes.

Traditionally, historic preservationists have

worked from the grassroots. They have built local constituencies that have insisted on the value

of a given structure or archaeological site and

zssee, for example, Eleanor M. Peck, Keith Morgan, and Cynthia Zaitzevsky (eds.), Oimstedin Massachusetts: The Public Legacy

(Brookline, MA: Massachusetts Association for Olmsted Parks, 1983),

for an example of a State inventory of a specific class of designed

landscapes.

TbO/mst& Historic Landscape Preservation Program: Guidelines

and Criteria for /mp/emerttation (Boston, MA: Commonwealth of

Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs, April 1985).

7Timothy Keller and Genevieve P. Keller, “How To Evaluate and

Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, ” Nationa/ Register of

Historic P/aces Bu//etin 18, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, in press.
Ch. 3—Research ● 7 5

Figure 2.—Categories of Historic Landscapes

Treatment

Mary Washington House, Fredericksburg, VA

Residential grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K # # GWSM, Inc.

The Garden Club of Virginia

Statue of Liberty, New York, NY

Monument grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H z Y Norman T. Newton

National Park Service

Original Governor’s Mansion, Helena, MT

Public building grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < ~ Richard E. Mayer

Montana State Parks Division

Stratford Garden Restoration, Potomac River, VA

Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ti ~ ~ GWSM, Inc.

The Garden Club of Virginia

Minor public grounds Pioneer Square, Seattle, WA

(e.g., town square, parklet, traffic circle) . . . . . ~ / Jones & Jones

City of Seattle

Sannonburg Gardens, Canandaigua, NY

Botanical garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H ~ H Noredo A. Rotunno

Sannonburg Gardens Committee

Fort Stanwix National Monument, Rome, NY

Fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ H Dureya & Wilhelmi, P.C.

National Park Service

Rosebud Battlefield, Montana

Battlefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / / / Richard E. Mayer

Montana State Parks Division

Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cemeteries, New Harmony, IN / fl Kane & Carruth, P.C.

Main Street Project, Hot Springs, SD

Streetscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- Preservation/Urban/Design, Inc.

National Trust

Chicago Mid-West Office

Gamble Plantation, Manatee County, FL

Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H ~ / Lane L. Marshall & Associates, Inc.

State of Florida

Cherokee Park Restoration, Louisville, KY

Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # # / Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc.

Louisville Metropolitan Park & Recreation Board

Old World Wisconsin, Eagle, WI

Working farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ e William H. Tishler

State Historical Society of Wisconsin

Museum village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Williamsburg, VA

Shurciiff, Hopkins, Parker, Barton & Belden —

Staff Landscape Architects

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

Heritage Square, Los Angeles, CA

District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < # # Merrill W. Winans

Cultural Heritage Foundation

Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /

Town of New Harmony, New Harmony, IN / H Kane & Carruth, P.C.

Cahokia Mounds, near East St. Louis, IL

Prehistoric site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / / Edward J. Keating

Illinois Department of Conservation

Survey Olmsted Parks System, Buffalo, NY

Patricia M. O’Donnell

Park system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / # / Highways, Parks & Recreation Historical

Preservation Division &

Landmark Society of the Niagara Frontier

SOURCE: Landscape Architecture, January 1981
76 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

sought State or National help in preserving it.

However, in landscapes, the local constituency

that identifies landscape value often do not exist, in part because adequate information is not

available. For example, in the case of designed

historic landscapes, most people are unaware

that they were designed, and why it may be important to maintain the integrity of that design.

For cultural or vernacular landscapes, the local

constituency may appreciate their significance

the least just because they are so familiar.

Where a constituency has developed, it has

often acted to enlarge the scope of historic districts. For example, in Jefferson County, Kentucky,78 a site consisting of a few farm houses and

auxiliary buildings was nominated to the Register. However, the local people realized that the

houses had little to do with the significance of

the area. They considered the agricultural patterns, the associations of the families the stone- l7

work, the fences, and other components as significant. The local people, working through their

certified local government (CLG), did the research

necessary to expand the scale of the nomination

to a 400-to 500-acre district. The landscape elements became major components imparting significance to the district.

As citizens become more aware of the influence of historic landscapes in their lives and landscapes’ importance to the history of the Nation,

local nominations to the National Register of

Historic Places are likely to increase in number

and size.

2. Landscape records are often poorly stored

and cataloged.

One of the important components of surveying the States for additional significant historic

landscapes is to be aware of those already cataloged. Unfortunately, the state of knowledge of

sites so identified is quite poor; until quite recently, it was not possible to use even the National Register of Historic Places as a source to

compile a list of significant landscapes because

the Register does not list them as landscapes but

as structures, if at all. In many cases, landscapes

are included on the National Register by virtue

7aTirnothy Keller, Lan(j and Community Associates, perSOnalCommunication, 1986.

of the fact that they are settings for historic structures. In some cases, the landscape may have

greater significance than the structure.

The contents of the National Register are now

in a computer database, which should make it

possible to locate nearly all landscapes listed in

the National Register. Improving local and national databases and making historical data generally more available should improve the quality and extent of landscape preservation.

3. Landscape study is highly interdisciplinary.

The study of prehistoric and historic landscapes

requires the use of a variety of information sources,

including folklore, oral history,79 historic maps,

drawings, and paintings, climate information, tax

records, and ethnohistorical accounts. Analysis

draws on a variety of techniques, including sociological techniques, environmental design, and

a variety of geographical techniques developed

for the analysis of land cover and Iandforms. This

characteristic is one of the strengths of landscape

preservation. Because landscapes often transcend

political boundaries, they may be profitably studied on a regional, as well as multidisciplinary, basis. The study of landscapes and the study of ecology both share such a regional scope.8o

4. Landscapes are subject to a variety of stresses

that change their condition and character over

time.

Because landscapes can change so radically

over time as a result of urban development, the

growth of bushes and trees, and wind and rain

erosion (see Chapter 4: Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection for discussion

of such stresses), it may be extremely difficult to

locate the full extent of cultural and historic designed landscapes in the midst of radically altered

surroundings and successive changes. Landscapes

may either increase or decrease in significance

depending on their integrity and surroundings.

Zgsee, for example, Mary Hufford, “Culture and Cuhivation of

Nature: The Pinelands National Reserve, ” Fo/k/ife Annua/ 1985

(Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1985).

BOFor example, several rivers that start in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia empty into the Atlantic in North and South Carolina. The environmental problems caused by human use of these

rivers are indeed regional.
Ch. 3—Research ● 7 7

One of the biggest technical problems in understanding cultural landscapes is that different

cultural components of the same landscape are

generally associated with several different periods

of history. Both cultural and ecological factors can

cause irreversible changes that further complicate

study of the landscape. Disentangling these various components and understanding how different

ages shaped the landscape to fit their purposes

can be a formidable task. Unless researchers can

untangle the various components of different

periods it is nearly impossible to reconstruct a

landscape perfectly for any one period.81

For example, one study82 of the historic landscapes around Mont Dardon in southern Burgundy found that the pre-Christian era Celts responded to the land much differently than their

Roman conquerors, who altered the landscape

to suit their military needs, The Celts preferred

to live on the more easily defendable heights, but

the Remans forced them to move into the valleys where their army could control them more

easily. Inhabitants from the Middle Ages and the

modern periods in their turn dramatically altered

the Roman landscape. Even in North America,

where written records are only a few hundred

years old, cultural manipulation of the landscape

may involve many different cultures extending

more than 10,000 years into the past.

5. Appropriate application of existing technology

is important.

The locations of many designed gardens or

parks are known because they are part of local

lore. However, they may be buried, or so altered

in appearance that they are unrecognizable. In

these cases, landscape architects and historians

employ well-known, standard archaeological and

historical research techniques to determine their

61 For example, 17th century Salem, MA, had structures and land

use patterns which originated in, and were characteristic of, the

16th century.

f3ZCarole L. Crum Icy, “Archaeological Reconnaissance at Mont

Dardon, France,” Archaeology, May-june 1983, pp. 14-17, 20; and

Scott L.H, Madry, “Remote Sensing in Archaeology, ” Archaeology, May-June 1983, pp. 18-19. They used remote sensing and computer analysis, as well as traditional historical and archaeological

research methods, to investigate the patterns of two millenia of settlement and land use in the area. Their goal was to illuminate the

ways in which different cultures have defined and used the local

landscape.

original extent, form, and contents. For example,

the existence of the terraced garden associated

with the Paca House, the winter home of William Paca, one of the signers of the Declaration

of independence, in the city of Annapolis, was

well known from 18th century historical accounts. However, when restoration of the Paca

House began in 1965, the original garden was

buried under a parking lot and only a few details

of its extent, form, and contents were provided

in these writings. No drawing of the garden existed. The current Paca garden is a conjectural

reconstruction developed from detailed archaeology of the immediate area and considerable historical research on the types of flowers, shrubs,

and trees that Paca would have likely planted .83

6. The techniques appropriate to different size

landscapes are different.

Cultural Landscapes.–Computer modeling

and remote sensing techniques provide a powerful set of tools for the interpretation and evaluation of cultural landscapes, which may extend

over hundreds or thousands of acres. An important goal of the investigator of a prehistoric or

historic landscape is to be able to “read” the

landscape for the clues (or signatures) it gives to

the relationships human societies bear to the land

and how they interact with and alter it over time.

Technology can aid that process by making the

varieties of information about landscapes much

more accessible. Such systems can be used to

plot the potential changes to a landscape as a result of plant growth, grazing, forestry, and other

temporal alterations of landscape components.

In discussing the use of such advanced techniques, participants in this study noted that many

administrators who control the purse strings regard GIS, remote sensing, and other advanced

methods as expensive, yet for large areas, it can

be one of the cheapest methods for gathering

data, especially because it allows access to information impossible to retrieve in any other way.

public administrators need to understand how remote sensing may be cost-effective in certain applications. They also need to understand the limi83Bill McDougald, “williamPaca’s Colonial Garden, ” Southern

Living, May 1984.
78 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Wiiiiam Paca House and Garden, Annapoiis, MD

Photo credit: Ray A. Williamson

After being buried under a 200-room hotel, a parking lot, and bus station, this 18th century garden was restored in the

1970s based on the results of careful research by archaeologists, architects, landscape architects, and historians.

tations of such technology in order to avoid

applying it inappropriately.

Designed Landscapes.–For historic parks,

gardens, and other designed landscapes, remote

sensing and GIS find less application. Searches

of historical records and traditional archaeological and botanical techniques are the techniques

of choice. Many of these techniques may be improved through the innovative use of computer

hardware and software. (See, for example, Chapter 5: Preservation In formation.)

Historic landscape analysis and evaluation also

require the identification, study, and retrieval of

historic plant types. Identifying the plants appropriate to a given historic period and region is one

of the major tasks facing landscape preservationists. Their task is complicated by the fact that

plant taxonomies have changed radically over

time. In addition, thousands of varieties of trees,

shrubs, and plants have been introduced into the

United States from other parts of the world over

the past 200 years. Certain varieties, such as the

American chestnut, have virtually died out. Finally, locating historic varieties is rendered more

intricate by the fact that many varieties now sold

are hybrids. There is a critical need to develop

appropriate databases on the types of plantings

used in historic times, and current sources of

historic plant stock. There is also a strong need

to encourage growing the stock itself.
Ch. 3—Research . 79

Photo credit: Jon D. Findley

Cultural landscape: the Findley Homestead, Dallas County, lowa, early 1980s.

7. Qualitative techniques have an important

role in the study of landscapes.

In analyzing a landscape for such purposes as

restoration or park redesign, it is important to be

aware of the varied cultural values of the local

citizens. Qualitative anthropological or historical

techniques, such as interviewing, can be used to

understand the values of the different constituencies to relate them to the needs of the entire

community. For publicly owned landscapes, such

techniques applied in conjunction with those of

the landscape architect or designer may significantly enrich the quality of the preservation effort .84

———————— S. “Environmental Quality Points: A Land

Management System, ” Landscape Architecture 

1985, a more complete treatment, see Scott 

berg, Quality Points, ” manuscript, School 

 mental Georgia, 1985.

8. Known technologies can be adapted for

computer and other applications.

One of the major tasks facing landscape preservationists is to adapt known technologies to new

settings. For example, the use of pin bar registration techniques to produce overlays is well

known to architects and landscape architects.

Such overlay drafting techniques allow landscape

architects to produce different drawings for different landscape components (e.g., structures, walls,

trees, and shrubs) and then overlay them on one

another. Because they are line drawings, pin bar

drawings can easily be digitized for manipuIation

in a minicomputer or microcomputer using computer-aided design software. They can be used

to compare historical drawings with the current

condition of the landscape. With the computer,

and the appropriate software, it is possible to vary

the scale, add and subtract components, and

print out the results on a variety of printers.
Chapter 4

Restoration, Conservation,

Maintenance, and Protection
Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Threats to Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Human Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Natural Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Restoration, Conservation, and Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Underwater Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Historic Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

‘Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

83

84

87

89

92

93

95

99

Protection From Deliberate Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............101

Technologies for Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............101

Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........103
Chapter 4

Restoration, Conservation,

Maintenance, and Protection

INTRODUCTION

The United States possesses myriad striking, significant prehistoric sites and structures, restored

historic houses, public buildings, monuments,

bridges, parks, and landscapes. Yet it has lost

many more of these important cultural resources,

which were just as reflective of significant historic

values and became the victims of neglect, deliberate destruction, or of conflicting community

values.

Preservation of cultural resources involves restoration, conservation, and maintenance. It may

require extraordinary means, such as diverting

a stream bed to protect properties from severe

erosion or law enforcement procedures to apprehend and prosecute looters and vandals. This

chapter identifies the primary human and natural threats to cultural resources, and discusses the

technologies that can be brought to bear to slow,

reduce, or eliminate the damage such threats

cause. Although each discipline involved in the

preservation process has its own specific interests and requirements for technology, successful long-term cultural resource protection include

three basic components, each of which uses a

variety of technologies:

1. identification and analysis of the primary

threats to cultural resources;

2. evaluation, resolution, or mitigation of specific threats; and

3. public education and involvement.

Each component must be integrated with an

overall set of strategies for confronting, managing, and reducing the enormous stresses on

America’s cultural resource base. Public education, which is an essential part of the Nation’s

preservation effort, is discussed in chapter 5.

THREATS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES

U.S. cultural resources are subject to a multitude of human and natural stresses (tables 14 and

15). The United States is entering a critical period

when the many forces operating to destroy important cultural resources may outweigh the efforts to preserve them for future generations. As

one archaeologist noted, “The next generation

cannot study or preserve what has already been

destroyed.’” For example, fewer than 10 percent

of the known prehistoric Mimbres sites in southwestern New Mexico are still intact. Southeastern Utah has experienced sustained losses of its

prehistoric resources. More than 60 percent of

the ancient Anasazi sites of the region have been

dug for ancient pots, baskets, or other salable

items.2

Economic pressures in other areas have compelled property owners and real-estate developers

to achieve the “highest and best, ” use of land.

That has often meant the most immediately profitable use. Until the first of several preservation

tax incentives became available in 1976, the high

costs of maintaining historic buildings often meant

their demolition and replacement with modern,

low maintenance structures that were often out

of place in the neighborhood. Urban parks,

which contain both landscape and structural elements, are subject to increased visitation, both

‘Charles McG imsey, Pub/ic Archaeology 3, 1972. See also testimony in hearings on Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 1979.

‘Carol Ann Bassett, “The Culture Thieves,” Science ’86, july/August 1986, pp. 22-29.

83
84 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Table 14.—Human-Generated Threats to

Cultural Resourcesa

Agriculture Neglect

Beautification Pollution (air and water)

Construction Preservation activities

Demolition Recreational technologies

Drilling (e.g., off-road vehicles,

Energy generation metal detectors, etc.)

Fencing Rehabilitate ion or retrofitting

Fire Site compaction

Firefighting Timber cutting

Fire rehabilitation Theft

Grazing Vandalism

Mining Visitation

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Table 15.—Natural Threats to Cultural Resources

Climate Freeze/thaw cycles

Salt air in coastal Subsidence

environments Pests

Moisture Blight

Erosion Fire

Earthquakes Violent storms (tornado,

Floods hurricane. etc.)

aNot listed in priority order

minor and major vandalism, and arson. Increased

development in urban, suburban, and even rural areas, and (until quite recently) increased oil

and gas exploration, have put enormous pressures on what is a finite cultural resource base.

The severity of threats to cultural resources

varies depending on the type and the region of

the country in which they are found. in the West

and Southwest, looting and vandalism are among

the most serious threats to archaeological resources. In the Midwest and East, erosion and

construction projects tend to cause more damage. Underwater archaeological resources are under severe stress from salvers and uninformed

sport divers.

The life expectancy of historic structures, as

well as some archaeological sites and landscapes,

is threatened by acidic moisture, generated by

the pollutions of an urban, industrial society. lnadequate identification, visitation, inadequate

managerial/maintenance policies, and malicious

destruction are the greatest threats to most landscapes. Far more serious damage is caused to

cultural resources by human agency, both intentional and unintentional, than by natural, environmental causes. All of these threats can be significantly reduced by the appropriate application

of technology.

Human Threats

Visitation

Over time, visitor amenities, even the wear and

tear of visitors’ shoes, can do enormous damage

to the integrity of any archaeological site, historic

structure, or landscape. Managing such stresses

to cultural resources requires attention to the varieties of inadvertent harm visitors do and the development of methods to mitigate them. Cultural

resource managers must often balance the opposing requirements of encouraging visitors by

providing amenities for their safety and comfort,

and discouraging them from imposing varieties

of inadvertent harm to the resource.

Occasionally, historical accuracy must be sacrificed to protect certain original features, such

as flooring and staircases from wear and deterioration caused by heavy visitation.3

3For example, research revealed that the floors at the paca HOUW

in Annapolis, MD, home of William Paca, one of the signers of the

Declaration of Independence, were never covered, painted, or varnished; site interpreters, for authenticity, kept them so. However,

heavy visitation IS causing some wear and has necessitated the adoption of protective measure5.

Photo credit: Hugh C. Miller, Nat/onal Park Service

Minute Man National Historical Park, Concord,

MA. Structures such as the North Bridge are often

subject to extremely heavy pedestrian traffic.
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection ● 8 5

Photo credit: Lee H. Nelson, National Park Service

Photograph taken in 1965 of carrara marble capital

severely eroded by environmental pollutants. Part of

the Merchants Exchange, Independence National

Historic Park, Philadelphia, PA, erected 1824.

Inadequate Managerial/Maintenance

Practices

Managing visitation stresses, maintenance, and

restoration requires continuous attention to the

needs of the place being preserved. A variety of

technologies, including microcomputers, are

available to improve such practices and make

them more cost-effective.

An Increasingly Acidic Environment

Prehistoric and historic structures and landscapes which were built before the industrial revolution, were created in an environment now

altered by acid depositions. In some cases, this

threat may override the separate effects of moisture, temperature, and pollutants. The effects of

acid precipitation on tangible cultural resources,

although experienced worldwide, are not yet well

understood. Preservationists cannot wait for society, government, and/or industry to alleviate the

problem, but must help to develop the materials, designs, and techniques necessary to withstand an increasingly acidic environ merit. q

4

M. Del Monte and “Air Pollution and Stone Decay:

The Case of Venice,” Endeavor, New Series, vol. 9, No. 3, 1985.

Photo credit.’ Hugh C. Miller, National Park Service

Acid rain monitor at the Eisenhower National Historical

Site, part of the Gettysburg National Military Park,

Gettysburg, PA.

Looting and Vandalism

Illegal activities, including looting and vandalism, are marked threats to archaeological resources, particularly on public lands in the Southwest and West. As the pressures of urbanization

have increased markedly, so have looting and

vandalism, in large part because of the high value

placed on prehistoric Native American artifacts

in national and international art markets. s Recent

law enforcement investigations reveal that illegal activities on public lands are not solely the

work of local individuals who maintain their own

‘Ian Graham, “Looters Rob Our Past, ” Geographic, April

1986, pp. 452-460; and G. Griffin, “In Defense of the Collector, ” Geographic, April 1986, pp. 462-465.
86 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

collections, but may also be sponsored by private museums, collectors, and dealers.6 Looters

often have the mechanical means and logistical

capabilities, including four-wheel drive vehicles,

two-way radios, even light planes, helicopters,

and other “recreational” equipment to venture

far and quickly into the hinterland. They search

out, often quite knowledgeably, the sites with the

greatest potential for cultural items and indiscriminately rip them apart,7 sometimes with expensive excavation equipment such as backhoes

and bulldozers.

—— Gjim RobbinS, ‘‘The Great Artifact Grab, ” Chicago Tribune Magazine, Aug. 10, 1986.

‘Bassett, op. cit.

Looters search out and destroy Indian burials

because they often yield significant artifacts. They

may unearth the bones, leaving them for animals

and birds, and often break and scatter archaeological items of low economic value. Unfortunately, many of the discarded items can yield

more information about past societies than the

pots, baskets, and other collectors’ items. Yet

when ripped from their context, they lose most

of their informational content.

Participants in OTA’s Workshop on Technologies for the Physical Protection of Prehistoric and

Historic Sites expressed deep concern about the

destruction of U.S. prehistoric and historic sites

that results from national and international trafficking in items stolen from public lands. They

noted that the problem is worldwide and will require both domestic and international legal action and cooperation. The original location, or

provenience, of most stolen archaeological artifacts is impossible to prove, making it extremely

difficult to stem the sale of illegal artifacts.8 The

application of law enforcement technology will

only slow down the loss of these items.

The Convention on Cultural Property implementation Act9 prohibits importation of stolen

cultural property documented as belonging to the

inventory of a public monument, museum, or

similar institution within a State that is a party to

the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export

and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

(see Chapter 7: Technology and Preservation Policy). It also restricts archaeological or ethnological materials from other countries on their request

and subsequent agreement by the United States.

In the United States, many people who believe

that public land should be free to be exploited

by individuals, contribute to the protection problem. In many areas, individuals have been collecting from sites on public lands for years.10

‘See Graham, op. cit., for an extremely rare case in which an

artifact obtained illegally from Rio Azul in Guatemala was traced

to that site as a result of decipherment of the Mayan glyphs inscribed

on the piece.

9Public Law 97-446,

10Although southeastern Utah has been the focus of attention recently (see, for example, Bassett, op. cit.; and Robbins, op. cit., such

looting is common in many other States.
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection ● 8 7

Some families in southeastern Utah were even

encouraged to do so earlier in the century by

museum-based archaeologists and received training in how to dig and what to take out. 11 Some

residents in these areas tend to be highly resistive to Federal or even State interference in their

“recreational” activities. Inconsistent implementation and enforcement of national laws often increase their frustration and contempt for Federal

efforts to stop i I legal activities. Yet such attitudes

could change if Federal managers maintained

closer relationships with State and local agencies

and with the general public in local communities. In particular, cooperative educational and

research programs conducted on federally managed lands and facilities couId be effective.

One author has noted that in addition to research on the methods for protecting cuItural resources, more information about the detailed nature of human and natural causes of damage is

necessary. She also suggests that behavioral research on vandalism might lead to the development of more effective strategies to protect against

this highly destructive threat to U.S. cultural resources. Finally, it is important systematically to

study the results of various attempts to protect

cultural resources in order to improve on protective design. 12

Other Human Threats

Although extremely serious, most of the other

threats caused by humans, either intentionally or

unintentionally, are subject to a variety of Federal controls. Federal and State laws and agency

reguIations attempt to mitigate the effects of commercial timber cutting, grazing, mining, power

generation projects, and oil-and-gas activities on

public lands.

Unfortunately, many of these controlled activities increase the access to public lands by pothunters and vandals, by creating new roads and

tracks into remote areas. In some cases, individI I see winston B. Hurst, “The Kerr Collection Study: An Archaeological Tale of Woe, and a Study of Burial-Associated Anasazi Cer-

~mlcs From the Westwater Drainage, ” Edge of the Cedars Museum,

Blanding, UT, In manuscript.

‘l Leslie E. Wildesen, “The Study of Impacts on Archaeological

Sites, ” Advances In Archaeological Method and Theory 5 (New

York: Academic Press, Inc., 1982), p. 82

uals engaged in legal pursuits during the day appear to turn to looting and vandalism after work.

For example, in areas of southeastern Utah where

seismic tests and exploratory drilling for gas and

oil have increased recently, so have the reports

of damage to sites. ’ 3 Federal managers may also

inadvertently contribute to such illegal activities

by failing to monitor properly the legal uses of

the land.

Human disturbances and technology itself are

accelerating the destruction of prehistoric and

historic places. For example, off-road recreational

vehicles (four-wheel drive and dirt bikes) both increase access to remote areas and tear up the surface of the soil, which then erodes much more

readily as a result of wind and rain.14 In addition,

some modern building techniques and materials actually hasten the destruction of historic

buildings (see below).

Most public land is subject to a variety of uses,

some of which are more destructive than others.

In order to make informed decisions concerning

the cultural resources under their care, managers

need better access to information (see also Chapter 5: Preservation Information). They also need

to incorporate the results of research on stresses

to sites into their management plans. Better information concerning the documented disturbances to sites, structures, and landscapes and

mitigation strategies based on such information

will also aid managers in presenting their case to

others.

Studies on cultural resource protection should

be published in journals and other widely distributed sources so they will be available to a wider

community.

Natural Threats

Erosion

Erosion from wind and water is a significant natural threat to cultural resources. Both historic and

prehistoric settlers have chosen to live as close

to water sources as possible, leaving their habitats

and associated belongings vulnerable to floodI JOTA Site Visit, March 1986.

1“’Wildesen, op. cit., p. 75.
88 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic preservation

Table 16.—Surficial Bank Deterioration Mechanisms

Mechanism/description

Abrasion: Solid materials carried by wind or flowing water

collide with an dislodge surface soil particles. Abrasion

also occurs during shiting of winter ice covers.

Bioiogical (an/ma/s): Examples are bank surface destruction

during overgrazing and by animal burrows and trails.

B/o/og/ca/(vegetation): Vegetation normally is conducive to

surficial stability; exceptions occur during decay of root

material and by tree falls or vegetation patterns that concentrate or cause turbulence in overbank flows or

streamflows.

Chamicak Water and acids in water affect cohesive and other

types of particle-to-particle bonding; bank material is removed by dissolution.

Debris: Debris gouges, or scrapes material from, bank surfaces as well as causing turbulence and flow concentration.

Flow (water): Soil particle removal by overbank flows and

streamflows is a major cause of bank surface deterioration. Quantity of flow, transport capacity, turbulence,

secondary currents, and wave action (see description below) contribute to the rate and location of surficial particle removal. Seepage flows remove surface particles as

well as contributing to mass bank failures.

Freeze-thaw: Cyclic temperature changes cause fracture due

to excessive contraction and expansion and spalling due

to successive freezing and t hawing of moisture within t he

bank.

Gravlty The stable slope of a cohesionless bank corresponds

to gravitational stability; for steeper slopes, surface particles roll downslope (raveling).

Human act/ens (on bank): Certain human actions attack the

bank—loosening the bank surface material by farming or

other mechanized operation is one example. Other actions

may influence natural mechanisms—the destruction of a

protective vegetation cover by livestock overgrazing is one

example. Many actions are possible.

Human actions (stream channd”: Examples of direct actions

are dredging and sand or gravel mining of channel sediments. Examples of indirect actions are structures and vessel propeller motion that cause turbulence in the

streamflow. Many actions are possible.

Ice; Ice contributes to abrasion and debris (see descriptions

above). Ice jams restrict a channel and affect stream and

overbank flows.

Preclpitation: Surficial destruction occurs due to impact by

rain or hail as well as during periods of high streamflows

and overbank flows.

Waves: Waves due to wind or stream vessel traffic cause surficial deterioration of the bank near the stream water

surface.

Wet-dry: Alternate wetting and drying cause stress and chemical effects (see description above) that result in surface

soil particle loosening.

Wind: Surface deterioration by wind is normally small as compared with water flow; however, waves due to wind (see

description above) contribute to surficial deterioration.

SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Finei Repori to Congress,” The Streambank Erosion Control Evaluation and Demonstration Act of 1974, Section 32, Public Law 93-251, Exhibit Vii-i.

ing and erosion. One of the most devastating

forms of erosion is the failure of stream banks.15

Table 16 presents a list of the mechanisms leading to stream bank erosion.

Moisture

Moisture from the ground and the air in rain

and humidity of coastal zones is the most devastating threat to historic structures. Moisture

encourages the growth of bacteria and fungi as

well as insect infestation. insects, such as termites

and beetles, live in wet wood and consume its

cellulose, causing its disintegration. in addition,

condensation; plumbing leaks from bathtubs,

shower stalls, sinks, and water pipes; and improperly vented appliances can, if not treated,

ruin a structure. Residences, still largely of frame

construction, might constitute major conservation problems in the future. Poor building practices are leaving wooden structural and exterior

members susceptible to moisture.16 Wooden components of new construction should be properly

treated with preservatives, pesticides, and fungicides.

Moisture can also be of significant concern in

landscapes. For example, Monk’s Mound in Ohio,

the largest prehistoric earthen mound north of

Mexico, has recently suffered significant damage

as a result of rising moisture in the mound. Rising moisture in structures may cause significant

damage to stonely. It may also adversely affect

the preservation of prehistoric and historic rock

art (see app. B).

1

5

’’ Final Report to Congress, the Streambank Erosion Control

Evaluation and Demonstration Act of 1984, Section 32, Public Law

93-251 ,“ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981, for a discussion of

some of the major mechanisms and their mitigation.

lbf-farry B. Moore, Wood /nhabiting /nsects in Houses (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture); Finding and Keeping a

Hea/thy House, Southern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report SO1, 1973.

I TE. Winkler, Stone: Its Properties and Durability in Man Environment (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1975).

lasee the extensive Cjiscussiort concerning moisture damage to

rock art in Constance S. Silver, The Rock Art of Seminole Canyon

State Historical Park: Deterioration and Prospects for Conservation

(Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, February 1985).
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection ● 8 9

RESTORATION, CONSERVATION, AND MAINTENANCE

preservation decisions are influenced by two

broad considerations. First, at the level of the site,

structure, or landscape, cultural resource professionals must generally decide before beginning

excavation or restoration, on the best conservation plan. At a broader level, managers charged

with preserving cultural resources must consider

the various goals of preservation and choose

appropriate technologies accordingly. IS preservation for future research, for public examination

and appreciation, or is it to satisfy certain legal

requirements? These considerations affect the

management of sites and the expenditure of

funds.

Although the preservation of artifacts was not

the subject of this assessment, it is nevertheless

important to use the best museum technology to

preserve the artifacts and other research material that is removed from a property. Some of the

technologies used in conservation of artifacts are

transferable to sites, structures, and landscapes.

However, the applications are quite different. For

one thing, artifacts in a museum can be maintained in a controlled environment, modifying

light, temperature, and humidity. The much

larger scale of sites, structures, and landscapes,

and their outdoor settings, bring with them a set

of problems not faced in conserving artifacts .19

Restoration of a designed landscape often involves rehabilitation of existing elements—pruning and rejuvenation of trees and bushes, dredging of ponds, reconstruction of bridges and walks.

it is frequently difficult to find workers who are

adequately trained to do such work to the standards required in historic settings. Many of these

historic skills are being lost.

19A striking example of this is seen in the Maya carvings from Yucatan, Mexico. Maya cities were constructed from limestone, the

predominant structural material found in the Yucatan. When, in

the course of excavation, the limestone is exposed to the atmosphere, it begins to deteriorate. In many cases, bas-relief carvings

exposed at the turn of the century and left onsite have virtually

disappeared as a result of constant exposure to the elements. By

contrast, those from the same era that were stored in a museum

context have been maintained in nearly the same condition in which

they were found. (Peter Schmidt, Museo Regional Instituto Nacional

Antropologia y Historia, Yucatan, personal communication, 1986.)

Systematic, Long-Term Maintenance

This is one of the most effective methods of

slowing deterioration from natural and human

agencies, because systematic maintenance (fig.

3) can prevent minor problems from becoming

major ones. It is crucial to the conservation of

sites and structures, or the elements of a landscape. Quality of maintenance is as important as

its regularity.20

The designers and builders of many historic

landscapes, such as parks and gardens, and historic houses, expected that they would be maintained by adequate numbers of skilled personnel. Today, especially when so many historic

properties are owned and maintained by public

agencies, the gardeners and other maintenance

personnel may not have acquired adequate experience or training. Likewise, contracting stipulations which limit governmental agencies without in-house expertise to accepting the services

of lowest bid competitors often result in substandard groundskeeping and maintenance practices.

Because maintenance tends to be labor-intensive, it is important to find ways to reduce the

amount of labor required .21 Maintenance standards and plans must be developed and carried

out by managers professionally trained in tending historic properties. As noted below, the increased use of personal computers and specially

designed software could be extremely helpful in

ZOCyc/;ca/ Maintenance for Historic Bui/dings, J. Hen rY Chambers, AIA, Interagency Historic Architectural Services Program, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976.

ZIS[eepy Hollow Restorations, in New York State, has reduced

its total labor force by developing a program of maintenance that

employs two levels of skills. For the basic grounds, the organization uses grounds maintenance employees with only moderate training and skills. It employs college graduates for maintaining the

historic gardens, Although the latter command higher salaries, their

higher skill and professional interest in historic gardens more than

repays the extra investment. In the winter, when maintenance needs

are less demanding, these workers carry out research projects that

they can apply to improving the historic gardens (e.g., searching

out the original garden plantings and determining modern sources).

Because such workers generally possess higher communications

skills, they are also more effective in communicating required maintenance tasks to outside contractors who trim the large trees and

do other specialized work.
90 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Figure 3.—The Maintenance Cycie

Implementation

execution of the work

supervision

site changes

documentation

final inspection

SOURCE: National Park Service.

Inspection

daily monthly annually \

weekly quarterly bi-annualy

. \

recognize and analyze

faults and symptoms

continuous monitoring \ \A

as required

Scheduling

operational —materials, equipment,

who, what, when, how

with what, what else?

improving the quality and quantity of maintenance.

Computer Technology

The computer can be an extremely effective

tool for predicting possible effects of stresses to

an area, planning for the management of maintenance, and enhancing restoration and rehabilitation.

Visitation.–By using a computer to examine

the wear patterns caused by known human traffic in given areas, technicians can develop parameters of wear under a variety of conditions.

Managers can then ask the computer to simulate

the amount of wear different areas of the landscape or structure might sustain as a result of the

same amount of traffic. Such information might

then be used to predict how best to channel visitor traffic, or which areas might better handle

expected park visitors.

Vandalism.—Experience with a particular historic property provides a variety of clues about

which parts suffer the greatest risk of vandalism.

Such information can be introduced into a computer model that can then be used to predict

other areas of great risk from vandalism.

Programming

priorities specifications

research estimates

planning money

construction drawing

people

&

Site Management.–Maintenance planning and

management computer software can assist in

long-term maintenance. For exampIe, a computerized management plan for a landscape would allow landscape managers to factor in a number

of tasks on a cyclical basis. Each different species of tree, shrub, and plant requires a different

treatment. Structures such as houses, barns,

bridges, pavilions, and interpretive centers require yet a different set of maintenance strategies. The computer allows computation of needed

labor resources based on assumptions about

maintenance standards and landscape systems,

and provides the capacity to match up such

needs with available labor. It also enables managers to develop a schedule for maintenance that

takes into account the level of education and

skills of the maintenance personnel.

Expert systems (see Chapter 5: Preservation Iformation) might be especially effective for designing plans for certain maintenance tasks, especially those that call for highly specific, readily

describable techniques.

Computer-Aided Design/Drafting (CADD).–

This technology is aiding architects and engineers

involved in historic structural restoration and rehabilitation through the Federal Government’s
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection 91

historic preservation tax incentives program.

Their proposals, supported by drawings, plans,

and specifications, must undergo strict assessment for approval by the various design review

groups within local preservation committees,

State Historic Preservation Offices, and the National Park Service. Drawings and views in perspective are time-consuming and expensive to

prepare but constitute important components of

the rehabilitation certification process.

CADD software enables designers to complete

three-dimensional computer models of the buildings on which they are working, simulating or

rotating to any selected view of height or distance, perspective or isometric. All perspectives

can be reproduced on a line plotter with or without “hidden” lines. This technology dramatically

cuts the time and expense routinely associated

with completing hand renderings. For example,

CADD allows one practitioner to produce over

a dozen drawings in 1 day. Normally, three professionals require 3 days to produce three architectural drawings.22

Technologies for Reducing Erosion and

Stabilizing Landscapes and

Archaeological Sites

As noted earlier, whether it occurs from overflowing streams, the variation in water level of

reservoirs, or from wave action, erosion is one

of the most serious natural threats to landscapes

and to archaeological sites. “The methods available for archaeological site stabilization differ very

little from those which have been used for streambank maintenance and general erosion control.”23 Comparatively little research has been

carried out on the use of such methods. The following methods, among others, have been used

with varying success for site stabilization:

● stone riprap,

● concrete pavement,

● gunite,

● used tire mattresses,

● overplanting,

‘

zSee Karen Kershaw, “Looking Back, a Historical Perspective, ”

Architectural/ & Engineering Systems, March/April 1986, pp. 34-35.

