Technologies for the Preservation of

Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes

July 1987

NTIS order #PB87-140166
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for the Reservation of

Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes–Background Paper, OTA-BP-E-44 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619847

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form on p. 49)
Foreword

in recent years, the American public and Congress have become much more aware

of the value of historic landscapes as teachers and guides to America’s heritage. interest in preserving landscapes for the enjoyment and education of future generations

extends well beyond saving historic battlefields and the grounds of historic houses,

and now encompasses such varied cultural landscapes as the Pinelands of New Jersey, the historic courtyards of Arizona, tobacco farms in Kentucky, and the historic

parks and gardens of landscape architects. These and other historic landscapes in every

State of the Union reflect the exciting cultural diversity of rural and urban America.

As this background paper shows, the implementation of Federal historic preservation laws with respect to historic landscapes lags far behind the effort expended on

historic buildings and archaeological sites, For example, to date, no one has inventoried the many gardens, parks, and other historic landscapes designed by the well-known

firms of Frederick Law Olmsted and his associates. Yet these landscapes, which grace

most major U.S. cities, stand out as prime examples of American design and cultural

values. The desire to rectify this situation has led to congressional consideration of a

specific bill, the Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act of 1987, which is discussed and

analyzed in this background paper.

Because landscapes are always living, growing, and dying, they are highly vulnerable to environmental changes, from both human and natural agents. This background

paper illustrates the importance of continuing to apply certain high leverage, costeffective technologies, such as remote sensing and computer hardware and software,

if this Nation wishes to protect, restore, and preserve important parts of its rich heritage

for future generations of Americans.

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

knowledgeable and interested people within Federal and State governments and the

private sector. Some provided information and guidance, others reviewed drafts of this

background paper. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions of time and intellectual effort.

Director
Workshop Participants:

Technologies for Preserving Planned Landscapes

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

Patricia O’Donnell, Chair

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

Shary P. Berg

Consultant

Boston, MA

Carole L. Crumley

Professor

Department of Anthropology

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, NC

Nomi Greber

Curator

Cleveland Museum of Natural History

Cleveland, OH

Robert Harvey

Professor

Department of Landscape Architecture

College of Design

lowa State University

Ames, 1A

Catherine Howett

Associate Professor

School of Environmental Design

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

Thomas j. Kane

President

Kane, Liede, & Ratyna, P.C.

Pleasantville, NY

Timothy Keller

Land & Community Associates

Charlottesville, VA

Setha M. Low

Associate Professor

Department of Landscape Architecture and

Regional Planning

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA

Martin McGann

Supervisor of Landscapes

Director, Institute of Historic

Sleepy Hollow Restorations

Tarrytown, NY

Hugh C. Miller

Chief Historical Architect

National Park Service

Washington, DC

Darwina L. Neal

Landscape Architect

National Park Service

National Capital Region

Washington, DC

Horticulture

Ford Peatross

Curator

Prints and Photographs Division

Library of Congress

Washington, DC

Scott Weinberg

Assistant Professor

School of Environmental Design

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

M. Jane Young

Associate Professor

American Studies Department

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants. The

workshop participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility

for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
Preservation of Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes

OTA Project Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Ray A. Williamson, Project Director

Mary Lee Jefferson, Contractor

Jannelle Warren-Findley, Contractor

Administrative Staff

Lillian Chapman Linda Long
Acknowledgments

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

Laura Feller

National Park Service

Stan Hordes

HMS Associates

Santa Fe, NM

Mary Hufford

American Folklife Center

Library of Congress

Nancy Miller

Nation Conference of State Historic Preservation

Officers

Loretta Neumann

Foresight Science & Technology, Inc.

Washington, DC

Marilyn Nichols

National Park Service

Thomas King Connie Ramirez

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of the Army

John J. Knorel Orlando Ridout

National Park Service Maryland Historical Trust

Adeyn A. Levee

Massachusetts Association of Olmsted Parks

Thomas Medan

Historic Preservation Division

State of New Mexico

vi
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Principal Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Landcape Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Technology and Landscape Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Documentary and Nondocumentary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Gathering and Analyzing Site information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Landscapes anda Center for Preservation Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Intensive Regional Survey of Landscapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Horticultural or Botanical Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Clearinghouse for Landscape Preservation Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Landscape Management and Maintenance Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Federal Policy Toward Landscape Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

The Role of the National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

The National Historic Preservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

National Survey of Prehistoric and Historic Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Center for Preservation Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Education and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Guidance to States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Tax Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

State and Local Landscape Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Landscape Preservation Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Boxes

Box Page

A. Evaluating Significance of the Historic Landscape Using National

Register Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

B. Catalog of Landscape Records in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

C. intensive Survey of Prehistoric and Historic Landscape Resources in Maryland . . 34

D. New Mexico Registry of Historic Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Tables

Table No. Page

I. Organizations Active in Landscape History and Preservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Categories of Historic Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. Historic Designed Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Human-Generated Threats to Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5. Natural Threats to Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6. Working Groups of the Coalition for Applied Preservation Technology . . . . . . . . . 19

7. The Material Components of the Rural Historic Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

vii
.,. Vlll
 INTRODUCTION

This background paper, which was requested

by the House Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs, 1 identifies and examines the principal

technological issues related to the identification

and preservation of prehistoric and historic landscapes. it extends the general assessment of Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

released by the committee in 1986.

Debate over the Olmsted Heritage Landscapes

Act of 1985,3 which passed the House but not

the Senate during the 99th Congress, brought to

light numerous questions related to technologies

and the preservation of historic designed landscapes. This background paper explores several

important issues raised in that debate and places

them in the overall context of prehistoric and

historic preservation. It emphasizes technological issues related to the identification, analysis,

and evaluation of prehistoric and historic landscapes.

The background paper derives principally from

a workshop convened by OTA on February 27-

28, 1986, which met to discuss the range of issues in the preservation of landscapes. OTA also

received additional material from review comments on a draft summary of that workshop, staff

research, personal interviews with landscape professionals from a variety of disciplines, and from

an informal meeting on landscapes held at OTA,

November 13, 1986.

The February 1986 workshop identified and exam ined technologies for discovering, surveying,

analyzing, interpreting, and protecting both prehistoric and historic landscapes. It discussed the

1 Letter of Oct. 8, 1986, signed by Representatives Morris K. Udall

and John F. Seiberling.

‘U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies

for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation OTA-E-31 9 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1986).

3H. R. 37.

benefits and limitations of available technologies

and suggested new ones that could be applied

to the preservation of these important cultural resources.

Some of the material in this background paper

appeared in Technologies for Prehistoric and

Historic Preservation in different form and organization. That comprehensive report considered

technologies for the preservation of archaeological sites and historic structures, as well as prehistoric and historic landscapes. The reader may

refer to OTA’s previous report for a general overview of the issues common to all preservation disciplines, as well as to landscape concerns not

dealt with herein. In both papers, 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 structures, sites, and landscapes.

This background paper is organized according

to three broad categories: 1 ) discussion of the primary problems or issues that face landscape preservation; 2) identification of the tools for addressing these issues; and, finally, 3) exploration of

policy options for putting technologies to work.

In many circumstances, attempting to define

and interpret the prehistoric cultural landscape

is an important component of studying prehistoric

sites and societies. Certain prehistoric landscapes

may also play an important part in local history.

However, for reasons of clarity and simplicity, in

the balance of this background paper we have

reduced the cumbersome term “prehistoric and

historic landscapes” to the simpler one, “historic

landscapes.” Thus, when we refer to historic

landscapes, unless the context clearly indicates

otherwise, we generally also mean prehistoric

landscapes. Some landscapes, prehistoric as well

as historic, can be considered to be a subset of

the larger class of archaeological sites.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The international preservation community focused its efforts on preserving and protecting

historic landscapes only in relatively recent years.

Yet historic landscapes play an important part in

our understanding and appreciation of U.S. national heritage. Participants in the OTA assessment urged that U.S. preservation policy explicitly and publicly acknowledge the importance

of U.S. historic landscapes so the value of preserving and restoring them becomes more widely

appreciated. Establishing preservation values will

assist in protecting landscapes from a wide variety of natural and human threats. However, implementing many of the policy options presented

in this background paper would likely require increased funding, as the available resources for

historic preservation at both the Federal and State

levels are currently stretched and allow for little

flexibility to add new tasks.

The management and preservation of landscapes is complicated by the fact that they contain a wide variety of elements, including plants

and structures as well as Iandforms. However, a

variety of technologies exist to assist in identifying, assessing, conserving, and protecting landscapes. These findings illuminate the technological and institutional issues related to the use of

technology for preserving landscapes. They summarize issues and concerns discussed in detail

in the remainder of this background paper.

More consistent landscape terminology, and

guidelines for applying preservation standards,

could strengthen the identification and preservation of significant historic landscapes.

In part because “landscape” is a general term,

applied to many different landscape types, but

also because it may imply a wide variety of meanDrawing by: Jan Adkins

Buildings and firebreaks (pasture, garden, roads, and streams) are positioned with respect to the prevailing wind, affording

maximum protection against fires coming from the central woodlands during fire season.

2
3

ings, the identification of historic landscapes has

been impeded by a lack of consistent terminology. Some landscapes are historically significant

and are appropriate targets of preservation efforts.

An essential first step in determining historic significance is the identification of the type of landscape under consideration.

The National Park Services (NPS) has recently

established definitions for various types of landscapes to guide the nomination of landscapes to

the National Register. In addition to defining historic designed landscapes, and setting guidelines

for evaluating them, NPS has focused attention

on the category of cultural landscape it refers to

as the rurid historic district. Yet, other historic

landscapes, such as components of the Pinelands

of New Jersey, have their own distinctive characteristics and are an important component of

cultural landscapes. They also need to be inventoried as landscapes, where appropriate, and

their historic significance determined.

Passage of the Olmsted Heritage Landscapes

Act of 1987 (H.R. 17) could materially aid the

collection of information on all U.S.-designed

historic landscapes.

By focusing attention on the many landscape

projects designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and

his professional successors, the Olmsted Act

could increase awareness of the importance of

historic landscapes to the Nation’s history. Some

private owners of Olmsted properties have expressed fear that passage of such an act would

limit their ability to control disposition of these

properties. However, H.R. 17 seeks primarily to

inventory Olmsted properties designed by the

Olmsted firms, and would not limit the property

rights of private owners.

One of the major impediments to preserving

significant landscapes is the poor state of knowledge of the Nation’s historic landscapes.

Inventory or survey of landscapes is a crucial

first step in preserving them. However, not all

historic landscapes can be preserved, for not all

are historically significant. Until recently, the Federal government has expended little effort to identify and document nationally significant landscapes; no comprehensive, centralized listing of

significant American landscapes exists.

A comprehensive national historic landscape

survey would draw together the information we

now have on historic landscapes and identify

those missed in previous, haphazard efforts. The

search might begin with a national survey of designed historic landscapes as an important first

step, because greater agreement exists among

professionals concerning what constitutes a designed landscape than on the broader definitions.

Another approach might utilize an intensive regional survey of all types of historic landscapes,

which could assist the historic preservation community in developing techniques and methods

to locate and evaluate significant historic landscapes. However, no substantial progress in identifying and preserving historic landscapes is likely

to occur unless Congress appropriates additional

funds for landscapes.

A variety of technologies are available for

gathering and analyzing landscape information:

Archival and library information systems. A vast

amount of primary and secondary information

about designed landscapes and urban cultural

landscapes is already available in the Nation’s depositories. New information technologies can

make access more efficient.

Computer aided-design (CAD). CAD software

and hardware make it possible to draw and store

a given landscape within the computer memory,

and to manipulate and alter the drawing.

Computer-aided survey. Computers can increase survey accuracy and reduce overall labor,

especially when inexpensive, portable computers

are used in the field.

Geographic information systems (GIS). These

computerized spatial database systems are designed to integrate, manipulate, and analyze statistical, demographic, cultural, and natural resources data. GIS are also capable of printing

maps and reports encompassing a wide variety

of spatial information.