23 Robert M. Thorne, “Preservation is a Use . . . Experimental Archaeological Site Stabilization in the Tennessee Valley, ” Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology 40, 1985.

●

●

●

●

driftwood facing,

sandbags and woven fabric,

GEOWEB, and

vegetation around underwater sites.

Although many of the above methods would

be unsuitable for the long-term preservation of

certain historic landscape features, the use of temporary methods such as the emplacement of certain forms of woven fabric, the use of tire mattresses, or fencing, might prove appropriate in

some locations until vegetation growth resumed.

The historic earthworks at Fort Foote, MD, were

stabilized in this fashion.

Cultural Resources Monitoring

Monitoring of archaeological resources, structures, and landscapes is essential for their efficient

management. The specific appropriate technology will differ for each type of cuItural resource,

but the overall goal is the same–to contribute

to the protection of the resource.

As noted in Chapter 3: Research, because many

archaeological sites are not adequately surveyed,

their condition is unknown. Even known sites are

seldom monitored periodically. The numbers of

sites and sheer size of western landholdings render traditional patrol methods unfeasible. Remote

sensing, either from the air or from ground-based

cameras, may help to establish a baseline. Once

a baseline condition is determined, environmental

and other sensors might be used to monitor sites

in acute danger, either from natural or human

threats (see Protection From Deliberate Destruction, in this chapter). Education of tourists and

the local population is also an important component in site monitoring (see Chapter 6: Public

Education). Often volunteer help is crucial in

looking after sites, especially those in out-of-theway or difficult-to-access areas.

In historic structures, it is often necessary to

monitor the moisture content or the acidity of the

atmosphere in order to determine what treatment

may be appropriate. For example, monitoring the

condition of roofs or cracks and other signs of

movement in masonry walls24 is important in

24j. Henry Chambers, Using Photogrammetry to Monitor Materials Deterioration and Structural Problems in Historic Buildings

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Preservation Assistance Division, no date).
92 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

deciding when additional shoring, repair, or replacement may be necessary.

The following discussion takes up technologies

and issues that are more specific to archaeology,

historic structures, and prehistoric and historic

landscapes. As in earlier chapters, underwater archaeology is broken out for separate treatment

because of the highly specific nature of the issues related to it.

Archaeology

Comparatively little work has been done on the

conservation of adobe, stone, and wood for archaeological use. However, some of the methods that are being developed specifically for

historic structures are applicable to archaeological preservation (see below, discussion of technologies for structures).

Today, the Federal Government seldom restores archaeological sites after excavation, especially in climates where they have deteriorated

significantly or disappeared from the surface.

Such restorations must generally rely too strongly

on conjecture about the site’s original form and

construction. I n addition, they are normally extremely expensive. Instead, the excavation is

“backfilled” with earth. Where feasible, sites

found above ground are stabilized to prevent

them from further deterioration.25 Prime exampies of such sites are the prehistoric Anasazi

buildings and villages in Navajo National Monument, or Chaco Canyon National Historical

Park.

The National Park Service (NPS) has conducted

research on the stabilization of many different

kinds of structures in many different soil conditions. Even in relatively narrow regions of the

Southwest, the soils originally used as mortar or

for adobe vary considerably from place to place.

Appropriate mixes of portland cement (for

strength and durability) and native soil (for color

and elasticity) derive from testing the chemical

and physical properties of the soils and developZslt is NPS policy to preserve sites as they are when they are inherited by NPS, as opposed to just letting them deteriorate or restoring them.

Photo credit: Ray A. Williamson

National Park Service employee inserting stabilizing

mortar in sandstone wall of Pueblo Bonito, Chaco

Canyon National Historical Park, NM.

ing site-specific mixes.26 NPS now uses a chemical called Roplex, which it adds to the mortar

used for stabilizing the prehistoric sandstone

structures in the Southwest. Roplex extends the

life of the stabilizing mortar which closely resembles the original mortar in color, texture, and consistency.

Not every site can be stabilized with the resources at hand. Some sites have eroded to grade

level or are reasonably protected (for example,

cliff dwellings) and need little additional stabilization. Because stabilization tends to reduce their

archaeological integrity, other sites may lose

more of their research value by attempts at stabilizing them than if they were simply left exposed to natural forces of erosion .27

Zbsee, for example, Dennis Fenn and George j. Chambers, Laboratory Assessment of Soil-Cement Mortars Used in Rehistoric Ruins

Stabilization in the National Park Service (Tucson, AZ: National Park

Service Western Archeological Center, January 1978).

2zFor example, at one Anasazi site in southeast Utah, stabilizing

mortar appears to have been used to fill in small ports originally

in the walls of one structure. OTA site visit, June 1986.
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection ● 9 3

Sites most in need of stabilization are those that

are highly exposed to natural and human threats.

Such judgments are often made by archaeologists

and other cultural resource professionals, few of

whom are experienced in analyzing the need for

the treatment. Therefore, there is a requirement

for basic guidelines and available stabilization options. 28

There is no known long-term way to stabilize

adobe. If left uncovered, it requires periodic

maintenance. Therefore NPS has often resorted

to building shelters over adobe or mud structures,

such as the remains of prehistoric pit houses. Although such measures protect the structures, they

are often esthetically displeasing. Much more can

and should be learned about how to stabilize existing prehistoric structures. Structural engineers

and architects could be of help in investigating

better stabilization methods.

Site Burial

After excavation, unless structures are to be

stabilized or reconstructed, sites are commonly

filled with sterile soil. Such a practice tends to

preserve the remaining unexcavated material.

Sites have been buried by concrete or asphalt under parking lots, or by rocks, backfill, or water

in efforts to save them for future research. However, the long-term effects of various site burial

techniques are not well understood and should

be studied.29

Rock Art Preservation

Prehistoric and historic rock art contain significant cultural information. For example, in California, numerous rock art panels have been studied in efforts to explore the astronomical

observations and knowledge of California Indian

groups.30 In New Mexico, careful examination of

the distribution of images among rock art paneIs

along the Rio Grande has demonstrated the

movement of certain ideas from Mexico into central New Mexico during the 14th and 15th cenzajim TrOtt, NatiOnal Park Service, Wrsonal communication, 1986.

Zgsee Thorne, op. cit., for a discussion of several methods of site

burial.

l~om Hoskinson and Arlene Benson (eds.), Earth and Sky: Papers

From the Northridge Conference on Archaeoastronomy (Thousand

Oaks, CA: S16W Press, 1985).

Photo credit: Ray A. Williamson

Ancient Pueblo Indian petroglyph pecked on basalt

outcropping south of Santa Fe, NM. The quartered

circle to the right of the flute player may represent the

sun. The quartered circle is a common rock art motif

in the Southwest.

turies. 31 Relatively little effort has been expended

on efforts to preserve these important cultural resources (see app. B).

Site Avoidance

In many areas, this is considered the method

of choice in preserving archaeological sites. Although in some cases, such a strategy is appropriate and feasible, in many other cases avoiding the site simply puts off for a few years an

inevitable conflict with other legitimate uses of

the land, and the necessity to make decisions

about active preservation.

Underwater Archaeology

Conservation and protection of underwater cultural resources, like other underwater archaeological procedures, tend to be expensive and require extremely specialized knowledge and

facilities. Concreted metal, waterlogged wood,

and other organic materials such as leather or fab31 poIIy Schaafsma, /rrdian Rock Art of the Southwest (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1980).
94 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Photo cradit National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

Concreted anchor from the U.S.S. Monitor (sunk Dec.

31, 1862). Anchor recovered 1977. Such a large and

heavy artifact excavated from underwater constitutes

a substantial conservation challenge.

ric begin almost instantaneously to deteriorate

when exposed to the open air after having been

submerged or buried under sediments. They must

be immediately reintroduced into salt or fresh

water, via holding tanks, or wet-packed for transport to permanent conservation facilities. Conservation means perpetual maintenance under

controlled conditions.

In the United States there is a shortage of conservation facilities as well as a dearth of trained,

competent conservation personnel to deal with

the ever-increasing numbers of cultural materials being recovered from the deep. In addition,

many projects are directed by non-researchoriented organizations and individuals who betray a lack of knowledge of appropriate conservation methods. The following approaches represent the range of conservation treatments

available.

Full-Scale Conservation

This approach calls for the stabilization and

continuing care of all waterlogged objects taken

from underwater, including ship’s hulls. This is

the most complex and expensive method, but

permits scholars and the public to examine thoroughly historic shipbuilding techniques and any

culturally significant contents removed from the

vessels. This approach necessitates fully staffed

conservation facilities with completely controlled

environments (humidity, temperature, light, etc.).

Conservation processes are time-consuming and

tedious and demand a long-term commitment on

the part of any agency or institution that assumes

the responsibility for applying them.

For example, the Swedish Government has

assumed responsibility for the Wasa, a wellpreserved 17th century Swedish warship, for the

past 26 years at a cost of over $20 million. The

Mary Rose Trust is in the early stages of conservation of the Mary Rose, a 16th century English

warship. Harvard University’s Snow Squall

project (located in the Falkland Islands) is currently recovering the first 30 feet of the clipper’s

hull. Everyone except the trained conservator is

a volunteer. The Mariner’s Museum in Newport

News, Virginia, has taken on the Ronson Ship

bow in New York City using private funds, in contrast to the other groups which rely largely on

public funds.32

Even thoroughly stabilized materials remain extremely fragile. Polyethylene glycol is the commonly used wood consolidant and is very costly.

However, recent successful experiments using sucrose promise to lower some stabilization costs.

Sucrose is very cheap and seems highly stable.33

Jzsheli Smith, Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA, personal

communication, 1986.

33james M. Parent, “The Conservation of Waterlogged Wood

Using Sucrose,” Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin Cummings (cd.) (San Marine, CA:

Fathom Eight, 1986).
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection Ž 95

Combined Conservation and

Documentation

This approach involves stabilizing all small,

portable waterlogged cultural materials and

documenting large objects such as the hull; it dramatically reduces conservation costs. Though a

significant amount of study is still feasible, some

technical knowledge is lost. However, these articles must still be housed in properly staffed conservation facilities. For example, the State of

Maine conserved the small artifacts recovered

from the Defence and made detailed drawings

of the hull for only $20,000. The Canadian Government conserved all the small objects from the

San Juan, molded sections of the hull, and

recorded the remaining sections with drawings.34 

Conservation Through Technology

This technique, as yet unadopted, would involve recording all small artifacts with holographic techniques and all large artifacts through

molding and documentation. It would require

only holding areas and seasonal conservation

staffs. The host institution’s commitment would

be minimal because its staff can easily transport

and store all information. There is a drawback

to this approach in that it does not yield any tangible artifacts.

No Action

This approach leaves sites submerged or buried beneath sediments. Deterioration of shipwrecks and other objects is slow and advances

in conservation technologies may significantly improve our ability to conserve artifacts taken from

a submerged environment. This approach postpones the acquisition of knowledge about a site.

Future technologies might enable the analysis and

interpretation of certain buried underwater archaeological components in situ. The Turkish

Government has left several shipwrecks at Yassi

Ada uninvestigated. The State of Maine selected

one ship for study after a survey of the entire

Penobscot fleet. The Commonwealth of Virginia

reburied the Revolutionary War period Cornwallis Cave wreck in anticipation of more information on the scuttled British fleet.

These alternatives represent different emphases

in terms of costs, commitment, and conservation

facility readiness and capability. Realistic consideration of the pros and cons inherent in each of

the above conservation methods should be explicitly reflected in project research plans or archaeological investigations will have only unsatisfactory databases and poorly conserved artifacts.

Historic Structures

The following reflects the current ethic governing the conservation, restoration, and maintenance of historic structures. “Deteriorated architectural features should be repaired rather

than replaced wherever possible. In the event

replacement is necessary, the new material

should match the material being replaced in

composition, design, color, texture, and other

visual qualities. ”35

A variety of techniques and materials can be

applied to historic buildings to conserve and

maintain materials and systems. They include

chemicals to slow the deterioration of glass,

wood, and metal; or to clean masonry; techniques for shoring up structurally weakened or

unsound buildings; and paints to protect surfaces.

The following issues describe some of these technologies and discuss a variety of problems preservationists face in applying them to best effect.

Both the Misapplication and

Nonapplication of Existing Technologies

It is important that architects, engineers, and

construction personnel be thoroughly trained in

traditional building technologies and the causes

of structural materials failure. It is essential that

they understand the characteristics of the materials to which they are applying protective

treatments.

Historic Buildings.–Well-designed old buildings are systems possessing their own metabolic

processes, which have achieved a kind of symbiosis with their environment. The history of

jSThe Secretary of the /nterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and

Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Washington, DC:

Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, U.S. DeJ4Smith, op. cit. partment of the Interior, 1983).
96 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

the Waverly Mansion, a 19th century historic

wooden house located in Mississippi, illustrates

this point. The house stood vacant for over 50

years. However, because its builder had understood the effects of a hot, humid climate on wood

and had designed an adequate ventilation system, the structure, even though uninhabited and

unmaintained for so long, exhibited virtually no

deterioration of its members.

A firm understanding of a structure’s site, surroundings, and construction can prevent improper rehabilitative treatments for adaptive use.

Louisiana plantation houses, whose living floors

were routinely raised about 10 feet from ground

level, had first floor masonry walls treated with

whitewash, instead of paint, to permit passage

of moisture or rising dampness. In some cases,

such houses have been rehabilitated by removing

the whitewash and replacing it with waterproof

paint. However, the paint does not allow sufficient moisture to escape from inside the foundation and hastens the deterioration of the wooden

walls and other structural members above.36

Modern Buildings. –The need for information

on materials failures and remedies is not limited

to historic structures. Even many modern buildings from the 1960s and 1970s, as well as some

still under construction, exhibit potentially serious flaws that couId lead to the failure of certain

structural elements, notably, steel shelf or clip angles, and reinforced concrete, today’s most prevalent construction material.

Many reflect poor building practices and misunderstanding of existing information; some demonstrate unsuccessful attempts at innovation.

Such structures present important lessons to

preservationists who can benefit from determining why they are failing, and working closely with

trade and professional associations to encourage

better comprehension of construction techniques, building materials, and structural systems.

These buildings represent prevailing attitudes

with regard to contemporary architecture and

engineering that tend to place extremely low emphasis on long-term maintenance of reinforced

concrete and exposed metal shelf angles. Cur36Terry L$ Am burgey, Assuring Long Service Life From WOod

Structures, Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State University.

tain walls may pose a danger because of failing

clip angles. As these buildings age, preservations

will confront a growing variety of extremely highrisk building systems.

For example, Alcatraz, formerly a Federal

prison, but now a National Historic Landmark,

contains a cell-house (1909) constructed of porous reinforced concrete. The local marine aerosol environment is causing its reinforcement rods

to corrode. Eventually the exfoliating forces37 of

the rust could cause the entire structure to selfdestruct. It constitutes an almost insurmountable

conservation problem. Conservationists face similar problems with the huge population of highrisk concrete structures built from the period of

World War I to the present day. Besides buildings, such structures include bridge decks, elevated highways, and parking garages.

The National Bureau of Standard’s Center for

Building Technology, among other research

groups, is directing much of its investigation and

testing toward reinforced concrete structures.

Such activity could significantly affect the direction of both modern and historic reinforced concrete structures design and maintenance, allowing some progress toward managing what looms

as an almost intractable conservation challenges*

Historic Masonry Conservation

A major preservation problem relates to the

proper identification of the various kinds of deterioration to which historic masonry, which includes every type of natural stone, brick, terra

cotta, and adobe is vulnerable. Trapped moisture

from the ground or atmosphere, salts, freezethaw climatic cycles, pollutants, abrasive cleaning, poor repair, retrofit, and rehabilitation, use

of incompatible mortar in repainting, improper

bedding, and weathering can pose serious threats

J~he expansion and contraction of trapped moisture, weathering, or chemical action such as the rusting of metal cause exfoliation of stone’s surface, that is, flaking, scaling, or peeling in thin

layers. See Anne E. Grimmer (compiler), A G/ossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems and Preservation Treatments (Washington, DC: Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984).

381g8z# Building Technology Publications, U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Special Publication 457-9

for the range of coverage regarding structural concrete.
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection Ž 97

Photo cradit: Ray A. Williamson

The Reynolds Tavern, Annapolis, MD. This 18th century

historic inn, which once served as the Anne Arundel

County Library, has been restored and refurbished and

is once again being used as an inn.

to historic masonry. Stone’s natural inconsistency

and layered composition can also hasten its deterioration. Adobe or sun-dried brick, prevalent

in the American Southwest, is particularly susceptible to standing rainwater or splash.

How best to treat historic masonry is still highly

complex and problematical. Many new products introduced into the market, such as

moisture-proof coatings and consolidants, touted

as cure-ails for the problem of stone deterioration are being developed, principally for new

construction. They are, however, often applied

inappropriately and unevenly to historic masonry

and, in many cases, do substantial, even irreparable damage. Historic masonry requires breathable coatings and consolidants that allow for the

migration of moisture and salts through internal

spaces, cracks, and cavities to its surface. It is critical that careful testing and monitoring of the effects of new products which could be applied to

historic masonry be undertaken. Preservationists

firmly believe that historic buildings themselves

“should not be viewed as testing grounds for untried methods. ”39

Historic Metals Conservation

Problems associated with the deterioration of

metals in America’s historic buildings and structures are numerous and complicated. Over a

dozen metallic materials are present in this cultural resource base, which includes nails and

flashing, bridges, elaborate fences and staircases,

fountains, finials, outdoor statues and monuments, structural supports, roofing, and storefronts .40

The conservation of zinc, lead, tin, tinplate,

copper, bronze, brass, nickel, as well as wrought

and cast iron present formidable challenges.

Weathering or the result of exposure to the many

interactions among chemical and physical elements in the atmosphere may be more damaging

to historic metals than the separate effects of individual agents. The combination of humidity,

temperature, salts, dirt, grime, acids, and even

bird and other animal droppings threatens the

integrity of structural as well as decorative or

surface metallic materials. Corrosion and degradation are taking place more quickly and extensively, most dramatically because of acid precipitation. Mechanical breakdown seen as fatigue,

creep, and abrasion is also a difficult conservation issue. The stress, weakening, deformation,

and buckling of metals as a result of of fire have

meant the loss of much of the Nation’s urban

landscape.

The recent restoration of the copper skin of the

Statue of Liberty and the replacement of its metal

skeleton, its internal support highlighted the damage wrought by the failure of architectural metals to connect. Bolted, riveted, pinned, or

welded metal structural members can become

disconnected by corrosion, overloading, or

fatigue.

protecting metals in historic structures is ideally

realized through long-term, regular maintenance

coupled with sound knowledge of the behavior

of architectural metals within physical environments. Trapped moisture and abrasive cleaning

are as damaging to historic metals as to stone or

wood. It is important to find and improve methJgBaird M. smith, Moisture Problems in Historic Masonry WalkDiagnosis and Treatment (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, no date).

‘Metals in America’s Historic Buildings: Uses and Preservation

Treatments, U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Technical Preservation Services Division, 1980.
98 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Photo credit: Nlcolas Veloz, National Park Service

Photographs of the New Jersey Memorial, Valley Forge, PA showing staining and corrosion of bronze outdoor sculpture

and subsequent cleaning. Such discoloration may signify a substantial loss of surface material.

ods for inhibiting and treating corrosion, cleaning surfaces, and to develop appropriate protective metallic, ceramic, or organic coatings.

Architects should be fully aware of the load bearing capabilities of structural metals, and proper

mechanical repairing strategies, such as splicing,

patching, and reinforcing.

Other Major Preservation

Research Challenges

Some of the other preservation research challenges are:

● the maintenance and stabilization of fragile

historic structures constructed of poor quality materials and never intended to be permanent, such as slave quarters or farm outbuildings.

● the structural integrity of steel frame and

curtain walls and unreinforced masonry

buildings in earthquake zones. According to

structural engineers, unreinforced masonry

buildings are among the most dangerous

structures during earthquakes. The weight

of their exterior walls would mean definite

separation from structural framing in the

event of tremors.41 However, they are important cultural resources and account for

a sizable portion of the central business dis-

 for Evaluation of Historic Unreinforced Brick Masonry Buildings Earthquake Hazard Zones (Los Angeles, CA:

A. B. K., A joint Venture, 1966).
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection Ž 99

tricts and commercial centers in towns

throughout the American west. Recommendations for treating them in earthquake

zones has ranged from wholesale demolition

to a degree of seismic upgrading and retrofit that would be prohibitively expensive and

destructive of significant historic fabric.42

● the philosophical dilemmas relating to modern building and structural codes, public

safety, and politics, a need for a realistic view

of “risk and regulation” in historic preservation. Some historic buildings have been so

altered to meet modern code requirements

that they have been stripped of much of their

significance.

Maintenance Information

Detailed information on protective treatments

undertaken over the life of a structure is most important to its long-term health. A history of both

interior and exterior actions enables informed

conservation and maintenance. Past Federal

agency maintenance and restoration records

should be retained to this end. Federal records

managers, many of whom have routinely discarded such records, have only recently recognized their value to preservationists.

Environmental Monitoring

There is need for improved technologies to permit monitoring of the effects of other environmental impacts to which structures are exposed.

Monitoring such as that being carried out by the

energy industry to determine the effects of sealing structures to prevent loss of heat, and three

having been applied in Boston, Massachusetts,

to assess changes in groundwater levels reveal

much concerning the behavior of buildings and

materials.

Building foundations, subway, and underground utility delivery systems such as sewers suffer serious deterioration if groundwater tables are

lowered or raised through altered drainage patterns, water removal at new construction sites,

or heavy use of deep aquifers. Below the groundwater table, soil is saturated. Untreated wooden

‘zMichael E. Durkin, “Improving Safety in Unreinforced Masonry

Build ings, ” Ekistics 51, November/December 1984.

piles, used to support the foundations of most of

Boston’s historic structures, have been decaying

as a result of a dropping groundwater table. Such

piles are permanent and stable only when they

are waterlogged and can repel fungi and dry rot.

New construction techniques are reducing and

even eliminating the problem. For example, in

the Bentonite Slurry Trench method, retaining

walls placed around sites prevent the seepage of

water into construction areas below the groundwater table and concomitant lowering of the local water level .43

Substitute Materials

There is a range of views within preservation

concerning the use of substitute materials. In Europe many preservationists advocate that replacement materials be the same as the original. There

is such aversion in much of Europe to substitute

materials that preservationists reopen old stone

and marble quarries to obtain replacement materials from the same sources as the originals. In

the United States, however, some building seismic codes require the use of new lightweight substitute materials to replace heavy stone pieces,

such as cornices. Other codes allow the use of

replacement materials matching the originals only

to a specific height, then require the lightweight

substitutions beyond the level at which casual observers would not detect the difference.

Landscapes

Conservation and Restoration Decisions

Who determines conservation goals and decides the extent and authenticity of restoration

for landscapes? Who decides which public landscape projects receive priority for preservation?

These questions are of concern because few landscapes serve only one function. They also are

owned or controlled by a wide variety of public

and private organizations, or by individuals. Cultural landscapes, especially, generally have multiple owners.

Parks and other public spaces were created as

a result of the public need for open space in urqjHarl P. Aldrich, jr., “Preserving the Foundations of Old Buildings’” Technology and Conservation, 1979.
100 . Technologies for prehistoric and Historic Preservation

ban settings. They are used by the public for a

variety of recreational, social, and educational

activities. Other prehistoric and historic landscapes may be subjected to a variety of stresses

as a result of changing land use patterns and

development, including mining, drilling, and urbanization. Local residents who wish to use a

property may see its value and the goals of preservation in a much different light than preservation professionals. For example, residents might

rather build a swimming pool or skating rink in

a historic park than maintain a scenic view. Or,

the public might complain if grassy areas in a

historic battlefield were kept trimmed to historic

standards, attributing the higher grass of the

historic period to lack of maintenance, rather

than historic authenticity.

Because restoration and conservation are generally expensive and funding for historic preservation increasingly limited, priorities must be set,

taking into account local values for current use

as well as those of preservation professionals on

the significance and degree of deterioration of

the landscape. In addition to seeking advice from

the local community, the landscape architect and

other preservation professionals may have to educate the community about the long-term value

of preserving the local landscape (see Chapter 6:

Public Education).

Landscape Management

Landscapes change so rapidly that management becomes almost as important as restoration.

Managing the growth of vegetation is a particularly important issue. For example, rampant species, such as honeysuckle and poison ivy, must be

controlled without doing harm to other species

or other parts of the environment. There is a strong

need to find alternatives to herbicides and pesticides. NPS, for example, has banned the use of

both except as a last resort. Such special cases

require extensive documentation to support the

need for chemicals.

Horticultural or Botanical Technologies

Authentic restoration and conservation of

historic landscapes depends on the ability to identify, locate, and use plants appropriate to the historical period of interest. Landscape restorers and

managers need inventories of plants grown in a

region or area at different periods of history, and

sources from which those plants may be obtained. In turn, the restored landscapes themselves can become an important repository for

historic species and thereby assist the maintenance of biological diversity within the United

States .44

The United States is losing important collections

of historic plant materials. Yet we often are not

fully aware of which plants growing today in

historic landscapes are authentic historic materials. England has met such problems in part by

insisting that historic gardens and other historic

landscapes be replanted using historic species,

even if it means that the landscape managers may

have to defer certain plantings because plant

stock is unavailable at the time they wish to plant.

Although many species may still remain in private collections and smaller commercial nurseries, there is inadequate knowledge of what exists and little control over the disposition of such

stock. It may be necessary to establish arboretums designed specifically to save, nurture, and

propagate historic species. Because of the regional nature of plant hardiness and adaptability, such arboretums would have to be regional

in scope. Sleepy Hollow Restorations has already

started searching out and growing historic plants;

Monticello recently announced that it was establishing a historic plant center. However, a central clearinghouse for historical horticultural and

botanical information, with a computer accessible database, would also be important in increasing our ability to restore, conserve, and maintain

historic landscapes.

It is also important to maintain centers where

a number of different specialists are working on

landscape problems. For example, the National

Park Service’s National Capitol Regional Center

for Urban Ecology maintains a staff of experts in

agronomy, urban soils, and urban wildlife.

~See OTAIS background papers entitled Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, Background Paper#l, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: February 1986; and Assessing Biological Diversity in the United States: Data Considerations,

Background Paper # 2, OTA-BP-F-39 ( Washington, DC: March

1986), for a discussion of biological diversity. Both papers are available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection ● 101

PROTECTION FROM DELlBERATE DESTRUCTION

Although education is one of the most effective deterrents to deliberate destruction of cultural resources (see Chapter 6: Public Education),

a variety of other protective measures are necessary to conserve significant parts of our heritage

for future generations to appreciate and learn

from .45

Technologies for Security

Detailed Inventory of Cultural Resources

Detailed inventory and systematic monitoring

of sites are two of the best available protective

measures. For other measures to work effectively,

agencies need to know what resources they have.

Yet, the larger land managing agencies in the

west46 have inventoried relatively few of the archaeological resources, historic structures, and

landscapes they manage. In most cases, archaeological sites on public lands are found because

development is proposed, land-exchange with a

non-Federal institution is initiated, or cases of destruction are discovered.

Further, most agencies have not instituted a

program of systematic inspection and routine

maintenance of their cultural resources. A number of OTA workshop participants pointed out

that Federal agencies tend to respond to threats

to cultural resources in reaction to a clear immediate danger rather than planning ahead for potential problems.

Comprehensive, systematic, and complete inventories of all Federal lands would be costprohibitive, because of the extensive area involved. However, many areas, more restricted

in size, but currently unsurveyed, have high poqssee especially, paul R. Nickens, Signa L. Larralde, and Gordon

C. Tucker, jr., “A Survey of Vandalism to Archaeological Resources

in Southwestern Colorado, ” Bureau of Land Management Cu/tura/

Resources Series 11 (Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management

Colorado State Office, 1981 ); and Dee F. Green and Pony Davis,

Cultural Resources Law Enforcement: An Emerging Science (Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southwest Region, 1981).

‘Ruthann Knudson, “Contemporary Cultural Resource Managemerit, ” American Archaeology Past and Future, D. Meltzer, D.

Fowler, and j. Sabloff (eds. ) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press,

1986)

tential for containing important cultural resources. These areas, the likely targets of pothunting and other vandalism, should be better

known to agency specialists and managed for

their cultural resource values. The appropriate

use of predictive locational modeling techniques

would be especially useful (see Chapter 3: Research). When law enforcement personnel have

requested lists of sites that should be monitored,

the sites tend to be those that have already sustained damage. Those untouched sites that are

unknown to the agency may contain much more

information of scientific value than those that

have been damaged. Yet, being unknown, they

are left vulnerable to potential looters, who find

greater time (and the economic incentive) to

search them out than do agency archaeologists.

Protective Barriers, Including Fences,

Gates, and Boulders To Restrict

Access to Sites

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has

found that fencing and placing signs at Pony Express Stations in western Nevada has virtually

eliminated vandalism over the past 8 years. In

another example, BLM’s installation of fencing

surrounding the site of several Anasazi towers

overlooking Comb Ridge in southeast Utah seems

to have reduced the incidence of vandalism in

recent years, However, it also reduces the visual

quality of the site.47 In addition, in certain cases,

fencing and signs may attract vandalism by calling attention to the sites, so such methods must

be used in ways appropriate to the terrain and

the need for protection.

Burying Archaeological Sites

Methods include using top soil, wire mesh,

rock asphalt, or concrete to make sites less visible and accessible. Although such methods are

often effective in protecting sites from vandals and

looters, little research has been done on the effects of site burial on the long-term condition of

the buried resource .48

4ZOTA Site visit, ju ne 1986.

4FII bid.
102 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Use of Interpretive Signs

Interpretive signs have the effect of indicating

to the visitor that someone cares about the site

or structure. In addition to giving some information about the site, such signs may include warnings of penalties for vandalism and theft. New,

inexpensive, vandal-resistant materials have enhanced the effectiveness of signs and messages.

Individuals have had good results in protecting sites by placing informal interpretive notes to

explain the meaning such sites have to individuals and why they should not be disturbed or

damaged. They are discovered, read, and sometimes added to by other visitors.49 New plastics

make possible the development of nearly indestructible tags that could be written on and placed

on sites for future visitors.

 Mesa Institute, 

Propagation of Vegetation, Including

Noxious Weeds

Planting or encouraging such weeds as poison

ivy and poison oak on site surfaces as well as

plants covering underwater sites, keeps most people away, and reduces not only vandalism and

looting, but also damage as a result of visitor traffic. This is particularly effective, but only for sites

where the environmental conditions will support

the growth of such plants. Nettles are effective

protectors at Plains Indians’ bison jump sites.

Permanently Affixing Large Historic

Artifacts or Monuments

Bolting, cementing, or otherwise attaching artifacts or monuments to the Earth tend to be expensive, but such methods are generally effective in preventing theft and major vandalism.
Ch. 4—Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection ● 103

Law Enforcement

Measures such as those just discussed, that either restrict access to sites or warn the potential

looter of the legal penalties, have been partially

successful in protecting sites. However, determined pothunters or vandals can penetrate nearly

any obstacle, making law enforcement measures

necessary. In many respects, their methods and

rationale are similar to wildlife poachers and they

can be apprehended in similar ways. Catching

looters and vandals committing a crime is primarily a matter of happenstance, although law enforcement officials have had some limited success using monitoring equipment. The following

techniques are used by cultural resource managers and law enforcement officials.

Regular and Irregular Patrols

by Agency Personnel

This remains the most effective way to protect

cultural resources, though it can be quite expensive, especially over large areas. Evening, weekend, and holiday coverage (when it is generally

most necessary), is especially expensive. In addition, law enforcement officers have other duties

in addition to protecting cultural resources, and

are often assigned other caseload work, which

reduces their ability to protect cultural resources.

Informants and Secret Witnesses

Individuals who have witnessed or participated

in looting or vandalism may for a variety of reasons be willing to give information to law enforcement officials that leads to convictions on the general charge of destroying government property

or for ARPA violations.50 Informal, noncommercial “pothunters” may be the people most likely

to become informants. Obtaining their help will

require a change in attitudes among Federal

agency officials and archaeologists.51

sOArchaeologica[ Resources Protection Act of 1979, Public Law

96-95, Sees. 6 and 7.

51 see, {or example, the discussion in Thomas F. King, “The

Pothunter as an Ally, Not an Enemy, ” Ear/y Man, summer 1982,

Pp. 38-40.

Sting Operations

In certain, well-defined cases, it may be possible to catch looters or middlemen by conducting a “sting” operation for stolen artifacts.

Unarmed Rangers

Prospect Park, in New York, has successfully

used unarmed, uniformed rangers to patrol the

park. They have the power to issue summonses

for “quality of life” violations,52

Adopt-a-Site

Local residents are often willing to monitor sites

or structures, especially rural ones, on a regular

basis and report suspicious activity to law enforcement officials. They become the eyes and

ears of the agency in the area. In return, however, such individuals should be kept informed

about the results of their work and about agency

interest in the sites.

Electronic Monitoring Devices

Much of this technology has been developed

for the Immigration and Naturalization Service,

the Department of Defense, or to serve other national needs. in the preservation community, the

use of these devices is increasing as technologies

evolve, and become cheaper and better known

to it. Both magnetic and seismic intrusion detectors are available. However, they are still quite

expensive, and require trained personnel to

maintain and use them. Furthermore, in remote

areas, law enforcement officials often cannot

reach the site quickly enough to be effective even

when intruders have been detected by sensors.

In addition, such devices pick up legitimate visitors who are there to sightsee or study the site,

as well as those with less benign intentions.

Still, such devices can be effective in providing officials with information concerning patterns

and cycles of unwanted intrusions at high value

sites, thus enabling them to position personnel

nearby at critical times. In other words, they must

be used in a coordinated fashion.

52 Tupper Thomas and pau[ C. Berizzi, “Prospect park: Rebuilding the Past for the Future, ” Parks and Recreation, )une 1985, pp.

24-30.
104 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Remote Cameras

Photographic or video cameras that can survey a scene and can be stat-ted by electronic sensors may be extremely effective in gathering

needed evidence on looting or vandalism at

selected sites. These devices are also expensive

and generally vulnerable to destruction by the

very looters and vandals they are attempting to

monitor.

Listening Devices

Listening devices are available and relatively

inexpensive compared to video, yet they are not

used because they may violate first amendment

rights.

Alarm Systems

Both fire alarm and break-in alarm systems are

generally used in historic structures. To be most

effective, they must be simple to use and to maintain. Otherwise, they may be ignored or improperly used.
Chapter 5

Preservation Information
Contents

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ... .107

Technologies for Archival Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....107

Issues ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technologies for Preservation

Optical Disk Systems . . . . . .

Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........109

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Technologies for Conserving Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,116

Document Preservation and Copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...117

Maintaining Noncomputerized Information . .....................,.,...118

lnformation on Underwater Archaeological Resources

Table

Table No.

17. Preservation Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Technology .. ...118

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. 107
Chapter 5

Preservation Information

INTRODUCTION

The preservation of prehistoric and historic cultural resources depends substantially on the use

of historical records and technical information

that exist in a variety of forms and are stored and

maintained in a variety of places. Decisions concerning the restoration and maintenance of historic landscapes are highly dependent on historical maps and landscape designs. Historians and

architectural historians depend on drawings, historic photographs, and written records for their

research. Archaeologists may find ethnologies,

historic maps, or even insurance records1 useful

in their investigations. The Library of Congress

(LOC); The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); The National Park Service

(NPS); The Smithsonian Institution; The National

Technical Information Service; and other Federal,

State, and local agencies acquire and maintain

a wide variety of information on prehistoric and

historic sites, structures, and landscapes.

One of the most critical problems confronting

historic preservation involves the storage, retrieval, and dissemination of technical and other

information on prehistoric and historic sites,

structures, and landscapes (table 17). How all of

these varied materials are conserved and made

available for research is of vital importance.

Much of the information of interest to historic

preservationists is housed in Federal agencies.

Out-of-date Federal records, according to the

‘See William M. Kelso, “Mulberry Row: Slave Life at Thomas

jefferson’s Monticello,” Archaeology 39, 1986, pp. 28-35, for an

account of the use of historical records in an archaeological investigation. See also Theodore j. Karamanski, “Logging, History, and

the National Forests: A Case Study of Cultural Resource Managemerit, ” Public Historian 7, 1985, pp. 27-40.

Table 17.—Preservation information

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

books—histories, novels, poems, etc.

charts

catalogs

newspapers, journals, magazines

construction/repair/maintenance reports

field records

documents—letters, diaries, administrative correspondence, tax records, insurance records, deeds, wills, etc.

architectural/landscape specifications/drawings/blueprints

pattern books

electronic and video recordings.

optical disks

films

maps

plats

photographs—aerial, terrestrial

machine-readable records—tapes, computer disks, microfiche, phonographs

analog/digital remote sensing data

artwork-paintings, drawings, prints

recorded and sheet music

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

various statutes and public laws2 affecting the disposition of Federal agency records, are accessioned by NARA. However, the reality of records

management by the Federal Government does

not necessarily reflect adherence to these laws.

In another context, it was noted that, “the United

States is in danger of losing its memory.”3 To help

prevent the loss of preservation’s memory, agencies should make every effort to keep track of

their active records and to transfer their retired

records in a timely manner to the National Archives.

q.4 u .S. c. 2101-2114, 2901-2909, 3103-3107, 3301-33 14; LJ. s.c.

2071; Public Law 95-416 and Public Law 95-440.

3Repofl of the Commitiee on the Records of Government, Washington, DC, March 1985.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

Once the records are transferred, however, the organized by subject like library books. Governmost important point to understand about ar- ment records housed in the NARA system (which

chival records is that in many cases they are not includes regional branches throughout the coun107
108 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

try) are organized by the principle of provenance,

which means that records created by one government unit are not mixed with others. For example, the files of materials created by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are not mixed with the

records originated by the War Relocation Authority, even if the subject (Indian removals during

World War II) is the same.

Provenance, however, may be supplemented

by a subject system because of technological

developments. That happens, for example, in national networks in which any number of institutions (as diverse as LOC and NARA, and the universities Stanford, Harvard, Cornell, Wisconsin,

and Michigan on one system) add descriptions

of their holdings with any number of keywords.

These can combine books and archival records.

As archivists rethink their collections for purposes

of adding the information to these databases, they

are also rethinking descriptive practices and supplementing the principle of provenance. In addition to the collections of documents in archives

and manuscripts in libraries, such other materials as collections of maps, films, photographs, and

architectural drawings can be described through

this method. This can provide a finding aid to

make a rapid scan of the content and location

of the collections at the start of a project.

Developments in optical character readers

have potential for archival use. One, tested recently using the 19th century ledgers of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, can recognize handwriting. It was apparently 92 percent accurate before

corrections were made.4 Optical disk storage gives

a clearer, higher resolution version of materials

than can microfilm technology, and it is faster and

more efficient to use and to store than current

forms.

In addition to developing more efficient ways

to locate and house research materials for individual projects, technology allows access to a

wider range of materials. Some projects have developed databases such as the Documentary Relations of the Southwest (DRSW) project based

at the Arizona State Museum in Tucson. With

documents running chronologically from 1520 to

qThomas E. Weir, jr., National Archives and Records Administration, personal communication, 1983.

1820, and a geographical area defined as approximating the boundaries of colonial New Spain,

the research tools created include a master index and separate biographical and geographic

files. BIOFILE Southwest consists of a master list

and additional indexes of relatives and household

members; occupations and titles; and a BIODEX

which indexes over 44,000 names culled from

secondary sources. While the collection is not

yet definitive and comprehensive, it makes research in materials relating to colonial New Spain

easier.

In addition, some projects are considering ways

to use location information. With a set of coordinates that pertain to a site, or a region, or other

physical location, the researcher can receive a

print-out of library and archival materials related

to that physical spot. GEOFILE Southwest is an

alphabetical gazeteer of almost 65,000 Southwest

place names that is correlated with three separate geographical references. Research for projects that cover a wide geographical area would

clearly be more practical with this means of accessing information.

The need to establish intellectual control over

materials crucial to research projects has led to

developments of importance to preservationists.

Archivists are developing record exchange formats to be used for individual projects to standardize (as far as that is possible) the documentary research for resource investigations.

Such developments make the process of organizing a research project more efficient. Being

able to handle information electronically has also

changed the materials to be used for research.

For example, the Afro-American Communities

Project housed in the Smithsonian Institution’s

National Museum of American History has used

varied sorts of local civic, economic and religious

records, as well as newspapers, private writings,

and national surveys such as census records to

trace the migration, living, and working patterns

of free black people before the Civil War in major American cities like Boston, Cincinnati, and

San Francisco. Combined with archaeological information, the project explores internal household activities such as food consumption. Furniture inventories and similar lists of household

goods help to re-create a picture of everyday life

in a complex black community.
Ch. 5—Preservation Information Ž 109

Issues

Storage of databases that arise from individual projects.—lt will be important to develop

some means of keeping track of these databases,

like the “grey literature” of archaeology, because

such a record might prevent the re-doing of research. On the other hand, the materials so accumulated might be useful only rarely.

Only a few institutions may receive the bulk

of research attention. -The possibility that institutions with the money to be involved in these

systems may receive the bulk of the research attention because their holdings are more accessible and thus easier to use than those not yet

on the system, could discriminate against groups

whose historical records lie in smaller depositories.

It will be important to develop means of paying for the development of finding aids and

databases.–Developing the finding aids and

databanks from the archives and manuscript depositories is labor intensive. It will require the development of new sources of funding.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR PRESERVATION INFORMATION

This section identifies and discusses several important technologies or classes of technologies

related to preservation information.

Optical Disk Systems

Optical disk systems offer a number of features

well suited for storing, retrieving and manipulating preservation information. They are capable

of storing audio, full motion video, still images,

and text. Data for microcomputers can now be

stored digitally on optical disks; such disks can

store up to 1 billion bytes of data. Disks can be

quickly and easily searched; any information on

a single disk can be recovered within 1 second.

Optical disk technology also promises to lower

the cost of recording and accessing data dramatically. However, it raises important questions concerning longevity (see section below “Longevity

of records stored on new technologies”).

For example, the Connecticut State Department of Transportation recently recorded images

of much of its highway system on laser disks. With

merely 15 disks the Department has replaced an

entire roomful of film cabinets. s

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has

pioneered the use of the technology for surveysJOhn Myers, Georgia Institute of Technology, personal communication, 1986.

ing towns.6 With interactive optical disks they

have:

●

●

●

recorded scenes of the same building in

different seasons, along with contemporary

and historic views, designing a sequence that

allows the investigator to pursue various

levels of research detail and, in effect, enter

a building to study its functions;

allowed the investigator to switch back and

forth between still and live action images;

and

allowed the investigator to move down a

street and choose different routes with no

perceptible interruption in the flow of

images.

This technology is promising not only for survey but training as well. The Department of Defense (DOD) uses this new technology to teach

electrical and mechanical processes too complex

to be explained via the typical training manual,

such as those for new tanks or aircraft. A mixture of text, still, and action imagery allows students, through a series of procedures, to learn

the consequences of both wrong and right decisions.

‘Andrew Lippman, “An Application of the Optical Videodisc to

Computer Graph ics,” Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH ’80 Seventh

Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Seattle, WA, July 1980.
110 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

For the purposes of historic preservation, an

optical disk training package on cleaning building exteriors could present a menu containing

certain treatment selections. The program could

then demonstrate the results of those selections.

The effects of destructive applications such as

sand blasting or inappropriate chemical cleaning

could be revealed and emphasized immediately

through a time-lapse sequence, showing how a

building would look after 1 year, 5 years, etc.

An optical disk the size of a long-playing record holds approximately 54,000 single images on

each side; the master disk costs around $2,500

per side to make. Each disk can be copied for

only about $15.OO ( +/- 20 percent) and can thus

be widely distributed. Although optical disks have

markedly decreased the time consumed in accessing information, overall costs are still high.

Mastering a disk does not include the extensive

labor required to accumulate the images for the

disk, nor any supportive text. It also does not include disk preparation, labeling, or cataloging.

These costs can be expected to decrease rapidly

as production volume increases.

Computers

Computers have become an important part of

historical research. The proliferation of minicomputers and microcomputers has made it possible

for the preservation community to record, store,

retrieve, and manipulate a wide variety of data

on prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and

landscapes. Although computer technology is still

undergoing rapid change, it has already become

more powerful, less expensive, and available to

more people in the workplace and at home than

it was just a few years ago. Yet, preservationists

have only recently begun to exploit computer

technology in acquiring and disseminating information. Primary constraints to widespread use by

preservation professionals include high costs of

hardware and data entry, which is extremely

time-consuming and labor-intensive; lack of standards for documenting historic preservation information; inadequate coordination among Federal,

State, and local agencies in harnessing computer

technology; and lack of familiarity with the technology itself.

Networks

Preservation professionals in the universities

tend to make little use of the available university mainframe networks such as BITNET and

ARPANET. Yet, they can be sources of free information and software. Few preservation professionals are mainframe computer users and the

network systems are relatively new.

For micro computer users, commercial information services such as CompuServe and Dialog

are available. However, only a few of the major

publications in the several preservation disciplines are available in commercial bibliographic

data bases.

Expert Systems

Technological development has not only increased the computer’s capacity for receiving,

storing, and presenting enormous amounts of

data; it has also resulted in the application of expert or knowledge-based systems. Expert systems

are a subset of “ ‘artificial intelligence, ’ a term

that has historically been applied to a wide variety of research areas that, roughly speaking, are

concerned with extending the ability of the computer to do tasks that resemble those performed

by human beings.“7 These systems are developed

to aid decisionmaking in certain kinds of practical tasks such as diagnosing diseases, repairing

mechanical systems, or analyzing molecular

structure.

Expert systems store the inferences governing

rules, steps, or procedures which model or describe the way experts approach tasks. Expert systems interact with users to solve problems by asking a series of questions and suggesting possible

courses of action. Although currently expert systems can be designed for use within rather narrow specialties, they offer greater promise than

any automated technology thus far for giving

meaning to stored information. This capability

could be very important in historic preservation

because of the scarcity of knowledge and the

7See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, infom-tation Technology: R&D Critical Trends and issues, OTA-CIT-268

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1985).
Ch. 5—Preservation Information ● 111

intense demand for information, decisions, and

judgments in dealing with materials and structures.8 Expert systems can also be designed for

—-- ——.—

esee N&jlR 8S-31 86, Development of Durcon, An Expefl SY$

tern for Durab/e Concrete: Parr 1, James R. Clifton, Bhalchandra

C. Oltikar, and Steven K. Johnson, U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, July 1985. This

is the first of a series of four progress reports to be completed on

recommendations for constituents for durable concrete. The reports

archival records retrieval and may eventually

change the way preservation professionals collect and process data.

Such systems may be useful for problems that

are extremely well-defined, or bounded, such as

the choices of specific technologies for conserving stone or wood. However, most other research

problems in preservation are so difficult to limit

will address the problems (freeze-thaw, sulphate effects, reinforc- that they are”unlikely to yield to expert systems. ing steel corrosion, and cement/aggregate interactions) associated

with concrete, the most widely used man-made construction material.

One of the most significant advances of the last

decade in the development of databases is the

invention and proliferation of inexpensive microcomputers and their associated software. As they

have become increasingly more capable and

cheaper to acquire, individuals and small institutions can develop their own powerful databases,

and communicate, by telephone and modem,

with other databases around the world.

The generation of databases is one of the most

critical aspects of computer use for information

storage and retrieval. The simplest and most important database for all intellectual activity is bibliographic. Therefore, it is necessary to develop

as complete a bibliographic database as possible.

Databases are crucial to the efficient use of information. The following sections list some of the

important preservation databases known to OTA.

They are representative and not meant to be inclusive.

Federal Preservation Databases

For the most part the regional offices of the various land managing agencies have traditionally

operated with great autonomy. This autonomy

has resulted in a fragmented approach to applying computer technology to historic preservation

information. Regional offices would benefit greatly

from compatible hardware, software, and standardized formats.

The National park Service.-The National Register of Historic Places’s National Register information System has been operational since May

1984. It

historic

contains information on over 45,000 preand historic structures, objects, and sites

in the United States, both listed and determined

eligible for listing.

The Computers Committee of the National

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

has, since 1983, attempted to standardize certain elements of the State-Federal preservation

program. The committee’s effort will link individual State computer databases with the National

Register Information System and aid those preservation offices in the early phases of computerization. This initiative will greatly facilitate, with

the adoption of common data fields, each preservation office’s ability to engage in information

exchanges and cooperative studies. In addition,

it will give greater uniformity to the year-end

reports the State offices must submit to NPS in

order to receive Federal historic preservation

funds.

National Archeological Database. –This database will store data on archaeological contract

work. Most of this is composed of the so-called

“grey” literature and includes approximately

150,000 contract reports on archaeological survey, salvage, and other work.

A proposed Database of Databases.–NPS is developing an index of cultural program databases

within its Washington, DC, office. The base will

provide data fields and descriptions. NPS will

make its databases available through the State

preservation offices to any legitimate user. NPS

will therefore depend on State preservation offices to screen potential users.
112 ● Technogies for Prehistoric arid Historic Preservation

The Cultural Resources Management Bibliography (CRBIB) and The List of Classfied Structures

(LCS).–Both databases contain evaluated information concerning properties under NPS management. Significant archaeological sites as well

as prehistoric and historic structures are listed.

The first base contains 23,000 entries, the second, 7,000. These computerized lists are intended

as planning aids to National Park Service managers and cultural resource professionals throughout the system and as information sources to the

general public.

The List of Classified Structures contains data

relative to each property’s name, level of significance (national, State, or local), National Register status, location, type or function, material

composition, age, physical condition, level of

conservation and maintenance required, level of

documentation, kinds and severity of impacts and

stresses, etc.9

~Marlua! for Cultural Resource Databases, List of Classified Structures Cultural Resources Management Bibliography,”

Alicia Weber (compiler), Park Historic Architecture Division, August 1986 (draft).
Ch. 5—Preservation Information ● 113

The Cultural Resources Management Bibliography contains comprehensive information relative to the kinds of publication, report, or study

carried out on each property.

The Historic American Building Survey/Historic

American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Computerization Program.–Data on historic sites and

structures delineated through the National Park

Service’s Historic American Buildings Survey

(HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) are available via computer from both

the NPS and the LOC. Measured drawings, photographs and supporting research information

compiled by HABS from 1933 to 1982 and HAER

from 1969 to 1985 cover thousands of

properties-over 16,000 buildings and 1,200 sites

of significance in the Nation’s industrial and technological development. Entries are listed alphabetically by State code and numerically by county

code. They provide property or site location,

HABS or HAER number, quantities of drawings,

photographs, and supporting research information. In addition, entries indicate where all

documentation is housed, either permanently

within LOC or temporarily within NPS, in preparation for eventual transmittal to the Library. The

computer index is accessible at terminals located

within the Library and the HABS/HAER office

within NPS.

The Census of Treated Historic Masonry Buildings to Maintain Long-Term Records on Treatments to Historic Buildings.—With the Center for

Architectural Conservation, Georgia Institute of

Technology, the Service is developing microcomputer programs in order to create accessible microcomputer databases on such subjects as Laboratories, products, training, organizations, special

collections, consultants, and print and nonprint

material.

The Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (lMACS).–Begun 11 years ago by the U.S.

Forest Service, this cooperative cultural resource

data management system serves its lntermountain Region, one of nine within the system, as well

as the Bureau of Land Management, and the State

Historic Preservation Offices of Utah, Nevada,

Idaho, and Wyoming. It contains information on

all classes of cultural resources. It provides locational and conditional information on structures

and archaeological sites, their age, type or function, cultural affiliation, and the environmental

attributes of the areas within which they are situated. It is accessible accessible not only via

mainframe but mini- and micro-computer systems and provides data not only on public lands

but private holdings as well.

The Library of Congress (LOC)

The National Union Index to Architectural

Records.–This database can be accessed by the

name of the architectural firm; partner; name or

location of a building or structure; as well as by

building type. Also, LOC’s Optical Disk Pilot Program represents an attempt to identify costs, benefits, strengths, and shortcomings associated with

this technology for storage and retrieval of the

Library’s collections. The technology holds great

promise in addressing problems concerned with

access to fragile, rare, and deteriorating collections materials.

The database for the National Union Index to

Architectural Records is maintained by Cooperative Preservation of Architectural Records (COPAR). COPAR was established to encourage the

collection, maintenance, and interpretation of

records threatened with loss or destruction, and

to serve as a national and international clearinghouse of information on the location, preservation, and cataloging of these documents. To

achieve these goals CO PAR offers guidelines for

the establishment of local and State groups, provides technical assistance and information to

professionals and the general public. In addition,

COPAR maintains the data for a national union

catalog of architectural records, and it accepts

and provides information about them.

Nonfederal Databases

State Databases. –All States via the State Historic Preservation Offices maintain the most systematic lists on archaeological sites and prehistoric and historic structures within the States and

Territories. OTA queried each State Historic Preservation Officer, requesting descriptions of new

technologies being applied to locating, analyzing, and protecting their cultural resources. The

letters specifically requested information on historic preservation computer database develop-
114 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

ment and whether the SHPOs take part in other

databases on the National or State level. Sixteen

States responded to OTA’s inquiry. Replies revealed that some States have experienced easier access to the technology than others and have,

therefore, made more progress in entering locational and descriptive information on their prehistoric and historic structures and archaeological sites. For the most part, the State Historic

Preservation Offices do not take part in other

State or in National databases, but look forward

to gaining access to the National Register information System. On-line access to the National

Register Information System will begin in 1987

on a trial basis.

The University of Maryland’s Architecture and

Engineering Performance Information Center.–

It has started to track structural failures in buildings. Although not specifically preservation oriented, it might serve as a model for preservation

or contain useful information on reasons for

failures in historic buildings.

The Getty Museum.–As part of its program to

develop an art and architectural information

thesaurus, the Getty Museum is attempting to

standardize some of the language used in computer programs. At present, the research and architecture sections are the most complete, but

not yet available. Over 9,000 entries are specific

to architecture. Another 4,000 entries are terms

shared by the fine and decorative arts. The Getty

Museum is also incorporating the database compiled by the Canadian Conservation Institute.

The Centre for the Study of the Preservation

and Restoration of Cultural Property (lCCROM).

–This database, residing in Rome, considered

the most complete bibliographic database in the

preservation field, is now on a mainframe computer and also available in printed form. ICCROM

has embarked on a project to convert it to micro

computer for easier access. At present, it is virtually inaccessible by outside computers.

The National Association of Corrosion Engineers/National Bureau of Standards.–This

corrosion database is a collaborative program

to collect, evaluate, and disseminate corrosion

data. It includes a user-friendly computer database of evaluated data on the rate and stability

of metallic materials.

Underwater Archaeological Databases

Of all cultural resources areas, underwater and

maritime materials are the least inventoried and

stored in computer. The Texas Antiquities Commission has begun a computerized shipwreck

reference file, which could serve as a model to

States that have not yet begun their own maritime and submerged sites surveys. It is based on

information culled from both historic and contemporary sources such as maps and field reports.

The file represents an effort to determine more

effectively where likely unidentified wrecks might

be situated and to aid research. Not all wrecks

indicated have been located because not all historic references are totally reliable. However, this

resource file allows the State to demonstrate the

possible existence of a historic shipwreck within

a particular geographical area. The file often helps

justify the employment of nondestructive remote

sensing surveys before a potentially destructive

activity, such as dredging or harbor facility expansion begins.

Since 1972, over 1,000 shipwrecks have been

listed, of which approximately one-half have

been determined historic. Recently the Commission elected to augment the file with maps and

navigation charts. The States, because they have

not made much headway in applying computer

technology to maritime inventories, can initially

achieve a substantial degree of consistency by

working together in developing compatible databases and efficient computer networks.10

Underwater archaeologists and maritime preservationists could make excellent use of computer technologies to establish as quickly as possible a mechanism that permits the ongoing

revision of statistics on the condition of all classes

of known submerged cultural resources. Such statistics can dramatically and meaningfully convey

to the public a sense of the relative health of such

resources. At present, there is no broad-based,

consistent quantification of the rate of loss of submerged cultural resources.

l“j. Barto Arnold, Ill, “Underwater Cultural Resource Management: The Computerized Shipwreck Reference File, ” Underwater

Archaeology: The Proceedings of the the Eleventh Conference on

Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.) (San Marine,

CA: Fathom Eight, 1982), pp. 85-95.
Ch. 5—Preservation Information ● 115

Landscape Databases

The preservation community should support

efforts of the Library of Congress; the National

Archives; and other Federal, State, and local archives to identify and maintain records of landscapes because, at present, no national landscapes database exists. A first important step will

be to create a database listing deposits of records and collections throughout the country.

The following databases contain some information about prehistoric and historic landscapes.

The Library of Congress.– Its National Union

Index to Architectural Records (see above) contains information about landscapes.

The National park Service (BIBSCAPE).–This

is a database of all the landscapes within the national parks. It is separate from the LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES. The Service is also employing interns to examine its published documents

for substantial references to landscapes. This effort has yielded 200 items out of 6,000 publications.

ISSUES

1. The problems of preservation faced by various archives often begin in the field, when research and other records are created. “Most field

researchers lack a basic knowledge of the archival

principles and techniques that contribute to record longevity."11 Many preservationists fail to

maintain records of their fieldwork, believing that

a well-documented published paper will suffice.

Yet, generally, the best sources of original data

are the field records themselves. Even records

that have been carefully stored may be lost because they have been created on media that have

extremely short lifetimes. Paper, inks, magnetic

tape, film are all subject to degradation. In order to improve the ability of archives to store

and retrieve records, it will be important for

preservationists working in the field to be aware

of the actions they can take to create and maintain long-term records.

2. A number of impediments exist to the application of computer technology to historic

preservation information needs:

●

●

lack of communication and coordination

among database designers, leading to

duplication of effort,

lack of standardization in data systems and

language,

I IMarY Anne l(enwotihy, Eleanor M. King, Mary Elizbeth Ruwell,

and Trudy Van Houten, Preserving Field Records (Philadelphia, PA:

The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1985). Although this report was developed specifically for archaeologists and

anthropologists, it contains much information of use to all preservation disciplines and offers practical advice for preserving field

records.

●

●

●

lack of Federal level leadership and commitment regarding the improvement of

preservation data management,

lack of computer networks for historic preservation, and

costs.

Although computers have reduced the costs

of storing and retrieving information, putting records on computers remains relatively expensive

because it is generally labor-intensive. Volunteers

and student interns can be helpful in entering

data on computers. However, the help of volunteers upon which museums and other public institutions depend is not entirely risk free. Volunteers must acquire adequate training to be

effective.

Training volunteers takes staff time from other

important projects. It is important to interview

individuals closely, train them carefully, and thus

ensure that they perform their tasks properly.

For certain applications, an automatic optical

scanner for transferring printed text to a computer

database could lower certain labor costs, once

the capital cost of the equipment is borne.

3. Standardized formats are essential for convenient and reliable access to databases. Yet, except in the world of research libraries, there has

been little or no attempt to standardize or strictly

define the various data elements or to create

compatible formats and terms that would provide

common access to documentation for individual
116 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

sites or structures.12 Included in such databases

should be nonprint records stored on optical

disks or other high capacity media.13 

4. The preservation community needs a variety of information on preservation technologies

and sources of expertise, delivered expeditiously.

One of the most important needs related to technology is for critically evaluated information on

the conservation, restoration, and maintenance

of historic structures. A centrally maintained

technical database could provide such information. Among other things, such a database could

strengthen communication among preservation

professionals and their counterparts in natural science and engineering fields. However, before delivery of such information is possible, it will be

necessary to develop a nationally accepted format within which existing and new information

can be incorporated. One step in that direction

would be to create a centralized database that

provides listings of specialized databases.

Databases should be made useful and accessible to developers, planners, and others outside

the professional preservation community. In the

absence of a national preservation information

network, interested parties are confined to conducting their research within individual States.

They should have access to a database that lists

the relevant databases in the United States and

other countries. However, certain privileged data,

such as the locations of archaeological sites,

should be accessible only on a limited basis.

One of the difficult problems faced in such an

effort is the establishment of comparable search

and store parameters. It is important to resolve

the way a database answers specific sets of questions, yet allow it to remain compatible with

others. The NCSHPO, for example, is facing this

problem in attempting to achieve compatibility

between the SHPOs’ databases, of varied quality and completeness, and the database designed

for the National Register of Historic Places. The

lzFor instance, by name, geographic or geo-pcditical location, Subject, date, or design history.

llThe LOC prints and Photographs Division, as part of LOC’S OPtical Disk Pilot Program, is storing thousands of images from several collections. See joseph Price, “The Optical Disk Pilot Program

at the Library of Congress, ” Videodisc and Optical Disk, 4 (1984):

424-432.

Computers Committee has, thus far, completed

a list of fields for rehabilitation tax credit databases, fields for bibliographies, and an overview

of database design.

The same institutional structure (such as a Preservation Technology Board) that would strengthen

communication among historic preservation

professionals and their colleagues in the sciences

(see Chapter 2: Introduction and Chapter 7: Technology and Preservation Policy) could play a coordinating role in identifying improvements in the

various computer databases for studies of historic

structures and other cultural resources.

The Library of Congress, along with the National Archives and Records Administration, and

some university manuscript collections specialists,

are working toward establishing a Nationwide

database. However, they face potential problems

relating to the development of common standards. The National Archives houses retired Federal records. It is not clear that Federal Agencies

themselves are striving to achieve commonality

in studies being done for the purposes of computer-based data storage and retrieval.

Although the goal of coordinating the voluminous amount of existing preservation information

and creating a national database for historic preservation might be attractive for reasons of simplicity of research, a national database looks neither technically feasible nor affordable in the

short run. Because the field is multi-disciplined

and fragmented, it is not bound by one accepted

set of terms.

There is a need to provide data to a variety of

preservation practitioners–scholars, Federal managers, architects, scientists, and craftsmen. Therefore efforts might be better expended on the technically easier task of establishing a network of

links and keys to tie multiple databases together.

Technologies for Conserving Records

Although the focus of this study is technologies

for sites, structures, and landscapes, conserving

historic records is an important facet of the preservation process. Assuring the availability of historic records will require finding appropriate methods to convert deteriorating paper, film, and other

media to less ephemeral media.
Ch. 5—Preservation Information . 117

One potentially serious problem in the development and use of new data storage technologies, such as optical disks, is their long-term stability. First, the longevity of the recording media

themselves is unknown .14 Second, because the

technologies are changing fairly rapidly, in the

future it may be difficult to find the equipment

to “read” certain records made in the last 50

years. For example, only a few institutions maintain the devices to play back cylinder recordings

made in the early part of the century. Yet recordings such as those in the American Folklife Center’s

“cylinder project” provide Native American music that is rarely sung today.

In the 1930s, LOC sponsored a major survey

of the Architecture of the South, funded by the

Carnegie Foundation. As it was to bean archival

collection, they used the best safety film of the

day from Kodak. However, in the 50 years since

they were originally made, the photographs have

faded and cracked. Recently, LOC spent $60,000

copying 8,000 8x1 O prints from the collection.

In addition to copying aging and threatened

records, new technology can be used to make

records previously inaccessible available. In order to make its collection of 25,000 glass plate

negatives available to the public, LOC staff filmed

them, reversed the polarity electronically, and

recorded them on an optical disk. Now the Library is linking the optical disk to its automatic

information retrieval system.

LOC staff have expressed concern over how

long the optical disks and the disk players will

last. Optical disk technology is still being improved and is, therefore, constantly changing.

Most players now are built to National Television

Standards. Yet, foreign standards are higher, and

manufacturers are working on systems that will

provide twice as many lines on a screen. Upgrading to higher standards later will entail greater expenditure.

I 4See F7eservafjorj of H;srorica/ Records, Committee On fJreServation of Historical Records, National Materials Advisory Board,

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

This study indicates that such materials as magnetic tape and disks

are too perishable and unstable for archival purposes, with an estimated life span of no more than 20 years.

Document Preservation and Copying

Architects and landscape architects frequently

need to consult archival documents to understand the intent of a designer and to determine

the integrity of a restoration. Yet, landscape architectural drawings are typically large (up to 25

feet long) and archivists have little experience

with bulk conservation or copying of oversized

documents. The sinks, drying racks, humidity

chambers, and other specialized equipment for

conserving large items are not readily available

and must be custom designed and fabricated at

great expense.

In general, architectural and landscape architectural plans were intended for short-term use

and little or no thought was given to the possibility that they might later be placed in an archive.

Many of the plans are, therefore, fragile. Many

kinds of prints are often extremely faded and no

known treatment exists to restore or stabilize

them. The best that can be done is to copy them.

However, because of the large format, poor image quality, or low contrast of the print, image

enhancement may be required.

New document conservation technologies are

needed. 15 Many letters contained in the Olmsted

Association’s correspondence file within the Library of Congress have faded so badly that they

are nearly illegible without enhancement. Costeffective methods should be found for copying,

enhancing, and disseminating visual information.

Preserving faded or outsized records is also laborintensive and generally requires skilled personnel. It may be appropriate to set up regional

centers specializing in the conservation of architectural drawings of structures and Landscapes.lb

1 SFor examp[e, fumigation of records with ethylene oxide was

standard practice until recently when it was discovered to be unsafe and the forbidden by Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. No satisfactory replacement has been found.

16’jeeWilliam H. Marquardt (cd.), “Regional Centers in Archaeology: Prospects and Problems, ” Missouri Archaeological Society, Research Series 14, 1977, for a discussion of regional centers applied

to archaeology.
118 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Maintaining Noncomputerized

Information

Most of the current archival material is composed of drawings, photographs (negatives and

prints), phonograph recordings, magnetic tapes,

and texts. The problem of loss and misfiling of

drawings and other necessary noncomputerized

research documentation has become severe. For

example, many Federal agencies cannot recall

files for reference on construction or maintenance

projects completed years before because they

have become lost within vast records storage

areas. There are often no finding aids associated

with document storage systems.

Many Federal agencies, over the last several

years, have discarded a variety of housekeeping

documents relating to properties under their

stewardship. Thus, a valuable source of information on past maintenance, repair, and restoration

schedules and procedures has been lost for reference to today’s conservators and historians. All

such new information should be carefully documented and kept until such time as it can be computerized.

A formidable amount of available information

and original documentation, such as tax records

within State and local governmental offices and

business and insurance records from company

and corporate archives, still must be organized

and retained because they are extremely useful

to historians. It is important for preservationists

to apprise business and corporate leaders of the

potential historical value of such holdings. In

addition, archival photographs are valuable as

records of past Iandforms in an area. They should

be preserved on stable film.

Some progress has occurred lately in correcting the problem of misfiled and mislaid records

within storage systems by the LOC Committee

for the Preservation of Architectural Records,

which has a computer locator and tracking system. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have made

some headway in developing state-wide computer-based architectural record systems.

Other Federal agencies, such as the National

Park Service, have been attempting recently to

“unbury” approximately 6,000 technical reports

by microfilming or microfiching those completed

before 1965 (after they have been critically evaluated as correct and up to date). Those reports

completed since 1965 have been sent to the National Technical Information Service and are now

available to the public.

Information on Underwater

Archaeological Resources

and Technology

The types of information relevant to underwater archaeology and maritime preservation are

extremely varied and widely scattered throughout such sources as libraries, Federal, State, and

local agencies, and oil, gas, and mineral industry survey inventories. A national repository

within which new research findings could be incorporated, and which provided locational aids

for sources of maritime and submerged cultural

resource information, would aid underwater archaeological research and preservation immeasurably.

Underwater archaeologists have made relatively little use of the information filed with the

Minerals Management Service. The Service requires all oil, gas, or mineral exploration companies to conduct archaeological surveys of any

three-mile lease blocks they want to lease, The

companies must bear all survey costs of, for example, shallow, sub-bottom seismic survey, magnetometric survey, and side-scan sonar survey.

They must allow archaeologists to review all of

the data generated and recommend to the companies where to and not to drill. The companies

have processed a tremendous amount of data

from off-shore areas, but archaeologists have synthesized very little of it for the purposes of underwater archaeological research.
Chapter 6

Public Education
Contents

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............121

The Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................122

Interpretive Labels, Signs, and Other Written and Graphic Information .. ...122

Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ ..................122

Taped Walking or Driving Tours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......123

Electronic Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...123

Interpretive Structures/Visitor’s Centers . . . . . . . . . .......................124

Accessible Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........124

Designing Access to Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............125

Community and Public Education and Awareness . ......................125

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........126
Chapter 6

Public Education

INTRODUCTION

Public education is an extremely important

component of the preservation process because

most funding for historic preservation projects derives from the public, either through taxes, or

through entrance fees at sites and museums. Public education and preservation research seek to

answer the question: what can we learn from our

material past? Information conveyed to the public is directly tied to what we learn from the study

of archaeological sites and historic structures and

landscapes. Preservation professionals have a responsibility to report their research findings to the

public as well as to colleagues at professional

meetings and in published articles.

Public education is most effective when, in

addition to reporting research results clearly, it

also helps the public understand the broad meaning of prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and

landscapes. Fully realized public education explores the prehistoric and historic context for experience, actions, and events. It evokes an understanding of our relationship to those who

preceded us as revealed in their cultural material.

Accessible, clearly presented information enables the public to understand, for example, that

historic structures or designed landscapes are

more than reflections of famous people or personal esthetic values, but are the products of a

multitude of complex cultural forces that include

economic, political, and social values as well. For

example, information concerning prehistoric sites

can assist in understanding the cultural and scientific achievements of Native American s.’

Among Federal agencies, the National Park

Service (NPS) has a long history of educating the

public about cultural resources, which grew out

‘Thomas j. Schlereth, “Material Culture Research and Historic

Explanation, ” The Pub/ic Historian 7, 1985, pp. 21-36. See also,

Ray A. Williamson, Living the Sky: The Cosmos of the American

/ndian (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), for an extensive discussion of prehistoric structures that display evidence of Native

American interest in the motions of the celestial sphere.

of its interest in interpreting natural settings and

values to its park visitors.2 NPS sees cultural resource management and interpretation as complementary. “Interpretation communicates the

significance and value of the resource to . . . ‘the

public.” 3Interpretation also assists in “developing support for preserving” the parks’ resources,

including cultural resources.4 As the director of

NPS recently observed, “the preservation of the

tangible evidence of this [our] past insures the

preservation of the knowledge base. [It is] a base

that can help us understand the fundamental relationships of men to each other and of men living in communities to their environment as a

whole.”5 Research results are an important part

of the significance and value of cultural resources,

and often form a part of NPS interpretative presentations.

Hundreds of private, nonprofit organizations

contribute greatly to the public’s understanding

and appreciation of preservation goals. Many of

these organizations promote community and individual involvement in research or restoration.

For example, the Crow Canyon Center for Southwestern Archeology in Cortez, Colorado, provides the opportunity for individuals, from elementary school age children to senior citizens,

to spend time participating in an archaeological

dig, experiencing the varieties of tasks and tech-

‘Barry Mackintosh, Interpretation in the National Park Service:

A Historica/ Perspective (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, 1986); see also Heather Huyck and

Dwight T. Pitcaithley, “ National Park Service: Historians in interpretation, Management, and Cultural Resources Management, ” in

Pub/ic History: An /introduction, Barbara j. Howe and Emery Kemp

(eds.) (Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co., 1986), pp. 371-387,

JCu/tura/ Resources Management (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, NPS-28), ch, 3, p. 34.

See also Interpretation and Visitor Services Guideline (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

NPS-6).

4“The Role and Responsibility of Interpretation in the National

Park Service,” position paper attached to a Memorandum from William Penn Mott, jr., NPS Director, to NPS Regional Directors regarding Interpretation, Feb. 10, 1986,

5

1 bid., p. 8.

121
122 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

—

niques of archaeology.6 Other institutions, such

as the White Mesa Institute, College of Eastern

Utah in Blanding, Utah, may combine the experience of research with a regional educational

tour.7 The Alexandria Urban Archeology Program

of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, has developed

a highly structured program for involving the

citizens of Alexandria in their city’s past. The

hours spent by the volunteers count toward fundraising by helping to secure matching research

grants, and “the volunteer program also provides

a vehicle for participants to conduct their own

GSee Ricky Lightfoot, “The Duckfoot Site,” Archaeology, March/

April 1986, pp. 68-69 for a description of Crow Canyon’s goals and

some recent research results.

7Ray A. Wi Iliamson and Fred Black burn, ‘‘The Living Earth and

the Outdoor Museum,” paper presented at the conference, Is the

Earth a Living Organism? Amherst, MA, August 1985.

learning in a preferred area of education and

work. ”8

Not only should public education focus on the

results and interpretation of research, it should

also include discussion of research techniques.

Often the public is unaware of the part new technologies play in the analysis of prehistoric and

historic sites, structures, and landscapes. Yet,

many of the techniques are of interest in themselves. Demonstrating the analytical process

could contribute to a deeper understanding and

appreciation of the complexities of research.

However, as is true of the research process, lack

of availability of information has impeded adequate public understanding of this important facet

of preservation.

8Steven j. Shepard and John F. Stephens, “The Volunteer Program: Developing a Symbiotic Relationship Between the Profession and the Public, ” Approaches To Preserving a City’s Past (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service

Preservation Planning Series, April 1983), pp. 61-68.