Landscape databases. Computerized databases

of various kinds are crucial to the efficient development and use of landscape information. As

computers and software have become increasingly more capable, and cheaper to acquire,

many users have begun to develop their own

powerful databases.
4
5

multitude of cultural resources under their care,

managers need to have an increased awareness

of the value of historic landscapes, and the skills

needed to study, identify, evaluate, conserve, and

manage them. Therefore, managers need better

access to landscape information and training.

However, considerably more effort will be required to enable managers to put technology to

better use in landscape management.

A federally funded facility that would focus

on the research and development of preservation technology could make a major contribution to the study and preservation of historic

landscapes.

Participants in the OTA assessment, TechnoL

ogies for prehistoric and Historic Preservation,

cited the critical need for a federally supported

facility for preservation technologies. A center

would foster the research and development of

advanced technologies, train professionals in

their use, develop technical standards, disseminate accurate technical information, and promote

public education about historic preservation. Although the private sector has a significant role

in developing and using preservation technologies, the Federal government has the lead

responsibility for guiding preservation efforts

throughout the United States.

In order to assist the Federal Government in

transferring useful technologies from natural sciences and engineering into preservation, and developing new cost-effective technologies, Congress may’ wish to establish such a federally chartered center. Congress could mandate the establishment of a Federal Center for Preservation

Technology within the Department of Interior or

other Federal agency. Alternatively, Congress

couId create a National Center for Preservation

Technology, managed by a consortium of universities and preservation organizations. Such an institution would be able to draw on a multitude

of different skills in several universities, and in

many university departments. If a Center for Preservation Technology were established, landscape

preservation concerns could constitute a significant portion of the center’s workload.

Although a center for preservation technology

would tackle a number of different technological areas, the following items are likely candidates

for part of the center’s agenda:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Intensive regional survey of landscapes: A

center could fund and supervise the development of methods for conducting intensive

local and regional surveys. They would have

numerous benefits for historic preservation,

as well as local and regional planning efforts.

Horticultural or Botanical Technologies:

Authentic restoration and conservation of

historic landscapes depends on the ability

to identify, locate, and use historically appropriate plants. A center could contribute to

research on historical plants.

Clearinghouse for landscape preservation information: The preservation of historic cultural resources, including landscapes, depends substantially on the use of a variety

of historical records and technical information. One of the most important functions

a center could have is to serve as a source,

or clearinghouse of historical and technical

preservation information, including information on landscape preservation.

Landscape management and maintenance

techniques: Periodic maintenance is one of

the most effective means of preserving a

historic landscape. A center could conduct

research on automated methods for improving maintenance management.

puldic education: Public education is one of

the keys to improved historic preservation.

A center could translate research results into

information the public can comprehend and

use.

A Coalition for Applied Preservation Technology (CAPT) has recently been formed whose

membership is composed of a variety of private

preservation organizations. CAPT is devoted to

establishing a multidisciplinary National Center

for Applied Preservation Technology.
6

Technology can assist the development of

methods for systematic and long-term maintenance of landscapes, which is one of the most

effective means of slowing deterioration from

human and natural agencies.

Systematic preventative maintenance and upkeep are essential to the conservation of a landscape, particularly because landscapes change so

rapidly as a result of plant growth, or stresses to

the landscape. Increased use of personal computers and specially designed software could be

extremely helpful in improving the quality and

quantity of landscape maintenance.

/reproved identification and preservation of

historic landscapes depend on achieving greater

public understanding of the reasons to preserve

historic landscapes. In order to enhance public appreciation of historic landscapes, Federal,

State, and Iocal governments, as well as the private sector, will have to reach a wider audience.

Citizens are often unaware of the value and significance of historic landscapes. Traditionally,

historic preservationists have worked from the

grassroots, first by building local constituencies

and then through them identifying the value of

a given structure or archaeological site and finally

seeking State or National help in preserving it.

However, local groups who might identify landscape value often do not exist, in part because

they lack adequate information about why certain landscapes might be important to our cultural history. Often, those who are most familiar

with a landscape are least aware of its wider national value.

Federal agencies, especially NPS, could enhance the public’s understanding of the historic

importance of certain landscapes by including interpretive material on landscapes in the interpretative presentations park personnel give to the

millions of visitors each year.

A national database of identified historic landscapes would substantially assist the identification of other, uncataloged historic landscapes.

At present, the United States has no national

database of historic landscapes. State and local

databases are also highly incomplete and lack information on location of records and landscapes.

The private effort of the American Garden History Program at Wave Hill, Bronx, NY, to develop

a Catalog of Landscape Records in the United

States will bean important first step in developing a national database. Private efforts such as this

would benefit from the involvement of the National Park Service and other Federal agencies

concerned with historic landscapes.

/n order to improve the preservation of prehistoric and historic landscapes, it would be necessary for the National Park Service and other

Federal agencies to focus more consistent attention on landscape preservation in their management of cultural resources.

Because the National Park Service (NPS) serves

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

and local efforts, NPS administrators and managers need to be more aware of the value of preserving prehistoric and historic landscapes. NPS

could assist by developing uniform standards for

landscape identification and preservation; expanding the subject matter of its publications to

include recommendations on studying and preserving historic landscapes; enhancing its own

landscape preservation effort; developing a selfstudy course on landscape preservation; and by

upgrading and highlighting the importance of

gardening and grounds maintenance jobs.

NPS, together with other Federal agencies,

could aid in the identification and preservation

of significant historic landscapes by clarifying

landscape terminology in the National Register,

improving interagency information flow concerning historic landscapes, and generally focusing

more attention on landscape preservation.

NPS could also assume a stronger role in the

effort, initiated by the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), to complete a national

survey of designed landscapes. Specifically, the

ASLA needs assistance in completing the survey

in a timely manner, acquiring consistent information, and standardizing the information collected.

NPS could also expand the training it provides

to State and local preservation agencies and

groups on landscapes. In particular, the States

couId benefit from access to information on carrying out landscapes surveys.
7

Although the National Historic Preservation Act

contains no impediment to the identification and

preservation of landscapes, neither does it specifically mention them. Most Federal agencies that

hold and manage historic properties nonetheless

also manage historic landscapes. Not expressly

mandating in the law that historic landscapes are

worthy of being identified and preserved may allow Federal agencies to overlook landscape concerns in their preservation programs.

Some observers have suggested that it may be

appropriate to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to include explicit reference to

historic landscapes. Others have expressed concern that including explicit reference to historic

landscapes will open the act to inclusion of other,

more specific historic categories, or will subject

the National Historic Preservation Act to unnecessary and harmful experimentation. Congress

may wish to address the need for greater attention to landscape concerns by designing additional legislation which recognizes the role

historic landscapes play in the history of this

country and specifically directs Federal agencies

to include landscape concerns in their preservation programs. Alternatively, Congress may wish

to use its oversight authority to encourage the inclusion of landscape concerns in the regulations

and guidelines issued by Federal agencies that

treat prehistoric and historic preservation.

Tax credits and incentives for the preservation

of historic landscapes might be effective in enhancing the preservation of historic landscapes.

Tax incentives have provided an incalculable

boost to the preservation of income producing,

privately owned, historic structures. Yet, current

legislation permits historic preservation tax credits

for buildings only. Congress could institute a similar set of tax incentives for historic landscapes.

Tax incentives would also increase public awareness of these threatened historic resources. Congress may wish to consider new legislation to address this need.

The States’ approaches to landscape issues are

very uneven; only a few States have made significant strides in identifying their historic landscapes.

State Historic Preservation Offices should be

encouraged to inventory their historic landscapes

and to maintain surveys on computer databases

so they can be enlarged and corrected frequently

and cost effectively. To be most effective for preservation purposes, such databases should be developed with standard formats. The State offices

depend heavily on the Historic Preservation Fund

to support their activities. Additional funding will

be needed to support inventory of historic landscapes.
LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION

Whether or not we are directly aware of their

influence, landscapes have a profound effect on

human life. The aesthetic, economic, and security values of our physical surroundings play essential roles in decisions about where and how

we live. Some societies and individuals regard

certain Iandforms as sacred. As a result, societies have both altered their physical surroundings

and been altered and affected by them. The result of such interaction is a landscape.

Whether they are highly structured parks and

formal gardens, or less structured farms, urban

landscapes, or “roadscapes”, historic landscapes

reflect U.S. cultural heritage. Yet, as one historian has noted:

Historians have been tardy in recognizing that

the environment, natural and man-made, is an

amazing historical document. In our teaching, we

have not adequately explored the ways in which,

rightly seen, a landscape reveals as much of a society’s culture as does a novel, a newspaper, or

a Fourth of July orations
9

In a way, landscapes are the context of life, for

the form of our landscapes embodies our material culture and our ideals. 6 For example, although visitors to historic buildings, such as Virginia’s Gunston Hail, the home of George Mason,

tend to focus on the building and its interior appointments, the appearance of the surroundings,

including various outbuildings, fences, and other

structures, as well as plantings, contributes significantly to their understanding of the building’s

historical context.

Compared to the efforts to preserve historic

structures, only relatively recently has the international preservation community focused its efforts on preserving and protecting historic landscapes. ’ As one report expressed it:

It seems . . . that an old landscape must still,

somehow, be useful: it must be a teacher, a

guide, a place for recreation, or a place of contact with the past. Establishing such usefulness requires a great effort, a lot of subjective suggestion, considerable ingenuity—and will have to be

backed by more researches

However, in the United States, the term “landscape” does not even appear in the formal listing of categories of sites that are eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places

(National Register. Most National Register landscapes are there as a result of their association

with other categories such as a building, district,

or site. In other cases, a building may be included

but the surrounding landscape, which may even

have greater historic significance, might not be

recognized or described. Very few landscapes

have been nominated as a consequence of havGMarilyn Nickels, National Park Service, per50nal Commu nication, 1987; see also D.W. Meining, The /rrterpretation of Ordirrary

Landscapes (Oxford England: Oxford University Pressr 1979).

7See the discussion in W.H. Tishler, “The Landscape: An Emerging

Historic Preservation Resource, ” The Association for Preservation

Technology Bu//etin 11, No. 4, 1979, pp. 9-26. See also UNESCO,

“Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and

Character of Landscapes and Sites, ” adopted by the General Conference at its Twelfth Session, Paris, Dec. 11, 1962, for a relatively

early attempt to define landscape preservation values.

‘State of New Mexico, “First Annual Report, Registry of Historic

Landscapes,” Historic Preservation Bureau, 1982, p. 6.

g’ ‘How To Apply the NatiOnal Register Criteria for Evaluation”

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, June 1984).

ing significance as historic Landscapes.lo Only i n

1986 did the National Park Service (NPS) develop

and publish a set of guidelines for nominating

historic designed landscapes to the National Register. 11 Other categories of landscapes have not

been fully examined by NPS.

In some respects, the management and preservation of landscapes is more complicated than

historic structures because landscapes encompass

a greater variety of elements, and include plants

and structures as well as Iandforms. But more important, natural elements of landscapes are particularly susceptible to alteration and deterioration. Unlike historic structures, plants and trees

grow too large or spread to other areas. In time,

water may erode the soil and improper pruning

and care may enhance potential damage from

disease and pests. Because they are “so rooted

in process,” landscapes are highly vulnerable.12

New agricultural practices, for example, can dramatically alter the look of the rural landscape .13

Changing agricultural economics, such as the

move from the predominance of family farms to

agribusiness, alter both traditional patterns of the

land and the ways of life that produced the patterns. Contemporary landscapes, while different,

exhibit their own appeal.

The discovery and identification of U.S. historic

landscapes is still in its infancy. In part as a result of a general lack of awareness of the value

and vulnerability of landscapes, the constituency

for locating and preserving significant historic

landscapes has not yet developed fully, though

it is growing. Table 1 lists some of the organizations that are especially active in landscape preservat ion.

IOLisa A. Kunst and patricia M. O’ Donnell, “Historic Landscape

Preservation Deserves a Broader Meaning, ” Landscape Architecture, January 1981, p. 53.

I !See j. Timothy Keller and Genevieve P. Keller, “How TO Evaluate

and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, ” iVationa/ Register

of Historic P/aces Bu/letin 18, for a discussion of types of designed

landscapes.

lzcatherine M. Hewett, “Landscape Research: Keeping Faith With

Today and Tomorrow, ” The Yearbook of Landscape Architecture:

Historic Preservation (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983),

p. 3.

I J@lando Ridout, V, “Agricultural Change and the Architectural

Landscape,” 3 Centuries of Mary/and Architecture (Annapolis, MD:

Maryland Historical Trust and the Society for the Preservation of

Maryland Antiquities, 1982), pp. 3-7.
10

Table I.—Organizations Active In Landscape

History and Preservation

Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation

American Association for State and Local History (AASLH)

American Folklife Center

American Folklore Society

American Rock Art Research Association

American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)

American Studies Association

Association of Living History Farms and Historic Museums

Association for Preservation Technology (APT)

National Association for Olmsted Parks

National Council on Public History

National Park Service

Organization of American Historians

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Society for Architectural Historians, Chapter for Landscape

Architecture and the Allied Arts

Trustees of Reservations (Massachusetts private conserancy)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1997.

The legislative activity surrounding the efforts

in the 99th Congress to pass the Olmsted Preservation Act, which sought to “encourage the

identification, preservation, and commemoration

of historic designed landscapes,” reflects increased interest in landscape preservation in the

Congress. In part such interest has been sparked

by the limited survey of Olmsted landscapes by

the National Association of Olmsted parks, and

by State landscape inventories. For example, the

State of Massachusetts has begun an inventory

of its Olmsted parks and other designed landscapes.14 The States of Ohio15 and New Mexico16

have also initiated inventories of their historic

landscapes. Finally, within its Park Historic Architecture Division, NPS has instituted a limited

effort to coordinate NPS efforts in landscape preservation and to initiate several landscape preservation projects.

IAEleanor M. peck, Keith Morgan, and Cynthia Zaitzevsky (4s.),

Olmsttd in Massachusetts: The Public Legacy (Brookline, MA: Massachusetts Association for Olmsted Parks, 1983); Charles E.

Beveridge, Carolyn F. Hoffman, Shary Page Berg, and Arleyn A.

Levee, “The Master List of Design Projects of the Olmsted Firm in

Massachusetts, 1866-1950,” Massachusetts Association for Olmsted

Parks, Boston, MA, 1986.

I Sohio Historic Landscapes Survey, manuscript and Survey form

distributed by the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, OH, n.d.

16 Baker H. Morrow, “Old Landscapes, New Ideas: New Mexico’s Historic Landscape Architecture, ” New Mexico Architecture,

September-October 1985, pp. 11-17.
MAJOR ISSUES

Participants in this study identified the following issues that need to be addressed in developing a sound and well-considered Federal policy

toward landscape preservation. Technology concerns permeate these issues. Because most of

these issues are interrelated, they are not necessarily listed in rank order.

ISSUE A: The lack of consistent landscape terminology and guidelines for applying preservation standatis have impeded the identification and preservation of significant historic

landscapes.

One of the difficult, but important, tasks facing landscape preservationists is to arrive at standard definitions that can be used in a common

vocabulary. Among other things, a set of standard definitions would enhance the ability of local individuals and groups to develop nominations to State historic registers and to the National

Register. It would facilitate interdisciplinary approaches to their location, study, and evaluation.

The English term “landscape” was originally

introduced as a technical term of painters and

referred to the representation of “natural inland

scenery. ’ 17 Later, it acquired a much broader set

of meanings, and came to be understood primarily as “shaped land, land modified for permanent

human occupation, for dwelling, agriculture,

manufacturing, government, worship, and for

pleasure.”18 Table 2 presents a list of categories

of historic landscapes.

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 appear elusive, making precise and common, or standard, definitions difficuIt to achieve

in practice. In general parlance, we often 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 ambiances of structures,

I TThe Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 1566.

leJohn R. Stilgoe, Common Landscape of America, 1S80 to 1845

(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

as when we speak of “landscaping a build ing. ”

In that sense, landscapes are then thought of as

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. In the eyes of

many observers, President Jefferson’s home,

Monticello, is a historic landscape of which the

central building is the most important part. Others

consider only the form and structure of the house

and ignore its setting. Adding to the difficulty is

the fact that specialists in different disciplines tend

to impart different meanings to the term “landscape,” according to the established practices of

their disciplines and the context of the landscape.

For example, as noted below, the landscape

architect might see the landscape as a design

statement, 19 while the folklorist might experience

the same landscape in terms of what it conveys

about the folk practices of the landscape’s inhabitants. 20

lgRobert W. Leech, “The First Dilemma, ” Landscape Architecture 77, 1977, pp. 62-65.

ZOFor examp[e, see the treatment of landscape in Mary Hufford,

One Space, Many Places: Folklife and Land Use in New Jersey’s

Pine/ands Nationa/ Reserve (Washington, DC: American Folklife

Center, Library of Congress 1986); or Rita Zorn Moonsammy, David

Steven Cohen, and Lorraine E. Williams (eds.), Pine/ands Fo/k/ife

(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987); or M. Jane

Young, Signs From the Ancestors: Zuni Perceptions of Rock Art (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, in press).

Photo credit: National Park Service, Historic American Buildings Survey.

Jet Lowe, Photographer, April 1984

Overall view of planned communal gardens looking

east, Locke, California. Locke is a small, rural Chinese

community on the Sacramento River. It was developed

in the early 20th century to serve Chungshan Chinese

laborers who worked in the fruit orchards and vegetable

fields in California’s Delta region. It is the only

extant rural Chinese community still occupied

by Chinese people.

11
12

Stratford Garden Restoration, Potomac River, VA

Garden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noredo A. Rotunno

Sannonburg Gardens Committee

Fort Stanwix National Monument, Rome, NY

Fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dureya & Wilhelmi, P.C.

National Park Service

Rosebud Battlefield, Montana

Battlefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard E. Mayer

Montana State Parks Division

Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cemeteries, New Harmony, IN

Kane & Carruth, P.C.

Main Street Project, Hot Springs, SD

Streetscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preseation/Urban/Design, Inc.

National Trust

Chicago Mid-West Office

Gamble Plantation, Manatee County, FL

Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . William H. Tishler

State Historical Society of Wisconsin

Williamsburg, VA

Museum village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shurcliff, 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

Kane &Carruth, P.C.

Cahokia Mounds, near East St. Louis, IL

Prehistoric site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 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
13

Establishing a progression of types of landscapes based on the degree and 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, or natural, /andscape, human activities certainly exist, but they

do not appreciably modify the Iandscape.21 Even

if unmodified by human activities, natural landscapes may be invested with cultural significance

and may therefore be worthy of protection because of their significance in American history.

For example, Cum berland Gap in Tennessee was

a major passageway through the Appalachians

for settlers moving west in the 19th century and

is celebrated in song and story.

Certain natural landscape features even have

sacred significance for some cultural groups. For

example, though they actually live many miles

to the east, the Hopi Indians of Arizona regard

the San Francisco peaks as the sacred home of

the kachina, the rain-giving spirits of the Hopi religion. The Peaks figure strongly in their origin

legends and other traditional stories. Certain

Plains Indian groups built stone structures, often

called medicine wheels, that reflected their

awareness of and reverence for landscape features. * Traditional Hawaiians consider the Waikaane Valley in Windward Oahu as sacred.22 It

plays an important part in the native history of

the island.

We might call the next stage in the progression

settlement patterns, as human manipulation of

the environment becomes more obvious but

there is little or no conscious planning. As people manipulate the land for particular purposes,

reflective of the cultural values of a group, such

settlement patterns merge into cultura landscapes. 23 Characteristically, the cultural landscape

is the product of many groups or individuals

working interdependently within a broad cultural

context. The cultural landscape may reflect rural

values, as reflected in rural historic districts,24 or

urban values, as found in the manufacturing

towns of the Northeastern United States.25 The

vernacular landscape, which derives from the

common style of a period or place, is one important form of a cultural landscape.

Finally, the designed or planneal landscape,26

in which the scale of manipulation of the earth

is high, may be considered a subset of the cultural landscape, but one that reflects the conceptual model of a single individual or small group

of individuals. Examples of designed landscapes

range from small gardens to large-scale public or

private parks (table 3).

The National Park Service (NPS) has established

clear guidelines to distinguish between designed

and vernacular landscapes. Nevertheless, because designed landscapes are generally thought

of as deriving from a high art tradition, certain

important historical vernacular landscapes might

be overlooked or considered of less historical importance than, for example, formal gardens.

However, folk traditions incorporate design traditions that may involve master builders and sophisticated learning and wisdom. It is therefore

extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to separate vernacular landscapes from design intention

and from planning.

NPS has recently attempted to establish definitions for various types of landscapes, to guide

ZI In most cases, it is not correct to talk about an untouched natural landscape, For example, Native Americans, and later European

settlers, regularly burned the Big Meadow of Shenandoah National

Park, VA, to keep it open. 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.

*Robert L. Hall, ‘‘Medicine Wheels, Sun Circles, and the Magic

of World Center Shrines, ” Plains Anthropologist 30, 1985, pp.

181-194.

Zzjohn Chariot, “Historic Report on Waikane Valley, ” Testimony

presented to the Feb. 9, 1977, Hearing of the Land Use Commission, Honolulu, H1.

zjMelody Webb, “cultural Landscapes in the National Park Service,” The Pub/ic Historian, 9, 1987, pp. 77-89. “Cultural landscapes

represent a continuum of land-use that spans many generations

. . . Whey] exhibit, either conspicuously or subtly, long-held values

of their area or culture.” Robert Z. Melnick, “Capturing the Cultural Landscape, ” Landscape Architecture, January 1981, p. 56.

zdRobe~ Z. Mel nick, Cu/tu/-a/ Lane/scapeS: Rural Historic Districts

in the A/ationa/ Park System (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service, Park Historic Architecture

Division, 1984).

ZSMary proc t er and Bill Matuszeski, Gritty Cities (Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press, 1978).

Zbsee also Melnick, op. cit., 1984, P. 40.
74

Table 3.—Historic Designed Landscapes

Small residential grounds

Estate or plantation grounds (including a farm where the

primary significance is as a landscape design and not as

historic agriculture)

Arboreta, botanical, and display gardens

Church yards and cemeteries

Monuments and surrounding grounds

Plaza/square/green/mall or other public spaces

Campus and institutional grounds

City planning or civic design

Subdivisions and planned communities/resorts

Commercial and industrial properties and parks

Parks (local, state, and national) and campgrounds

Battlefield parks and other commemorative parks

Ground designed or developed for outdoor recreation and/or

sports activities such as country clubs, golf courses, tenis courts, bowling greens, bridle trails, stadiums, ball

parks, and race tracks that are not part of a unit listed above

Fair and exhibition grounds

Parkways, drives and trails

Bodies of water and fountains (considered as an independent

component and not as part of a Iarger design scheme).

SOURCE: National Park Service, “How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed

Historic Landscapes,” 1987.

the nomination of landscapes to the National

Register. For the purposes of the National Register, a historic designed landscape is “a work that

has significance as a design or work of art; was

consciously designed and laid out by a master

gardener, landscape architect, architect, or horticulturalist to a design principle, or an owner or

other amateur using a recognized style or tradition in response to a recognized style or tradition; has a historical association with a significant

person, trend, event, etc. in Iandcape gardening

or landscape architecture; or a significant relationship to the theory or practice of landscape

architectre. ”27

In addition to defining historic designed landscapes, and setting guidelines for evaluating

them, NPS has focused attention on the category

zTKeller and Keller, op. cit., p. 2.