THE TECHNOLOGIES

In addition to the traditional means of conveying information about prehistoric and historic

preservation, including brochures, displays,

museum exhibits, photographic slide presentations,9 films and other media, techniques for interpreting research on cultural resources now include video, holographic images, and optical

disks, Public television programs based on video

footage taken during an excavation or renovation can be particularly effective in conveying a

sense of the excitement of research. In addition,

allowing the public access to components of a

collection is useful for conveying the shape, size,

and manufacturing details of the artifactual material.

Interpretive Labels, Signs, and Other

Written and Graphic Information

These take a variety of forms, including brochures, maps and diagrams with points of interest highlighted, signs, or labels. These kinds of

9Nancy E. MaIan, “Producing Professional Quality Slide Shows, ”

Technica/ Report 2, American Association for State and Local History, 1985.

interpretative material are essential for curious

visitors to derive the maximum benefit from visiting a historic site. Without such aids, visitors may

be able to experience the ambience of the site,

but remain uninformed about what they are seeing. Such information can be provided on two

or three levels of complexity, depending on visitor interest and involvement.

One way to increase public awareness of significant landscapes is to provide interpretive signs

along the highways, such as are used for historic

routes, buildings, and monuments. The presence

of a sign may entice a few to stop and invest the

time to learn about the property. France, for example, has an effective program to call travelers’

attention to historic sites, including landscapes,

using explanatory signs along the side of the road.

At some locations it is even possible to obtain information pamphlets.

Interpreters

Trained individuals who can explain the history and significance of a site, structure, or landscape are most effective at sites, Such interpret-
Ch. 6—Public Information ● 123

ers can react immediately to visitors’ questions.

As noted above, NPS provides education to the

public concerning cultural resources. NPS interpretative personnel provide tours, give slide

shows, and a variety of informative talks concerning Park cultural and other resources. Effective

use of technologies, such as tape recordings,

movies, and slide shows, can enhance the ability of such interpretive staff to convey meaningful information to the public.

Taped Walking or Driving Tours

Many museums, and some historic sites, offer

taped tours of exhibits so that visitors may experience them at their own pace. Such equipment

could be easily used for a variety of prehistoric

and historic sites, structures, and landscapes.

Some could be provided by the private sector.

For example, a private nonprofit group allied with

Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Battlefield

Park provides tape cassettes on a rental basis for

battlefield driving tours.

Electronic Media

Most sites contain far more information than

can be conveyed to the public using traditional

signs and written materials. Video tape, optical

disks, and computers not only deliver information in new formats, they make it possible to treat

a wide variety of information. Such devices can

be used not only to impart information on the

site, structure, or landscape at which they are located, they store and share a wide variety of contextual or comparative information.

For example, the staff of the Frederick Law

Olmsted Historic Site in Brookline, Massachusetts, are developing a computer database that

will soon be able to generate a list of properties

designed by the Olmsted firm within or near a

given area code. Visitors will be able to learn

whether Olmsted properties are located near

their homes. Eventually, the interpretive staff at

the site hopes to be able to call up and display

images of such properties on a video monitor.

For comparative purposes, such an arrangement

could display site plans, historic photographs, and

modern views of the site. Clearly, this technology could also serve as an effective research tool.

Electronic media make possible greater public involvement with the educational materials because they allow direct interaction. Optical disks,

especially, allow viewers to select different paths

of information and to individualize their educational experience. For example, the American

Folklife Center at the Library of Congress has developed a documentary optical disk describing

life on a cattle ranch in Paradise Valley, Nevada.10

On one disk, the producers have included full

motion video with sound, a large, still picture archive (with captions) and oral histories in the form

of filmed interviews that users can examine

quickly and easily.

In underwater archaeology, as in other preservation areas, demonstrating the analytical process could greatly contribute to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the complexities and

importance of underwater archaeology and maritime preservation. However, research results

have not always been available in a timely manner, or in a form appropriate to public consumption.

IOThe Njnety.Sjx: A Caflle Ranch in Northern Nevada, American

Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1985. See

“Videodisc: The Ninety-Six Ranch,” Folklife Center News 9, 1986,

Pp. 8-11.
124 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Color video has become a very versatile tool

in both high and low visibility underwater environments. It is relatively inexpensive and easy to

use and capable of high resolution images. In

addition, powerful new lighting systems can overcome the limitations on color balance and differentiation that occur 20 meters below the water’s

surface when ambient light is reduced. These

techniques are among those which have been applied in the project to record and stabilize the

Monitor.

The imaginative use of the various photo-imaging systems, such as stereo photography and

video, can convey the essence of the underwater

experience to those who do not possess the capabilities to dive themselves. The elderly and

handicapped, for example, should be able to

share some aspects of the underwater experience. In some cases it may be possible to view

historic shipwrecks through submerged glassIined compartments set into specially built tourist vessels.

Video cameras are particularly effective interpretive devices because they are relatively inexpensive and require only moderate training for

acceptable results.11 Interpretive staffs can use

them to tailor presentations to meet specific local needs, and to document the park’s holdings.

They are also able to exhibit information about

sites, structures, and landscapes that may be

closed to visitors because they are too fragile or

too difficult for the average visitor to reach.

Audiovisual techniques can enhance visitors’

experiences enormously, but it should be noted

that they must be planned for and tested carefully. At Kings Mountain National Military Park,

South Carolina, a creative audiovisual approach

misfired. Kings Mountain commemorates a battle between American loyalists and revolutionaries during the Revolutionary War. NPS featured

this civil conflict by playing recorded arguments

11 Staff members of the NPS Submerged Underwater Cuhural Resources Unit have made effective use of video cameras to document underwater resources in the National parks for management

and protection. Park managers have also found that the footage

so acquired can be used to display and interpret the resources to

park visitors.

over speakers placed at either end of the main

exhibit area of the visitors center.

Unfortunately, visitors entering the building too

frequently found themselves under verbal fire:

". . . the exhibit did not work . . . The shouting

match between the Loyalists and the Patriots confused visitors. . . .“ Although the recordings began as the visitors entered the building, the accompanying visual exhibit was not necessarily

synchronized with the sound. Insufficient testing

clearly left the public with a far too real perception of Revolutionary confusion and strife.12

Interpretive Structures/Visitor’s

Centers

One of the most effective interpretive devices

is a separate structure or pavilion that allows for

the use of a variety of media—written, graphic,

and video display. However, such structures may

intrude on a historic site or landscape, so great

care must be exercised in placing them to avoid

visual conflicts and to ensure that their design is

compatible with the setting. Existing structures

can often be adapted to serve interpretive

purposes.

Accessible Interpretation

Consideration of provisions for handicapped

access to designed landscapes and structures is

important for public education. However, for

some historic public properties it may be difficult to provide access without impairing the historic integrity of the building or designed landscape. 13 A designed landscape whose only access

is a long flight of steps, or a historic structure with

extremely narrow staircases are possible examples. The Eugene O’Neill house in California has

a brick sidewalk far too narrow for wheelchairs

or walkers that is part of the house entrance vista.

In many cases, it may be possible to make part

of the property accessible. In these cases, appro12 Mackintosh, op. cit., p. 44.

IJCharleS parro tt, Access tO Historic f?ui/dings for the Disab/ed:

Suggestions for Planning and Implementation (Washington, DC:

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Technical Preservation Services Division, 1980).
Ch. 6—Public Information ● 125

Interpretive structure and sign, Mule Canyon Ruin, southeast Utah. This structure is located to the side of the path leading

to the stabilized and protected ruins of an ancient Pueblo Indian dwelling and sacred kiva.

priate educational tools and structures are especially important and should be designed and provided as an integral part of the site design or

visitation process.

Video technology can be especially useful in

assisting the handicapped to view a landscape or

see the interior of a distant room because it is possible to set up video cameras in such a way that

the handicapped can scan them from one or

more fixed locations. In any case, all interpretive

signs and labels should also be written in Braille.

Recorded tours can be keyed to activate at points

of interest and describe what can be experienced

there.

Designing Access to Sites

For landscapes, one of the most important

amenities the landscape architect can provide is

a system of pathways and viewpoints to maximize

the visitors’ experience of important landscape

features. Some zoo designers have been particularly effective in creating settings that channel visitor traffic and screen certain critical areas.

Community and Public Education

and Awareness

Creating awareness of the value of historic properties within local communities is an important

part of public education and preservation. In

addition to providing information to the news media, managers of historic properties may find it

beneficial to provide public lectures and other

events for the local population either at the

historic site or in the community .14

 Sunny side, in New York State, sends its interpretive staff into the local community to make citizens aware of their

local history.
126 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Obtaining the involvement and support of the

local community, with participation in setting

project goals, is one of the most important aspects

of public education. Involving the local community gives its citizens a sense of contributing to

the aims of the prehistoric or historic place, and

imparts in them an interest in preserving the resource because they have contributed to it.

For example, the park staff at Cahokia Mounds

State Historic Site in Illinois depends on close involvement of individuals from the nearby communities to assist in educating park visitors.

Volunteers suggest projects that would make the

park experience more enjoyable and participate

with park rangers and interpretative personnel in

carrying out these programs. They assist in archaeological excavations, the development of interpretive displays, and even publish a Park newsletter, The Cahokian.

Some historic sites involve the community by

providing opportunities for local residents to participate in historic festivals, ’ 5 or to volunteer as

1 SEnglish Heritage (The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) has made particularly effective use of local

tour guides dressed in period costumes.16 The issue of costuming interpreters, however, like that

of presenting demonstrations or “living history”

at cultural sites, is controversial within the profession. Such activities can, perhaps inadvertently,

misrepresent the past by substituting charm, cleanliness, or nostalgia for historical reality.

General support can also be gained by forming “Friends of . . .“ groups whose members can

assist with maintenance, fund raising for special

projects, and staffing sales and information desks,

as well as serving as trained docents.

residents in historic festivals centered around historic landscapes,

buildings, and monuments. See Malcolm G. Wood, “The Marketing and Interpretation of England’s Heritage, ” paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New

Orleans, Apr. 23-27, 1986.

IGSuch volunteers work out best for the organization when they

receive appropriate onsite training. The volunteers, in turn, gain

the opportunity to learn more about the historic property and its

historic relationship to the local community.

ISSUE 1:

Education is an effective means of increasing

protection of cultural resources.

The excavation and collection of historic and

prehistoric artifacts from both public and private

land is a serious problem for cultural resource

specialists. Fascinated by artifacts of earlier eras

and other cultures, amateur collectors have made

artifact collecting part of their recreational activity. Often, they are unaware of the damage their

collecting inflicts on the available resource. Educational programs that describe the preservation

research process and convey an understanding

of the significance of prehistoric and historic cultural resources to the public could play an important part in reducing damage from such activities. Educational programs that actively involve

the public and draw public input are likely to be

most effective.

In addition to affecting public attitudes toward

cultural resources on public lands, such programs

may also educate private landowners to protect

rather than dig up cultural resources on their own

land. Prehistoric or historic cultural resources on

private land are unprotected under current Federal preservation law. Such programs would also

reduce the ease with which professional “pothunters” loot sites and could enable easier convictions under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). Public outrage at the losses

sustained by such activities is likely to increase

if the public were more aware of the economic

losses that can be incurred with looting and vandalism.

A variety of technologies exist for education,

but they need to be used more effectively in order to affect significantly the retention of prehistoric and historic resources. Most interpretive
Ch. 6—Public Information ● 1 2 7

displays or other educational materials lack information concerning the protection of sites and

what the loss of those sites means in human or

cultural terms. The Louisiana program, designed

and excecuted by the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, serves as one important example of

what can be done, at relatively little cost, to educate the public about protection issues (box C).

ISSUE 2:

Museums have an important role in contributing to the public’s understanding of preservation goals.

Museums play a unique role in public education because they rely largely on the use of original natural objects or artifacts, They also employ

photographs, drawings, or video for interpretation. Although museums have re-created whole

historic rooms, or even dwellings inside their

walls, in most cases it is impossible to recreate

a rock art site or a landscape in a museum setPhoto credit: Ray A. Williamson

Ancient Pueblo Indian petroglyph of shield and warrior

(on basalt) south of Santa Fe, NM. Native Americans

pecked, carved, or painted many thousands of images

on stone outcropping throughout North America.

Long known and admired for their beauty, they have

only recently been studied and interpreted.

ting. Yet interpretation, both for research purposes and for public education, requires detailed

knowledge of the local environmental context in

which rock art and historic landscapes occur.

Museum displays, however, tend to tell one story,

instead of providing the multidimensional, multivalent explanation that designed and cultural

landscapes call for. The appropriate use of optical disks or video might make possible a more

dynamic, contextual approach that would include

opportunities for the visitor to see a landscape

or historic structure from different angles and at

different seasons.

Museum curators tend to regard the museum

as a facility for conserving prehistoric and historic

artifacts and educating the public concerning

their function and meaning. Most curators have

not taken an active role in educating the public

about the need to preserve cultural materials not

in museums. ’ 7 However, most of the same technologies that are used for interpreting museum

collections to the public could be employed to

alert it to the problems of protecting and preserving resources not yet in museums. Protection issues need to be included in interpretational B

ISSUE 3:

Restoration and conservation techniques

should be included in public education plans.

Although certain conflicts and uncertainties

over the interpretation of prehistoric sites will

continue, interpretive schemes would better serve

the public if they explicitly incorporated information on the process of preserving sites. At York

Minster 19 in England, preservationists planned to

close the structure to carry out massive multi-year

restoration, but were ultimately convinced to

17CU raters of materials from a marine environment are fam i I ia r

with the need to educate the public about protection issues because their artifacts are so fragile.

IEFor example, in 1984 the Denver Museum of Natural H iStOry

mounted a small exhibit about Colorado Archaeology. A pamphlet

distributed as part of the exhibit not only listed the major public

archaeological sites in the State, but also included a warning about

plundering archaeological sites and cited the State and Federal laws

against collecting artifact on public lands, See “Colorado Archaeology: Riddles and Resources, ” Denver Museum of Natural History,

1984.

lqsee Bernard M. Feilden, conservation of Historic Buildings (London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982), for more information on the restoration of York Minster.
128 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation
Ch. 6—Public Information ● 129

Cost of Time and Materlals of Various Projects * Curriculum materials-169-page curriculum

Divided by the Number of People Affected guide designed for use in junior high school

● 4

/ I I r I

Booklets Newsletters Library School Curriculum

exhibits exhibits guide

classes (average cost per $0.90), $0.90).

● Workshops-the Division offers workshops for

teachers around the State to introduce teachers

to the materials and techniques they can use

to teach about archaeology and site preservation.

● Slide shows-for the workshops and in conjunction with exhibits.

Finally, the division has “encouraged archaeologists receiving federal grant funds to include pub-

 Division of Iic participation in their projects.”

Photo credit: Courtesy Dayton Museum of Natural History

A reconstructed prehistoric Indian house at the Incinerator Site in Dayton, Ohio. This thatched-roof dwelling represents

archaeologists’ interpretation of the original house forms at this location. It was built primarily

with volunteer help from local citizens.
130 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

leave it open to the public who were able to view

the work’s progress in safety. The restoration generated a great deal of visitor interest and financial support, and provided a unique educational

experience.

Likewise, in the United States, NPS has kept

some historic buildings, among them the Clara

Barton House in Glen Echo, Maryland, open for

visitors during restoration and rehabilitation. Site

managers can increase the public’s concern over

the continued “health” of historic structures by

illuminating the process that preserves them.

Reconstructions of prehistoric or historic structures in a manner that preserves as much of the

original methods as possible can be a source of

particular enjoyment and instruction to site visitors. In one recent example, in which the reconstruction of a Paleoindian house in Virginia was

carried out with volunteers using replicas of prehistoric tools, the house and the construction

tools are now available for visitor inspection.20

ZOThe Thunderbird Museum and Archaeological Park i n Front

Royal, VA. See “Indian Dwelling Rebuilt, ” Archaeology 39, 1986,

p. 78.

A building, group of buildings, or a landscape

can be historically significant for one or several

reasons 21—for a single event, day, or person, for

outstanding design, craftsmanship, or artistic

value, for representing a particular type, period,

or method of construction, etc. Changes in use

and occupancy may have wrought alterations

that have assumed significance in their own right.

Buildings, for example, can demonstrate technological change over time, the history of building technology itself. It is often important for the

history of changes in the use and function of historic structures to be incorporated into interpretive presentations. For example, the interpretation of a structure such as the Old Post Office in

Washington, DC, owned by the General Services

Administration, and recently rehabilitated to combined public and private office and commercial

use, could include more information about its

past function .22

21 See How To Apply the Nationa/ Register Criteria fOr Evaluation,

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Zzpage p. Mi Iler, Nation Coordinating Committee for the promotion of History, personal communication, 1986.
Chapter 7

Technology and Preservation Policy
Contents

introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Federal Preservation Budget

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Applying Technology to Prehistoric and Historic Preservation . ............135

Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........135

Federal Management of Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources ., .. ....138

Federal Policy for Looting, Vandalism, and Illicit Trade in

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....,140

Federal Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

Underwater Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............143

Historic Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......146

Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .. ....146

State and Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............148

State Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................148

State Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............149

Technology Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................149

Protection Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................150

Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............150

The Universities and the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .,.150

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,..,.....150

Business and Industrial Contributions to Preservation . ...................153

Promoting Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......153

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................154

Tables

Tab/e No. Page

18. Federal Agencies With Major Roles in Underwater Archaeology and

Maritime Preservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........144

19. U.S. Professional Societies With an Interest in Prehistoric and Historic

Preservation. .

Figure No.

4. Annual Historic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preservation Fund

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Figure

Page

Fiscal Appropriations . ................134
Chapter 7

Technology and Preservation Policy

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Government, “in cooperation with

other nations and in partnership with States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private organizations and individuals, ” is responsible for providing leadership in preserving U.S. prehistoric

and historic cultural resources.1 The National

Historic Preservation Act charges the Secretary

of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with administering and guiding the overall Federal preservation effort.

Participants in the OTA workshops asserted

their belief that the Federal Government must

continue to play the primary role in: 1 ) encouraging and supporting prehistoric and historic preservation; and 2) guiding the Federal agencies, as

well as State and local governments, in conserving the Nation’s cultural heritage. Through passing the several preservation laws (see app. A) as

well as establishing and maintaining the Historic

Preservation Fund (HPF), Congress has assumed

the responsibility for formulating national historic

preservation policy and providing the framework

and means to carry it out. All Federal agencies

are required by law to preserve prehistoric and

historic properties on lands under their jurisdiction, 2 and each could become involved in developing relevant preservation technologies.

The National Historic Preservation Act, enacted

in 1966 and amended in 1976 and 1980, gave

the Federal Government the funding and authority to bring greater consistency and coordination

to a multidisciplinary and multidirectional field.

The mechanism enabled by this legislation ties

together the national, State, and sub-State governmental levels and includes, among other components:

. The National Park Service’s (NPS) Cultural

Programs (see app. F) manage the National

Register of Historic Places, administer the

●

●

‘ National Historic Preservation Act, Section 2 (2).

‘See especially, the National Historic Preservation Act, Sections

106 and 110.

Historic Preservation Fund, provide technical assistance to Federal, State, and local

agencies and the public on identifying, evaluating and protecting cultural resources; and

develops historic preservation standards,

guidelines, and regulations, which are promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior.

NPS also manages most of the nationally significant prehistoric and historic sites in the

United States.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “advise[s] the President and Congress

on matters relating to historic preservation,

recommends] measures to coordinate activities of Federal, state, and local agencies and

private institutions relating to historic preservation." 3

It also “review[s] the policies and

programs of Federal Agencies.”4 In particular, it is charged with encouraging public interest and participation in historic preservation, recommending studies, advising on

legislation, encouraging training and education, recommending methods to improve

Federal agency programs, and providing information on the Council’s activities. The

Council reviews and advises on projects undertaken or permitted by Federal agencies

that may affect properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places (see app. F).

The State Historic Preservation Offices

(SHPOS) and Certified Local Governments

(CLGs) receive yearly HPF matching grants

to ensure that State, regional, and community preservation projects are carried out

according to the nationally accepted standards developed within NPS cultural programs. Pursuant to the National Historic

Preservation Act, the Governor of each State

designates a State Historic Preservation Officer to administer preservation programs in

jNational Historic Preservation Act, Section 202 (a)(~).

4National Historic Preservation Act, Section 202 (a)(6).

133
134 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

●

that State. CLGs are approved by States and

receive funding from them.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation,

chartered by Congress in 1949,5 has, since

passage of the 1966 legislation, received a

portion of its funding through annual grants

from the Department of the Interior and,

thus, has also been incorporated into the

FEDERAL

Previous chapters have identified a range of issues related to the use of technologies for prehistoric and historic preservation. This chapter

relates these issues to Federal preservation policy and suggests options for implementing current policy. In certain critical preservation areas,

this chapter also presents possible new policy

directions.

The Federal Preservation Budget

The future use of technologies for historic

preservation is threatened by declining funding.

Pessimism over the declining Federal budget (figure 4) for preservation suffused OTA’s five workshops. Workshop participants noted that the unFigure 4.—Annual Historic Preservation Fund

Fiscal Appropriations

70 f-

~

m

~ 60 -

u

u-l m

c 5 0 “

5

m

g 40 -

.-

=.- Appropriations for States

g

c 30

.-0

A

SOURCE: National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.

U.S. preservation mechanism. The Trust fosters public participation in historic preservation, and provides preservation information.

It also owns and manages certain historic

properties (see app. H).

‘National Trust Act of 1949 (Public Law 81-408, 63 Stat. 937).

POLICY

certainty over the amount and focus of Federal

support for historic preservation programs bears

directly on historic preservation technologies and

could drive needed specialists away from the

field. The eventual lack of expertise could jeopardize:

●

●

Federal agencies’ ability to identify, evaluate, and protect prehistoric and historic

properties affected by their actions or under

their control; and

the quality of future restoration and rehabilitation, much of which is conducted outside

the Federal preservation tax incentives program without the benefit or intervention of

competent preservationists.

Most OTA workshop participants viewed the

continuance of vigorous Federal involvement in

prehistoric and historic preservation crucial to the

aims of preservation. They voiced fears over the

future of SHPOs and CLGs if the Federal Government retreats further in support of their

programs.

In their view, budget reductions weaken the

Federal Government’s traditional leadership in

advancing preservation. SHPOs match 50 percent

of the grants received from the HPF. They pass

on 10 percent of that amount to CLGs. For each

of the last 6 years, in the interest of returning more

authority over preservation funding to the States,

the Administration has cut funding from the HPF

for the States. Each year, Congress has restored

such funds; the annual appropriation for historic

preservation has declined steadily in that time.

Nevertheless, interest in preservation has increased nationwide. This increase, which has

been dramatic since 1980, began in 1976, when
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 135

tax incentives for rehabilitation became available

to owners of income-producing certified historic

buildings. 6 Taxpayers reported rehabilitation expenditures of $635.5 million for 1982 and $1,201.2

million for 1983, for certified historic structures

alone. 7

Increased preservation activity has necessitated

increased technical assistance from the Federal

Government, which administers the Tax Act Rehabilitation Certification Program through NPS

and the Internal Revenue Service. The Federal

Government has provided that help through

NPS’s Preservation Assistance Division. Ironically,

the budget for their efforts has been reduced precisely during the time of greatest historic building rehabilitation activity. (See app. F for a brief

description of NPS cultural resource activities.)

Both professional and nonprofessional preservationists have relied heavily on the Division’s

technical publications for protecting historic

buildings. These publications, in the form of

briefs, “tech notes, ” case studies, booklets, and

reports, contain technical information concerning sound and carefully tested approaches to

analyzing and resolving problems in historic

structures.

Applying Technology to Prehistoric

and Historic Preservation

Because of the Federal Government’s traditional leadership role in prehistoric and historic

preservation, and in developing advanced technologies for applications in many different other

fields, effective use of technologies will require

their continued involvement and support. The

greatest single need is to improve the transfer and

adaptation of technologies from other disciplines

into preservation.

Technology transfer is the process of applying

technology developed for one technical, geographical, or institutional area in another. Because most advanced technologies used in preservation were originally developed for use in

G“Information on Historic Preservation Tax Incentives” GGD-84-

47 (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, Mar. 29, 1984).

7“Tax Policy and Administration: Historic Preservation Tax incentives, ” GGD-86-1 12FS (Washington, DC: General Accounting

Office, August 1986), table 11.6.

different technical or scientific settings, considerable effort must often be exerted to apply them

to the conditions prevalent in preservation. Research, training, information sharing, and development of standards are essential ingredients in

this process. It is important for all Federal managers to be fully aware of the potential that costeffective new technology holds for solving problems in the field, contributing to more effective

care of cultural resources, and in analyzing and

balancing the claims of competing interests.

Federal agencies provide a variety of means for

encouraging and facilitating the use of new preservation technologies. One important mechanism

is the government contracting mechanism, by

which the Federal Government purchases services of preservation professionals. When contracting with private firms or universities for

preservation work, the agencies could encourage

the use of certain technologies or approaches

that have demonstrated a potential for cutting

costs and maintaining preservation standards.

All relevant disciplines should be reflected in the

Requests for Proposals (RFPs). For example, RFPs

should always include specific mention of the historical and geological context of archaeological

sites, or the historic context within which each

historic structure or landscape is assessed, assigned value or significance, and treated.

Because the Federal Government coordinates

its activities with the State Historic Preservation

Offices, technological applications will eventually be transferred to the States and to local communities. However, lack of coordination among

agencies, funding conflicts, and institutional apathy have slowed the adoption and widespread

use of advanced techniques for preservation applications. The following paragraphs examine a

variety of policy options by which the Federal

Government can encourage and advance the applications of technology for prehistoric and historic preservation.

Policy Options

Establish a Federal Center for

Preservation Technology

There is no central facility within which individuals or organizations can obtain assistance
136 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

with technological problems relating to preservation. However, a central laboratory could bring

together professionals from a number of disciplines to tackle preservation problems from all

major areas—archaeology, historic structures, and

historic landscapes. Such an institution would also

function as a clearinghouse for sharing information among the various components of the preservation community.

The U.S. Government maintains a number of

Federal or federally supported laboratories for research in climate, energy, weapons, and other

areas of national concern. One or more university or Federal laboratory could be funded to provide sustained support for preservation research,

as well as a variety of necessary services such as

remote sensing, photogrammetric recording, or

materials failure analysis.

Congress could direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish such a center within the Department of the Interior or some other Federal

agency. The center would facilitate the transfer

of technology from other areas into prehistoric

and historic preservation by watching for and

adopting new applications of existing technology,

providing training for preservation professionals,

and disseminating information on preservation

technologies. In addition to meeting Federal Government requirements for preservation technologies, such a center would also serve State and

local needs. It would:

Conduct Research on Preservation Problems.

–It would either assume responsibility for the research programs related to historic preservation

or coordinate with and supplement current programs. A center should have a small, highly trained

staff and the facilities for testing and analyzing

new methods, techniques, and equipment.

Such research could be carried out in a variety of agencies and institutions possessing specialized expertise in technical areas, but should

be coordinated by a single agency focusing specifically on historic preservation. Several government agencies already provide some important

technical services related to preservation needs:

● The National Bureau of Standards Center for

Building Technology is the Nation’s only integrated building research laboratory that

●

●

●

●

studies and tests a variety of building materials, including adobe. It maintains contact

with State agencies through such groups as

the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards and numerous professional societies dedicated to building and

construction technologies, such as the National Institute of Building Sciences.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Archaeometry Program provides limited funding for the development of new techniques

in archaeological science.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Remote Sensing Applications program provides some training and

limited support for the developing archaeological and landscape applications of remote

sensing from aircraft and spacecraft.

The Department of Defense, through the

Navy, funds the projects conducted by oceanographic institutes whose activities and technologies often bear on historic preservation.

For example, the Navy and NSF (through its

Marine Sciences Division) helped fund the

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s

Deep Submergence Program to document

the Titanic.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which, with technical advice

from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and NPS, is documenting the U.S.S.

Monitor.

Set Standards and Provide Training.–Although

such programs are conducting high-quality research in prehistoric and historic preservation,

they are not equipped to set standards or to provide the training that is essential to the efficient

transfer of technology. As noted in chapter 2,

there is a strong need for an institution that would

identify research and development requirements,

design preservation standards, disseminate information on new methods, and train professionals

in the use of appropriate new technologies.

Because it is the largest single purchaser of preservation materials and services, the government

would benefit directly from the increased expertise such training would provide. Training programs in historic techniques, similar to those

offered by RESTORE, a New York-based nonprofit
Ch. 7–Technology and Preservation Policy . 137

organization that provides training for tradespeople in the restoration and maintenance of historic

buildings, should also be considered. In order for

Federal managers to contribute to more effective

management of historic properties, including

landscapes as well as structures, it is essential that

they become properly trained in the potential for

new technologies to aid in the preservation

process.

There is a strong need for workshops or seminars on techniques for historic preservation that

include experts from many different disciplines.

Many new methods, techniques, and kinds of

equipment for historic preservation derive from

natural science and engineering fields. Many

cultural resource managers were trained in humanistic disciplines and may not be aware of the

potential for new technology to solve historic

preservation problems. A Federal center could

aid this effort by providing direct funding for such

seminars, and by encouraging professional organizations to provide the aegis for them. a

Collect and Disseminate Information About

Technologies for Preservation.– Detailed summaries on the technologies available for archaeological sites, historic structures,9 and historic landscapes, and their benefits and drawbacks, could

help reduce costs for preservation and result in

more effective research. To be most useful, these

documents should also provide an inventory of

sources of expertise within the field. In addition

to developing a set of documents, a center should

make such information available on-line, where

it can be brought up to date periodically.

A national center would have the advantage

of aggregating much of the specialized technological expertise now spread throughout the Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies. I n addition to serving as the focal point for

technology-related preservation information within

‘The Army Corps of Engineers helped to sponsor a day-long workshop on Microcomputers in Archaeology at the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. This workshop, which

was extremely well attended, provided first-hand training for archaeologists in computer techniques for archaeology. Many of the

programs exhibited there would be of utility for landscape preservation as well.

9NPS has published a very effective series of reports on technologies for historic structures (e.g., Preservation Briefs, Tech Notes).

the Federal Government, such an institution

would provide needed assistance to State and local governments and to the private sector.

Establish a National Center for

Preservation Technology

Alternatively, Congress could create a National

Center for Preservation Technology, managed by

a consortium of universities. Such an institution

would be able to draw on a multitude of different skills in several universities, and in many

university departments. Like the Federal center,

it would serve as a focal point for the development and promulgation of preservation technology. It would, for example, also coordinate with

the government agencies now responsible for research on different aspects of preservation technologies. However, because it would be free of

many of the constraints imposed by being housed

within the Department of the Interior, where

other departmental funding and policy priorities

can impede the development of new technologies, it might be more innovative than a Federal center. Though it would function primarily

as a resource for the Federal Government, it

would also serve State and local needs.

The National Astronomical Observatories,

which are managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) and

funded by the NSF, might serve as an appropriate model for such an institution. Located in Tucson, Arizona, and in Cerro Tololo, Chile, they

provide research facilities for the entire astronomical community, and also conduct their own research.

Because a national center based in the university community would support Federal preservation efforts, it would receive considerable Federal funding. However, it could also strengthen

public/private ties for prehistoric and historic

preservation, Such arrangements have always

been an important feature of the preservation

movement. Thus, a significant percentage of the

funding could come from State and private

sources.

Create a Preservation Technology Board

Additionally, Congress might wish to consider

supporting a preservation technology board. Even
138 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

if one of the two options for creating a center for

preservation technology were adopted, a board

composed of professionals from all parts of the

preservation community would be needed to

provide external guidance to a center and to determine current needs for preservation technology, develop standards for the application of new

technologies, and aid in disseminating information. The professional societies with an interest

in archaeology, historic structures, and historic

landscapes should have considerable interest in

such a board.

Preservation efforts within the Federal agencies

would benefit by a preservation technology board,

which would serve to provide technical standards and information for the entire preservation

community. Congress could foster the creation

of such an organization by encouraging the Federal agencies with major responsibilities for prehistoric and historic preservation to provide its

initial funding. A board could also foster the public/private partnership in preservation.

Federal Management of Prehistoric

and Historic Cultural Resources

The Federal Government’s prehistoric and

historic preservation programs lack an effective

central focus. Many participants in OTA’s workshops expressed considerable concern over the

lack of a central agency or framework for supporting technological applications for historic

preservation. Given no effective central focus, it

is difficult to set technical standards, provide

coordination, and continuity among Federal

agencies.

NPS could pursue this task by expanding its

present core of experts and information on archaeology, historic structures, and historic landscapes. However, with the current institutional

structure for preservation within the Department

of the Interior, cultural programs do not get the

attention they merit.

It would be possible to place cultural programs

within a framework modeled on the European

cultural ministry. The National Historic Preservation Act itself was produced after study of the

European cultural ministerial experience, which

in France goes back 150 years. While some European cultural resource management is significantly regionalized, as in West Germany and

Italy, the central ministry nevertheless performs

vital coordinative and support functions.

Since its establishment in 1916, NPS has been

the foremost Federal agency for historic preservation, and despite the lack of strong Administration support for preservation (compared to

other priorities), and limited budgets, carries out

many excellent programs such as the Historic

American Buildings Survey (HABS) and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER).

Because NPS falls under the jurisdiction of the

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks,

some observers have voiced considerable skepticism as to whether it could ever bring cultural

concerns to the forefront of the Department of

the Interior’s conservation agenda. The energies

of Fish and wildlife and Parks are directed largely

toward natural environmental, energy, and other

pressing land management issues. On the other

hand, a director sympathetic to and deeply aware

of the importance of the Federal role in historic

preservation could exert the influence necessary

to change the current balance. Furthermore, NPS

itself is the owner and manager of the largest collection of historic properties in the United States

and has special expertise in managing them.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

and The National Trust for Historic Preservation

also provide technical advice to the Federal agencies and the public at large. A renewed Federal

commitment to historic preservation, with more

efficient and effective use of preservation technologies, will require these organizations to coordinate their efforts more closely. In addition,

more involvement is needed with the National

Building Museum in Washington, DC, chartered

by Congress in the National Historic Preservation

Act, Amendments of 1980 (see app. l). The Building Museum, because of its public/private nature,

could play an especially informative and helpful

part in advancing the understanding of building

technologies and their role in preservation.

The preceding discussion raises issues that are

outside the scope of this study. Yet they are serious enough to suggest further detailed study.

Congress may wish to consider changes in the

structure of the Federal Government’s preserva-
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 139

tion efforts.10 Participants in the OTA workshop

and review process suggested several different

options:

Establish a Separate Agency To Manage

All Federal Cultural Programs

In addition to providing a central focus for all

government programs in preservation, such an

agency would be responsible for administering

the National Endowment for the Humanities, the

National Endowment for the Arts, and other culturally oriented programs.

Create an Independent Agency Devoted

to the Care and Protection of Prehistoric

and Historic Cultural Resources

Such a policy has the major advantage of providing coherence for the management of U.S.

prehistoric and historic preservation programs.

It would remove the primary responsibility for

cultural resources management from the Department of the Interior, yet it would create a new

institution that must be staffed and funded. An

independent agency would be the logical place

for a Federal center for preservation technology.

However, it would lack the benefits of in-house

expertise in the actual ownership and management of historic properties, including landscapes.

Reorganize the Department of the Interior

To Provide for an Assistant Secretary for

Natural and Cultural Resources

This option would bring all the cultural programs from NPS and other Interior agencies under the aegis of one office. It would be simpler

to effect than creating an independent agency,

and would increase the visibility and importance

of preservation within the Department of the interior. However, it would continue the current

situation of maintaining the preservation function

within the Department which, as noted earlier,

has disadvantages as well as advantages for the

national preservation programs.

IOTlle AcjVISOrY COU nci I on Historic Preservation has just completed a study that treats issues related to the overall Federal preservation effort: The National Historic Preservation Act: An Assessment (Washington, DC: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

September 1986). In addition, see The Secretary of the /nterior’s

Twentieth Anniversary Report on the National Historic Preservation Act (The Section 504 Report).

Work Within the Current Preservation

Structure

Even if the management structure for Federal

preservation were left largely unaltered, there are

a number of improvements to this Nation’s preservation effort which are possible, given the direction provided by the National Historic Preservation Act, and other legislation. The initiation and

execution of such programs will require direction and continued oversight by Congress.

The agencies could:

Inventory Their Preservation Needs and Plans

for implementing Them.–Each Federal agency

has a different set of requirements for the preservation and protection of cultural resources.

Each agency could be directed to make a periodic inventory of its overall cultural resources

preservation needs, and report them to Congress.

Such an inventory would help the agencies and

Congress assess where additional attention should

be applied to preservation. Cultural resources

protection (see Chapter 4: Restoration, Conservation, Maintenance, and Protection), especially,

could improve markedly if it had a higher priority

within the Federal agencies, and if the agencies

made stronger attempts to coordinate with one

another as required by the Historic Preservation

Act (Section 110).