Photo credit: Ray A. Williamson

William Paca House and Garden, Annapolis, MD: 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 a careful research by archaeologists, architects,

landscape architects, and historians.
15

of cultural landscape it refers to as the rural

historic district. This subcategory of important cultural landscapes includes ethnic rural communities or rural farmsteads. The NPS publication,

“Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in

the National Park System, ” defines the rural

historic district as “a geographically definable [rural] area, possessing a significant concentration,

linkage, or continuity of landscape components

which are united by human use and past events

or aesthetically by plan or physical developmerit. 28

However, earlier, this same publication calls

rural historic districts “complex human ecological systems existing within equally complex natural ecological contexts. people modify those

ecological contexts, and in turn the cultural patterns of the people are altered to fit the natural

environment. ”29 This latter definition illustrates

the difficulty of finding the right wording to distinguish among the many different categories of

landscapes. It does not seem to be restrictive

enough, as it could also encompass other subcategories of cultural landscapes, including the

historic urban vernacular historic landscape as

well as certain designed historic landscapes. indeed, the emphasis placed on the significance

of designed historic landscapes in relation to

other cultural landscapes appears to be a product of traditional high-culture patterns of thought

in the United States. Yet, certain landscapes, such

as those created by residents of the pinelands area

of New Jersey, are highly structured according

to the aesthetic and other values of the local residents. 30

All of these landscape types, whether wilderness, cultural, or designed landscapes, reflect

values of the people who care for them. Within

these broad categories exist many subcategories

of landscapes; certain landscapes are of historic

significance and are appropriate targets of preservation efforts. An essential first step in determining historic significance is the identification

of the type of landscape under consideration.

ZsMelnick, op. cit., 1984, pp. 7-8.

ZqMelnick, op. cit., 1984, p. 4.

300ne space, Many P/aces, op. cit., ch. 5: ‘‘Aesthetic Resources

and Sense of Place. ”

ISSUE B: Because they are so susceptible to

damage by human and natural causes, the

greatest threat to historic landscapes is destruction, by intent or ignorance, before they

have been identified as significant.

Participants in the OTA assessment urged that

preservation policy explicitly acknowledge the

importance of historic landscapes and specify that

they be protected to the same degree as historic

structures and non-landscape archaeological

sites. Such a policy should be publicly disseminated so that planning and design professionals,

cultural and natural resource managers, and the

public recognize the value of preserving and restoring historic landscapes. Establishing these

values will assist in protecting landscapes from

a wide variety of natural and human threats. The

section, Federal Policy Toward Landscape Preservation, discusses options for strengthening landscapes preservation policy.

Tables 4 and 5 list many of the human and natural threats to which landscapes are susceptible.

Because the nationwide perception of landscapes

is not well developed, historic vistas may be destroyed casually, through intent, or by ignorance.

For example, urban parks, which contain both

natural elements and structures, are subject to

increased visitation, vandalism, and arson. increased development in urban, suburban, and

even rural areas, has exerted enormous pressures

on historic landscapes. Economic pressures that

have altered the structure of American farming

are also reshaping the countryside. Rural landscapes are now beginning to suffer from vandalism and arson .31

Inadequate identification and registry, 32 overuse, inadequate or inappropriate managerial/

maintenance policies, and malicious destruction

are the greatest threats to most historic landscapes. Yet, natural agents such as erosion, exJI For example, in some areas of West Virginia, wooden bridges,

often a significant part of the historic rural landscape, are the target of arsonists. Barbara Howe, West Virginia University, personal

communication, 1986.

IZFor example, many large earthworks in Ohio are known to

professional and amateur archaeologists, and even to the public,

but because they are on private land, many of them suffer from

modern land use practices that erode and destroy them.
16

Table 4.—Human=Generated Threats

to Cultural Resources

Agriculture

Beautification

Construction

Demolition

Drilling:

seismic disturbances

Energy generation:

coal, gas, and oil exploration and extraction

powerlines

dams

powerplants

Fencing

Fire:

firefighting

fire rehabilitation

Grazing

Land abandonment and neglect

Mining

Overuse

Pollution:

air and water

Preservation activities

Recreational technologies:

metal detectors

off-road vehicles

Rehabilitation or retrofitting

Sand and gravel quarrying

Slash burning

Site compaction

Timber cutting

Theft

Urban sprawl

Vandalism

%lot listed in priority order.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

Table 5.—Natural Threats to Cultural Resources

Acid precipitation

Air pollution

Disease

Drought

Erosion (wind and water)

Earthquakes

Fire

Floods

Freeze/thaw cycles

Invasive vegetation

Moisture

Pests

Salt air in coastal environments

Subsidence

Violent storms:

hurricane

tornado

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

cess moisture, drought, and severe storms can

also significantly damage certain landscape elements.33 Even normal plant growth can substantially alter the intended plan of a designed landscape in a few years unless the trees, shrubs, and

undergrowth are properly maintained. Some

plants must be kept in scale by pruning; others

can be ruined if pruned. All of these threats can

be significantly reduced by the appropriate application of planning and design principles and

technology.

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 to have an increased awareness of the value

of historic landscapes and the necessary skills to

identify, evaluate, preserve, and manage them.

In short, managers need better access to landscape information. They also need to evaluate

their component parts and develop maintenance

recommendations that incorporate appropriate

technologies and research. Use of such information will enable managers to justify requests for

increased funding and personnel and, where appropriate, to preserve, protect, and interpret historic landscapes. However, considerably more

research and development will be required to enable managers to put technology to better use

in landscape management.

ISSUE C: One of the major impediments to preserving significant landscapes is the poor state

of knowledge of the Nation’s historic landscapes.

Because a historic landscape cannot be preserved until it is identified, inventory or survey

is a crucial first step to preserving landscapes.

However, not all historic landscapes can be preserved, for not all are historically significant. After

being identified, the landscape’s historic signifiIJFor example, Monk’s Mound in Illinois, the largest prehistoric

earthen mound north of Mexico, and part of the Cahokia Mounds

Historic Site, has recently suffered significant damage as a result

of rising internal moisture. Portions of the mound have slumped,

or fallen away.
.

17

cance must be evaluated against criteria designed

to ascertain its place in national, regional, or local history. Significance may involve such elements as art, commerce, expIoration/settlement,

landscape architecture, or prehistoric culture (see

box A). Most nominations to the National Register are made by interested parties at the State or

local level. On the national level, the National

Register staff in the National Park Service decide

the question of significance on the basis of National Register nominations.

Until recently, the Federal Government has expended little effort to identify and document nationally significant landscapes; no comprehensive, centralized listing of significant American

landscapes exists. Even the National Register of

Historic Places can provide only a crude list of

National Register properties that are related to

landscape architecture. Significant landscapes are

either not on the National Register or are classified under other categories, such as districts or

sites. Because they are split into several categories, it is extremely difficult to determine the total number of landscapes actually listed. indeed,

to be included on the National Register, landscapes must be nominated as districts, sites, or

some other category. Some people feel that

though this may cause some confusion to those

seeking to nominate landscapes to the Register,

adding new categories would cause greater problems. Others argue that preservation thinking has

evolved and that including landscapes as a National Register category would accurately and

appropriately reflect such a change in thinking.

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 national survey of designed historic landscapes

could be an especially important first step, because greater agreement exists among professionals on what constitutes a designed landscape.

A survey of designed historic landscapes might

serve as a model for a much more comprehensive survey that includes other historic landscape

types.

Such a survey was initiated by the Historic Preservation Committee of the American Society of

Landscape Architects (ASLA) in 1984. The National Park Service has endorsed the survey and

disseminated the survey form to State Historic

Preservation Officers (SHPOS). In order for the

survey to be consistent and carried out in a timely

manner, it will be necessary 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.

A survey of designed landscapes presents a logical place to start, but no significant progress is

74-274 0 - 87 - 2
18

likely to occur unless funding is dedicated to the

project. State Historic Preservation Offices will

have no ready means to tackle a survey of this

importance without new funding. In the meantime, the ASLA form provides a format to use,

and its volunteer effort increases public and

professional awareness of historic landscapes.

ISSUE D: There a critical need fo ra federally

supported facility for landscape preservation

technologies.

Most participants in OTA’s assessment cited the

need for a new institution (or expansion of an existing institution’s mandate) or center to foster the

research and development of advanced technologies, the training of professionals in their use,

and the centralization and dissemination of accurate technical information. Several museums

maintain first-rate analytical facilities for conserving artifacts, but no comparable facility exists for

conserving sites, structures, and landscapes. Most

workshop participants agreed that a center for

preservation technology should be federally supported, primarily because of the large stake the

Federal Government has in fostering and guiding excellence in preservation, but also to ensure

that standards, guidelines, and technologies are

uniformly understood and applied.

As elaborated in chapter 7 of Technologies for

prehistoric and Historic Preservation, three structures are possible:

1. Federal Center for Preservation Technology:

Congress could mandate the establishment

of 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 of existing technology, providing

training for preservation professionals, and

serving as a clearinghouse for disseminating

information on preservation technologies. A

Center should have a highly trained staff. It

should also have the facilities for developing technologies relevant to all phases of the

preservation process for prehistoric and

historic sites, structures, and landscapes.

In addition to serving as the focal point for

2

2

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 with preservation prob

Iems would therefore have a central place

within the Federal Government to look for

technical help. Conversely, techniques used

in these projects could then be centrally documented and available for application to similar projects throughout the country, whether

they are funded by public or private sources.

National Center for Preservation Technology: Alternatively, Congress could create a

National Center for Preservation Technology, managed by a consortium of universities and preservation organizations. 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 constraints imposed by being

housed within the Federal structure, such an

organization might be more innovative than

a Federal laboratory. Though it would serve

as a resource for the Federal Government,

like the Federal Center outlined above, it

would also serve State and local needs.

. 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, determine current needs for

technology in prehistoric and historic preservation, develop standards for the application of new technologies, and assist in disseminating information. The professional

societies concerned with archaeology, his-
19

tory, historic structures, and historic landscapes are likely to be highly supportive of

such a Board.

In December 1986, representatives from several national preservation organizations, including the Society for American Archaeology, the

Society for Archaeological Sciences, the National

Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, and the National Council on Public History,

met informally to discuss the need for a center

for preservation technology and the potential for

achieving it. They formed the Coalition for Applied Preservation Technology (CAPT), which is

devoted to exploring the potential of such an institution and “to develop an organizational framework to facilitate the development, application

and transfer of advanced technology in preservation. 34 CAPT held its first organizational meeting in Washington, DC on February 27, 1987 at

the National Trust for Historic Preservation. It has

formed committees to investigate different

aspects of a center (table 6).

If a Center for Preservation Technology were

established, landscape preservation concerns

would constitute part of the center’s workload.

The section, Federal Po/icy Toward Landscape

Preservation, discusses several landscape preservation problems such a center might pursue.

ISSUE E: Systematic and long-term maintenance

is one of the most effective methods of slowing deterioration from human and natural

agencies.

Systematic preventive maintenance and upkeep can prevent minor problems from becoming major worries. It is absolutely crucial to the

Jqc oalition for Advanced Preservation Technology “Dear COlIeague” letter, Jan. 19, 1987.

Table 6.—Working Groups of the Coalition for Applied

Preservation Technology

conservation of a landscape, particularly because

landscapes change so rapidly as a result of plant

growth or deterioration. Managing the maintenance of a landscape requires continuous attention to its specific needs. Quality and appropriateness of maintenance is as important as its

regularity .35 A variety of technologies, including

microcomputer-based maintenance management

systems, are available to improve such practices

and make them more cost-effective.

The designers and builders of many historic

landscapes, such as parks, and gardens of historic

houses, expected that these landscapes would be

maintained by adequate numbers of skilled personnel. Today, especially when so many historic

properties are owned and maintained by public

agencies, gardeners and other maintenance personnel may not have adequate experience or

training. Likewise, contracting stipulations that

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. For example, Sleepy

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

Working Group on Research and Development

Working Group on Applications Issues

Working Group on Public Education and Involvement

Working Group on Technology Transfer Issues

Working Group on Technology Clearinghouse

SOURCE: Coalition for Applied Presewatlon Technology.

JsCyc/;ca/ Maintenance for Historic Buildings, J. Henry Chambers, AIA, Interagency Historic Architectural Services Program, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976. Although this reference

is directed toward historic buildings, many of its general recommendations are appropriate for landscapes.
20

communications skills, they are also more effective in articulating required maintenance tasks to

outside contractors who trim the large trees and

do other specialized work.

Maintenance standards and plans must be developed and carried out by managers professionally trained in tending historic properties. The increased use of personal computers and specially

designed software could be extremely helpful in

improving the quality and quantity of landscape

maintenance. For example, a computerized management plan for a landscape would allow landscape managers to factor in a number of tasks

on a cyclical basis. Such a plan could allow for

the fact that each species of tree, shrub, and plant

requires different treatments on different schedules. Structures such as bridges, pavilions, and

interpretive centers require yet a different set of

maintenance strategies. Maintenance management systems allow computation of needed labor resources based on assumptions about maintenance standards and landscape systems, and

provide the capacity to match up such needs with

available labor. They also enable managers to develop a schedule for maintenance that takes into

account the level of education and skills of the

maintenance personnel. A detailed maintenance

plan could also assist in justifying training in skills

that are needed but not available from current

staff.

Expert systems,36 which have been developed

to aid decisionmaking in practical tasks in other

fields, such as diagnosing diseases, repairing

mechanical systems, or analyzing molecular

structure, could also be developed for landscape

management. Such systems might be especially

effective in developing information and decisionmaking for certain maintenance tasks, especially

those that call for highly specific, readily describable techniques, but they should not be considered a substitute for training in the application

of the technologies.

36~e U.S. Congress, mice of Technology Assessment, /formation Technology: R&D Critical Trends and Issues, OTA-CIT-268

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1985);

also Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation, “Ch.

5: Preservation Information.”

ISSUE F: Greater public understanding of reasons to preserve historic landscapes is needed

to build popular support for the identification and preservation of historic landscapes.

Public officials and other citizens are often unaware of the value and significance of historic

landscapes. Traditionally, historic preservationists

have worked from the grassroots by building local constituencies that have identified the value

of a given structure or archaeological site and

sought State or National help in preserving it.

However, in landscapes, the local groups who

might identify landscape value often do not exist, in part because they lack adequate information about why certain landscapes might be important to our cultural history. Often those who

are most familiar with a landscape are least aware

of its value.

In the case of designed historic landscapes,

most people are unaware that they were designed, or what goes into a design, and why it

may be important to maintain the design’s integrity. Although this is true for such areas as Central Park, prehistoric designed landscapes may be

even more subtle to the modern eye. For example, it may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer that the prehistoric designers and

builders of the Serpent Mound in south central

Ohio chose a particularly dramatic site for the

placement of their design.37 The serpent effigy is

located on a northerly slope between the junction of two local creeks. The setting not only displays the design skill of the artisans and builders,

it allows the spectator to view the construct in

its entirety from several different vantage points.

Although we can only speculate about their reasons for choosing this particular site, it was well

selected for the particular design its ancient

builders wished to execute there (see p. 7).

Historic vernacular landscapes may be appreciated the least by the local people who live

and work in it. For example, farmers within a rural

JT”ln 1846, the snake’s body was more than 1.5 meters high and

9 meters wide, but erosion and cultivation have reduced these

dimensions to about 1.2 by 6 meters.” William N. Morgan, Prehistoric Architecture in the Eastern United States (Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press, 1980), p. 23.
21

historic district may be so familiar with their surroundings that they fail to recognize their special characteristics. The distinctive urban historic

landscapes represented by the northeastern mill

towns are thought by some local residents merely

to represent outmoded industry. Yet such areas

played an important part in the industrialization

of the United States and reflect late 19th century

values and conditions. [n some cities these areas

have served as a focal point for the revitalization

of the city.38

Where local support for preserving landscape

values has developed, it has often acted to enlarge the scope of historic districts. For example,

in one case in Jefferson County, Kentucky, the

Tyler Settlement, a site consisting of a few farm

houses and auxiliary buildings, was nominated

to the National Register of Historic Places. Howjaprocter and Matuszeski, Op. cit.

ever, the people of Jefferson County realized that

the houses had little to do with the significance

of the area. Instead, they recognized the agricultural patterns, the associations of the families, the

stonework, the fences, and other components as

significant, integral elements of the whole landscape. The local people, working through their

certified local govern ment39 (CLG), did the research necessary to expand the scale of the nomination to the 600-acre Tyler Settlement Rural

Historic District. This was the first fully documented rural historic landscape in Kentucky.

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 scope.

39A ce~ified local government is one that is certified to receive

funding from the Historic Preservation Fund, administered on the

State level by the State Historic Preservation Office.
TECHNOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE IDENTIFICATION

Two fundamental issues pertaining to historic

landscapes need to be addressed by investigators and managers: what was the landscape like

during its prehistoric or historic period, and what

is it like in the present? The answers are found

in two sometimes quite different sources: information derived from documentary sources and

information derived from the landscape itself .40

As historian Thomas J. Schlereth has suggested

in a study of the landscape along U.S. Route 40

in Indiana,

To know U.S. 40, and by inference any American “roadscape”, one must embark on an intellectual and geographical odyssey. That is to

say, one must confront the “roadscape” directly,

by walking or riding over it as well as by exploring it vicariously in reading what others have written, photographed, mapped, sung or exhibited

of it. One needs to do both reading and roaming . . .41

Various technologies can help make reading

and roaming more cost-effective and time efficient.

Identifying and inventorying historic landscapes

requires four basic steps:

1. identifying and accessing records of the

known resources;

2. identifying previously unidentified historic

landscapes and locating archival records,

documents, and nondocumentary evidence

concerning them;

3. recording, storing, and augmenting the

newly acquired data; and

4. detailed ground survey and documentation.

Technologies that simplify and enhance the

identification and documentation of landscapes

range from such mundane, basic techniques as

the use of volunteers wielding pencil and paper

to sophisticated computer systems that can assimilate, manipulate, and store graphical information and generate complicated maps of a region. The following examples illustrate this range.

I n general, the various technologies and sources

4Melnick, op. cit., 1984, p. 8.

41 Thoma~ j. Schlereth, (J5 #: A RoadsCape of the American E x -

perience (Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Historical Society, 1985), p. 61.

of information are not exclusive, but may build

upon one another.

Documentary and Nondocumentary

Sources

The investigation of various kinds of documentary sources—manuscript materials, knowledgeable inhabitants, business and family records,

local histories, novels, quilts, folksongs, newspapers, poems, photographs, paintings, drawings,

diaries, letters, maps, advertisements, catalogs,

films, surveyors’ field notes and maps, or even

types of plants—will help the investigator better

understand what he or she sees in surveying a

site. 42 As one landscape historian has commented:

We need to know the persons involved–designers, clients, users; the means at hand—financial resources as well as natural ones, available

technology, materials and labor supply; the design concepts and criteria that were at work as

the landscape took form, whether the designer

was conscious of them or not; and finally the

chronology of events that either enhanced or disrupted the realization of the original scheme.43

A historical survey is the first step in beginning

to read a historic rural district. Such a survey includes information about broad settlement patterns of the region, including important people;

regional demography of both the past and the

present; social, political, economic and cultural

trends, forces, and patterns. Known anthropological, historical, folkloric, and archaeological data

also should be incorporated in a survey. This information forms the historical context within

which to evaluate the natural as well as cultural

resources of the district (table 7).44

42De10res Hayden anrj Peter Morris, “The Quiltmaker’s Landscape,” Landscape 25, No. 3, 1981.

d3Catherine M. l-+owett, “Landscape Research: Keeping Faith with

Today and Tomorrow,” The Yearbook of Landscape Architecture:

Historic Preservation (New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold,

1983), p. 7.

ddMelnick, op. cit., 1984, p. 16.

22
23

Table 7.—The Material Components of the Rural

Historic Landscape

Overall patterns of landscape spatial organization

Land-use: categories and activities

Response to natural features

Circulation networks

Boundary demarcations

Vegetation related to land use, such as hedge-rows, orchards,

or ornamental plantings

Cluster arrangement

Structure: type, function, materials, construction

Small-scale elements, such as cattle chutes, water troughs,

or isolated grave markers

Historical views and other perceptual qualities

SOURCE: Robert Z. Melnick, Cu/tura/ Larrdscapes: Rura/ Histodc LYstricts in the

Nat/ona/ Park System (Washington, DC: US. Department of the interior, National Park Service Park Historic Architecture Division, 1984.

Archival Research

Archival research and interviewing (oral history)

are important first steps in identifying historic

sites, including landscapes. Preliminary research

that is done with care and imagination can save

time and money as well as provide a focus for

field work and a broad basis for establishing

historic significance. Developments in archival

technology, such as optical disk storage and retrieval, and computerized databases can make

the records search more efficient and even more

cost-effective than it is now.45 Such research may

benefit from the assistance of professional

historians who have been trained in archival

met hods.

The technical questions involved with this type

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

house it, and ways of arranging data to make

them usable for preliminary analysis and in developing a research plan. Interviewing depends

on the technologies for tape recording and archiving electronic storage media, if oral history

materials are to be retained. It also depends on

knowledge of good interviewing techniques.

Maps

A variety of historic and contemporary maps

can be used to discover historic landscapes and

other cultural features, such as archaeological

sites and historic structures. Historic maps primarily depict natural and political boundaries and

dSTechno/og;es for prehistoric and Historic Preservation, “Ch. 5:

Preservation Information. ”

cultural features, such as growth patterns, place

names, Indian trails, roads, railroads, structures,

and fence lines. In addition to displaying such features, contemporary maps, often made from aerial photographs or images sensed from spacecraft,

may reflect the topography of a region or its natural resources and geology. This additional information can be particularly useful for discovering and analyzing historic landscapes.

Because early mapmaking methods often introduced major systematic errors into maps, and

tended to treat the earth’s surface as if it were

a plane, extracting useful historic information

from very early maps can often be extremely difficult. However, methods developed by historical cartographers for determining the planometric accuracy of early maps can be applied to them

to correct their systematic errors. The corrected

version can then be used to locate historic features on current maps or in the field.46

A comparative sequence of maps from different time periods can reveal cultural patterns and

how the cultural components of an area change

over time.47 property survey maps and records,

which are generally stored in county archives, as

well as old tax records are also of use in interpreting land use patterns. Historic aerial photographs (see below) can also be used like maps

to compare land use patterns over time.

Historic Photographs

Historic photographs, including aerial photographs, are an excellent source of landscape information and invaluable tools of identification

and interpretation. Not only do they often capture a small slice of life in a landscape by showing people doing things, they show historic vegetation and structures, and may serve to document

the changes in a landscape over time. Care and

sophistication should be used in reading historic

photographs because, like maps and other records, they are subject to a variety of distortions.

~Thomas E. Davidson, “Computer-Correcting Historical Maps

for Archaeological Use,” Maryland Historical Trust, manuscript, n.d.

dTj .M. Hooke and R.j. P. Kain, Historica/ Change in the Physical

Environment: A Guide to Sources and Techniques (London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982).
24

For example, “landscape photographs”48 may

present views selected according to aesthetic

standards applicable to the era in which they

were taken.49

Photographs present the historian with a visual

record of a “moment in time” stopped indefinitely for his inspection. As such, it provides a direct

record of how things and people looked, in a way

that endless accounts of written records could

never achieve. so

For example, photographs from the late 19th

and early 20th century document how the historic center of Annapolis, MD, has changed in

the intervening years. They illustrate that certain

areas of the city have experienced surprisingly

little change over the years, while others have

been altered to the point that they would be totally unrecognizable today to a visitor from the

past.51 Because photographs of landscapes are

often byproducts of other interests of the photographer, they also show aspects of landscapes that

no one at the time thought were important to

point out.

In historic designed landscapes, historic photographs may reveal vegetation and important

elements of the landscape that do not appear in

the original landscape drawings, either because

the owner altered the plan, or because the available plans do not reveal the overall setting. Photographs are especially important for disclosing

the surroundings of a formal garden. Among

other things, such evidence may allow historians

to discover the placement of an original garden

now destroyed or buried.

Photographs may also provide valuable information about design intent. One example is a

1904 photograph of Olmsted’s home, Fairsted

(now Olmsted National Historic Site), which

Ae)ohn !jZarkowski, American Landscapes: Photographs From the

Collection of the Museum of Modern Art (New York: Museum of

Modern Art, 1981).