Develop Sustained, Organized Maintenance

Programs for Historic Federal Properties.–

Except for catastrophic events, most deterioration from environmental processes can be slowed

or mitigated by systematic, regular maintenance.

Yet, most agencies have inadequate maintenance

programs for their tangible cultural resources and

tend to respond to preservation crises instead.

The Federal agencies could improve their programs for prehistoric and historic protection by

instituting well-organized procedures of systematic and regular maintenance on the properties

under their management and control.

Improve Coordination and lnformationSharing Among Agencies With Respect to Historic Preservation.—The technologies for prehistoric and historic preservation are not generally integrated with larger government systems

and programs. For example, the maintenance

considerations appropriate to historic buildings
140 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

are not integrated with modern building maintenance and conservation practices. Archaeological information is seldom part of an overall land

management and environmental program. To

date, concerns for soil erosion, forest management, game laws, and archaeological sites are isolated. Even where the data are accurate and included in geographical information systems, they

are not exploited to monitor change or develop

protection policies.

Develop a Stronger Focus on the Application

of New, Efficient Technologies for Preservation.—ln coordination with a national preservation technology board, which Federal agencies

could help initiate, the Federal agencies most

concerned with historic preservation could focus

more of their funding and other resources on the

development of technologies for historic preservation. Among such efforts should be the development of a central database for critically

evaluated technical preservation information,

and sustained funding for university laboratories

that support the effort to develop new preservation technologies.

Establish a Central Office To Collect and Disseminate Information About Preservation Technologies.—lt would be most appropriate for NPS

to assume the leadership in collecting and disseminating technical information because an important part of its mission is to provide information and training for preserving the Nation’s

cultural resources. * This information should eventually be placed “on-line,” where it can be routinely updated. Other Federal agencies besides

those within the Department of the Interior could

aid in the collection and dissemination of information by contributing structural preservation

and maintenance, as well as archaeological reports, completed under contract to State and Federal governments. As noted in Chapter 5: Preservation Information, NPS is now developing a

database that will include most of these reports

(the so-called “grey literature”). This database will

be extremely important to future studies. However, not only should there be a listing of such

*NPS has discussed the desirability of issuing a technical brief

in which the various technologies are described and sources of information and expertise supplied. However, it has not yet produced

such a report.

grey literature, hard copies should be stored

where qualified individuals can obtain them. * *

In general, OTA workshop participants felt that

the Federal Government should take a leading

role in developing databases and archives for

preservation. In doing so, it should include information from all relevant disciplines. For example, the historians are concerned about the lack

of historical expertise among archaeologists. Because most sites, even prehistoric ones, have

been affected by historical incidents, information

concerning the history of an area is often extremely important in archaeology .11 Such a database would enable the sharing of information

among Federal agencies.

Federal Policy for Looting, Vandalism,

and Illicit Trade in Cultural Resources

Looting and vandalism are extremely serious

stresses to prehistoric and historic cultural resources. They are particularly damaging to prehistoric sites. In order to stem the theft of artifacts

from public lands, the United States needs a consistent national policy for dealing with illicit excavation and trafficking in stolen artifacts. Because the needs and resources of each major

region of the country are different, such a policy

should provide for regional implementation.

To assist in stemming the illegal loss of irreplaceable artifacts from public lands, and the

concomitant damage that looting causes, Congress may wish to amend the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and other statutes to permit private registration of antiquities

obtained in the course of archaeological excavations on private land, conducted by trained

archaeologists (see app. C for one such proposal).

Such antiquities should be registered with a State

or local agency. Registration information should

include sufficient information about each artifact

**Because they may contain sensitive information, not all such

reports should be broadly available. Potential users should be

screened by the SHPOS.

I I see, for example, The River of!%rrvws: The History of the Lower

Do/ores River Va//ey (Denver, CO: Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service, no date) for a historical study of an area about to be inundated. The area was the

site of an intensive archaeological survey and salvage study.
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 141

to allow the owner to understand its archaeological origins and connection to the prehistoric peoples from which it derives. Registration would allow archaeologists and others to locate artifacts

for research purposes. The availability of microcomputer systems makes the maintenance of a

registry in each State much less costly and much

easier than it might have been only a few years

ago.

Registration of scientifically excavated artifacts

is likely to enhance the value of registered artifacts

relative to unregistered ones. Such increase in

value might provide economic incentives for private landowners to have their sites properly excavated and recorded, rather than dug solely for

their marketable artifacts. Registration might also

assist in educating landowners to the scientific

value of using the best possible excavation methods. However, sale of artifacts from excavations

would have the disadvantage of dispersing some

collections, which would reduce the ability to

restudy them.

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act12 (see box D) prohibits importation of stolen cultural property that is documented as belonging to the inventory of a public

monument, museum, or similar institution in a

State party to the UNESCO Convention on the

Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property .13 It also restricts importation of archaeological or ethnological materials from other

countries on request and subsequent agreement

by the United States. However, it is just being implemented and further experience will be needed

to test its efficacy in stemming the international

flow of cultural property.

U.S. law does not protect against export of irreplaceable items of this country’s history from

the United States to other countries. The UNESCO

Convention encourages each State party to register cuItural property14 for the purposes of controlling import into other countries. As experience

is gained in implementing the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, to explore

lzpublic Law 97-446.

I JFifiy-eight countries have signed the UNESCO Convention.

60X D.–Convention on Cultural Property

Implementation Act (Public Law 97-446)

This act implements the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of

Ownership of Cultural Property, which has now

been signed by 58 countries, including the

United States.1 Two enforcement mechanisms

are available:

1. At the Request of a State party, Imposes

U.S. Import Restrictions to Protect Endangered Archaeological and Ethnological

Materials (Article 9): it establishes a mechanism whereby the President may enter a

bilateral or multilateral agreement or take

unilateral emergency action to protect,

through the imposition of U.S. import restrictions, archaeological or ethnological

materials that are part of a country’s cultural

patrimony and are in danger from pillage.

Each request for import restrictions from a

State Party is reviewed by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee which makes recommendations to the President, or his

designee, as to whether restrictions should

be imposed.

A list of materials that are denied entry

into the United States under this provision

is published by the U.S. Commissioner of

Customs. No such lists have been published

to date. However, in October 1985, the

Government of Canada asked the United

States to impose import restrictions to protect endangered Canadian archaeological

and ethnological material. The Canadian request is under consideration.2

Il. prohibits Entry of Stolen Cultural Property

(Article 7(b)): Any article of stolen cultural

property documented as belonging to the

inventory of a public monument, museum,

or similar institution located in a State Party

is prohibited importation into the United

States after April 12, 1983 (or the date the

State Party implemented the Convention,

whichever date is later). The U.S. Customs

Service is responsible for enforcements

‘~ ~R~ Papan$eoqfe Kouroupas and Ann J. Guthrie,, ’’’Tbe CUL

tural Property Act: What It Means for Museums,” Museum News,

June 1985.

%ee “Canada Submits Request for Cultural Property Protection,”

USIA Wodd, December 1985, p. 12.

Quoted from “Information on U.S. Assistance Ur&rtheConvention on Cultural Property Implementation Act,” “Synopsis,” Washington, DC: United States Information Agency, ~anua~ 1986.

1 qsee Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.
142 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

ways in which the registration of artifacts suggested above could be expanded to other prehistoric and historic cultural property.

Improvement of the protection of endangered

sites, structures, and landscapes will require more

personnel trained in cultural resources law enforcement. it is also important to make lawenforcement work schedules more flexible to allow for patrols during the evenings, weekends,

and holidays. In addition, because looters and

vandals have access to advanced technology, including sophisticated radios and detection systems, law-enforcement personnel should be wellequipped to detect and apprehend them. In some

cases, especially in the West and Southwest,

some agencies do not always serve as effective

role models in their treatment of cultural resources. If agency personnel are perceived as not

caring about protecting cultural resources, local

residents can hardly be expected to understand

the need for treating them with respect.

Federal Education Programs

Federal managers are often hard pressed to

carry out their responsibilities in geographical

areas where citizens may not fully appreciate

both the cultural and economic importance of

preserving prehistoric and historic resources.

Strengthening Federal, State, and local educational and interpretive programs appears to be

a cost-effective way to improve the protection of

archaeological sites, historic structures, and landscapes. Archaeology and historic structures and

landscapes have a natural appeal for the public.

Preservationists outside the Federal Government

could aid Federal agencies in their tasks by informing Members of Congress, and officials of

Federal agencies, State, and local governments,

of the importance of historic preservation in their

communities.

The following options suggest several ways in

which citizen awareness of the value and importance of preservation could be improved.

Popularizing Preservation/Protection

Issues on Federal, State, and Local

Levels, Including Industry

This can be accomplished, at least in part, by:

●

●

Publicly recognizing the positive actions that

various organizations, including private

ones, have taken to raise the consciousness

of the public. The Historic Preservation Act

(Section 110 (h)) provides for an annual preservation awards program. Increasing the visibility of this awards program would help

popularize protection concerns.

Educating Congress, the Administration,

Governors, and the State Attorneys General

about the extent and importance of preservation/protection problem.

Like the general public, many public officials

are unaware of how many cultural resources the

United States has lost, as well as their importance

to research. As a result such officials may not give

sufficient attention to the problems caused by

looting and vandalism. The “Take Pride in America” campaign, initiated by the Secretary of the

Interior, should help focus the attention of public officials and other citizens on the importance

of maintaining our prehistoric and historic cultural resources.

Strengthening the Implementation of the

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

(ARPA)

ARPA has been only marginally effective in

stemming the losses of archaeological resources.

Yet, unless prosecutions are pursued vigorously

the positive effects of applying law enforcement

technology will be lost. One way to strengthen

ARPA’s effectiveness is to improve the educational programs for law enforcement officers by

giving thorough training in ARPA’s provisions and

reguIations.15

‘

5

’’ Final Uniform Regulations, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, ” Federa/ Register 49, No. 4, jan. 6, 1984.
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 143

In addition to training agency law enforcement

personnel, the Federal Government should institute more courses such as those given by the

Federal Law Enforcement Training Service institute in Atlanta, Georgia, to train Federal and State

judges and prosecutors about the nature of cultural resources and the laws protecting them.16

Improved cooperation among Federal agencies

in training programs would enhance the ability

of officers in each agency to carry out their duties

with respect to the protection of cultural resources. Such interagency training should include

training on methods to combat the use of technology by looters, who have begun to employ

sophisticated methods to find archaeological resources and to avoid detection by law enforcement officials.

Some regions have organized interagency training workshops. 17 but they tend to be ad hoc, and

highly dependent on the particular mix of personnel available in a region. Such training should

be held on a regular basis and should be as independent as possible of the interests of particular

individuals.

Support Avocational Interests

A variety of privately funded programs now exist to support the interests of individuals in archaeology and historic preservation. The agencies could make better use of such programs to

support Federal programs by helping such groups

pursue their interests. Often, rather than supporting those with avocational interests in preservation activities, agency personnel perceive them

as increasing their workloads vis-a-vis supervision

—--———

IGThe recent law enforcement efforts in Southeast Utah in which

hundreds of Anasazi pots, allegedly dug up from public lands, were

seized in Federal raids is a good example of what can be done if

law enforcement efforts are well-coordinated and carried out with

the cooperation of local, State, and Federal agencies. jim Robbins

“The Great Artifact Grab, ” Chicago Tribune Magazine, Aug. 10,

1986,

I TFor example, the N PS Southwest Regional office held a protection workshop in May 1986 that included Federal officials from

NPS, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, dnd the Bureau of Land Management.

and granting permits. Yet, these and other interested groups can be extremely effective in helping to focus local public opinion toward protection of prehistoric and historic sites.

Underwater Archaeology

The United States lacks an effective national

policy regarding the protection of prehistoric and

historic submerged and maritime resources. Even

with the passage of the Submerged Lands Act of

1953, by which the Federal Government granted

the States title to the lands and natural resources

within 3 miles of their coastlines, historic shipwrecks and other submerged cultural resources

within those limits of U.S. territorial waters are

vulnerable to the work of salvers, few of whom

are attentive to the appropriate preservation of

historic shipwrecks. Many are well-financed and

equipped with the latest marine technologies for

locating and recovering materials from the deep.

All Federal agencies are required by law to preserve prehistoric and historic properties on lands

and under waters within their jurisdictions, but

several have major roles in managing underwater

cultural resources (table 18)18 They can provide

a variety of means for encouraging and facilitating the uses of new technologies in underwater

archaeology and maritime preservation. This area

of preservation has been an extremely neglected

element of the Nation’s cultural resource base.

Current national preservation policy is weak

and fragmented with respect to maritime and submerged cultural resources, particularly historic

shipwrecks. The various existing cultural resource

laws, supporting regulations, standards, and guidelines attendant to the Federal, State, and local

governmental preservation efforts are not being

applied with equal fervor to submerged cultural

resources. In part this is the result of the fact that

no single Federal department or agency has been

laNatlonal Historic Preservation Act, Amendments of 1980, Section 110.
144 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Table 18.—Federal Agencies With Major Roies

in Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Bureau of Land Management (DOI)

Bureau of Reclamation (DOI)

Environmental Protection Agency

Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)

National Forest Service (DOI)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)

National Park Service (DOI)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (DOD)

U.S. Geological Survey (DOI)

U.S. Navy (DOD)

charged with coordinating and directing a strong,

visible national program for maritime preservation.

The first criteria for evaluating and nominating

shipwrecks to National Register were finally written in November of 1985 nearly 20 years after

enactment of the Historic Preservation Act of

1966. Even though Federal agencies are required

under the several historic preservation laws to

consider the treatment of cultural resources in

their overall planning, few acknowledge or exhibit sufficient awareness of submerged cultural

resources. 19

The following statistics demonstrate the longstanding lack of attention to underwater and

other maritime cultural resources, even within

historic preservation:20

● Of the more than 45,000 buiIdings, objects,

and sites listed in the National Register of

Historic Places, only 120 are ships.

● The Historic American Buildings Survey

(HABS) has recorded thousands of buildings

and other structures as well as documents

and photographs in 53 years. However, the

Historic American Merchant Marine Survey

(HAMMS) was dissolved only 18 months after its inception during the New Deal in

1937. Thus, the opportunity to record perhaps thousands of ships and other vessels

was lost.

19ExceptiOns are the Natiorlal Park Service, which maintains a

Submerged Cultural Resource Unit in Santa Fe, NM, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is in charge

of the Federal effort to preserve the Monitor.

ZOEditor’s Column, “Listing Ships, ” Preservation News, June 1986.

●

●

●

●

In 1979 the Department of the Interior issued

standards and guidelines for the rehabilitation of historic buildings.21 These standards

have stimulated more than 9,000 privately

funded rehabilitation projects carried out

with tax incentives. No such standards exist

for ship restoration.

The rehabilitation of historic buildings using

tax incentives has reached billions of dollars

since 1976. No such incentives exist to attract private dollars to ships.

Nearly every State has surveyed some portions of historic resources and nominated

thousands of properties to the National Register. However, few States have begun to survey their submerged cultural resources.

Confusion over National Register of Historic

Places qualifying criteria for listing may have

excluded many ships from that roster. Register guidelines State that siting is critical in

assessing the integrity of historic structures.

However, ships and other vessels move or

are buried. Present Register criteria are too

“building specific.”

Recent legislative initiatives may signal greater

attention to underwater archaeology and maritime preservation. The Senate Committee Report

to the Fiscal 1985 Act Providing Appropriations

for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies22 stipulated that NPS, with the National Trust

for Historic Preservation and the maritime constituency:

. . . review the maritime resources of the Service and recommend the appropriate future role

for the Service and for the private sector in preserving those resources; conduct a thematic review of maritime resources and recommend a

set of priorities for the preservation of those resources and the appropriate Federal role in addressing those priorities.23

In addition, the Senate Report (99-397) to the

1987 appropriations bill for the Department of

the interior and Related Agencies adds $100,000

to the appropriation for the National Trust for

‘

]

’’ Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards and Guidelines, ” 48FR 4416-44742, Sept. 29, 1983.

Zzsenate Report 98-578, Aug. 6, 1984, to accompany H.R. 5973.

zJlbid.
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 145

Historic Preservation, specifically targeted for

maritime preservation.

Federal agencies have been extremely slow to

adopt appropriate advanced technologies for the

purposes of conducting underwater archaeological research. Underwater archaeology shares

with other preservation areas the lack of a strong,

defined, visible central focus for technology

within the Federal Government.

The Abandoned Shipwrecks Act

(H.R. 3558/S. 2569)

Legislation pending in Congress, The Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1985 (1-1. R. 3558 and

S. 2569) seeks to resolve conflicting claims and

court decisions by clarifying State title to historic

abandoned shipwrecks. Historic shipwrecks in

coastal waters contain a wealth of important information concerning the exploration and settlement of this country. Yet efforts to protect them

for research and public interpretation are hampered by current Admiralty Laws, under which

historic shipwrecks are treated as abandoned

property, whose contents may be recovered by

salvers with no legal protection for the historic

information they may hold. Admiralty law was

inherited from English Common Law and was intended to apply at the time of wrecking to save

life and property. Without clear Federal legislation establishing public interest in, and government ownership of historic shipwrecks, these resources will continue to be highly vulnerable.

Other nations, such as Cyprus, Australia, Norway,

and the Seychelles, have enacted national laws

regulating the management of all cultural resources within the waters of their outer continental shelves.24

passage and implementation of the proposed

Abandoned Shipwrecks Act could make it possible to preserve significant historic shipwrecks

for future generations by ceding jurisdiction,

ownership, and oversight of them to the States.

z4p, j. 0’ Keefe, Current Developments Regarding Regulation of

Marine Archaeology Outside Territorial Waters, University of .Sydney; cited by Douglas Shallcross and Anne Glesecke, “The Status

of Federal and State Regulation of Underwater Cultural Resources:

Lessons of the Treasure Salvers and Cobb Coin Cases, Underwater

Archaeology: The Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Underwater Archaeology, 1986.

The House Bill as currently written:

●

●

●

●

●

●

asserts U.S. title and transfers to the State’s

title to abandoned shipwrecks that are substantially buried or embedded in submerged

lands of a State when included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places,

declares the the law of salvage does not apply to these abandoned shipwrecks,

specifies that the act will not affect any suit

filed before the date of enactment,

reaffirms Federal ownership of abandoned

shipwrecks on Federal lands,

retains any existing Federal admiralty and salvage law for all shipwrecks not covered by

this bill, and

directs the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop guidelines to assist the

States and the Federal Government in carrying out their responsibilities and to allow

for noninjurious recreational exploration and

private sector salvage of shipwreck sites.

The Senate Bill includes these provisions and

additionally:

● finds that cooperative efforts (by finders/salvers, State and Federal agencies, amateur

and professional archaeologists, sport divers,

and other members of the public and private

sectors) must be promoted to locate and protect abandoned historic shipwrecks on, in,

or under State submerged lands;

● states that any person engaging in the recovery of a shipwreck which a State asserts title

to shall receive reasonable compensation for

such recovery.

In order to improve the preservation of underwater cultural resources, it will be necessary

to raise the visibility of underwater archaeology

within the Federal Government. Not only NPS

is involved, but the rest of the Federal establishment as well. There is no underwater archaeologist stationed in Washington, with direct access

to the upper levels within the Department of the

Interior. Nor is there a designated archaeologist

to coordinate with other Federal agencies such

as the U.S. Navy and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. Yet the Federal

Government, as it does in other areas of preser-
146 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

vation, could provide the leadership in underwater archaeology. It possesses most of the technologies, experts, and funding, but the efforts of

its agencies are extremely fragmented and, therefore, uneconomical.

For example, such programs as NPS’s Submerged

Cultural Resources Unit, headquartered in Santa

Fe, New Mexico, could be given much greater

support. It has expanded from a team charged

with investigating the effects of reservoir waters

on archaeological materials in the Southwestern

United States, to a group required to study, record, and propose management of shipwrecks

throughout the country. It has been instrumental in successfully establishing underwater parks

under the management of NPS to which various

levels of public access for educational purposes

is permitted.

The Sanctuary Programs Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

with the cooperation and involvement of the National Trust, manages the U.S.S. Monitor Project,

and has incorporated underwater cultural resources concerns in planning for all existing sanctuaries. It has also established a process for designating leisure marine sanctuaries for cultural

resources.

Historic Structures

Institutional impediments have slowed the Federal Government’s efforts to maintain its own

stock of historic structures. The Federal Government is the largest single owner of property and

buildings in the country and the largest purchaser

of architectural and engineering services. It is,

therefore, in a position to exert more influence

on historic preservation than any other entity and

can provide a variety of means to encourage and

allow the use of new technologies for better preservation of historic structures. However, a lack

of coordination among its agencies, insufficient

funding, and institutional apathy have slowed

acceptance and greater use of appropriate new

technologies that might ease its preservation

burden.

Within the Federal agencies that administer

large or numerous tracts of Federal land, serious

conflicts may arise over the agency’s mission and

fulfillment of historic preservation responsibilities.

The U.S. Army, for example, has 10,000 buildings built before 1940 under its control or, about

2 percent of its total stock. However, because the

Army is oriented toward new construction and

because it believes that the preservation of

historic structures is often labor-intensive and,

therefore, expensive, it devotes minimal attention to protecting those historic buildings under

its stewardship.25

Likewise, the U.S. Postal Service favors new

construction to house its increasingly mechanized

mail handling operations. The agency argues that

its older facilities, some of the most architect rally distinguished and historically significant governmental and civic structures in the country, are

inadequate for the volume of mail that must be

processed and are uneconomical to maintain. Yet

such a view does not take into account the importance of these buildings to the heritage of the

United States.

Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes

Although the National Historic Preservation Act

contains no impediment to the identification and

preservation of landscapes, neither does it specifically mention them.26 However, not expressly

naming historic landscapes as worthy of being

preserved allows the agencies to overlook landscape concerns in their preservation programs.

It may be appropriate to amend the National

Historic Preservation Act to include explicit reference to landscapes.

One of the major impediments to preserving

historic landscapes is the poor state of knowledge of the Nation’s prehistoric and historic

landscapes. Until recently, little effort has been

expended to identify and document significant

landscapes, and no comprehensive, centralized

listing of significant American landscapes exists.

zsAt the request of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands,

of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the General Accounting Office is currently conducting a study on Federal management and maintenance of historic buildings.

zbFor example, see Section 101 (a)(l )(A): “The Secretary of the

Interior is authorized to expand and maintain a National Register

of Historic Places composed of districts, sites, buildings, structures

and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. ”
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 147

Even the National Register of Historic Places can

provide only a crude list of National Register

properties that are related to landscape architecture. Many significant landscapes are either not

on the National Register or are classified under

other themes, such as structures or districts.

A comprehensive national historic landscape

survey would draw together the information we

now have on significant landscapes and identify

landscapes missed in previous, haphazard efforts.

A survey of designated historic landscapes has

already been initiated by the Historic Preservation Committee of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). The National Park Service has endorsed the survey and disseminated the

survey form (see app. F) to State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). However, the ALSA survey depends on volunteer support, which, though

essential to success of the survey, could lead to

inconsistent results. To assist in meeting prehistoric and historic landscape preservation goals,

NPS has identified 12 projects for standards and

models (app. F). I n order for the survey to be consistent and carried out in a timely manner, it will

be essential to apply such standards and models

uniformly on a nationwide basis at all levels of

public and private preservation efforts. The resultant information should be made available through

a central clearinghouse on a uniform database.

It is crucial to increase public awareness of

historic landscapes if they are to be preserved.

Passage of the Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act

of 1985 (Olmsted Act)27 would materially aid the

collection of information on all U.S. historic designed Landscapes.za By focusing attention on the

many landscape projects designed by Frederick

Law Olmsted and his firms,29 the Olmsted Act

would likely increase interest in other, nonOlmsted designed historic landscapes. The bill

also calls for NPS to conduct a theme study of

Z7H R 3z—5ee House of Representatives committee on I nteriOr . .

and Insular Affairs Report 99-148, !Mth Cong., 1st sess.

zBSectlon 4 of the proposed act directs the Secretary of the interior (“through the utilization of existing procedures and programs”) to “encourage the identification, preservation, and commemoration of historic designed landscapes. ”

Zgover three generations, the olmsted firm, whose Brookline,

MA, office is now a National Historic Site, managed by NPS, designed such parks as Central Park in New York City; Franklin Park

in Brookline, MA; and Prospect Park in Brooklyn, NY.

all historic landscapes identifying potential national landmarks.

Several States, including Ohio, Massachusetts,

and New Mexico, have made strides in the identification of landscapes. Although their efforts are

related to specific, discrete projects, there is hope

that such landscape surveys will be institutionalized.

Certain places, landscapes, and outdoor sites

are sacred to Native American groups. It is important to include the views of Native Americans

when reaching decisions about historic landscapes considered sacred to these peoples. so

The Federal Government could aid in the

identification and preservation of significant

prehistoric and historic landscapes by clarifying landscape terminology in the National Register, improving interagency information flow,

and focusing more attention on landscape preservation.

There are several institutional impediments to

the preservation of prehistoric and historic landscapes. One of the primary barriers to identifying and preserving significant landscapes is the

lack of consistent terminology. The Historic Preservation Committee of the ASLA has proposed

terminology that could be used. Such efforts

should be examined carefuIly and consistent terminology developed and promulgated. It may be

appropriate to include landscape terminology in

the National Register, to assist the procedure of

nominating significant prehistoric and historic

landscapes.

in order to improve the preservation of historic

landscapes, NPS should focus more consistent attention on landscape preservation in its management of cultural resources, and coordinate landscape policies and programs with other agencies.

For example, although NPS has a chief historian,

a chief archaeologist, and a chief architectural historian, it has no chief landscape architect. increased attention to landscapes should include

emphasis on the role of technologies in preserving them.

JOSee, for example, the American Indian Rellgious Freedom Act

of 1978 (Public Law 95-341).
148 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

In addition, although NPS is now considering

how to preserve its own historic landscapes, it

could intensify those efforts.31 NPS could also

make a greater effort to include consideration of

landscapes in its various publications.32 It could

also exercise leadership and enhance its own

landscape preservation effort by upgrading and

highlighting the function of gardening and grounds

— — .

31 See for example, John Donahue, “Historic Landscaping, ’ National Park Service CRM Bulletin, 9, No. 2, 1986, pp. 1,8, which

mentions briefly both landscape design considerations and technologies for reproducing historic trees.

32 For example, the presewation Brief.. and Tech Notes published

by the NPS Preservation Assistance Division.

maintenance as a crucial resource management

role in the service.

Finally, there are no uniform standards for landscape preservation. NPS publications, National

Register of Historic Places Bulletin 18, “HOW To

Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes,” and the NPS Handbook, “Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National

park System,” will assist the effort to develop

standards for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. However, technical standards equivalent to those that have been generated for the built environment are also important

and need to be developed for landscapes.

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

As demonstrated from the beginning of the

preservation movement, State and local governments, along with private organizations and many

individuals, have provided the will and the incentive for preserving significant aspects of this

Nation’s history. “Because of the diversity of the

Nation in which we live, American history is local history.”33 Local residents wish to have a

strong hand in preserving their own history. As

noted earlier, under the terms of the National

Historic Preservation Act, through the State Historic Preservation Offices, States are responsible

for a wide variety of preservation activities. Although the technical guidance and support of the

Federal Government can assist States’ efforts to

make more effective use of technologies for preservation, ultimately the impetus must come from

within the States,

This section discusses several areas in which

the Federal Government may provide specific

and direct technical assistance to State and local governments. It also suggests how States may

improve their effectiveness in applying technologies to the management and preservation of

State and local prehistoric and historic cultural

resources.

JjMarilyn Nickels, National Park service, personal COmm U niCation, 1986.

State Surveys

Identifying significant prehistoric and historic

cultural resources is the first step in preserving

them for the education and enjoyment of future

generations. State offices should be encouraged

to maintain surveys on computer databases so

they can be enlarged and corrected frequently

and cost effectively (see Chapter 5: Preservation

/formation, for discussion of State databases).

A yearly report to the State legislature detailing

that year’s efforts might assist in obtaining additional support for statewide work.

Archaeological Resources

In spite of many citizens’ long history of interest in collecting Native American artifacts (e.g.,

projectile points, pipes, carved figures, and pottery), local knowledge of prehistoric sites is often

not recorded at the State level. Even many historic

archaeological sites are not recorded on State surveys. Recording such resources at the State level

would enhance their preservation for research

and public interpretation.

Underwater Archaeological Resources

As noted elsewhere in this report, there is a

strong need for States to inventory their underwater cultural resources. Even inland States may
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy “ 149

possess significant underwater resources in lakes,

streams, and rivers.34

Structures

In large part because of the influence of the

Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) and

the National Register of Historic Places, many

State and local historic buildings and monuments

have been identified. As a result of such survey,

and strong local efforts, many significant structures have been preserved and the economic

benefits returned to the States as well as the local communities.35 However, much more needs

to be done. Surveys of structures, as well as archaeological sites and landscapes will be assisted

by greater efforts in public education (see below

and Chapter 6: Public Education).

Landscapes

Only a few States have made a concerted effort to survey their prehistoric and historic landscapes; in general, the States’ approaches to landscape issues are very uneven. Many States have

active programs in rural landscape preservation,36

yet few of the SHPOs have experts in historic

landscapes. The Federal Government could provide support for regional environmental and cultural resource preservation centers that would

focus much of their effort on landscapes. As suggested earlier in this chapter, such regional centers, perhaps managed by a consortium of regional universities, could significantly enhance

the States’ ability to identify and preserve historic

cultural and designed landscapes.

State Records

Because of their importance to the State context, State administrative records, maps, photographs, surveys, studies, and other archival materials require proper handling and treatment.

JAM;Ch;gan underwater resources are owned by the state, but

managed by the Federal Government.

J%ee Thomas D. Bever, “The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation,” Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, May 1978. See also, National Trust for

Historic Preservation, l?uUt to Last (Washington, DC: Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs and the Preservation Press,

1 977).

MAS previously mentioned, Ohio, Massachusetts, and New Mexico all have active landscape programs.

State professional archivists and historians need

training and other support to learn to apply the

latest technological developments for archival

procedures, including temperature and humidity control systems and conservation techniques.

The Federal Government could aid this effort at

small marginal cost by making such Federal training available for qualified State personnel.

Technology Sharing

The 1980 Amendments to the National Historic

Preservation Act stipulated greater coordination

and streamlining of operations in the SHPOs.

Many States have attempted to use computer

technology to improve their preservation efforts

and to achieve better interdisciplinary interaction.

For the States, improved planning has been tied

to receipt of HPF monies. In this time of dwindling Administration support for State and local

preservation activities (see figure 4), the States and

localities might benefit from more aggressively

studying the potential of new technologies that

can help them meet their preservation goals.

However, the States will need continued Federal

funding for preservation in order to be able to

apply cost-effective and useful technologies. Until

they have such funding, they will continue to depend on the Federal Government for technical

assistance.

Technology sharing can be arranged through

various kinds of agreements (cooperative agreement, memo of understanding) between Federal

agencies and State or local entities. The Florida

State Conservation Laboratory at Tallahassee, for

example, under a cooperative agreement with

NPS, is treating two pieces of artillery and a set

of metal doors for Gulf Islands National Seashore.

State agencies, such as State highway departments, frequently use sophisticated technologies

and equipment that would be applicable to preservation needs. State universities and local preservation institutions might profit from sharing that

equipment. A major problem for State educational systems is the cost of equipment, yet one

of the needs repeatedly emphasized by OTA

workshop participants was a corps of preservation professionals trained in the uses of technologies. State funding for the agencies with equip-
150 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

ment could be coupled with encouragement for

sharing the equipment.

Protection Laws

In States where State laws are weak on protection of prehistoric and historic sites, structures

and landscapes, strengthening such laws would

assist in preservation. In some States, however,

strong laws are weakly enforced. In those cases,

State legislatures may wish to encourage increased

enforcement to prevent loss or damage to the

State’s heritage.37

Even in situations where federally managed resources have been stolen or damaged, the assistance and involvement of the State and local

communities and law enforcement personnel are

essential in carrying out successful prosecution .38

Thus, it is important for State and local preservationists to educate their citizens about the economic and quality of life benefits of preserving

their cultural heritage.

One park manager in New York City39 recommends putting people in the park as much as

JTEven in some communities that have experienced considerable

loss of prehistoric artifacts from public lands, a majority of those

who have engaged in taking them would prefer that they remain

in the local community. See Paul Nickens, et al., “A Survey of Vandalism to Archaeological Resources,” op. cit. ch. 5.

JBBrent Ward, U.S. Attorney, personal communication, August

1986.

3 9 Tupper Thomas and Paul C. Berizzi, “Prospect Park: Rebuilding the Past for the Future, ” Parks and Recreation, June 1985, pp.

24-29.

possible–using sites, structures, and landscapes

for many kinds of community activities. The effect is twofold: it protects park resources, such

as buildings, from graffiti and other forms of vandalism, by having people and activities there; and

it invests the resources with community value,

which may increase the protection of park resources when they are not in use.

Public Education

An important component of all phases of preservation, public education (see Chapter 6: Public Education) on the State level could be encouraged by State agencies and the universities.

Traveling exhibits organized by the State museums or archives may encourage local preservation activities. Aid programs, like Ohio’s “Old

House Doctor Clinics” encourage citizen involvement and sophistication about preservation issues.

Local constituencies can be brought into the

political process in support of cultural resources

only if they know that those resources exist. Yet

their support is important in helping to shape local policies to recognize and protect prehistoric

and historic community assets. Information may

be presented through the media or through a

combination of lecturers who appear before local civic and special interest groups and onsite

lectures, tours, and other public events.

THE UNIVERSITIES AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Preservationists within the universities and private firms play a major role in delineating and

furthering the understanding of technologies for

the preservation of prehistoric and historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological sites. The

relevant professional societies have and should

continue to take their part in developing new

technologies and disseminating information about

them, by emphasizing training workshops at professional meetings. All three groups would also

further the quality of the preservation effort by

communicating historic preservation needs to

manufacturers whose products could be adapted

for application in the field.

Training

Because historic preservation is highly interdisciplinary, the quality of training becomes extremely important. A common assumption is that

all preservation professionals receive the same

kind of graduate training, speak the same language, or work in the same manner as, for example, civil engineers whose higher education
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 151

is more uniform. However, graduates who have

entered historic preservation from a variety of

university majors or programs often engage in inconsistent field practices. Graduate programs in

historic preservation have generally demonstrated

disappointingly little support for the assimilation

of a substantive technical and scientific component. This appears to be so not only in architecture, but in archaeology and landscape architecture as well.

In the United States, archaeology is generally

considered a subdiscipline of anthropology. Because of this, there has been little demand for

graduate school training in advanced technologies. in the United States, the majority of graduate archaeologists do not acquire physical scientific or mathematical degrees in undergraduate

colleges and universities. In Europe, however,

university archaeology programs place more

stress on the use of scientific techniques developed in the natural sciences and engineering.

Most underwater archaeology is possible only

because of the new and advanced technologies

developed for the Navy and the oil, gas, and

mineral development industries. Therefore its

practitioners must be well-versed in such technologies. The very few university programs dedicated to the discipline, such as those at Texas

A & M University, East Carolina University, and

Arizona State University recognize this dependence

and train students in their use.

Current curricula in architecture, architectural

history, or American studies have not been developed explicitly to address the rapid technological changes affecting the building and construction fields and, thus, may be inadequately

preparing students to cope with the complexities of preserving a growing structural resource

base. Few architectural schools incorporate structural materials conservation courses within their

programs. The lack of emphasis on the basic sciences in historic preservation programs and the

lack of attention in architecture school programs

to the causes and effects of structural materials

failures, are resulting in inappropriate uses of both

contemporary and historic building materials,

such as reinforced concrete, wood, and structural

steel. Many architects are often unfamiliar with

the behavior of materials under the various

stresses to which they can be subjected. For example, reinforced concrete, metals, or wood exposed to extremely moist environments present

difficult preservation problems. Many, if not most,

preservation program faculty elsewhere have little

access to laboratory facilities and are thus unable

to introduce the needed technical component

into their educational process.

At least two university graduate programs are

combining architecture and structural conservation with natural science and technology.

The Center for Preservation Research at

the Columbia University School of

Architecture

Members of Columbia’s departments of mineralogy and chemistry helped found the building

materials conservation laboratory, demonstrating

that university scientists can be persuaded to permit the use of their own facilities and help establish laboratories for preservation purposes. The

center allows students to devote 25 out of 60 program credits to science and provides a conservation laboratory for the study of building materials.

The Georgia Institute of Technology’s

Center for Architectural Conservation

The Center is a research, information, and design facility concerned with all aspects of technology for building conservation. Specialists at

the center work in conjunction with research

offices and laboratories located throughout the

school’s campus, including the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, and derive support from Federal and State governments, private industry, and

the Institute itself. Center staff have recently begun work on several innovative projects that exploit computer technology.