Agjohn R. Stilgoe, “Popular Photography, Scenery Values, and

Visual Assessment,” Land.cape Journa/, vol. 3, No. 2, 1984, pp.

111-121.

sOArthur C. Townsend, “Interpreting the Historical Photograph, ”

in Marion E. Warren and Mary Elizabeth Warren, The Train’s Done

Been and Gone (Boston, MA: David R. Godine, 1976), p. 13.

Slwarren and Warren, op. cit., 1976.

shows the house covered with vines.52 A plan of

the same year fails to indicate the vines at all.

Thus, photographs and plans provided different

information, and both are needed to present the

total picture.

Historic photographs are available from State

and local archives, museums, private collections,

antique dealers, and individual families. Aerial

photographs are of particular importance, as they

can show broad-scale patterns of land use and

disturbance (see section below on remote

sensing.)

Historic photographs can be especially valuable in showing what plantings and landscape

features existed around a historic structure whose

gardens were not formally designed and thus for

which no plans are available. For example, photographs taken of the Frederick Douglass Home,

Cedar Hill, while Douglass lived there showed

shade and cedar trees and plantings around outbuildings, as well as the location and materials

of such features as fences and a grape arbor.

These photographs enabled the “re-creation” of

a plan of how the grounds appeared when

Douglass lived there. References in correspondence and receipts of items purchased refine our

knowledge of the kinds of plantings and construction materials used.53

Historic Drawings and Plans

For historic gardens, parks, and other designed

landscapes, the original plans or drawings of the

landscape, if they exist, are of great importance

in identifying and eventually restoring and preserving the designed landscape. These documents may be stored in various specialized

archives, such as the Warren H. Manning Collection at Iowa State University,54 and the

Olmsted archives at the Frederick Law Olmstead

National Historic Site, or more generalized archives such as the Library of Congress and National Archives and Records Administration.

sz shary Page Berg, personal communication, 1987.

53 Darwina Neal, National Park Service, personal communication,

1987.

Sdwilliam j. Grundmann, “Warren H. Manning Collection,” Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Design, lowa State

University, 1985.
25

plans and drawings done by professional designers or design firms are often retained in the

firm’s archives if the firm still exists. More often,

however, the landscape architects worked alone

or had few employees, so that the office closed

when they ceased to practice. Files from such an

office may have been passed on to another firm,

donated to State or local historic societies, or

given to universities, especially those with schools

of landscape architecture. In other cases, records

of projects may have been given to the clients

who commissioned them. Many such plans are

simply destroyed.

In many cases, architectural and landscape architectural plans were generally intended for

short-term use and little or no thought was given

to the possibility that they might later be placed

in an archive. As a result, plans and drawings

were not always done on durable paper or properly stored. New conservation and copy technologies are needed. Computer technology for copying drawings, digitizing the information they

contain, and reproducing them is already available. 55

Until recently, there has been no central listing of such records. The newly established Catalog of Landscape Records in the United States

project (box B) is an attempt to remedy this. Few

collections that do exist are cataloged in a systematic way, making access and retrieval particularly difficult. For example, the collection of

records of the Olmsted firm, which NPS acquired

in 1980 as part of the Olmsted National Historic

Site, is one of the few collections of landscape

architectural records under the care of a curator. It includes over 100,000 individual plans. Although they are generally organized according

to design project, many have been misfiled over

the years; no comprehensive inventory exists.56

The lack of specific inventory makes it difficult

for those carrying out a general inventory to answer such questions as: what plans exist for a particular property? or what projects did a particular member of the firm work on?

Sssee OTA, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic preservation, op. cit., “Ch. 5: Preservation Information,” for additional discussion of the conservation problem.

%hary Page Berg, “Rescuing Fairsted,” Landscape Architecture

77, 1987, pp. 83-85.

Additional Documentary Evidence

Because landscapes change so rapidly, design

intent is even more important, and more difficult,

to establish. Therefore, correspondence, or design statements may provide important clues to

understanding a landscape. Newspapers, manuscripts, family records, personal correspondence,

local written folklore, even postcards,57 may provide useful information concerning landscapes

and the public’s attitudes toward them.

Landscapes can also be captured and studied

in media that may not immediately come to

mind. For example, American music frequently

has expressed the grandeur and specificity of the

way the landscape looks and sounds. Such music

demonstrates how people relate to and feel about

the land. In fine-art expression, the sounds of

landscapes create the Pennsylvania countryside

in Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring and western vistas in Ferde Grofe’s Grand Canyon Suite.

The humorous folksong “Cumberland Gap”

details some of the problems the mountainous

landscape created for travelers. John Denver’s

“Country Roads” waxes with nostalgia, but

evokes the West Virginia mountain landscape left

behind. Although Steve Goodman’s song, “The

City of New Orleans,” details the atmosphere of

the inside rather than outside “train scapes”, the

place names alone put the trip and the sense of

loss for a sort of transportation and a crucial piece

of American history into the context of past and

present. 58 The popular song “Route 66” describes

a “roadscape” familiar to drivers before the advent of Interstate 40.

Even historic movies can be sources of information about landscapes and how they are perceived. Both documentaries and artistic movies

provide images of the landscape and how they

were used. 59 The silent movies of the early part

57H ilary Lamber Renwick and Susan Cutter, “wish you Were

Here: Map Postcards and Images of Place, ” Landscape, vol. 27,

No. 1, 1983, pp. 30-38.

ssFor railroad landscapes, see John R. Stilgoe, “The Railroad Beautiful: Landscape Architecture and the Railroad Gardening Movement, 1867-1 930, ” Landscape )ourna/, vol. 1, No. 2, 1982, pp.

57-65.

s~ena Crandell, “MOVing Pictures, ” Landscape Architecture, November 1985.
26

of this century provide an especially valuable record of the landscapes of California and New York.

Above-Ground Archaeology—

Nondocumentary Evidence

Place names, buildings, markers, vegetation,

road size, infrastructure elements, and other

physical evidence contain important clues to the

identification and analysis of landscapes.60

~john j. Stewart, “Historic Landscapes and Gardens, ” American

Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet 80, /-/istory News 29, No. 11, November 1974.

Vegetation.— Ecologists, folklorists, forest and

agricultural historians, cultural and historical geographers, and landscape architects have all done

important work in interpreting landscape vegetation patterns. However, the British “history on

the ground movement” is far ahead of American

historians in terms of reading the landscape for

clues to historical events, as is the German tradition of Volksbotanik scholarship.61

The kinds and patterns of vegetation can reflect

a design planned by someone who understands

the relationships between light and shade, mass

and clearings, plantings and structures-a famous

landscape architect on one hand, a committed

local gardener in a frontier wilderness on another,

though their processes and patterns may be very

different. Plants reveal patterns of settlement and

use, protection of property, and environmental

and aesthetic improvement in a landscape. Plantings may also be used to commemorate important life events such as marriage, birth of children,

or death.62 Trace plantings such as daffodils, exotic flowering shrubs, or fruit trees can denote

abandoned homesteads. Peach trees and lilac

bushes were often planted around homes in the

Cuyahoga Valley of Ohio. In the Southwest, four

wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and wolfberry

(Solanum, often indicate the presence of

ruined Pueblo prehistoric dwellings.

Local folklore often reveals the importance of

certain places to the local populace. Such information can often only be obtained by interviewing local residents.

Gathering and Analyzing Site

Information

The survey of landscapes is a precursor to their

eventual analysis and evaluation as part of a region’s historic record. A considerable amount of

the information necessary for understanding the

history of an area is available in the survey records

blThomas j. Schlereth, Artifacts and the American Past (Nashville,

TN: American Association for State and Local History, 1980), p. 147.

bZFor example, some North Carolina migrants brought “coffin”

pines to the midwest to provide a soft wood for coffins. They were

apparently sometimes planted in pairs, one for each partner.

Thomas j. Schlereth, Arfifacfs and the American Past (Nashville,

TN: American Association for State and Local History, 1980), 154.
2 7

alone. For example, the New Mexico Historic

Landscape Survey has shown that merely examining the various landscapes defined by the original town centers of the cities of New Mexico enables the observer to glean important clues about

the values of the individuals who designed them

and settIed there.69

The following sections outline some of the techniques, methods, and equipment that can assist

landscapes survey.

Volunteer Survey

This technique is commonly used for historic

preservation, especially in cases where funding

for general surveys is often highly limited, and

where local lay knowledge of historic sites is high.

The use of volunteers, using printed forms such

as the ASLA Designed Historic Landscapes Na-

‘

3 Baker H. Morrow, “Old Landscapes, New Ideas: New Mexico’s Historic Landscape Architecture, ” New Mexico Architecture,

September-October 1985.

tional Landscape Survey Form,b4 has the signal

advantage that its use requires little special training beyond a knowledge of landscape values and

the significance categories of the National Register. However, it is difficult to obtain uniform results from the efforts of many different volunteers,

with varying knowledge, experience, and values,

from many different regions of the United States.

Volunteer efforts are generally most successful

when the volunteers have received appropriate

training from historic preservation professionals,

where ongoing professional guidance is available

to ensure consistency, and where the project is

small or highly focused.

Measured Drawings

Documentation of a landscape after it has been

identified as having historic significance, is an

important part of the overall survey process.

bdo~A, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation,

op. cit., app. F.

Photo credit: Nationa/ Park Service, Historic American Bui/dings Survey

Cascade area, Meridian Hill Park, Washington, DC
28

Measured drawings, employing techniques borrowed from the field of structural architecture,

are an excellent means of thoroughly documenting a landscape.

In 1985, the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) undertook a measured drawings

project at Meridian Hill Park, Washington, DC,

which could serve as a useful model for such

documentation. Meridian Hill Park designed and

constructed from 1912 to 1936, was inspired by

French and Italian Renaissance landscape designs.65

At Meridian Hill, the documentation began

with a complete set of architectural base maps.

Five large HABS sheets linked by pinbar matchIines were covered by matching overlays with

“graphic representations” of trees, shrubs, and

vines, as well as tree diameters and canopy sizes.

Though the drawings display where elements of

the landscape are located, they are not able to

capture the essential landscape spatial qualities

of Meridian Hill Park. Therefore, the recorders

used photography to supplement the base maps

and provide a sense of the landscape. A complete

set of standard 4x5 inch HABS photographs was

taken of the whole park. Five views, chosen for

their historic importance for design and extent

of change, were printed at a large scale onto

HABS Mylar. Some of the areas were then reconstructed on Mylar overlays, based on historic photographs and research. In addition, some resources of particular architectural interest were

detailed in a standard HABS format.66

The HABS survey of Texas missions67 illustrates

the recording of buildings that create spaces, such

as courtyards or patios, which, though they are

defined by the buildings, are historic landscapes

in their own right. New Mexican plazas, courtyards, and courthouse squares have been documented by the State Historic Preservation Office

as part of its survey of New Mexico landscapes.Ga

University Landscape Architecture

Programs

Landscape architecture schools provide an important potential source of expertise and commitment to documenting significant historic landscapes. The University of Virginia’s Architectural

History Program offers a class in measured drawing, which has provided HABS documentation

for hundreds of Virginia historic buildings over

the years.69 University of Delaware students have

carried out much of the basic survey for the State

of Delaware in a similar drawing program.

Computers

The computer is one of the most powerful tools

available for identifying, analyzing, and evaluating historic landscapes. When used with other

technologies, such as optical disks, graphics design and display software, or computerized databases, the computer can dramatically increase the

preservation community’s access to information

and its ability to exploit information effectively.

Computer Aided Design (CAD) .–CAD software, 70 when used with the appropriate microcomputer, makes it possible to draw and store

a given landscape and to manipulate and alter

the drawing later without having to redraw unaltered elements. Various elements of the landscape, such as trees, fences, shrubs, other plantings, and structures, can also be independently

generated and stored in memory for placement

in appropriate parts of the landscape. Such software allows one to remove elements of the current landscape, such as contemporary structures

or newer plantings, and render it both as it appeared in the historic era in which it was designed, and as it has evolved. In restoring an

sSBecause structura] architectural elements, such as retaining

walls, steps, cascades, and fountains play a dominant role in the

park’s design, HABS recorded Antietam National Battlefield, a landscape with more natural components, in order to expand its guidelines for the documentation of landscapes in 1986.