Building Evaluation.–The Building Inventory

Inspection Program (BIIP), undertaken in cooperation with NPS in 1982, generates and updates

by means of a microcomputer structural assessment reports based on 150 elements of site, architectural, and engineering systems. Each report

also provides data on public health, handicapped

access, fire, and life safety. Center staff are also

applying the BIIP approach to assessing the condition of National Historic Landmarks.
152 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Information Systems. –The Cultural Resource

Assistance Information Network (CRAIN) is an online database that will collect and deliver information on conservation professionals, testing facilities, organizations, products, etc. The network

is designed to transmit technical notes and documents and will be augmented by center staff to

perform specialized research beyond its scope,

Database Design. –The Census of Treated

Historic Masonry Buildings, designed and programmed for NPS, is part of an international effort to identify, monitor, and evaluate protective

treatments for masonry buildings. Observations

of conditions will be recorded and stored every

2 to 5 years to form an easily accessed microcomputer database.

Training.–Interactive optical-disk systems will

combine live-action, still photographs, text,

graphics, and sound for training programs in architectural conservation.

Although the history of landscape architecture

is generally taught in landscape architecture programs, few schools have emphasized in their curricula the preservation and restoration of historic

landscapes, and the research, planning, and design involved. Such topics may be included as

part of a design course, however, rather than as

part of a course on historic landscape design. No

school of landscape architecture awards a degree

in the history of landscape architecture, although

graduates of advanced degree programs may

have been able to emphasize historic preservation in their work or theses.

Universities could usefully become involved by

expanding their educational programs to include

courses in historic preservation for landscape architects, historians, landscape contractors, and

horticulturalists. They could also assist in developing additional educational materials for gardeners

and maintenance personnel. University programs

are excellent places to explore the use of advanced technology for training and educational

purposes.

In spite of shortages in both human and financial resources, preservationists would benefit

from working more closely with scientists in the

university setting to achieve a more well-rounded

and balanced approach to technical training.

They could, in addition, create a “market awareness” concerning historic preservation. if faculties of history, American studies, or architecture

could be convinced that there is genuine interest in historic preservation, they would integrate

it as a major subject within their departments.

Some programs, like the American Studies Program at George Washington University, have begun such integration. Also the American Studies

curriculum at Notre Dame focuses on tangible

cultural resources.40 But technological approaches

are generally not stressed in those programs.

Currently, any graduate student wishing to pursue a more technically and scientifically oriented

focus in historic preservation must be highly motivated in “putting together pieces” or tailoring

specially designed programs with the approval

of a supportive faculty. The professional societies supportive of the goals of prehistoric and

historic preservation could do more to foster research and support those historic preservation

programs in need of technical and scientific

strengthening.

For example, the efforts of the National Association of Corrosion Engineers have led to the

establishment of university laboratories, whose

research can assist in preserving metal structures.

The Masonry Research Institute Foundation has

provided seed money for the study of historic masonry buildings. The National Institute of Conservation has funded both Columbia University

and the University of Florida to enhance materials conservation curricula. Also, the Association

for Preservation Technology, through its Bulletin, newsletter, books, and monographs, and the

publishers of the O/d House Journal and Technology and Conservation have for some time

been sharing technology by disseminating information.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, as

a partially private organization and a conservator

of historic properties, could advance and sponsor technical education and research. Students

interested in the sciences will avoid masters degree programs in historic preservation if starting

salaries in the field remain as low as they have

dOThomas j. Schlereth, “Historians and Material Culture, ” OAH

Newsletter 13, 1985, pp. 3-5.
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy 153

been. The National Trust and professional societies could assist in locating funding to attract students with undergraduate degrees in such important subjects as structural engineering, metallurgy,

and microbiology to the field of historic preservation. The number of students with scientific

educational backgrounds entering such preservation programs has been small.

Training of Craftspeople

There are are not enough skilled restoration

craft specialists to meet the increasing demand

for their services.41 Neither are there enough architects, structural engineers, and contractors

knowledgeable of restoration craft techniques or

their proper execution and application. Training

programs such as RESTORE in New York are designed to give craftsmen, the “men and women

on the scaffold” the opportunity to upgrade restoration skills and acquire new ones. They also

acquaint architects, structural engineers, and contractors with preservation issues and state-of-theart maintenance and restoration of historic building materials,

RESTORE attempts to return to craftsmen the

decisionmaking capability that has been gradually

and systematically denied them by the construction and building industries over the last few

decades. Craftsmanship has been sacrificed to

uniformity, mass-production, and economy. Restoration is challenging, varied, and often difficult.

Every practitioner involved in structural restoration and rehabilitation should comprehend the

behavior of materials and their basic physical and

chemical properties. As preservation activities continue to increase in the United States, more training programs such as RESTORE will be needed.

Business and Industrial Contributions

to Preservation

The industrial and business communities’ contributions to many preservation projects have

been strong. The effort to provide private fund41 EVen west Germany, which has a long history of training for

craft specialists, is experiencing a shortage of artisans and other

craftsmen capable of carrying out preservation tasks. Gunter SchellIng, Bavarian Administration for Palaces, Gardens, and Lakes, personal communication, 1985.

ing for the restoration of the Statue of Liberty is

an outstanding example of such contributions.

The project captured the public’s attention; enhanced enthusiasm for historic preservation nationwide; and, perhaps most importantly, generated an enormous amount of private sector

financial, material, and technical support. It also

demonstrated the necessity for understanding

and applying the latest technology in historic

preservation. The restoration represents a timely

opportunity for the preservation community to

forge closer ties with industry and business.

Many businesses, especially those involved in

land development or extraction of natural resources, contribute to preservation by paying for

cultural resources surveys, or for excavation or

mitigation of damage to archaeological resources.

For example, in developing its carbon dioxide

wells and pipeline in the Four Corners area of

the Southwest, the Shell-Cortez Pipeline Corp.

recently paid $600,000 for archaeological work,

which was 3 percent of its total investment in the

area. lts work resulted in significant information

concerning early Navajo occupation in the San

Juan Basin, and of early Spanish occupation of

the Rio Grande Valley .42

Promoting Technology Transfer

As noted in several chapters, the transfer of

technology from the natural sciences and engineering to preservation is one of the most important considerations in creating new methods,

techniques, and equipment for the preservation

field. Federal agencies, State, and local governments, the universities and industry and the business community all have a part to play in the

transfer.

Public/private partnerships in specific projects

can be extremely fruitful in promoting technology transfer. For example, underwater archaeologists might pursue agencies such as the U.S.

Navy more assiduously to ascertain the possibilities of joining routine mapping projects or training and practice missions in diving. The Navy is

often very appreciative of archaeological experAI Ruthann Knudson, Woodward Clyde Associates, perSOnalcommunication, 1986.
154 Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

tise. The Navy’s Submarine Development Group

runs unmanned deepwater submersibles with excellent side-scan sonar capability to depths of

nearly 20,000 feet. The group’s charter obligates

it to support and aid civilian scientists, such as

geologists from the institutions of oceanography.

Underwater archaeologists could identify and

take advantage of such opportunities.

Within the private sector, a number of formal

and informal opportunities for encouraging interchange of ideas leading to the transfer of specific techniques, methods, and equipment are

available. Box E provides an example of such interchange for underwater archaeology and maritime preservation.

Professional organizations (table 19) provide excellent forums for sharing research, including research methods and techniques through annual

meetings, publications, and special seminars and

workshops. To promote technology transfer, it

is important that such meetings provide for natural scientists and engineers to interact with members of the preservation community.

The Society for Archaeological Sciences has the

unusual distinction of being founded in 1977 specifically to encourage interdisciplinary studies

among archaeologists and their colleagues in the

natural sciences. Its membership includes chemists,

physicists, geographers, geologists, paleobiologists, paleobotanists, and archaeologists. Chance

interactions of archaeologists and natural scientists can be highly effective in isolated cases.

However, more effective technology transfer reTable 19.—U.S. Professional Societies With an Interest

in Prehistoric or Historic Preservation

American Anthropological Association

American Association for State and Local History

American Folklore Society

American Institute of Architects

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic

Works

American Society for Conservation Archaeology

American Society of Landscape Architects

Archaeological Institute of America

Association for Field Archaeology

Association for Preservation Technology

Conference on Underwater Archaeology

Council on America’s Military Past (CAMP)

Historic Landscape Alliancea

National Association for State Archaeologists

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Property,

Inc.

National Trust for Historic Preservationa

Society for American Archaeologyb

Society for Archaeological Sciences

Society for Historical Archaeology

Society of Architectural Historians

Society of Professional Archeologists

aNot a professional society, but has many professionals as members.

bsee David J, Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff (eds.), American

Archaeology Past and Future (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press,

1986).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,

quires coordination in institutionalizing and improving the contribution of archaeological sciences to the preservation of cultural resources.

Finally, professional publications, especially

those that encourage interdisciplinary articles can

facilitate information exchange, as can reviews

of books on preservation knowledge and techniques.

COSTS

Many traditional activities associated with prehistoric and historic preservation are extremely

labor-intensive, but in some cases, new techniques will reduce labor costs. Many new technologies require the use of expensive new equipment and the services of highly trained personnel.

For example, the new and innovative technologies for locating and analyzing submerged sites,

developed primarily for application by the U.S.

Navy and the oil, gas, and mineral exploration

industries, are versatile, sophisticated, and also

particularly costly (see box F). It has, therefore,

not always been possible for preservationists to

achieve overall cost reductions. Yet, these and

other advanced technologies, such as neutrongamma ray inspection, and remote sensing from

space have provided useful information not

otherwise obtainable.
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 155

●

●

●

Box E.-Private Sector Contributions to Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation

The industrial component of the private sector, mainly the oil, gas, and mineral exploration companies

testing and drilling offshore have, for years, used specially engineered instruments, tailored to their requirements to locate deposits under the seabed and to repair underwater rigging platforms. These industries have demanded state-of-the-art remote sensing and remotely operated deepwater submersible

craft technologies, many of which eventually find their way into archaeology.

The commercial segment of the private sector is represented by about 25 commercial salvers who operate primarily off the coasts of Florida and Texas.1 Their work represents the greatest threat to the integrity and long-term preservation of underwater archaeological sites.

The research segment of the private sector is represented by the various oceanographic institutions (see

table) whose w&k and projects often touch on-underwater archaeological concerns. Many receive significant funding from the Federal Government, chiefly, the Navy.

l~act Sheer, the Society for Historical Archaeology, Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology, Washington, DC.

Major Oceanographic Institutions

Duke University Texas A&M University University of Rhode Island

Johns Hopkins University University of Alaska University of Southern California

Lament Doherty Geological Observatory University of Georgia University of Washington

Oregon State University University of Hawaii Woods Hole Oceanographic institution

Scripps institution of Oceanography

Box F.-Costs for Underwater Archaeology

In underwater archaeology, costs will remain high, probably for some time, although certain locational technologies for underwater archeology, such as LORAN, have dropped considerably. A LORAN

system only a few years ago cost about $10,000. It is now easily available for about $600. While some

possibilities for technological cost reductions exist, the current price of doing business in the field is formidable. Only the magnetometer, which costs about $15,000, is within the range of the average underwater archaeological budget. The sub-bottom profiler and side-scan sonar each cost about $35,000-or

about $8,000 per month to lease. Even when some technologies are combined for maximum value and

efficiency, their costs are prohibitive, almost 95 percent of the typical underwater archaeological project

budget. Boats at least 30 f&et long are necessary for deploying remote sensing instruments. They are expensive to charter, dock, fuel, and insure. Electronic positioning systems are far more accurate and efficient than hand-held compasses. A reliable system such as the Motorola Mini-Ranger costs about $25,000

to purchase and aproximate}y $5,000 per month to rent. These figures represent common, reasonable

monthly expenses for a properly equipped boat, about $33,000 per month not including costs of boat,

crew, instrument maintenance, living expenses, and contingencies.

A total cost of about $25,000 to $50,000 per month, depending on whether or not equipment is leased

or purchased, represents a believable figure for initiating field work. When that is multiplied by 2 or 3

months, the length of many project seasons, costs become the primary concern. Even the least expensive

of the new remotely operated vehicles cost about $30,000. Large vehicles to which specialized modular

work packages attach, may cost as much as $1 million or more but can combine the attributes and capabilities of several machines.
156 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

The preservation community must more systematically and effectively quantify and communicate the benefits and costs of historic preservation to policy makers at all governmental levels.

There have been isolated attempts to do so, most

notably by the National Park Service, which has

kept various statistics since 1976 on rehabilitations to historic structures completed under the

preservation tax incentives program.43 The National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural

Property, Inc., with funding from the Design Arts

Program of the National Endowment of the Arts,

recently published survey findings that attempt

to quantify the scope of the Nation’s requirements in building conservation. The study provides information for both Congress and private

foundations. 44

It is essential, however, that the Federal Government establish an ongoing, consistent approach

to gathering, analyzing, and updating cost/benefit statistics from both the public and private sectors within a central coordinating agency, such

as the Department of the Interior or the National

Trust for Historic Preservation.

Reducing the overall expense of any historic

preservation project requires more knowledge of

the capabilities and costs of new technologies.

However, some of these costs are not well known

or easy to obtain, particularly by cultural resource

managers whose need for a greater sense of possible future cost reductions is critical. It is also

important that there be central coordination for

disseminating information concerning appropriate and expected costs.

For example, the computers used in conjunction with remote sensing technologies are becoming cheaper to manufacture and install as they

become more powerful; thus, more and more

data can be processed at less cost. For archaeological and landscapes studies, photographic interpretation from aerial photographs usually costs

about $2.40 per acre. The costs of a recent NASA/

4J’’Tax Policy and Administration: Historic Preservation Tax incentives, ’ GAO/GGD-86-l 12FS (Washington, DC: General

Accounting Office, August 1986).

“/.jj~torjc BU;l~jngS: A study on the Magnitude Of Architectural

Conservation Needs in America (Washington DC: National institute for the Conservation of Cultural Property, Inc., 1984).

NSF project, using advanced sensors from space

and on aircraft, are closer to $0.001 per acre.45

Advanced technologies especially benefit the

research phases of survey, site identification, and

sampling because gathering as much information

as possible prior to excavation or detailed site

analysis can cut costs. The consultation of records

and documentation, such as photographs, maps,

and earlier surveys, is especially important in reducing costs as well.

Although the use of new technologies might

provide important cost benefits, certain relatively

simple technologies are, and will continue to be,

effective and economical to apply. On the other

hand, if new technologies are not used, installed,

maintained, or understood properly, loss of the

resource can result. Also, technologies that can

be understood, operated, and maintained only

by highly trained technicians might have little utility in the field.

Regular Maintenance May Reduce

Overall Costs

In many cases, cyclical maintenance properly

carried out ultimately provides the greatest cost

benefit with respect to the preservation of historic

structures and landscapes. One example of loss

of a designated historic structure through lack of

scheduled maintenance involves the gantry used

to prepare the first successful U.S. satellite, the

Explorer 1. The structure is scheduled for demolition, having suffered severe deterioration from

a highly corrosive coastal atmosphere. At this

point, $1,2 million must be spent to repair it;

$70,000 per year would be necessary to maintain it thereafter. The gantry had not been painted

or otherwise protectively treated for 15 years.

Had a regular maintenance program been adopted,

the gantry could have been kept structurally sound

for only $15,000 per year.46

Costs and Economic Values

Important distinctions must be made between

cost and value with respect to historic structural

4SThOrnaS sever, NatiOnal Aeronautics and Space Administration,

personal communication, 1986.

46Space Wodd, May 1986”
Ch. 7—Technology and Preservation Policy ● 157

preservation. For example, the tax incentives

available through the Tax Reform Act of 1976,

the Revenue Act of 1978, and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended, have increased the value, but not the costs, associated

with rehabilitation of qualifying older buildings.

These incentives, however, do not encourage developers to extend the lives of their improvements

beyond 5 years. As long as the preservation tax

incentives exist, historic structural rehabilitation

and restoration in the private sector will continue

in spite of certain high-cost items.

in identifying and evaluating the significance

of older structures, adequate research involving

documents and computer databases firmly establishes the role of a structure within its historic context and increases overall project value, but adds

very little to its costs. Advances in computerizing historic preservation databases will eventually reduce research costs.

In evaluating the physical condition of historic

structures, accurate assessments prevent costly

mistakes, which can easily result from inappropriate, ineffective, and destructive treatments. New

technologies are enabling much better diagnosis of structural soundness and can reveal the

more subtle or hidden consequences of past

preservative actions. While these evaluative techniques may be expensive, their use can mean

considerable total project savings.

Recent analyses on “embodied energy” demonstrate how the costs of older buildings expressed in British thermal units (Btu) can justify

their continued existence, proving them to be assets far too valuable to destroy. A Department

of Energy study47 showed that in 1967, rehabilitating a structure required only 49,000 Btu per

square foot, compared to 65,200 Btu to build the

same structure new.

A study sponsored by the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, using the embodied energy

concept, showed that a 1934 housing complex

in Indianapolis, should not be razed.48 It offered

ATRichard G. Stein and Associates, “Energy Use for Building Construction, ” Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois

at Champaign-Urbana, no date.

48Assess;ng the Energy Conservatiorr Benefi”ts of Historic %?Sef -

vation (Washington DC: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

1 979).

a more practical approach toward arguing against

the destruction of older buildings. Btu represent

for preservationists a potentially powerful tool for

deriving qualitative measures of absolute structural value. Some preservationists assert that it

should be possible to bank Btu as credits to encourage developers to weigh the costs associated

with investing in retaining old structures against

demolishing them and erecting new ones.

Reducing Costs in the Marketplace

Suppliers of systems and products must be able

to perceive a more substantial market within

historic preservation. Preservationists at times

have successfully defined and quantified the market for manufacturers, most effectively through

the Preservation Tax Incentives Program. The

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, developed within that program, have communicated to product developers and manufacturers as well as architects and engineers what

treatments and techniques are and are not acceptable for the purposes of certification.

As a result, the window manufacturing industry is designing systems that are compatible with

historic structures and mini-industries for historic

window repair are flourishing. However, only a

concerted effort by the various elements within

the preservation community to publicize their

needs to the business and manufacturing community will achieve greater progress in lowering

the high costs of research, development, and production of new conservation technologies.

Developing Additional Support

for Preservation

One example of an extremely well-planned

funding acquisition strategy from which the preservation community could draw important lessons is being developed for highway research.

The Transportation Research Board found that

between now and the end of the century there

would be a requirement for around $400 billion

for highway and bridge construction and upkeep

and a vastly improved research effort. The board,

with support from the Federal Highway Administration, completed a report entitled “America’s

Highways—The Search for Innovation, ” which
158 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

was widely publicized. On the basis of this re- for 5 years through a set-aside of ,25 percent of

port, The American Association of State Highway the $0.05 Federal gasoline tax. At this point the

and Transportation Officials started planning the project seems likely to proceed. Preservationists

Strategic Highway Research Program which is to cannot only learn from such an effort but parbe funded at a level of about $30 million per year ticipate in it as well.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Cultural Resources Management

Laws and Regulations

Laws

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (Public Law 59-209; 34

Stat. 335; 16 U.S.C. 431 -433): provided for the protection of historic, prehistoric, and scientific remains,

“or any object of antiquity, ” on Federal lands; established criminal sanctions for unauthorized destruction

or appropriation of antiquities; authorized the President to declare by proclamation national monuments;

and authorized the scientific investigation of antiquities on Federal lands, subject to permit and regulations. It required that the parcel of land set aside be

“the smallest area compatible with the proper care

and management of the objects to be protected. ”

The National Park Service Organic Act (Act of Aug.

26, 1916, 39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C. 1 -4): Established the

National Park Service. “[It] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national

parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the

fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments,

and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the

wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of

the same in such manner and by such means as will

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

gene rations.”

The Historic Sites Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-292;

49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 -467): authorized the programs that are known as the Historic American Buildings Survey, the Historic American Engineering Record, and the National Survey of Historic Sites and

Buildings; authorized the establishment of National

Historic Sites and otherwise authorized the preservation of properties “of national historic or archaeological significance”; and authorized the establishment

of museums in connection therewith; authorized the

designation of National Historic Landmarks; established criminal sanctions for violation of regulations

pursuant to the act; authorized interagency, intergovernmental, and interdisciplinary efforts for the

preservation of cultural resources; and other provisions. The first efforts to salvage archaeological data

that would otherwise be lost were done under the authorities of this act beginning with the River Basin Survey in 1946.

I National Park Service and OTA.

The National Trust Act of 1949 (Public Law 81 -408;

63 Stat. 927): facilitated public participation in the

preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national

significance or interest. It created the National Trust

for Historic Preservation and empowered it to acquire

and hold property for historic preservation purposes;

enter into contracts and agreements to further the policies enunciated in the Historic Sites Act; sue and be

sued; and perform other lawful acts to carry out the

purposes of the National Trust.

The Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955

(Public Law 69 Stat. 242; 16 U.S.C. 18f): commonly

known as the Museum Act of 1955, this act authorizes certain management actions to be taken with regard to objects in National Park Service museum collections, including accepting donations or bequests,

making purchases from donated funds, making exchanges, and receiving and granting loans of properties.

The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-

523; 74 Stat. 220; 16 U.S.C. 469-469 c): indicated further concern with cultural resources recovery and

reemphasized the need to recover data. The act provided for the recovery and preservation of “historical and archeological data (including relics and specimens)” that might be lost or destroyed as a result of

the construction of dams, reservoirs, and attendant facilities and activities (see also the 1974 amendment

to this act).

The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-670; 80 Stat. 931): stated in Section 4(f) that

the Secretary of Transportation “shall not approve any

program or project which requires . . . the use of . . .

any land from a historic site . . . unless (1) there is no

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such

land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such . . . historic sites resulting from such use. ”

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665; 810 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. 470): declared

a national policy of historic preservation, including the

encouragement of preservation on the State and private levels; provided authority for the expansion of

the National Register of Historic Places to include cultural resources of State and local as well as national

significance; authorized matching Federal grants to the

States and the National Trust for Historic Preservation

for the acquisition and rehabilitation of National Register properties; established the Advisory Council on

161
162 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation; provided certain procedures to

be followed by Federal agencies in the event of a proposal that might have an effect on National Register

properties; defined the term historic preservation a s

“the protection, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and

objects significant in American history, architecture,

archaeology, or culture.”

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(Public Law 89-665; 80 Stat, 915; 16 U.S.C. 470):

declared in Section 101-B(4) that it is the policy of the

Federal Government to “reserve important historic,

cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage.”

In order to carry out this policy, the act required an

interdisciplinary study of the impacts associated with

Federal programs.

Public Law 91-243, May 9, 1970: amended the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 by extending

the funding for the program through 1973, increasing the membership of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and authorizing the participation

of the United States as a member in the International

Center for the Study of Preservation and Restoration

of Cultural Property, and authorized funds for this

purpose.

Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971 (36

F.R. 8921): instructed all Federal agencies to provide

national leadership in historic preservation, to ensure

the preservation of cultural properties in Federal

ownership, and to “institute procedures to assure that

federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of nonfederally owned sites,

structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or

archeological significance.” The order specifically

directed all Federal agencies to “locate, inventory, and

nominate to the Secretary of the Interior all sites, buildings, districts, and objects under their jurisdiction or

control that appear to qualify for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places.” The order further established procedures to be followed by all Federal agencies pending completion of the cultural resources

inventories. The 1980 amendments to the NHPA contained similar mandates for survey and inventory and

these guidelines have cited the act rather than the Executive order, where appropriate.

The Archeological and Historical Preservation Act

of 1974 (Public Law 93-291; 88 Stat. 174): amended

the 1960 Salvage Act, provided for the preservation

of significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archaeological data (including relics and specimens) that

might be lost or destroyed as a result of: 1) the construction of dams, reservoirs, and attendant facilities

and activities; or 2) any alteration of the terrain caused

as a result of any Federal construction project or federally licensed project, activity, or program. It also required that the Secretary of the Interior be notified of

impending loss of such resources, and that the agency

or the Secretary may survey and recover the data, then

publish the results. It provided for agreement on time

limits for initiation and completion of survey and recovery efforts. It required the Secretary to coordinate,

report on, consult with experts about, and distribute

funds appropriated for this survey and recovery efforts.

It provided that up to 1 percent of the total amount

authorized to be appropriated for the Federal activities be transferred to the Secretary for implementation of the act, as well as providing for prior compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 with regard to properties

listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

of Historic Places.

Public Law 94-458; 90 Stat. 1939, October 7, 1976

(90 Stat. 1939): amended Public Law 89-665 (80 Stat.

915; 16 U.S.C. 470(c) by adding a new paragraph as

follows: “(4) to withhold from disclosure to the public, information relating to the location of sites or objects listed on the National Register whenever he determines that the disclosure of specific information

would create a risk of destruction or harm to such sites

or objects.” Section 12 of this law required the preparation of general management plans for each unit of

the National Park System, including the National Capital Region, and transmittal to the Committees on interior and Insular Affairs.

American Folklife Preservation Act of 1976 (Public

Law 94-201, 89 Stat. 1130, 20 U.S.C. 2101-2107):

declared that because American folklife has made

such a great contribution to this Nation’s cultural richness and sense of individuality and identity, it is therefore the policy of the United States to “preserve, support, revitalize, and disseminate American folklife

traditions and arts . . . .“ The act also defined American folklife; established the American Folklife Center and described its organization; and authorized the

Librarian of Congress to: 1 ) promote various American Folklife programs; 2) establish, maintain, procure

items for, and loan or exhibit items from a national

archive and center for American folklife; 3) prescribe

regulations; and 4) perform other lawful acts in furtherance of the policies of this act.

Public Law 94-422, September 28, 1976: amended

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

to apply to properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Additional funding was appropriated

to carry out the provisions of the act; the organization of the Advisory Council was clarified, and the

membership expanded to 29 members. The council

was established as a fully independent agency within

the executive branch and authorized to promulgate
App. A—Cultural Resources Management Laws and Regulations ● 163

rules and regulations it deems necessary to implement

Section 106.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, August 11, 1978 (Public Law 95-341 ): provided that it is

“the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional

religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and

Native Hawaiians, including, but not limited to access

to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the

freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. ”

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of

1979 (Public Law 96-95; 93 Stat. 712, 16 U.S.C. 470):

provided for the protection of archaeological resources

located on public lands and Indian lands; defined archaeological resources to be any material remains of

past human life or activities that are of archaeological interest and are at least 100 years old; encouraged

cooperation between groups and individuals in possession of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands with special permit and disposition rules

for the protection of archaeological resources on lndian lands in light of the American Indian Religious

Freedom Act; provided that information regarding the

nature and location of archaeological resources may

remain confidential; and established civil and criminal penalties, including forfeiture of vehicles, fines of

up to $100,000, and imprisonment of up to 5 years

for second violations for the unauthorized appropriation, alteration, exchange, or other handling of archaeological resources, with rewards for furnishing information about such unauthorized acts.

Archaeological resources covered by the Antiquities Act of 1906 are covered by this act. A valid permit issued under the Antiquities Act before the date

of this act remains in effect according to its terms and

conditions; therefore, no new permit is required. A

permit issued under this act takes the place of a permit under the Antiquities Act. Nothing in this act shall

apply to any person who was in lawful possession of

an archaeological resource prior to the date of this act.

National Historic Preservation Act (amended 1980)

(Public Law 96-51 5; 94 Stat. 2997): expanded the roles

of Federal, State, local, and private sectors, and provided important new mandates for Federal land managers in the area of historic preservation. The act

directs the Secretary to implement regulations establishing uniform processes and standards for documenting historic properties included in the Library of Congress records; requires each Federal agency to establish

a program to locate, inventory, and nominate to the

National Register all properties under the agency’s

control; directs each Federal agency to exercise caution so that properties that may be eligible are not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, substantially

altered, or allowed to deteriorate significantly; and establishes a higher standard of care for National Historic Landmarks. After appropriate consultation with

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an

agency may lease its historic property if such lease will

adequately ensure the preservation of that property.

The proceeds of the lease may be retained by the

agency and used to defray administrative, maintenance, repair, and related expenses incurred by the

agency in the use of the property or other properties

listed on the National Register and under the ownership or control of such agency. The act also changes

the number of members on the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation; directs the Secretary’s participation in the development of the World Heritage List

and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the

World Cultural and Natural Heritage; and allows

agency heads to withhold information relating to location of historic resources after consultation with the

Secretary.

Regulations

Regulations are promulgated, adopted, and then

compiled in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

in order to implement provisions of general laws. The

name of the act it implements follows each CFR citation below.

43 CFR 3 (Antiquities Act), “proposed Rule: Preservation of American Antiquities” defines “objects of

antiquity” in relation to the Antiquities Act of 1906,

in terms of objects of archaeological, anthropological, paleontological, or historical interest.

43 CFR 7 (Archaeological Resources Protections Act

of 1979) “Final Rule: Protection of Archaeological Resources: Uniform Regulations, ” it establishes governmentwide policy for additional regulations by which

agencies protect federally owned archaeological resources through permits for authorized excavation and

through civil penalties for unauthorized excavation,

removal, or damage. It also allows information about

the location of archaeological resources to be kept

confidential where disclosure of such information may

threaten the resource.

36 CFR 60 (NHPA and EO 11 593), “Procedures for

Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Program” establishes the standards for the

Secretary’s approval of State historic preservation programs, and requires State Historic Preservation Officers to conduct a statewide survey of cultural properties, to prepare and implement a State preservation

plan, and to cooperate with Federal agencies in their
l&# . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

compliance with the provisions of Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act (see 36 CFR 800).

In addition, 36 CFR 61 provides for local government

certification to participate in the Federal preservation

program, and establishes standards for the qualifications of professionals in the preservation field.

36 CFR 63 (NHPA and EO 11 593) entitled “Determinations of Eligibility for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places,” codified the process

through which Federal agencies request and obtain

a determination of properties’ eligibility for inclusion

in the National Register of Historic Places.

36 CFR 65 (Historic Sites Act of 1935) “National

Historic Landmarks Program” establishes procedures

to identify cultural resources of exceptional national

significance, to designate them, and to encourage their

owners to preserve and protect them. It also provided

for revising boundaries of National Historic Landmarks

and removing a landmark designation.

36 CFR 66 (Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974) “Proposed Rule: Recovery of Scientific, Prehistoric, Historic, and Archaeological Data:

Methods, Standards, and Reporting Requirements,”

it establishes guidelines and standards for data recovery from cultural resources important primarily for

their research potential. It also covers qualification of

professionals carrying out work, the content of the recovery program, the curation of data and materials

retrieved, and directions for filing reports on data recovery with the Department of the Interior.

36 CFR 68 (NH PA) contains the Secretary of the interior’s standards for historic preservation projects, including standards for acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and

reconstruction.

36 CFR 800 (NHPA and EO 11 593), “Protection of

Historic and Cultural Properties,” includes the regulations published by the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation to implement Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and two Presidential directives issued pursuant to Section 106 (EO

11593, May 13, 1971, “Protection and Enhancement

of the Cultural Environ merit,” and the President’s

Memorandum on Environmental Quality and Water

Resources Management, July 12, 1978). The regulations were amended March 1, 1979, to reflect changes

and additions to the Advisory Council’s authorities,

as well as experience gained in working with the process since the last publication of regulations in 1974.

These amendments are intended to expedite and clarify the commenting process required by Section 106

of the NHPA and Section 2(b) of Executive Order

11593 for a particular program or class of undertakings that would otherwise require numerous individual requests for comments under these regulations.

40 CFR 1500, “Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental

Policy Act,” was published by the Council on Environmental Quality as directed by Executive Order

11991 to “make the environmental statement more

useful to decision makers and the public; and to reduce paper work and the accumulation of extraneous background data, in order to emphasize the need

to focus on real environmental issues and alternatives.” The regulations require all agencies to adopt

procedures which ensure, among other things, that

environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before actions are taken. Although

separate from NEPA, the responsibilities of the National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order

11593 are to be complied with using these same procedures.
Appendix B

Documentation and Conservation

of Rock Art

Images that have been painted or carved on rock

surfaces convey important cultural information, both

from prehistoric and historic eras. In the United States,

most rock art designs1 were executed by Native Americans before contact with western civiIization. z However, numerous examples exist of historic rock art that

convey important information about the exploration

and settlement of North America by Euroamericans.

Perhaps the most famous and striking examples are

the numerous inscriptions recording the passage of

Spanish explorers between 1605 and 17743 on the

sandstone at El Morro National Monument, east of

Zuni Pueblo in central New Mexico. There, the signatures of individuals from 28 different groups of explorers share the rock surface with images carved or

pecked hundreds of years earlier by ancestors of the

Zuni lndians,4

Rock art images are especially important in understanding the lives of prehistoric Native Americans,

who left no written record of their activities. Nevertheless, although scholars in many disciplines, as well

as native peoples themselves, have long recognized

the importance of documenting and analyzing Native

American rock art, it has been frequently neglected.

Documentation of Rock Art

Because it has been so long neglected, the study of

rock art is still largely descriptive. Thus, the identification and documentation of rock art is extremely important. Individuals and groups interested in this form

of cultural expression, many of them amateurs, have

contributed greatly to our awareness of the extent of

the resource. For example, professional and amateur

members of the American Rock Art Research Association and the Canadian Rock Art Research Associates have devoted countless hours of time to recording North American rock art, and have developed

1“Rock d,t Includes petroglyphs (designs pecked, scratched, abraded

or otherwise cut into cliffs, boulders, bedrock, or any natural surface), and

rock paintings (deslg,ls painted in similar locations). It does not include

designs formed by rocK alignments on the ground.” See Pony Schaafsma,

“Form, Content, and Function Theory and Method in North American Rock

Art Studies, ” Advances In Archaedo&ical Method and Theory 8, 1985, p. 237.

‘For general surveys see, for example, Campbell Grant, Rock Art of the

American /rid/an (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1967); or Klaus

Wellman, A Survey of North American /rid/an Rock ArI (Graz, Austria:

Akademlsche Druck and Verlagsanstalt, 1979).

‘Even Z Vogt, “El Morro National Monument,” E/ Pa/acio 12, 1922, pp.

161-168

4M. Jane Young, Signs From the Ancestors: Zun/ Cultural Symbolism and

Rock Art (Albuquerque, NM Unlverslty of New Mexico Press, In press).

considerable expertise in conserving rock arts Yet

their documentation techniques are often idiosyncratic and inconsistent. Such techniques have not received sufficient study nor, until recently, has there

been an effort toward developing consistent, objective, universally applicable methods of documentation

and recording.6

● Site forms.–An important part of standardizing

the recording process is developing site recording forms that are consistent with rock art forms

used in other locations and with more general archaeological site forms. Portable computers could

make the recording of field data more accurate

and complete. The recording form itself can be

stored in the computer and appropriate information supplied in response to prompting from the

computer.

Drawings, photographs and other two-dimensional recording methods.—Photography is the

most common method of documenting rock art

today. However, it suffers from the drawback that

many shallowly pecked or carved images are difficult to see when the lighting strikes perpendicular to the stone face. Researchers have tried a

variety of methods of recording the details of such

images, including using oblique artificial lighting,

high contrast film, and infrared film.7 They have

also tried enhancing the images with chalk, water,

and aluminum powder suspended in water. None

of these latter methods can be recommended because they may damage the rock art design or affect the local environment adversely.8

Drawings and paintings have also been used. Faded

and eroded pictographs present particular problems

of documentation. One important technique for recording such paintings is to reproduce them in watercolors or oils. The Texas artist Forrest Kirkland

recorded thousands of painted images in the rock

Sln New Mexico, field schools run by Colonel James Bain over the past

two decades have contributed thousands of records of New Mexico rock

art, which are maintained at the Laboratory of Anthropology of the Museum

of New Mexico. The Massachusetts based Earthwatch has devoted a n u mber of its projects to recording rock art in North America.

bDavid R. Stuart, “Recording Southwestern Rock Art Sites, ” The Kiva 43,

1978, pp. 183-199.

‘james B. DeKorne, “How To Photograph Rock Art,” El Pa/ac/o 77, 1970,

PP. 14-1 7; Grant, op. cit., pp. 68-73.

%halk tends to abrade the stone and distort the original image. Water may

wash away mud or pigment applied by the artist. Aluminum powder, though

it washes off after drying, requ Ires a water rinse that may remove mud or

pigment, and then becomes mixed with the local soIl.

165
166 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

shelters and caves of Texas.g He chose watercolor, because watercolor board is suitable for pencil drawings

and because the watercolor can be applied quickly

and easily compared to the original. In addition,

watercolor board can be transported and stored relatively easily. Archival watercolor board and paints provide a near permanent record. However, such methods require a skilled artist and are time-consuming.

In addition, they do not convey the character and condition of the rock surface, and are not necessarily done

to scale. They also do not reproduce the three-dimensional quality of many rock art panels, which is an integral component of the rock art image.

Rubbings and tracings may be used to good effect

for petroglyphs under certain conditions.10 They have

the advantage that it is possible to record the roughness of the rock surface, but the disadvantage that

such methods are extremely time-consuming. When

supplemented with photography, rubbings or tracings

can produce accurate and pleasing records of petroglyphs.

Stereo photogrammetry. -This is a superior method

that allows the rock art to be recorded in relation to

its surroundings. 11 Later analysis of the stereo photographic pairs allows three-dimensional reconstruction

of a rock art site, which can be critical in interpreting

the meaning and function of the images.

Molds.—A number of these techniques have been

tried for petroglyphs that are deeply cut, but all are

extremely time-consuming, and are therefore generally not satisfactory as a means of recording images.

They are also difficult to store. Plaster, wax, or latex

reverse molds have been tried on small areas. Such

methods are most useful when interpretive displays

of rock art are contemplated.

Dating of Rock Art

No methods currently exist for directly establishing

dates of rock art images. Methods so widely used for

dating archaeological artifacts are generally inapplicable for rock art. For example, traditional radiocarbon

dating methods are inappropriate for charcoal drawings because they require too large a sample. Dating

the image would destroy it. In the absence of any

absolute methods, rock art researchers have therefore

relied on a variety of relative methods to date rock

9W. W. Newcomb, jr., The Rock Art of Texas /ndians (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1967).

“JPhyllis Hughes, “How To Make Rubbings of Rock Art,” El Palacio 77,

1970, pp. 18-24.

I !The application of this method is described in the report by %dVeiE Turpin, “Seminole Canyon: the Art and the Archeology, ” Texas Archeological

Survey Reporl 83 (Austin, TX: University of Texas, 1982). See also Solveig

Turpin, et. al., “Stereophotogrammetric Documentation of Exposed Archaee

logical Features,” Journal of Field Archaeology 6, 1979, pp. 329-337.

art: differential weathering, relative pagination, superimposition of one image over another, style, content, and the relationship of images or panels of images to datable material.12 None of these techniques

is very satisfactory, for even in relative terms, they provide only a very broad gauge of the age of a rock art

panel (i.e., within 50 or 100 years).

Rock art research would gain immeasurably by the

development of direct dating techniques. Methods

that have been tried include measuring the depth and

extent of lichen growth over rock art images, thickness of mineral deposits (so-called desert varnish), and

X-ray fluorescence. However, none of these methods

have proved successful.13

For example, one method that has been tried with

inconclusive results is the measurement of the concentration of hydrogen v. depth in petroglyphs. Most

newly exposed surfaces of rock bearing silicates will

take up water from the atmosphere. The amount of

hydrogen is directly proportional to the amount of

water in the micro layers of the rock surface. Newly

exposed surfaces should exhibit a hydrogen profile

(percentage of hydrogen plotted against depth) markedly

different from much older surfaces. However, in using

a method originally developed to measure hydrogen

profiles of lunar rocks, scientists found that the hydrogen profiles they measured from different petroglyph

samples were highly variable, “At present there seems

little possibility of reliably chronologically ordering

prehistoric glyphs using this method.”14

The challenge in dating rock art will be to develop

nondestructive methods. New radiocarbon methods

that require only minute amounts (micrograms or

smaller) of carbon material may eventually be applied

to dating images containing organic pigments with

success. ’ 5

Information Storage

Currently, efforts are underway to standardize recording forms and procedures so that all of the relevant information pertaining to a rock art site and its

images can eventually be stored in a central database.

However, such efforts generally assume that rock art

imagery can be labeled unambiguously and in terms

that transcend cultural boundaries. Recent advances

12For example, in the Southwest united States some rock art Panels exist

on the canyon wall immediately above the former roof of a ruined Pueblo

Indian dwelling. If the pueblo can be dated by means of tree rings or other

methods, the archaeologist can estimate the rock art dates.

ljschaafsma, op. cit., P. 243.

l~R.E. Taylor, “Potential Use of Hydrogen Profile Analysis To Date Petroglyphs at the Hedgepeth Hills Site: A Feasibility Study,” in j. Simon Bruder,

“Archaeological Investigations at the Hedgpeth Hills Petroglyph Site,”

Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 28, app. IV.

IWhristopher Chippendale, “Radiocarbon Comes of Age at Oxford,” New

Scientist, ju[y 21, 1983, pp. 181-184.
App. B—Documentation and Conservation of Rock Art . 167

in optical disk technology may make it possible to

store and retrieve the actual image rather than a label describing it.

Interpretation of Rock Art Images

Many early attempts to interpret rock art failed because investigators lacked broad additional knowledge

of the cultures from which it derives. In addition, rock

art had not yet been widely documented. However,

research during the last decade has demonstrated the

importance of rock art studies to understanding prehistoric cultures in the United States. The evidence

provided by rock art has, among other things, demonstrated the prehistoric movement of religious ideas

along the Rio Grande from Mexico to northern New

Mexico, 16 provided insights into Native American astronomical methods,17 and furnished evidence of prehistoric amputation practices,18 In California, studies

of Chumash Indian rock art have led to a much deeper

understanding of Chumash philosophy and sacred

practice .19

Stereophotogrammetry can provide the accurate

environmental context for rock art sites; the cultural

context must be provided either by ethnohistorical or

archaeological research. In the case of Native American rock art, tribal commentary on recent images is

crucial to understanding and interpreting them. It is

particularly important that Native American cultural

attitudes towards the landscape be included in this interpretive process.

Public interpretation is especially important as

greater awareness of the fragility of rock art and of the

role this cultural resource can play in understanding

Native American culture can lead to more effective

conservation.

Conservation and Protection

U.S. rock paintings and carvings, like the cave paintings of Lascaux, France or Altamira, Spain, are subject to many different destructive agents (table B-1 and

table B-2). Individuals have used a variety of methISpol Iy Schaafsma, /ndjan Rock Art of the Southwest (Albuquerque, NM:

Unwerslty of New Mexico Press, 1980), ch. 8; Pony Schaafsma and Curtis

F. Schaafsma, “Evidence for the Onglns of the Pueblo Katchina Cult as Suggested by Southwestern Rock Art, ” American Ant/qu/ty 39, 1974, pp.

535-545.

I Zsee, for example, Arlene Benson and Tom Hoskinson, ~afih and SkY:

Papers From t/re Northridge Conference on Archaeoastronomy (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Slow Press, 1985); or Ray A, Williamson, Lfwng the Sky: the

Cosmos of (he Amer/can /rid/an (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1984).

1

8 Klaus F. Wellmann, “New Mexico’s Mutilated Hand: Finger Mutilation

and Polydactyllsm In North American Indian Rock Art, ” Journal of the American &fed/ca/ Assoc/at/on 219, 1970, pp. 1609-1610.

I Scampbel I G rant, The Rock Paintings of the Chumash; A Study of a Ca//-

fornia /rid/an Cuhure (Berkeley, CA: Unlverslty of California Press, 1965).

Table B-1.—Agents Contributing to Rock Art

Deterioration and Destruction

Natural agents:

Bacteria

Direct contact with water

Exfoliation of stone (water, salts, changes of temperature,

and humidity)

Insects

Joints and cracks

Lichen

Surface accretion

Vegetation

Wind abrasion

Human agents:

Development

Vandalism:

Bullet holes

Etched graffiti

Paint graffiti

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment and Constance S Silver, The Rock

Art of Seminole Canyon State Historical Park: Deterioration and

Prospects for Consewatlon (Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, February 1985).

ods in attempts to conserve and protect rock art. Such

efforts are aided by a generally supportive attitude on

the part of local residents. However, slow deterioration through weathering and quick destruction from

vandalism or local development remain serious threats.

In some areas, fences or gratings have been used to

prevent observers from reaching rock art. Yet such devices would be much too costly for most areas, and

inappropriate for others. Most are unsightly.

In addition, some threatened sites are still visited

regularly by Native Americans for religious purposes.

The Zuni Indians, who live in New Mexico, for example, “regard many of the rock art images on their

tribal lands as a link with their mythological past, as

‘signs from the ancestors’; hence, they are particularly

worried about vandalism and the deterioration of images through time. ”20 Other sites, though they are no

longer visited, may have played an important role in

Native American history and are therefore considered

sacred. In designing policies to protect such sites, it

is crucial to consider how preservation efforts fit within

the Native American cultural context.21

2 0M. jane Young, “Images of Power and the Power of Images: The Slgnlftcance of Rock ArI for Contemporary Zunis, ” Journa/ of Amer/can Fe/k/ore

98, 1985, pp. 3-48.

ZIThe managers Of Kakadu National Park, In Australia, have achieved considerable success in Involving the Aborigines In designing the park, and have

adopted a set of management principles that “recognise the special relatlonshlD that Abcmnnes have with their land. For them It is an ordered and named

Ian’dscape full ~f my-thologlcal significance and spiritually dangerous places

where delicate religious associations can be disrupted If someone unwittingly

trespasses Into such sacred sites. ” See Cllve Gamble, “The Artificial Wilderness, ” New Sc/ent/st, Apr. 10, 1986, p. 51.
168 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Table B-2.—Weathering Agents Found in Deserts and Cities

Kind of weathering Desert Cities

Damaging agents:

Moisture from condensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . present present

Moisture from fog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fog in winter frequent

Moisture from ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . high high

Salts, origin of salts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . desert floor, residual groundwater, stone

Temperature contrasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Damage to stone:

Abrasion by wind action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Desert varnish and stains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Efflorescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flaking by heat and moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frame weathering, casehardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frost action... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subflorescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

high

strong

hard brown crusts

strong

very strong

common as pebbles

occasional

very slow

strong

high (on walls)

some, near street level

light-brown stains

moderate but common

moderate

hollow common

high

very rapid in polluted atmosphere

moderate to strong

SOURCES: Constance S. Silver, The Rock ArlofSemlno/e Carrion State Hktorica/ Park:Deter/oration arrdl%ospects for Cortservatlorr (Austin, TX: Texas Parks and

Wildilfe Department, February 19851 and E. WinkleCStone:/ts Proped/es and Durabfllfy /n Man’s Errvlrorrrnerrt (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1975)

Many of the processes active in deterioration of rock

art are similar to those causing destruction of stone

in urban environments: condensation of moisture, dissolution and recrystallization of salts, and the effects

of wide temperature swings as a result of solar heating. For example, Silver22 has found that many of the

processes leading to deterioration of limestone (and

therefore to the paintings on the limestone base) in

Seminole Canyon State Historical Park are identical

or analogous to those found in urban environments.

The conservation of rock art can therefore benefit from

more general stone conservation efforts. In addition,

the conservation of American rock paintings can benefit from the research that has been applied to the cave

paintings in Europe,23 and to Aboriginal paintings in

Australia .24

In spite of the extent of this resource, no conference primarily devoted to the conservation of rock

art has ever been held in the United States. Efforts

to share information on conservation have largely

occurred on an ad hoc basis.

Because not every rock art panel or image can be

preserved, some effort should be devoted to deciding which areas have the most critical need. One of

the difficulties in making such choices is that until

more research is done, it will be impossible to determine which rock art panels have the greatest significance. One of the critical areas for attention to the

preservation of rock art are the rural fringes of urban

areas. As urban development spreads out into the

countryside, it has begun to affect the preservation of

rock art in some areas.25

>2con5tance s, ‘jIlver, The Rock Art of Seminole Canyon State Historical

Park: Deterioration and Prospects for Conservation (Austin, TX: Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department, February 1985).

Zjp, Mora, L. Mora, and P. philippot. La Conservation des %htUfeS Murales

(Rome: International Center for Conservation, 1977).

z4j, Clarke “conservation and Restoration of Painting and Engraving Sites

in Western Australia, ” Conservation of Rock Art (Canberra: I. C. C. M., 1978.

ZSFor example, rock afl on the West Mesa west of Albuquerque, NM, is

threatened by housing development. Concerned individuals have formed

a group named Friends of the Albuquerque Petroglyphs(FOTAP) to protect

an estimated 10,5OO petroglyphs, executed on basalt outcropping. in addition to calling attention to the problem in the media, FOTAP has organized

educational tours of the threatened rock art, and is documenting all of it.

See “Save the Petroglyphs” (editorial), Albuquerque Tribune, Apr. 17, 1986,

p. A-14.
Appendix C

Registration and Private Ownership of

Archaeological Objects1

Archaeologists and Collectors

Archaeologists have always approached the problem of the long-term care and administration of the

objects we recover and study from conflicting points

of view. Though we insist on the most careful methods for recovering, documenting, and studying artifacts, we often reject the responsibility for their care

after they have served our immediate ends.

Yet many archaeologists become outraged by the

hoards of artifact collectors who buy and sell objects

and who wish, more than anything else, to provide

long-term care to the objects they acquire. The collector, on the other hand, appears to reject the responsibility for obtaining and preserving the contextual,

descriptive data that is so important to archaeological research and an understanding of the past. The

collector wants the object for its beauty, unusual qualities, or for its market value.

The archaeological community considers the purchase and sale of objects and the looting of archaeological sites that generally predeeds them an abomination, yet refuses to deal with the causal factors that

underlie the destructive nature of the activity. Some

sectors of the archaeological community have attempted to wage a legislative war with the collector.

They seem to have had little effect on the continuing

destruction of archaeological properties. In my estimation, the archaeological community cannot expect to

win a war with the “art” collecting public. As long

as archaeological properties have value to people,

they will continue to attempt to purchase them,

whether they are obtained legally or illegally, thus creating a demand for illegal pothunting. Archaeologists,

then, have everything to gain from a negotiated truce,

but a lot to lose if we choose to ignore the collector’s

interest in acquiring and caring for archaeological

objects.

The following discussion lays out the groundwork

for one possible settlement between archaeologist and

1 This paper was requested from Dr. Walter Wait, archaeologist, after an

Intensive discussion with OTA staff concerning technology and protection

of archaeological properties. Although this paper focuses on a partial solutlon the loss of prehistoric archaeological remains, much of the discussion

IS also applicable to such hlstonc cultural material.

collector. The settlement provides the archaeologist

with information and the collector with artifacts.

A Look At The Real World

Let us examine the real case of an individual who

may own property containing an archaeological site.

The landowner can:

●

●

●

●

●

leave it alone;

dig it up, and either sell or keep any artifacts;

approach archaeologists to dig it up, allowing

them to retrieve both the objects and the information;

donate the site to the Archaeological Conservancy or some other nonprofit institution; or

sell the contents of the site to someone else to

dig up on speculation.

Before choosing an option, the landowner must

evaluate his or her motivations, which are one or a

combination of the following:

●

●

●

●

●

If

financial gain;

building a collection for personal enjoyment;

curiosity or “adventure”;

public service or a desire to “do the right thing”;

and

legal and/or public pressure to leave the site undisturbed.

the landowner’s motivations are public spirited,

the site either remains undisturbed or is mined for information as well as artifacts. In either case, the archaeological community’s research interests are forwarded. If recovered, the artifacts then enter into a

grey area of ownership, but are often placed under

the stewardship of the presiding archaeologist, a

university, or an institute. Very often, they simply drop

out of sight.

If the landowner’s motivations are driven solely by

personal enjoyment or for financial gain, archaeologists lose. The landowner has contributed to his own

or someone else’s collection without gathering the essential contextual information. Because the methodology for pure artifact extraction differs from the methodology for research, only the “goodies” get passed

on. In today’s climate, the site owner recognizes no

options in excavating if driven by the desire to gain

169
170 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

a collection or to gain financially because the archaeological community is largely unapproachable. T h e

data, for all practical purposes, have been given up.

Inserting the Archaeologist into

the Collector’s Loop

Because the prehistoric or historic culture of the

country is at stake, we might ask what we can offer

the collector in return for the opportunity to gain a

deeper understanding of the site and the people who

created it. Perhaps the one thing that the archaeological community has of value to the collector is the academic credentials that permit the validation of an object’s authenticity. “Genuineness” is of critical

importance to a collector of objects. One of the few

times an archaeologist and a collector come face to

face is when the collector requests assistance in establishing the authenticity of an artifact that he or she has

acquired. More often than not, the collector is turned

away, widening the gap between the two sides. However, if this is the bargaining chip that archaeology can

bring to the negotiating table, it should be used. I propose to trade an offer of authenticity for the careful

recovery of associated archaeological data.

In order to offer the collector some document attesting to the provenience of artifacts dug on private

land, I suggest that we license archaeologists to supervise the work. This guarantees authenticity and allows the archaeologist to gather important research

data.

The Licensed Archaeologist

With an archaeologist on board, the treasure hunt

turns into an archaeological dig, the purpose of which

is to provide the landowner with collectable, documented artifacts and the archaeological community

with data on the artifacts, contextual information, artifact preservation, and professional documentation

and reporting.

The site owner now has four options with regard

to the conduct of the excavation design:

1. dig where I tell you;

2. dig as much as you can for X dollars;

3. dig where you think you will find collectable artifacts; and

4. dig where you will learn the most.

The archaeologist, according to a standard contract

signed by both archaeologist and site owner, would

work out an excavation plan designed around the

owner’s desires as stated above and the number of

people hired, conscripted, or otherwise obtained to

do the work. The archaeologist’s design and subsequent supervision follows a pattern laid down by the

professional licensing body. This pattern would include, but would not be limited to the following:

the excavation will follow standard archaeological principles;

the excavation will be fully documented with a

site map, profile drawings, photos, and excavation locations;

all artifacts will be recovered and cataloged; and

a site excavation report will be prepared.

The standard contract’ might stipulate ‘that the archaeologist will forward registration papers and a certificate of excavation to some National or State registry center. All other recovered remains, artifacts, and

samples would become the property of the licensing

organization. This group or groups would then be responsible for the curation, protection, or disposal of

the site’s recovered unregistered remains.

The Registered Artifact

This proposal requires the creation of one or more

formal artifact registries. The contracted, licensed archaeologist submits the paperwork to the registry applying for formal approval of the artifact’s “pedigree.”

Paperwork required might be as follows:

Ž a request for title, which includes a full description, measurements, and a color photograph or

digital image;

• a copy of the excavation report;

• a certificate of excavation indicating that a

licensed archaeologist was responsible for the excavation or recovery of the object;

Ž a certified appraisal; and

● a percentage fee based on either the appraised

value or the actual sale price.

Upon entry into the registry, the owner would obtain a nontransferable title and an artifact documentation card similar to a plastic driver’s license, complete with photo (figure C-l).

Why Do it?

The registration of artifacts requires a great deal of

organization and effort. Why should it be done? First,

it fulfills the archaeologists’ part of the bargain with

the collectors—documentation for authentification.

The collector receives an artifact with a verifiable history and a title illustrating a valid transfer of ownership. This title, together with accompanying documentation, should increase the value and desirability of

the registered artifact. If the registry is current, a prospective buyer could check the title at the registry for

verification of the owner of record. Collectors dislike
App. C—Registration and Private Ownership of Archaeological Objects ● 1 7 1

Figure C-1.—Artifact Title

Name

Address

Phone

Site Number

Location: 1/4 section ,

county

Excavator's name

Site report title *

Permit number

Artifact number

Artifact type

Condition

Culture

Period

Type

Location

Level

Depth

Associated artifacts

Map with location provided?--

Site report provided?

Photograph provided?

Date of discovery

Date of application

Signature:

owner

excavator

forgeries. We could expect that eventually registered

artifacts will become the only artifacts worth collecting. This could have the beneficial effect of drying up

the market for illicitly obtained objects. If an artifact

is not titled, one must assume that it has been unlawfully obtained.

The archaeological community and the public may

benefit in several important ways. First and foremos~

data collection and preservation are assured. The contract could also give the State or Federal government

a right of first refusal to purchase significant artifacts

at the appraised value. Furthermore, the registration,

being non-transferable, must be applied for each time

the artifact’s ownership is transferred. The resultant

fees could be used to support the registry in several

ways:

● support of the registry programs;

● administration and conservation of nontitled artifacts and site documents;

● archaeological research support; and

● archaeological site conservation.

The initial title fee and all transfer fees would support the registry, the duplication and preparation of

paperwork, and site documentation and the creation

and transmission of curation reports (i. e., papers on

how best to protect, care for, conserve, and display

specific classes of registered artifacts). Some portion

of the fee might go to the curation and care of the

artifacts, notes, and specimens recovered from the

sites and turned over to the agency for protection.

Some funding might go toward promoting research

on the recovered material (i.e., requests from licensed

archaeologists for subsidies for dendrochronological

or other research-oriented analysis). Finally, some

funding might go to nonprofit institutions dedicated

to the purchase and preservation of intact archaeological properties.

If the excavation does not turn up anything of monetary value, the archaeologist would still submit the certificate of excavation and the excavation report, samples, and artifacts, to the Registry, All recovered

material would become the responsibility of the

agency. The site owner would have lost his or her

speculative investment, but would have the important

satisfaction of having contributed to the advancement

of knowledge, for the archaeological community

would have recovered its interpretive data intact.

Since the location of all registered artifacts could be

tracked, professional needs to re-study, bring together,

or study titled materials, could always be met.

Flaws In the Plan

The plan as outlined has two basic flaws. First, the

cost of archaeological excavation is quite high, especially when compared to the usual pothunting techniques. Second, there is already a large inventory of

artifacts that must be curated.

Current personnel costs alone for planning and supervising a l-week excavation, mapping and caring

for artifacts, and writing up the report total approximately $3,000, assuming a contract cost of $200 per

day. Most excavations are likely to take much longer

and require hiring more than one individual. How are

the archaeologists to be paid for their efforts? Put

another way, how do we fund this collection of data,

as opposed to the recovery of objects only. The landowner will probably not be able to fund the excavation effort out-of-pocket. The following options present

ways in which the excavation could be funded.

Investor Funding

Speculative funding would require the organization

of a group of collectors/investors willing to share the
172 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

cost of what could be essentially construed as a treasure hunt, but conducted under controlled archaeological conditions.

Tax Incentives

Tax incentives might be provided to a site owner

permitting the deduction of archaeological expenses

incurred during legitimate site excavations. Contracted

archaeological expenses could be considered as a

legitimate business expense and could be claimed as

a loss should no artifacts of value be recovered.

Subsidies

Federal or State subsidy of archaeological work,

where upon application for a subsidy, perhaps to a

State Historic Preservation Office, the site owner

agrees to pay some portion of the excavation costs

on a sliding scale dependent on the appraised value

of recovered registered artifacts. The more value actually recovered, the less subsidy the landowner

would receive.

Offices

County archaeological offices, similar to the county

agricultural agent, could support archaeologists whose

primary function would be to supervise excavations

on private lands. The government might pay the cost

of salary and office space. Site owners would pay the

actual material costs of excavation and travel.

Volunteer Field School

Here, “field school” participants would pay for the

privilege of excavating the privately owned site, much

as they do in a number of nonprofit institutions. The

participants would pay fees that would go toward supporting the contracted archaeologist/supervisor.

Traditional Research Grants

As ownership of artifacts recovered on private lands

has never been in doubt in this country (they belong

to the landowner), the relationship of research and

research projects to private landowners remains the

same. Some landowners may wish or require principle investigators of research projects to prepare title

documents to specific artifacts that the owner wishes

to retain.

Nontraditional Grant Programs

Private industry may provide funding for the excavation of sites on private land they own for the tax

deduction that such charitable gifts may realize.

The Existing Artifact

If registered artifacts cause the trade in unregistered

artifacts to decline, those with unregistered artifacts

might be tempted to forge registration certificates, or

to “find” their artifacts in new excavations. In order

to cope with the existing open market artifacts, an

“undocumented” register classification should be created for a short period of time. This would be similar

to “foundation stock” accepted in horse and other

animal registries. T h e “undocumented” category

would serve to build the register’s initial funding base.

The initial registration fees might be increased if an

artifact owner fails to register the artifact recovered

during a legitimate excavation after a certain period

of time. This may discourage fraudulent acts (i.e.,

“seeding” of archaeological sites).

Museums faced with vast surplus collections might

title artifacts excavated 20, 30, 40 years ago and place

them on the open market, providing that a licensed

archaeologist is willing to accept the existing

documentation claims provided by the museum, college, or collection. Such an action might enable them

to earn needed extra income and help contribute to

the acceptance of registration among collectors.

The Registration Mechanism

The National Park Service has just finished developing a computerized National Catalogue for Objects.

This catalog program can run on microcomputers as

well as mini and mainframe computer systems. Additional work, adding the “transfer of ownership” portions, etc., might turn this National Catalogue into a

National Registry that could be handled by individual State offices, or by the Federal Government. State

or local registries could be combined to form a national registry where transfer of title could occur anywhere in the United States. The laminated plastic ID

card and digitized image of each object are within current levels of technology.

Conclusions

The above scenario, negotiating a compromise between the archaeological community and the public

collector, illustrates the potential management of

some portion of our artifactual heritage in a nontraditional manner–curation by the collector. The option of first refusal permits the States and Federal Government to obtain for the public any “crown-jewel”

that might be uncovered. The registration process permits perpetual tracking of significant artifacts so that

museum exhibitions and scholarly research could be

carried out.
App. C—Registration and Private Ownership of Archaeological Objects 173

The compromise as illustrated appears to benefit ing is a strong part of our culture, both in this country

both parties, Mechanisms for funding, plus the will- and abroad. Providing alternative means to own and

ingness of both sides to go along, however, will be traffic in antiquities may help reduce pothunting and

needed if this or any other kind of alternative preser- the resultant destruction of important archaeological

vation program is to work. One thing is very clear. information. The public and archaeologist could both

Trying to legislate away the at-t and artifact collector benefit.

will not curb the desire to own collections. Collect-
Appendix D

National Register Criteria

From the Introduction to:

“HOW To Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation'1

As the official list of properties significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering,

and culture, the National Register of Historic Places

was designed to be used by the general public, local

communities, State governments, and Federal agencies in their preservation planning efforts. Properties

listed in the National Register receive a limited form

of protection and certain benefits. For information

concerning the effects of listing, write the National

Park Service or any of the historic preservation offices

in the States and territories.

Criteria for Evaluation

The criteria are the National Register’s standards for

evaluating the significance of properties. The criteria

are designed to guide the States, Federal agencies, the

Secretary of the Interior and others in evaluating potential entries (other than areas of the National Park

System and National Historic Landmarks) for the National Register.

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. that are associated with events that have made

a significant contribution to the broad patterns

of our history; or

B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of

type, period, or method of construction, or that

represent the work of a master, or that possess

high artistic values, or that represent a significant

and distinguishable entity whose components

may lack individual distinction; or

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

‘Washington, DC, for the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, June 1984.

Criteria Considerations

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that

have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved

significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However,

such properties will qualify if they are integral parts

of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within

the following categories:

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

F,

G.

a religious property deriving primary significance

from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or

a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for

architectural value, or which is the surviving

structure most importantly associated with a

historic person or event; or

a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his

productive life; or

a cemetery which derives its primary significance

from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features,

or from association with historic events; or

a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented

in a dignified manner as part of a restoration

master plan, and when no other building or

structure with the same association has survived;

or

a property primarily commemorative in intent

if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has

invested it with its own historical significance; or

a property achieving significance within the past

50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

174
Appendix E

National Register of Historic Places

Inventory-Nomination Form

1. Name

historic — .

and or common

2. Location

street & number — not for publication

city, town — vicinity of ———— —

state code countv code

3. Classification

Category Ownership status

— district public — occupied

— building(s) — private — unoccupied

— structure — both — work in progress

— sit e Public Acquisition Accessible

— object — in process — yes: restricted

— being considered _. yes: unrestricted

— n o

Present Use

— agriculture — museum

— commercial — park

— educational — private residence

— entertainment — religious

— government — scientific

— industrial — transportation

— military — other:

4. Owner of Property

name

street & number

.—.—— .

city, town —. vicinity of state

5. Location of Legal Description

courthouse, registry of deeds, etc.

street & number — —

citv, town state

6. Representation in Existing Surveys

title has this property been determined eligible? ——.

yes no — —

date federal state county local

depository for survey records

city, town state —. — — . —

175
176 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

7. Description

Condition Check one Check one

—— excellent _ deteriorated unaltered original site

— good ruins — _ altered moved date

— fair

—

— unexposed

—— . —. —.

Describe the present ● nd original (if known) physical ● ppearance

—

8. Significance

Period Areas of Significance-Check ● nd justify below

prehistoric

1400-49 9

1 50&l 599

1600-1699

170Q-1 799

– 180&189 9

— 190 &

-—

Specific dates

archeology-prehistoric community plannlng landscape architecture religion

archeology-historic conservation law science

agriculture – economics literature sculpture

architecture education military

art

social~

— engineering ——— music humanitarian

commerce — explorations/settlement -- philosophy theater

communications industry — - politics/government — transportation

– invention _ other (specify)

. -. — —— — --

Builder Architect ——— -.. . — —. -. —————- . —.

Statement of Significance (in one paragraph)
App. E—National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form ● 177

9. Major Bibliographical References

10. Geographical Data

Acreage of nominated property~

Qadrangle name Quadrangle scale ___

B w

Zone

Verbal boundary description ● nd justification

List ● all states and counties for proportion overlapping state or county boundaries

— ..-——

state code county code

state code county code

11. Form Prepared By

name/title

organization date

street & number telephone —

city or town state

12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification

The evaluated significance of this property within the state is:

— national — . state — local

As the deslgnated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89

665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated

according to the criteria ● nd procedures sot forth by the National Park Service.

State Historic Preservation Officer signature

title date

For NPS use onty

I hereby certify that this property Is Included in the National Register

date

Keeper of the National Register

Attest : date

Chief of Registration
Appendix F

U.S. National Park Service

Cultural Programs1

INTERAGENCY

RESOURCES

w

HISTORY

a

PRESERVATION

ASSISTANCE

~ a

I

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ARCHEOLOGY

ANTHROPOLOGY ARCHEOLOGICAL

& ~ ~

Management of Submerged Cultural technical assistance and project supervision to park

Resources in the National Park managers in meeting their needs for the conservation,

System management, protection, and visitor appreciation of

submerged cultural resources in units of the National

The Submerged Cultural Resources Unit was estab- Park System. In addition, the unit provides profesIished by the Service in 1979 at the Southwest Re- sional assistance to the Chief Anthropologist, Washgional office with the servicewide mission to provide ington Area Service Office (WASO) in developing policy, guidelines and program standards.

The unit staff consist; of a chief, two cultural re-

‘OTA requested the National Park Service to provide additional information for the report. The Office of Cultural Programs kindly provided these sources specialists, one diving technician, and a sec -

summaries of some of their programs in cultural resource management. retary. The chief and operations staff are certified

178
App. F—U.S. National Park Service Cultural Programs ● 179

scuba divers. All project work is identified by park

management and requested through the region needing the services of the unit. Staff salaries come from

Cultural Resources Preservation Program, but all costs

of project work are paid by the requesting park or its

region. With management approval, reimbursable

project work for other agencies or institutions can be

arranged with the provision that park work takes priority. The unit is under the line supervision of the Regional Director, Southwest Region who should be

contacted concerning services of the unit. The Chief

Anthropologist, WASO, provides program oversight

and works closely with the Regional Director concerning the servicewide aspects of the program.

The project work of the unit is multidisciplinary,

needing the involvement of historians, curators, historical architects, park rangers and technicians, and

park maintenance staff. The unit’s staff are archaeologists. As part of their work in the parks, the unit not

only identifies, evaluates, and provides national register nominations of submerged park cultural resources but also trains park rangers in the techniques

of submerged cultural resources surveys, visitor safety

while wreck-diving, hazard assessment, wreck interpretation, and similar park-based, visitor-oriented

activities. When the unit leaves a park after a project,

the park manager has a staff trained to carry out the

responsibilities for the management, preservation, and

visitor protection and visitor use of submerged cultural resources.

Project work has included underwater surveys at Isle

Royale National Park, Biscayne National Park, Point

Reyes National Seashore, Assateague Island National

Seashore, War in the Pacific National Historical Park,

and the U.S. S. Arizona Memorial.

In addition to the above activities and projects of

the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, the National

Park Service, under Interagency Agreement lA-0773-

4-8004, provides professional assistance to the Marine

Sanctuary Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concerning the conservation and management of submerged cultural resources

in marine sanctuaries.

National Park Service Activities

in Remote Sensing

The National park Service (NPS) utilizes a wide

range of remote sensing methods and techniques to

identify, record, and evaluate cultural resources. Remote sensing technology is a valuable tool used by

archaeologists, historical architects, and other NPS

specialists to obtain information about the location;

nature; and characteristics of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, and generally in a nondestructive

manner. However, the National Park Service does not

have a formal program in remote sensing, per se. instead, the methods and techniques of remote sensing are applied as needed to obtain information for

cultural resources studies, management, and planning.

Remote sensing applications include the use of magnetometers, radar, metal detectors, and resistivity

equipment, for example, to define subsurface terrestrial anomalies; multispectral aerial photography to define vegetational, Iandform, and soil patterns, and to

develop maps of terrain and cultural sites and features;

assorted equipment such as side-scan sonar, magnetometers, and sub-bottom profilers for underwater

investigations; and hand-held still photograph and

video cameras for recording archaeological sites,

buildings, objects, and other cultural phenomena. Remote sensing technology is regularly employed by

NPS personnel or specialists under contract in many

of the 10 National Park Service regions, including staff

at our several archaeological centers, and the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit.

National Park Service Activities

in Landscape Preservation

The National Park Service has taken the lead in coordinating a program for landscape preservation and

has initiated a number of projects. We have worked

with Congressman John Sieberling and his staff for

changes in the Olmsted bill that the Service can support; the bill awaits passage in the Senate.

NPS is also working with the American Society of

Landscape Architects (ASLA), the National Association

of Olmsted Parks (NAOP), and others in their efforts

to inventory and nominate landscapes to the National

Register. Inventory forms, prepared jointly by NPS,

NAOP, ASLA, and a number of State Historical Preservation Offices (SHPOs), have been distributed to all

Federal Preservation Officers and SHPOs. A “HowTo” bulletin on nominating designed landscapes to

the National Register was prepared by Timothy Keller,

ASLA, and is in the final stages of completion.

Next year, we expect to prepare a “How-To” bulletin on nominating vernacular landscapes to the National Register. This will be based on the handbook

Cultural Landscapes–Rural Historic Districts in the

National Park System. A model nomination to the National Register is being prepared by Tom Kane, FASLA,

with funding from the National Endowment for the

Arts. Shary Berg, site manager of Olmsted National

Historic Site and the NAOP are preparing a model

nomination form for designating landscapes as National Historic Landmarks.
180 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Activity within the Washington Office of the National Park Service includes work on a subset database on landscapes and reports about landscapes in

the National Park system prepared by the Park Historic Architecture Division. The Historic American

Buildings Survey is developing methods for recording

landscapes. Last year, they recorded the designed

landscape at Meridian Hill Park (Washington, DC),

and this year will be recording the vernacular landscape and historic scene at Antietam National Battlefield.

Cultural Landscape definitions and guidelines for

preparing Cultural Landscapes Reports are now published in NPS-28, Guideline for Cultural Resource

Management. Revisions of the NPS Management Policies, now in draft, contain new sections on landscape

preservation, including identification, evaluation, protection, and treatment.

The National Park Service has sponsored and participated in a number of seminars, workshops, and

training sessions, including the NCSHPO annual meeting in March 1985; Office of Technology Assessment

meetings in Februrary 1985 and April 1986; the NPS

Landscape Preservation Field School held in March

1985 and April 1986; and the NPS Science Conference in July 1986 (with major involvement with natural scientists on vegetation management issues).

The National Park Service also has several projects

planned for the future, including the development of

definitions of “Historical Landscape Architect” and

the preparation of “Tech Notes” on landscape preservation.

NPS invites discussion on what impact landscape

preservation policy has on land use policy and agricultural economics, and on what NPS’S role in rural

preservation should be beyond listing rural historic districts on the National Register. For further information

on landscape preservation, contact Hugh Miller,

Chief, Park Historic Architecture Division.

NPS Tasks for Landscape Preservation

Programs

Task 1: Develop Bibliography of Past NPS Reports

on Historic Landscapes. This has been done and is

ongoing.

Task 2: Develop a Model Cultural Landscape Report. Several reports are now in progress.

Task 3: Organize and Conduct Historic Landscapes

Workshop in Conjunction With the NCSHPO Meeting. This took place. NPS is willing to do more.

Task 4: Assure that The Landscapes Inventory Is

Compatible With the List of Classified Structures. This

has been done and NPS is now working on the second generation of information, coordinating with the

National Register.

Task 5: Develop Several Model National Register

Nominations for Historic Landscapes. This is in

progress.

Task 6: Develop “How To” Technical Bulletin

Showing How To Nominate Historic Landscapes to

the National Register. This is complete and should be

distributed soon.

Task 7: Research Past NPS Guidance for Historic

Landscape Terminology; Make Recommendations

Concerning Development of a Glossary. The research

is done and the glossary is in NPS-28.

Task 8: Develop a Model National Historic Landmark Nomination on an Historic Landscape. This has

begun by volunteers.

Task 9: Develop a Technical Bulletin Showing How

To Document Historic Landscapes to HABS/HAER

Standards. Two wetlands projects are being done.