‘sPaul Dolinsky, “Landscape Recording: Expanding the Tradition,” CRM 13u//etin, vol. 9, june 1986, pp. 16-17.

bzKenneth L. Anderson, “Mission Project Brings Praise frOm park

and Region,” CRM f?u//etir), vol. 9, No. 3, june 1986, pp 11-15.

‘%tate of New Mexico, “First Annual Report, Registry of Historic

Landscapes,” op. cit.

bgorlando Ridout V, Maryland Historical Society, perSOnal Communication, 1987.

z~ne example is Landcadd, which operates with AutoCAD, a

generalized computer drafting and design software package. See

E. Bruce McDougall, Microcomputers in Landscape Architecture

(New York, NY: Elsevier, 1983) for a general discussion of

microcomputers for treating landscape design and management.
—

2 9

historic landscape, these design programs make

it possible to predict the general “look” of a landscape after several years. High-quality plotters can

produce accurate drawings in a fraction of the

time required to do them by hand. Such systems

can also vastly improve the speed and reliability

of producing scaled drawings.

Computer-Aided Survey.–If possible, computers should be used from the very beginning

of survey work, both to increase accuracy and

to reduce overall labor. Inexpensive, small, portable (lap) computers now available make it possible to enter data in the field, reducing the total

amount of effort in carrying out a survey, and ensuring greater uniformity. Forms can be entered

and stored in the computer ahead of time for data

entry in the field. Additional notes and other relevant information can also be entered and stored

on the computer. Their relatively low price and

the availability of word processing and database

software make portable computers extremely attractive for such work.

Even if, for reasons of cost or other considerations, it proves infeasible to take computers into

the field, it is possible to design survey forms for

easy field recording of data and subsequent entry into a computer database.

Photography and Video grammetry

Photography and videogrammetry are powerful methods for documenting a variety of historic

resources, including landscapes. Stereophotogram metric methods that use a photo-theodolite

enable detailed landscape documentation in

three dimensions.71 Advances in this technology

that depend heavily on digital computer applications, rather than precision optics to achieve

accuracy, promise to make documentation of

material cultural resources much cheaper and

more capable.

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. In the United States,

TI OTA, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation,

op. cit., pp. 52-54.

the use of accurate measured drawings is given

relatively low priority in the preservation of structures and landscapes. Yet, the use of architectural

photogrammetry is cost-effective, as such methods lead to a marked increase in accuracy 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.

Video and optical disk technologies can both

be powerful tools for survey and identification

of landscapes. Video techniques have proved

especially helpful in the survey of archaeological resources, and for rapid survey of city neighborhoods and historic structures.72 Optical disks

can be used to store video, movies, and photographs or drawings of cultural resources for rapid

retrieval and comparison .73

Landscape Databases

Computerized databases of various kinds are

crucial to the efficient use of information. As computers have become increasingly more capable

and cheaper to acquire, individuals and small institutions have begun to develop their own

powerful databases, and to communicate, by

telephone and modem, with other databases

around the world.

At present, no national database of historic

landscapes exists, either in the form of a landscapes inventory or a list of records collections.

An important first step in developing a national

database will be to create a database listing locations and general contents of landscape records

and collections throughout the country. A second step would be to establish a uniform database for an inventoty of historic landscapes, using

a standard survey form. State and local databases

are highly incomplete and lack information on

location of records and landscapes. In most cases,

72An~ rew Lippman, “Movie-Maps: An Application of the Optical Videodisc to Computer Graph ics, ” Proceedings of S/GGRApH

’80: Seventh Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and interactive Techniques, Seattle, WA, July 14-18, 1980.

TBOTA, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic preservation,

op. cit., ch. 5.
30

The Library of Congress.—Its National Union

Index to Architectural Records, which is only

available at the Library, contains some information about landscapes. This database can be accessed by the name of the designer, architectural

firm, partner, name or geographic location of a

building or structure, and location of the repository of information. It cannot be searched by

landscape type.

The National park Service.-The National Register Information System, maintained by the National Register of Historic Places, contains information on over 45,000 historic structures,

1985
31

objects, and sites in the United States, both listed

and determined eligible for listing.

In addition, NPS maintains a database of all the

landscapes within the National Park System. 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 to date.

Catalog of Landscape Records in America.–

This recently developed program, begun by the

American Garden History Program at Wave Hill,

Bronx, NY, will eventually result in a major catalog of landscape information (see box B).

Other Databases

A number of different private or university organizations maintain specialized databases related

to landscapes, For example, landscape architect

Robert Harvey of Iowa State University has developed a small database of his library of 700

books.74 By putting in the tables of contents, and

using keywords in a search it is possible to generate a variety of bibliographies dealing with

different topics. The State of New Mexico, which

has completed the first phase of its historic landscape survey, plans to place its entire list of historic landscapes on a database.75

Remote Sensing

Remote sensing76 techniques, especially those

used from the perspective of aircraft and spacecraft, hold great promise for the study of historic

landscapes, because they are nondestructive and

capable of analyzing vast areas quickly and accurately.77 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), will eventually prove important for improving landscape

discovery, identification, and evaluation. However, for most applications today, aerial photographs are extremely valuable and much cheaper

than data from multispectral scanners.

Many of the older aerial photographs (from files

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service, housed in the Cartographic and

Architectural Branch of the National Archives and

Record Administration, for example) may provide

useful historical information on landscapes, but

they have not been fully exploited. Aerial photographs, which have been taken of most places

in the United States many times since the early

1930s, provide a unique record of changes in the

landscape over time.78 Not only can such photos

serve to alert managers about impending changes

or destruction of landscapes from natural or human causes, they can also point the way to understanding a variety of natural processes, such

as erosion, or vegetation growth, that affect them.

However, such photographs have seen relatively

little use by the landscape preservation community.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

These are computerized database systems in

which the data are explicitly spatial in nature and

organization. A complete GIS includes both computer software and hardware. Such systems are

designed to integrate, manipulate, and analyze

statistical, demographic, cultural, and natural resources data. They also have the capability to

print maps and reports containing a wide variety of information.

74 Roben Harvey, personal communication, 1986.

75 State of New Mexico, “First Annual Report, Registry of Historic

Landscapes, ” Historic Preservation Bureau, 1982, p. 7.

mln 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 lasers, 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.

Tz~ee OTA, Techno/og;es for Prehistoric and Historic preservation, op. cit., ch. 3, for a more complete exposition of remote sensing as it applies to preservation requirements. See also Carole L.

Crumley and William H. Marquardt, Regiona/ Dynamics: A Landscape History of Burgundy (New York, NY; Academic Press, in

press). This book analyzes the historical landscape of Burgandy,

France from an interdisciplinary perspective.

Za]ames I. Ebert, Eileen L. Camilli, and LuAnn Wandsnider, “Measurement of Bank Erosion at Archaeological Sites on Middle Missouri River Reservoirs Using Sequential Aerial Photographs, ” presented at the 52d Annual Meeting of the Society for American

Archaeology, Toronto, May 9, 1987.
32

Originally, geographic information systems

were developed for large mainframe computers

and used by Federal or State agencies for resource management analysis and planning. For

example, the State of Mississippi has used its Mississippi Automated Resource Information System

(MARIS) to conduct studies on nuclear waste disposal and storage, Mississippi Delta ground water,

and statewide land cover. ’g More recently, the

proliferation of powerful microcomputers and

minicomputers has reduced the cost of such systems and made it possible for smaller organizations to acquire them.

in preservation, GIS have been employed in

studies of historic settlement patterns. The Army,

for example, has used existing GIS technologies

to map vegetation, slopes, and archaeological

sites across a landscape.80 Its system can plot

every known site.

Geographic information systems can also be

used for identifying, mapping, and displaying

landscapes. * Army technicians, for example, can

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, most of these

techniques could be transferred into the civilian

realm. The Army Corps of Engineers has developed a GIS called the Geographical Resources

Analysis Support System (GRASS), which can run

on a minicomputer or microcomputer and has

four major subsystems:

1. Grid Cell Analysis System (GRASS-GRID):

Provides tools for overlaying, analyzing, and

displaying grid cell databases within an area.

2. Image Processing (GRASS-IMAGERY): Proc3

esses and interprets Landsat digital images

and digitized aerial photographs.

Digitizing and Map Development (GRASSMAPDEV): Converts printed maps into digital data for manipulation by other GRASS

subsystems.

4. Polygon Display and Analysis: Produces

maps for the plotter from the database.81

‘U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: Issues for Discussion—A Technical

Memorandum, OTA-TM-ISC-20 (Springfield, VA: National Technical

Information Service, March 1984), app. C.

BOConstance Ramirez, U.S. Department of the Army, personal

communication, 1986.

*john Knoerl, “Managing Historic Preservation Information,” presented at the 52d Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto, May 9, 1987.

SIj. Westervelt, W. Goran, and M. Shapiro, “Development and

Applications of GRASS: The Geographical Resources Analysis Support System, “ in Bruce K. Opitz (cd.), Geographic /nforrnation Systems in Government (Hampton, VA: A. Deepak Publishing, 1986),

pp. 605-624. This book contains a comprehensive review of the

many uses of GIS for land analysis and management.
LANDSCAPES AND A CENTER FOR PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY

If an institution intended to focus on the study

and development of technology for preservation

problems, such as a Center for Preservation Technology, is eventually established, part of its

agenda will be landscape preservation. Like the

study and preservation of archaeological sites and

historic structures, landscape preservation requires the mutual support and interaction of

experts in many disciplines. The center should

include specialists from several different disciplines, including but not limited to, agronomy,

botany, cultural geography, geography, horticulture, landscape architecture, soil sciences, and

zoology.

The following sections suggest some of the

landscape problems a multidisciplinary center

might tackle.

Intensive Regional Survey of

Landscapes

No organization has made an intensive local

or regional landscape survey. Yet such a survey,

carried out in several well-defined small regions,

would have numerous benefits for preservation,

as well as local and regional planning efforts. It

could:

●

●

●

●

●

●

serve as a model for identifying historic landscapes in other regions;

demonstrate the use and value of GIS and

other technologies in identifying and surveying significant landscapes;

assist landscape management and maintenance planning;

assist natural resource inventory and

planning;

demonstrate the ability of GIS to map the

projected alterations in the landscape as a

result of a proposed change in land use policies; and

assist in managing trade-offs with other uses

of the landscapes.

In addition, an intensive regional survey would

help educate preservationists in learning how to

identify, characterize, analyze, evaluate, and

manage landscapes.

Such a survey should be multidisciplinary and

use all the available tools of landscape survey,

including existing maps and GIS, to investigate

a region in detail. The survey should include all

major structural elements and archaeological

sites, as well as contemporary landscapes and

landscape uses. It would serve as a model for

identifying historic landscapes and showing how

their preservation and management might be integrated with other uses of the landscape.

The State of Maryland, because of its highly varied landscape and its experience with broadbased surveys of historic structures, might prove

an excellent place to conduct an intensive regional survey. Box C outlines what such a survey might entail.

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. Living history museums and historic farms

may also provide the means to save historic plant

stock for future generations. Organizations such

as Seed Savers and North American Fruit Explorers also assist in this effort, and may be an important source of seeds for historic plant varietieso82

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

Ezsee OTA’S background papers entitled Grassroots Conservation of Biological Diversity in the United States, Background Paper #1, OTA-BP-F-38 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, February 1986); and Assessing Biological Diversity in the

United States: Data Considerations, Background Paper #2, OTABP-F-39 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March

1986), for a discussion of biological diversity.

33
34
35

.