Task 10: Develop a Definition of “Historical Landscape Architect” Comparable to the Other Discipline

Standards Used in Cultural Resources. NPS has begun this definition.

Task 11: Develop Several Tech Notes on Historic

Landscape Subjects. NPS has not yet started this task.

Task 12: Encourage States and Federal Agencies To

Inventory Historic Landscapes and Include Them in

the State and Federal Inventories of Historic Properties. NPS has done this and will continue to encourage

such inventories.
App. F—U.S. National Park Service Cultural Programs “ 181

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DESIGNED HISTORIC

LANDSCAPES NATIONAL LANDSCAPE SURVEY FORM 1985

10 LOCATION

Control Number

Historic

Common

2. LOCATION USGS Quadrangle Acreage

City~ Town State

Zip Code county Congressional District

UTM Coordinates

3. OWNER OF PROPERTY (If group or government agency, give contact.)

Name Phone

Street Address

City/Town State Zip Code

Pertinent Information

4. DESIGNED LANDSCAPE TYPE Check

Residence

Monument

Park

‘Fort

50 LANDSCAPE

Ownership:

Garden Estate

‘Botanical Garden

category(s) for landscape surveyed.

Public Building Institution

‘Square or Commons Streetcape

‘Park System City/Town Plan

‘Pond/Canal/Water~eature

STATUS Please describe as required

Public Private

Public Acquisition: Considered In Progress

Access: Unrestricted Restricted No Access

below.

Other, please note

Not Considered

Status: Safe Endangered Preservation Action Needed

Preservation action undertaken, describe

Further Information:

6. LANDSCAPE ADDRESS AND BOUNDARY INFORMATION

Specific Location (Street, road, features comprising the boundary

Location of legal description. Give contact person, if known.

Courthouse/Registry of deeds

Street Address City\Town

&

7. REPRESENTATION IN OTHER SURVEYS Yes or No,

National Register National Landmark

Please explain.

-State Designation

Local Designation Other

Title of Survey and Depository of Survey Records
182 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

8. HISTORIC INFORMATION Check and complete wherever possible.

Original landscape architect name(s)

Alteration\addition landscape arch. Names(s)

‘Original gardner name(s)

‘Builder/engineer name(s)

‘Client name(s)

Date(s) of construction b

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY Give pertinent facts about construction,

subsequent changes, events, notable occurrences:

9. DESCRIPTION: Begin with overall description, then note specifics.

Condition Excellent Changes Unaltered

‘Good Altered

‘Fair ‘Added to

‘Deteriorated —Loss, removal

Severely deteriorated Encroached upon

DESCRIBE EXISTING CONDITIONS Emphasize landscape features, attach

plan at 1" = 20' or 1" = 1OO'. Include a minimum of two photographs

of significant views and features with location and direction of

view noted on plan:

10. INTEGRITY Do these categories exist as in the historic

landscape?

—

Original design Original property boundary Design intent

‘Spatial relationships Topography/Grading —

Vegetation

‘Architectural features —Site furnishings Circulation systems

STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY Describe the degree to which the overall

landscape and its significant features are present today. Explain

categories of integrity noted above and any others that apply:

11. SIGNIFICANCE Note reasons landscape is historically important.

Historic association with person, group, event

‘Historic signif. in landscape design Unique regional expression

‘Historic signif in culture ‘Important landmark

‘Work of recognized master Example of particular style

‘Important artistic statement ‘Example of particular type

‘Example of fine craftsmanship ‘Example of particular time

‘Use of unique materials ‘Example of time sequence

‘Other verifiable quality
App. F—U.S. National Park Service Cultural Programs . 183

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Explain categories of significance noted

above:

12. SOURCES FOR INFORMATION: Note sources used in survey with an *.

Local repositories (name, address, type of material)

Non-local sources of documents (same as above)

Bibliography of major published sources:

13. FORM PREPARATION Date

Name(s) Phone

Street address

City/town State Zip code

INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS, PLANS, AND MAPS FOR FULL INFORMATION. FOR

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS-ADD SEPARATE PAGE, USE CATEGORY NUMBERS AS KEY.
Appendix G

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Established by the National Historic Preservation

Act, this independent agency functions to improve the

effectiveness and coordination of public and private

efforts in historic preservation. in the realm of Federal

activities it advises on policy, recommends guidelines,

and reviews and comments on Federal undertakings

which have an impact on significant properties. The

Advisory Council consists of 19 members including

other agency heads, historic preservation experts, a

governor, a mayor, and individuals from the general

public, and has staff working in offices for Policy and

Program Development and for Cultural Resource Preservation. The Council consults with agencies to help

them ensure the goals of historic preservation in their

activities, and advises the President and Congress on

preservation matters in annual reports and in special

reports and studies.

One of the most important functions of the agency

is mediating between any Federal agency planning an

action which threatens a significant property and a local representative concerned with the potential loss

of the property. Under the terms of Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, the Council seeks

to negotiate a memorandum of agreement in such

cases, setting forth what will be done to reduce or

avoid any adverse effects the undertaking will have.

The consulting parties are at minimum the Federal

agency planning an action, the Council, and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer. Current

standards and regulations, however, make the mediating function available only when the property is included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No clear mechanism exists for cases

where Federal actions have an impact on intangible

cultural resources that are not somehow linked to

historic properties.

SOURCE: Cultural Conservation: The Protection of Cultural Heritage in the

United States (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1983),

184

Index

Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1985, 6, 15, 145

Acid environment

monitoring, 91

as threat to cultural resources, 85

Acid rain, 85

Admiralty law, 145

Adobe

conservation of, 96-97

stabilizing, 92-93

Adopt-a-site, 103

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 10-11, 133,

138, 139n, 157

Aerial photography, 17, 38, 44-45

effective use of, research needed on, 47-48

historical use of, for monitoring site condition through

time, 48

Afro-American Communities Project, 108

Alarm systems, in security efforts, 104

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 6

Alcatraz, 96

Alexandria Urban Archaeology Program, Alexandria,

VA, 122

Alvin, 59

American Folklife Center, 123

American Folklife Preservation Act of 1976, 6

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 6, 147

American Society of Landscape Architects, Historic Preservation Committee, 14, 147

American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54

Analysis phase, of preservation process, 43

technologies for, 18, 21, 59-70

Anasazi sites, 83, 86, 92, 92n, 101, 143n

Antiquities Act of 1906, 5n, 6, 29

Arboretums, 23

Archaeoastronomy, 37n

Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974,

6, 29

Archaeological research, 43

Archaeological resources, State surveys of, 148

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 6, 15,

29, 126, 140

implementation, strengthening, 142-143

Archaeological site(s). See a/so Excavation(s)

avoidance of, 93

burial, 93

as protective measure, 101

data collection at, 71

definition of, 30n

inspection, 60

remote sensing applied to, 44, 47

sampling and evaluation for excavation, 60

stabilizing, technologies for, 91

technologies for preserving, OTA workshop on, 6,

30-31

types, 30-31

Archaeology. See a/so Underwater archaeology

avocational interest in, support for, 143

computer technology for, 137n

conservation, protection, and maintenance practices,

92-93

data recording, improving, 71

definition, 30

historic, 30

historic aerial photography used in, 48

issues in, 70-72

prehistoric, 30

and preservation of historic structures and landscapes, 8

issues, 35

sample collection, improving, 71

training in advanced technologies for, 151

Archaeomagnetic dating, 18, 21, 31n, 59, 67, 68

Architectural plans, preservation of, 117

Architectural record system, computerized, 118

Architecture

and archaeology, 35

and structural conservation, graduate education in, 151

Archival phase, of preservation process

technologies, 18

Archival research, 16, 43-44

technologies for, 107-109

Archives, for preservation, development, Federal Government’s role in, 140

Argo, 5 9

Arson, 23

Artifacts

permanent affixation of, 102

preservation of, 89

stolen, Federal policy for, 140

Association for Preservation Technology, 152

Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, 137

Atlantic, 58

Awards program, in preservation, 142

Bar codes, for characterizing artifacts, 71

Barriers, in site protection, 101

Bentonite Slurry Trench method, 99

BIBSCAPE, 115

BIODEX Southwest, 108

BIOFILE Southwest, 108

Bird control technologies, 11

Boston University, Center for Remote Sensing, 54n

Botanical technology, 100

Braille, 125

Brick, conservation of, 96-97

Brooklyn Bridge, 8

Building Inventory Inspection Program, 151

Building materials

education about, 151

historic, knowledge gaps about, 72-73

physical analysis of, 73

substitute, in restoration, 99

Building practices, as threat to structures, 88

Buildings

historic

189
190 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

misapplication and nonapplication of technologies

to, 95-96

and modern code requirements, 99

interpretive presentations of, 130

modern, misapplication and nonapplication of technologies to, 96

Bureau of Land Management, 101-102

Business, contributions to historic preservation, 153

CADD. See Computer-aided design/drafting

Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, IL, 126

Carbon-14 dating. See Radiocarbon dating

Carson House, Eureka, CA, 24

Catastrophic loss, protection from, 23

Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980, 6

Certified Local Governments, 11, 76, 133-134

Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, NM, 60, 61, 92

Chemical analysis, in discovery, 62-63

Clara Barton House, Glen Echo, MD, 130

Close-range inspection, 18

Code of Federal Regulations, references to prehistoric

and historic preservation, 6

Coffer dams, 70

Colonial Williamsburg, VA, 61

Columbia University School of Architecture, Center for

Preservation Research, 151

Community awareness, in historic preservation, 125-126

Computer-aided design/drafting, 90-91

Computer image analysis, in photogrammetry, 53-54

Computers

adaptation of known technologies to, 79

application to preservation information needs, impediments to, 115

in archaeology, 137n

expert systems, 110-111

in Geographic Information Systems, 63-67

in identification and survey, 44

in management of restoration and rehabilitation,

90-91

networks, 110

for preservation information, 110-111

in public education, 123

role in prehistoric and historic preservation, 39

Concrete, durable, 111n. See a/so Reinforced concrete

Conservation phase, of preservation process, 39

technologies for, 21-23

traditional technologies in, 37

Construction, as threat to cultural resources, 84

Construction techniques, and preservation problems, 22

Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, 6,

16, 86, 141

Cooperative Preservation of Architectural Records, 113

COPAR. See Cooperative Preservation of Architectural

Records Costs, 154-158

and economic values, 156-157

and maintenance, 156

reducing, 157-158

of remote sensing technologies, 49

Craftspeople, training of, 153

CRBIB. See Cultural Resources Management Bibliography

Crow Canyon Center for Southwestern Archaeology,

Cortez, CO, 121-122

Cultural heritage, U. S., preservation of, economic

benefits, 9

Cultural Resource Assistance Information Network, 152

Cultural resources

deliberate destruction, protection from, 101-104

Federal agencies’ inventory of preservation needs and

implementation plans, proposal for, 139

Federal management of, 13-14, 138-139

improving, 13-14

human threats to, 84-87

illicit trade in, Federal policy for, 140-142

inventory of, 101

loss of, 83

management, 72

foreign policies on, 138

inadequacies, as threat to resources, 85

issues, 34-35

remote sensing in, 54

monitoring, 91-92

natural threats to, 84, 87-88

prehistoric and historic, independent agency for, proposed, 139

preservation of, 5, 83

protection of, Federal policy on, 15-16

research and management process, 16

Cultural Resources Management Bibliography, 112-113

Cylinder recordings, 117

Databases

database of, proposed, 111

design, 152

development of, 109

Federal Government’s role in, 140

from individual projects, storage of, 109

keyword retrieval systems, 108

national, for historic preservation, 116

for preservation information, 111-115

Federal, 111

non-Federal, 113-114

State, 113-114

and research costs, 157

specialized, centralized database of, 116

standardized formats, need for, 115-116

technical, 116

centralized, 140

Dating techniques, 18, 21, 67-69

Decay counting, 67

methods, 67n

DEEP DRONE, 59

Deep sea diving, 69

Defence, 95

Delorme, Philibert, 62

Dendrochronology, 18, 67, 68

Denver Museum of Natural History, 127n
Index ● 1 9 1

Department of the Interior

Assistant Secretary for Natural and Cultural Resources,

proposed, 13, 139

in management of cultural resources, 13

Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 6

Discovery phase, of preservation process, 16-20, 43

technologies for, 43-59

traditional technologies in, 37

Documentary Relations of Southwest project, 108

Documentation phase, of preservation process, 17-18, 43

technologies for, 59-70, 60

traditional technologies in, 37

Document copying, 117

Document preservation, 117

Earthen mounds, 88

Earthquake zones

preservation challenges in, 98-99

protecting structures in, 23

Earth sciences, in preservation and management of cultural resources, 68-69

Earthworks, 48, 51

prehistoric, 33

EAVE-EAST, 70n

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, 157

Education. See a/so Public education

Federal programs for, 142

of preservationists, 35

in site monitoring, 91

Eisenhower National Historical Site, 85

Electromagnetic spectrum, 46

Electronic media, in public education, 123-124

Electronic monitoring, in protection of cultural resources, 103-104

Electronic position finder, 44, 57

Embodied energy, 157

Engineering, in providing technologies for preservation, 44

Environmental monitoring, 99

Erosion, 39, 84

aerial photography used to study, 48

reducing, technologies for, 91

stream bank, mechanisms, 88

as threat to cultural resources, 87-88

Evaluation phase, of preservation process, technologies for, 20

Excavation(s), 20

as last resort, 70-71

numbers of, 31 n

remote sensing of sites for, 47

technologies for, 60

underwater, technologies for, 70

Executive Order 11593, 6

Exfoliating forces, 96

Exfoliation, on marble, 73

Expert systems, 110-111

Federal Center for Preservation Technology, 12, 13, 139

recommendation for, 38-39, 135-137

Federal cultural programs, management agency, proposed, 139

Federal Government, role in prehistoric and historic

preservation, 133

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 5n

Federal preservation budget, 134-135

Federal preservation policy, 10-16, 39, 134-148

and collection of cost/benefit statistics, 156

improvements to, 139

lack of agency coordination, 22

Fencing, in site protection, 101-102

Festivals, historic, 126

Fieldwork records, 115

Finding aids, development of, 109

Findley Homestead, Dallas County, 1A, 79

Fission track dating, 67

Florida State Conservation Laboratory, 149

Frederick Law Olmsted Historic Site, Brookline, MA, 123

Funding

Federal, 149

of historic preservation, 134

Gamma-ray inspection, 21, 44

Gardens, 23

GEOFILE Southwest, 108

Geographic Information Systems, 18, 19, 47, 77

computerized, 63-67

regional centers, 66-67

Geographical Resources Analysis Support System, 64

Geomorphology, in dating techniques, 68-69

Georadar, 17

Georgia Institute of Technology, Center for Architectural

Conservation, 151-153

Getty Museum, computerized database, 114

GIS. See Geographic Information Systems

GRASS. See Geographical Resources Analysis Support

System

Groundwater levels, 99

Gulf Islands National Seashore, 74

Gunston Hall, 61, 62

HABS. See Historic American Buildings Survey

HAER. See Historic American Engineering Record

Handicapped access, to cultural resources, 124-125

High-tech solutions, 36

Historical research, 43

Historic American Buildings Survey, 113, 138, 144, 149

Historic American Engineering Record, 113, 138

Historic American Merchant Marine Survey, 144

Historic preservation. See a/so Prehistoric and historic

preservation

avocational interest in, support for, 143

developing additional support for, 157-158

improving Federal agencies’ coordination and

information-sharing, proposal for, 139-140

integration into university programs, 152

interdisciplinary approaches, 7

legislation, 6

public support for, in U. S., 7

standards and guidelines for, 6

Historic Preservation Fund, 133, 149
192 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Historic Sites Act of 1935, 6, 29

Horticultural technology, 100

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Public Lands, 5, 29

ICCROM. See International Centre for the Study of the

Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property

ICOMOS. See International Council on Monuments and

Sites

Identification, 43. See a/so Discovery phase, of preservation

process

technologies for, 44

IMACS. See Intermountain Antiquities Computer System

imaging radar, 17, 19

Incinerator Site, Dayton, OH, 127

Industry, contributions to historic preservation, 153

Informants, in protection of cultural resources, 103

Information. See a/so Preservation information

about new technologies, problems obtaining, 35

flow of, 23-24

in management of cultural resources, 87

noncomputerized, maintaining, 118

written and graphic, for public education, 122

Information storage and retrieval, 23, 39

Information systems, 18

automated, 19

Infrared inspection, 17, 20, 38, 44, 61-62

Infrared moisture detection, 62

Inspection, of archaeological site(s), 60-62

Intermountain Antiquities Computer System, 113

Internal Revenue Service, 10, 135

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation

and Restoration of Cultural Property, 37, 114

International Council on Monuments and Sites, 9, 37

Interpretation, accessible, 124-125

Interpreters, in public education programs, 122-123

Interpretive labels, 122

Interpretive signs, 122

use of, 102

Interpretive structures, 124

Interviewing. See Oral histories

Intrusion detectors, 103

Ion counting, 67

Iron, physical analysis, technologies for, 66

Isle Royale National Park, Lake Superior, Michigan, 15

Jason, Jr., 59

Kings Mountain National Military Park, SC, 124

Koster site, 59

Landsat satellite, 45, 47n

Landscape architecture

and archaeology, 35

preservation of documents in, 117

Landscape records, 76

Landscapes

analysis and evaluation of

technologies for, 21

use of GIS for, 66

application of technologies to, appropriateness of, 77

conservation and restoration decisions, 99-100

cultural, 33, 34

technologies applicable to, 77-78

databases on, 115

definitions, 33, 33n

designed, 34

restoration of, 89

technologies applicable to, 78

designing access to, 125

different sizes of, different technologies applicable to, 77-78

historic

categories of, 75

identifying, 74

public education about, 127

value and significance of, educating constituencies

about, 74-76

historic and prehistoric, survey of, 14

identification of, 147

issues about, 74-75

management, 100

national preservation policy, 146-148

nomination to National Register of Historic Places, 20

planned, 34

technologies for, OTA workshop on, 6, 33-34

preservation and restoration

standards for, 148

university programs for, 152

remote sensing applied to, 44

stabilizing, technologies for, 91

State surveys of, 149

stresses on, and change, 76-77

studying

foreign technologies for, 38

interdisciplinary nature of, 76

qualitative techniques, 79

survey of, 74, 147

threats to, 84

types, 33-34

vernacular, 34n

wilderness, 33-34

Law enforcement, 83, 142-143

in protecting cultural resources, 23, 103

Library of Congress, 107

Committee for the Preservation of Architectural

Records, 118

databases, 113

for historic preservation, 116

information about landscapes, 115

Optical Disk Pilot Program, 113, 116n

survey of architecture of South, 117

Lidar, 44

Lifting balloon, 69

Limestone, preservation of, 89n

List of Classified Structures, 112-113

Listening devices, in security efforts, 104

Living history, 126

Local governments, historic preservation policy, 148

Looting, 5n, 15, 23, 25, 39, 51n, 71, 84, 101, 102, 126
Index ● 1 9 3

Federal policy for, 140-142

as threat to cultural resources, 85-87

Louisiana plantation houses, 96

Louisiana’s public education strategies for a

127-129

Low-tech solutions, 11, 16

MACO 35/70 Analytic Stereoplotter (H. Del

52n, 5 3

Magnetic detection, 44

Magnetic disks, for archival purposes, 117n

archaeology,

Foster),

Magnetic tapes, for archival “purposes, 117n

Magnetometer, 17, 44, 57, 60. See a/so Proton magnetometer

underwater, 17, 58

Magnetometry, 38

underwater, 19, 69

Maintenance phase, of preservation process, 21, 39

and costs, 156

Federal programs for, proposal for, 139

inadequate, as threat to cultural resources, 85

information on, keeping records of, 99

systematic, long-term, 89-90

technologies for, 21-23

Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955, 6

Marble

erosion of, 85

exfoliation of gypsum crust, 73

Maritime preservation, 10, 38

Federal agencies with major roles in, 144

information, preservation, 118

private sector contributions to, 155

public education about, 123

technologies for, OTA workshop on, 6, 31-32

Mary Rose preservation project, 38, 94

Masonry. See a/so Reinforced concrete

conservation, 96-97

damage to, 73

physical analysis, technologies for, 64

unreinforced, preservation challenges, 98-99

whitewashing, to prevent moisture damage, 96

Masonry buildings, historic, census of, 113, 152

Masonry Research Institute Foundation, 152

Massachusetts Association of Olmsted Parks, 14

Maya carvings, 89n

Measured drawings, 38

Measurement phase, of preservation process, technologies for, 20

Merchants Exchange, Independence National Historic

Park, Philadelphia, PA, 85

Metal detectors, 17, 51

Metals, conservation of, 97-98

Microcomputer databases, 113

Mimbres sites, 5n, 83

Minerals Management Service, 118

Minute Man National Historical Park, Concord, MA, 84

Mission Espada, San Antonio, TX, 53

Moisture

control, with masonry, 96

monitoring, 91

as threat to cultural resources, 88

Monarch, 1 5

Monitor preservation project, 38, 57, 59, 94, 124, 136,

144n, 146

Monk’s Mound, 88

Monticello, 33n, 100

dome of, X-ray inspection, 62

Monuments, permanent affixation of, 102

Mortar, stabilizing, 92, 92n

MOSS/MAPS, 64

Mount Dardon, 77

Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union, 32

Mule Canyon Ruin, 125

Multispectral scanners, 17, 44

for aircraft, 45-46

for spacecraft, 45

spectrum used by, 46

Museums, in public education, 25, 127

NASA

Earth Resources Laboratory, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi,

53, 54

Remote Sensing Applications Program, 136

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. See

NASA

National Archaeological Database, 111

National Archives and Records Administration, 107-108

database, for historic preservation, 116

National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 152

National Association of Corrosion Engineers/National

Bureau of Standards, computerized database,

114

National Association of Olmsted Parks, 14

National Astronomical Observatories, 12, 137

National Building Museum, 138

National Bureau of Standards, Center for Building Technology, 73, 74, 96, 136

National Center for Preservation Technology, proposed,

12, 137

National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards, 136

National Endowment for the Arts, 13, 139

National Endowment for the Humanities, 13, 139

National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of

1980, 6

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 5, 6, 10-11,

13, 29, 32, 112, 133, 138, 139, 142, 146, 148

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Amendments of 1980, 29, 138, 143n, 149

National Historic Preservation Trust Act of 1949, 6,

134n

National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Property, Inc., 156

National Institute of Building Sciences, 136

National Institute of Conservation, 152

National Museum of Building Arts, 11

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 136,

144n

Sanctuary Programs Division, 146

and underwater archaeology, 145
194 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

National Park Service, 107, 140n, 156

Cultural Programs, 133

database on preservation information, 140

educational programs, 121, 123, 130

information on landscapes, 115

landscape preservation efforts, 147-148

in landscape survey, 14

in management of cultural resources, 138

National Capitol Regional Center for Urban Ecology,

100

noncomputerized information, maintenance of, 118

Preservation Assistance Division, 135

preservation databases, 111-113

reports on technologies for historic structures, 137n

research on stabilization of structures, 92

responsibilities for prehistoric and historic preservation, 13

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 124n, 144n, 146

technical publications on protecting historic buildings,

135

National Park Service Organic Act, 6

National Register of Historic Places, 10, 32, 112, 133,

147, 149

landscapes incorporated into, 20, 74, 76, 148

National Register Information System, 111, 114

nominating shipwrecks to, 144

National Science Foundation, Archaeometry Program,

136

National Technical Information Service, 107

National Trust for Historic Preservation, 11, 134, 138,

144-145

sponsorship of technical education and research,

152-153

National Union Index to Architectural Records, 113

Native Americans, 121, 147

Natural sciences, in providing technologies for preservation, 44

NCSHPO, 116

Neutron/gamma-ray spectroscopy, 18, 20

of archaeological site(s), 60-61

Newark Earth Works, Newark, OH, 48

New Jersey Memorial, Valley Forge, PA, 98

Obsidian hydration dating, 18, 59, 67

Oceanographic institutions, 155

Ohio, Old House Doctor Clinics, 150

Old House Journal 152

Old Post Office, Washington, DC, 130

Olmsted Act. See Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act of

1985

Olmsted firms, parks designed by, 14, 14n

Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act of 1985, 6, 14, 147

Olmsted properties, 123

Optical character reader, 19n, 23, 108

Optical digitizer, 47

Optical disk technology, 18, 20, 23, 108

for conservation of records, 117

for preservation information, 109-110

for public education, 25, 123

for survey and identification, 54

Optical scanners, for specific preservation needs, 49

Oral histories, 43-44

Orthophotographic techniques, in archaeological data

recording, 71

OTA workshops, 30. See also specific workshop topic

Outdoor sites, technologies for preserving, OTA workshop on, 6, 33-34

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 6

Paca House and Garden, Annapolis, MD, 77, 78, 84n

Parks, 99-100

Patrols, of sites, as protection measure, 103

Petroglyphs, 22n, 93, 129

Photogrammetry, 17, 20, 38, 44

architectural, 53-54

computer image analysis, 53-54

for recording and measurement, 20

stereo, traditional methods, 52

stereo analytic systems for, 52-53

terrestrial, 45

used in discovery, 52-54

Photography, 44. See a/so Aerial photography

in archaeological data recording, 71

in discovery, 17

terrestrial, 44

used in discovery, 52-54

Photo-theodolite, 52

Physical analysis, in discovery, 62-63

Pictographs, 22n

Plants, historic, 23, 78, 100

Point Reyes National Seashore, 56

Polyethylene glycol, 94

Potassium-argon dating, 67

Pothunters, 103, 126

Precision fathometers, 44, 57

Predictive locational modeling, 17, 19, 66

in protection of cultural resources, 101

for survey and identification, 54-56

Prehistoric and historic periods, delineation between,

30n

Prehistoric and historic preservation

applying technologies in

Federal policy on, 11-12

Federal role in, 135

contribution to quality of life, 9-10

representative disciplines participating in, 31

standards, policy options for, 136-137

training for, 136

transfer of technology from other fields to, 9

Preservation information

central office for collection and dissemination of, proposal for, 140

sources, 107

technologies for, 109-111

Preservation issues, 34-38

Preservation process, 16-25

Preservation Tax Incentives Program, 157

Preservation technologies

application, impediments to, 8-9, 11, 13

collection and dissemination of information about,
Index ● 1 9 5

Federal policy options for, 137

cost benefits, 156

definition, 5, 29

Federal efforts toward application of, proposal for,

140

foreign, 9

transfer to U. S., 37-38

new

coordination of use of, 36-37

difficulties of integration, 37

difficulty in obtaining information about, 35

professionals problems obtaining information about,

35

nontechnical constraints on use of, 29-30

older, difficulties in application of, 37

sharing of, 74

standards for, 36

traditional, continued utility of, 37

Preservation Technology Board, 12

Federal policy option for creation of, 137-138

Private sector, contribution to historic preservation,

150-154

Professional societies

contribution to historic preservation, 150

with interest in prehistoric and historic preservation,

154

Prospect park, 103

Protection, of prehistoric and historic sites, 39

Federal programs for, proposal for, 139

public education about, 127

technologies for, OTA workshop on, 6, 34

Protection laws, State, 150

Proton magnetometer, 50, 51

Provenance, principle of, 108

public education, 39

importance to protection of cultural resources, 121,

126-127

about preservation process, 25

restoration and conservation techniques in, 127-130

State and local efforts toward, 150

Public lands

access to, as threat to cultural resources, 87

affecting public attitudes toward, 126

loss of artifacts from, 86

management, 5, 5n

relic hunters on, 51. See a/so Pothunters

Public Law 59-209. See Antiquities Act of 1906

Public Law 74-292. See Historic Sites Act of 1935

Public Law 81-408. See National Historic Preservation

Trust Act of 1949

Public Law 83-31. See Submerged Lands Act of 1953

Public Law 83-212. See Outer Continental Shelf Lands

Act

Public Law 84-69. See Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955

Public Law 86-523. See Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960

public Law 89-665. See National Historic Preservation

Act

Public Law 89-670. See Department of Transportation

Act of 1966

Public Law 90-190. See National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969

Public Law 92-203. See Alaska Native Claims Settlement

Act

Public Law 93-291. See Archaeological and Historical

Preservation Act of 1974

Public Law 94-201. See American Folklife Preservation

Act of 1976

Public Law 95-341. See American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

Public Law 96-95. See Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

Public Law 96-312. See Central Idaho Wilderness Act of

1980

Public Law 96-515. See National Historic Preservation

Act Amendments of 1980

Public Law 97-466. See Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act

Public spaces, 99-100

Pueblo Alto, 60

R.M.S. TITANIC Memorial Act of 1985, 6

Radar, 44. See also Shuttle imaging radar

ground-penetrating, 44, 50-51

subsurface, for archaeological discovery, 60

synthetic, spectrum used by, 46

Radiocarbon dating, 18, 21, 59, 67

Ramon trees, 47n 

Rangers, unarmed, 103

Reconstruction, and public education, 130

Recording phase, of preservation process, technologies

for, 20

Records, conservation, technologies for, 116-117

Registration, of antiquities and artifacts, 15-16, 140-142

Reinforced concrete, 22

as conservation challenge, 96

physical analysis, technologies for, 65

Remote cameras, in security efforts, 104

Remote sensing, 38, 38n, 43

from aircraft and spacecraft, 44-49

for underwater survey, 58

applied to landscapes, 77

for archaeological discovery, 60

costs, 49, 156

data processing, lowering costs of, 49, 49n

definition, 44n

for discovery, 19, 44-54

geophysical, 45, 49-52

indirect, 47

instruments, 45

matching preservation data needs with, 49

in monitoring cultural resources, 91

technologies, 17

training in, 54

underwater, 57

use by looters, 71-72

Remote sensing satellite, 45

Remotely operated vehicles, 17, 19, 20, 44, 69, 69-70

in underwater survey and identification, 58-59
196 ● Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Requests for Proposals, technological applications in,

135

Research

documentary, 10

in preservation, challenges to, 98-99

on preservation problems, Federal policy options on,

136

public education about, 122

steps, 43

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, 6

Restoration phase, of preservation process, 39

technologies for, 21-23

traditional technologies in, 37

RESTORE, 136, 153

Revenue Act of 1978, 157

Reynolds Tavern, Annapolis, MD, 97

Richmond Battlefield, 51n

Rock art, 127

conservation of, 22-23

definition, 22n

moisture damage to, 88

preservation, 93

Ronson Ship, 94

Roplex, 92

ROVS. See Remotely operated vehicles

SAGIS, 64

Salem, MA, 77n

San Juan, 95

Saturation diving, 69

Scorpio 70

Scuba diving, 56, 69

Security, technologies for, 101-104

Sedimentology, in dating techniques, 68-69

Seismic detection, 44

Serpent Mound, 7, 55

Settlement patterns, 34

Ship restoration, 144

Shipwrecks

conservation practices, 95

databases on, 114

excavations, 70

Federal policy on, 14-15

looting, 71-72

national preservation policy for, 143

Shuttle imaging radar, 45

Side-scan sonar, 17, 19, 44, 57

use of, 57

Site-landform correlations, 56n

Site management, computer technology in, 90

Sleepy Hollow Restorations, 100

Smithsonian Institution, 107

Snow Squall project, 94

Social science techniques

in dating techniques, 68-69

in identification and survey, 44

Society for Archaeological Sciences, 154

Soil conductivity meter, 17, 50

Soil resistivity, in archaeological discovery, 60

Soil resistivity meter, 17, 50

Sourdough Roadhouse, 26

Space photography, 17

Spectral bands, for aerial scanning spectrometers, 48-49

SPOT, 45

State governments, historic preservation policy, 148

State Historic Preservation Officer, 10, 133-134, 147

State Historic Preservation Offices, 11, 133-134, 148,

149

computerized databases, 113-114

Federal cooperation with, 135

State records, handling, 149

State surveys, 148-149

Statue of Liberty, 97

Steel, physical analysis, technologies for, 66

Stereo analytic plotting systems, 52-53

Stereo photography, in public education about underwater archaeology, 124

Sting operations, for recovery of stolen artifacts, 103

Stone

conservation of, 96

exfoliation of, 96n

moisture damage to, 88

Stonehenge, 55

Structural damage, 22

Structures

archaeological, technologies for preservation of, OTA

workshop on, 6

definition of, 32n

historic

analysis in context, 74

areas of significance and activity represented by, 33

change over time, documenting, 74

environmental stresses on, 22

fragile, preservation challenges, 98

as interdependent system, 21

intrusion into, 23

issues about, 72-74

misapplication and nonapplication of technologies

to, 95-96

monitoring, 91

national preservation policy, 146

nondestructive analytical techniques for, 72

NPS publications on protecting, 135

preservation of, lack of standards in, 36

protection against catastrophic loss, 23

research into history of, and use of technology,

73-74

restoration, conservation, maintenance, and protection

need for information on, 116

practices, 95-99

State surveys of, 149

technologies for preserving, OTA workshop on, 6,

32-33

types, 32

West German methods of recording, 38

Sub-bottom profilers, 17, 19, 44, 57-58

Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 6, 143

Submerged resources, 32, 38

identification and survey of, 56-59
Index ● 1 9 7

inventory of, 14

materials recovered from, conservation of, 21

Sucrose, in conservation of waterlogged artifacts, 94

Sunny side, 125n

Survey, 43. See a/so Discovery phase, of preservation

process

technologies for, 44

Take Pride in America program, 142

Tax Act Rehabilitation Certification Program, 135

Tax incentives, 32, 83, 91, 135, 144, 156, 157

for preservation, 10

Tax Reform Act of 1976, 157

Technology. See Preservation technologies; specific

technique

Technology and Conservation, 1 5 2

Technology sharing, cooperation between Federal and

State

governments in, 149-150

Technology transfer, 37-38, 135

promoting, 153-154

public/private partnerships in, 153-154

Terra cotta, conservation of, 96-97

Texas Antiquities Commission, 114

Thematic Mapper, 45, 47n, 52

spectrum used by, 46

Thermal scanning, for discovery of archaeological remains, 49

Thermography, 44

Thermoluminescence dating, 67

Thunderbird Museum and Archaeological Park, Front

Royal, VA, 130

Titanic, 59, 1 36

Tours, in public education, 123

Training

in architectural conservation, 152-153

of preservationists, 35, 150-153

Tree ring dating. See Dendrochronology

Ultraviolet inspection, 18, 20, 61-62

Underwater archaeological resources, State surveys of,

148-149

Underwater archaeology, 10, 38

combined conservation and documentation, 95

conservation, maintenance, and protection practices,

93-95

conservation through technology, 95

costs for, 155

databases, 114

dependence on advanced technology, 72

Federal agencies with major roles in, 144

full-scale conservation in, 94-95

information on resources and technology, 118

issues in, 72

legislative initiatives for, 144-145

national preservation policy for, 143-146

postponement of conservation in, 95

practitioners, 31

private sector contributions to, 155

public education about, 123-124

raising visibility of, in Federal Government, 145-146

recording and measurement technology, 20

research design in, 72

survey technologies, 19-20

technologies for, 69-70

OTA workshop on, 6, 31-32

technology transfer in, 153-154

training in advanced technologies for, 151

UNESCO, 37

UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and

Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer

of Ownership of Cultural Property, 16, 86, 141

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization. See UNESCO

Universities, contribution to historic preservation,

150-154

University of Colorado, Center for Earth Observations

and Remote Sensing, 54n

University of Maryland, Architecture and Engineering

Performance Information Center, 114

U.S. Army, building preservation policy, 146

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 137n

study of erosion, 48

U.S. Navy

research on preservation problems, policy options for,

136

Submarine Development Group, 154

and underwater archaeology, 145, 153-154

U.S. Postal Service, building preservation policy, 146

Utah, southeastern

law enforcement efforts in, 143 n

loss of cultural resources from, 83, 86n, 87

Vandalism, 5n, 15, 23, 25, 39, 84, 101, 102, 126

computer technology in managing, 90

Federal policy for, 140-142

as threat to cultural resources, 85-87

Vegetation

managing growth of, 100

patterns, used in survey, 52

propagation of, in protection of sites, 102

Venice, Italy, 61

Video technology, 44

in archaeological data recording, 71

color, 71 n

for discovery, 17, 19-20

in handicapped access to cultural resources, 125

in public education, 25, 123

for survey and identification, 54

underwater, 123

Visitation

computer technology in managing, 90

as threat to cultural resources, 84

Visitor’s centers, 124

Volunteers, in creating community awareness, 126

Wasa preservation project, 38, 94

Waterlogged cultural materials, conservation of, 94-95

Waverly Mansion, 96
198 . Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

White Mesa Institute, College of Eastern Utah, Blanding, X-ray inspection, 18, 20, 21, 44, 61-62

UT, 122

Wood York Minster, 127-130

building practices using, 88 Yorktown Archaeological Park, Yorktown, VA, 70

physical analysis, technologies for, 63

stabilizing, 92

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Deep Submergence Program, 136