In order to allow comparison of the study of these categories, an intensive survey should be conducted

in study areas that have distinctly different environments. In Maryland, it would be possible to select four

such study areas:

1. an Eastern Shore region, to reflect rural agricultural development in the generally flat Chesapeake

Tidewater;

2. Baltimore city, to reflect intensive urban development;

3. the Piedmont west of Baltimore, to allow comparison of an upland agricultural and small town environment with the Tidewater; and

4. the western Maryland valley and plateau, to reflect a mixture of agriculture and timber and mineral

resource extraction, and transportation exploitation in the Appalachians.

After completion, such a pilot study should develop recommendations for the identification, survey,

and evaluation of prehistoric and historic landscape features throughout the United States, as well as the

State of Maryland. In addition, the study could also be used for the protection and management of significant landscape resources. . 

In addition to providing information for effective management of these cultural resources, the results

of the study could also be used to educate local residents about the historic importance of such resources.

It maybe appropriate to mount an exhibit such as the recent show, New Jersey Pinelands: Tradition and

Environment, which featured exhibits that demonstrated how the inhabitants of the Pinelands have interacted with the land through history.1

~Produd at the New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, NJ.

SOURCE: Maryland Historical Trust.

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. A center for preservation technology could

serve as a central clearinghouse for historical horticultural and botanical information. If the center also maintained a computer-accessible database containing such information, it could also

increase the Nation’s ability to restore, conserve,

and maintain historic landscapes.

It may also be necessary to establish regional

arboreta 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, in New

York, has already started searching out and growing historic plants; Monticello, in Virginia, has

opened The Thomas Jefferson Center for Historic

Plants in 1987. The Thomas Jefferson Center will

build and maintain a collection of historic plants;

sell plants; educate the public through publications, interpretive gardens, lectures, and conferences; and study and document the history of

plants used in America.83

Clearinghouse for Landscape

Preservation Information

The preservation of historic cultural resources,

including landscapes, depends substantially on

the use of historical records and technical information that exist in a variety of forms and are

stored and maintained in many different places.

Decisions concerning the restoration and main83’’Many historic varieties have desirable characteristics such as

fragrance, flavor, vigor, or disease resistance, which maybe needed

in future plant breeding. The Center is also collecting the species

forms from which modern strains have been developed, and choice

North American plants, a group of special interest to jefferson himself. ’’—Monticello Promotional Brochure, 1987.
36

tenance of historic landscapes are highly dependent on historical maps and landscape plans. The

Library of Congress, The National Archives and

Records Administration, The National Park Service, The Smithsonian Institution, The National

Technical Information Service, and other Federal,

State, and local agencies acquire and maintain

a wide variety of information on historic landscapes, including information on plant and tree

varieties.

Although other agencies are responsible for carrying out research on archival technologies, the

staff of a center ought to be familiar with the latest

means of storing, maintaining, conserving, and

disseminating information. In addition, the center should maintain a central database that lists

the primary landscape databases around the

world.

The preservation community also needs 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

landscapes. 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. Here again, it would also

be important to create a centralized database that

provides listings of specialized databases that

might be held elsewhere. Such a database should

be made useful and accessible to developers,

planners, researchers, and others outside the

professional preservation community. To be of

greatest use, ”it should be made available

line,” and routinely updated.

Landscape Management and

Maintenance Techniques

“onPreservation and management decisions are influenced by two broad considerations. First, at

the level of the site, structure, or landscape, cultural resource professionals must generally decide how the landscape will be preserved, used,

and interpreted to the public before beginning

excavation or restoration. At a broader level,

managers charged with stewardship of our 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 will then affect the management

of the landscapes and the expenditure of funds.

Restoration of a designed landscape often involves rehabilitation or restoration of existing elements, for example, 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 have been

lost. A Center for Preservation Technology could

work with other organizations, such as RESTORE,

in New York,84 to integrate historic skills, which

are generally labor-intensive, with new technologies that could reduce the amount of labor required.

For example, the increased use of personal

computers and specially designed software could

be extremely helpful in improving the quality and

quantity of maintenance planning and management. 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,

as well as structures such as bridges, pavilions,

and interpretive centers require a different individual treatment or maintenance strategy, but the

computer can simplify the complexities of allowing for such differences. It 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 and could

help justify additional training or personnel, if

needed. — — -

MRESTORE is a NeW York-based nonprofit organization that provides training for tradespeople in the restoration and maintenance

of historic buildings.
37

Finally, a center could investigate technologies

for such problems as reducing erosion and

stabilizing landscapes. Erosion, whether it occurs

from overflowing streams, or wave action, the

variation in water level of reservoirs, or surface

flow over denuded slopes, is one of the most serious natural threats to landscapes, as well as to

archaeological sites. As has been noted elsewhere, “the methods available for archaeological site stabilization differ very little from those

which have been used for stream bank maintenance and general erosion control.”85 Little comparative research has been carried out on the use

of such methods. The following materials and

methods, among others such as the use of seawalls, have been employed with varying success

for site stabilization:86

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

stone riprap,

concrete pavement,

gunite,

used-tire mattresses,

groundcover planting,

driftwood facing,

sandbags,

woven fiberglass or woven excelsior matting,

GEOWEB,

soil-binding polymers,

tall-grass meadows, and

vegetation around underwater sites.

Although many of the above methods would

be unsuitable for the long-term preservation of

85 Robert M. Thorne, “Preservation is a Use . . . Experimental Archaeological Site Stabilization in the Tennessee Valley, ” Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology 40, 1985.

861 bid.; U ,S. National Park Service, “Earthworks Management

Manual,” Mid-Atlantic Regional Office (Philadelphia, PA: May 1987).

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 be appropriate in some

locations until vegetation growth is resumed.

Public Education

One of the most important functions a Center

for Preservation Technology could have is the

translation of research results into information the

public can comprehend and use. Although nearly

all of the effort of a center would be directed

toward providing technological support for the

professional preservation community, many of

the techniques developed would be of general

interest and application. A center could include,

as part of its publication program, a series that

focused on methods of identifying, inventorying,

evaluating, conserving, and restoring landscapes.

Many of these methods would be of considerable interest to those who manage contemporary

landscapes.

For example, a videodisk that presented the restoration of a designed landscape, including discussions of design decisions, organization of

paths, shaded areas, historic reference materials,

physical features, etc., could be of considerable

interest to the public and also teach people how

to care for their own properties.

Traveling museum exhibits, television documentaries, and interpretive packages for teachers

would serve to educate the public concerning

preservation values and impart significant technical information concerning landscapes.
FEDERAL POLICY TOWARD LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION

The Federal Government is responsible for providing leadership in preserving the Nation’s prehistoric and historic cultural resources.

The Role of the National Park Service

The National Park Service serves as the lead

agency for technical preservation matters for the

Federal Government, and for State and local efforts. In order to improve the preservation of prehistoric and historic landscapes, it would be necessary for the National Park Service to 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, a chief curator,

and a chief historical architect, it has no chief

landscape architect. To assist in meeting prehistoric and historic landscape preservation goals,

the National Park Service has identified 12

projects for standards and models. In focusing increased attention to historic landscapes, NPS

could also emphasize the role of technologies in

preserving prehistoric and historic landscapes.

In addition, the National Park Service is now

considering how to preserve its own historic landscapes; it could intensify those efforts by singling

out several landscapes to serve as preservation

models for other agencies and for State and local efforts.87 In the past, NPS has directed relatively few of its resources toward landscape preservation, compared to preservation of historic

structures or archaeological sites. It could redress

part of this imbalance by directing a greater portion of cultural resource funding toward landscape preservation. NPS managers need to be

more aware of the value of preserving historic

landscapes.

NPS could assist in this effort by making a

greater effort to include consideration of pre-

*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), app. F.

eTSee for example, john Donahue, “Historic Landscaping, ” Natiomd Park Service CRM Bu//etin, vol. 9, No. 2, 1986, pp. 1,8, which

mentions briefly both landscape design considerations and technologies for reproducing historic trees.

38

historic and historic landscapes in their various

publications. For example, the Preservation Briefs

and Tech Notes, published by the NPS Preservation Assistance Division, now focus on the preservation of historic structures. The subject matter of these and other publications could be

expanded to include recommendations on preserving landscapes. NPS could also exercise

leadership and enhance its own landscape preservation effort by upgrading and highlighting the

function of gardening and grounds maintenance

as a crucial resource management role in the

service. Finally, NPS could develop a self-study

course similar to the one NPS developed for

historic architecture.88 This course is directed at

a range of job classifications, and depending on

previous knowledge and interest the employee

could either update or increase his or her preservation skills.

Uniform standards for landscape identification

and preservation need to be developed. 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,”89 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 must be developed for landscapes.

The National Historic Preservation Act

Although the National Historic Preservation Act

contains no impediment to the identification and

preservation of landscapes, neither does it specifically mention them.~ Yet, most Federal agencies that hold and manage historic properties also

‘Hugh C. Miller, Lee H. Nelson, and Emogene A. Bevitt, “Skills

Development Plans for Historical Architects in the National Park

Service” (Washington, DC: National Park Service, May 1986); NPS

gave a course entitled “Policies and Issues in Preservation of Historic

Landscapes,” Fredericksburg, VA, April 1986.

egThis publication Will soon be published in a revised edition.

gOFor example, See Sec. 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. ”
39

manage prehistoric or historic landscapes. Not

expressly naming historic landscapes as worthy

of being identified and preserved allows the agencies to overlook landscape concerns in their preservation programs.

Many have suggested that it may be appropriate to amend the National Historic Preservation

Act to include explicit reference to historic landscapes. Others have expressed concern that including explicit reference to historic landscapes

will open the act to inclusion of other, more specific historic categories, or will subject it to unnecessary and harmful experimentation.

Terminology

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 concerning historic landscapes, and focusing more attention on landscape preservation.

As noted in Issue A, the lack of consistent terminology constitutes a formidable barrier to identifying and preserving significant historic landscapes.

in an effort to bring consistency to landscape

preservation, the Historic Preservation Committee of the American Society of Landscape Architects has proposed landscape preservation terminology. 91 This, and other similar efforts, should

be examined carefully and consistent terminology developed and promulgated. However, such

terminology should be clear and appropriately

reflect the interests of a variety of disciplines that

investigate landscapes. In other words, it should

not be biased toward the thinking of any one professional group or discipline. In order to assist the

procedure of nominating significant prehistoric

and historic landscapes to the Register, it may be

appropriate to include landscape terminology in

the National Register categories as well as in

guidelines developed for evaluating and nominating them.

National Survey of Prehistoric and

Historic Landscapes

As noted previously, in 1984, with the support

of NPS, the Historic Preservation Committee of

the American Society of Landscape Architects

(ASLA) began a national survey of designed

historic landscapes. This project exemplifies the

importance of the public/private partnership to

historic preservation. The survey is being conducted through the ASLA, primarily by volunteers

from many regions of the United States. The quality and completeness of the results therefore vary

depending on the interest, degree of expertise,

and available time of those volunteers, New Mexico has completed an initial comprehensive survey. Massachusetts has inventoried its Olmsted

Parks and has established an office that is responsible for preservation of historic landscapes. Most

other States have only just begun their surveys.

NPS could assume a stronger role in the survey effort, in order to assure timely completion

of the survey and to standardize the information

collected. Congressional oversight may be necessary to assure completion of this important

project.

As noted in Issue C, too few U.S. landscapes

have been inventoried to provide significant examples. An interdisciplinary team approach, in

which anthropologists, archaeologists, architects,

cultural geographers, and historians work together with landscape architects in conducting

a broad-based survey of American landscapes,

could result in a dramatic increase in the quantity and quality of documented historic landscapes,92

The proliferation of microcomputers and

minicomputers may improve the information

flow among agencies. However, the lack of common standards for maintenance of databases

among the agencies constitute a formidable barrier to achieving a national inventory of historic

Landscapes.gq Although the agencies are taking

91 patricia 0’ Donnell, “Proposed Landscape Preservation Definitions, ” ASLA Committee on Historic Preservation, 1984.

gZO/m5t& Historic Landscape Preservation Program: Guidelines

and Criteria for /rnp/ementation (Boston, MA: Commonwealth of

Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs, April 1985).

WOTA, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation,

op. cit. ch. 5.
40

steps to coordinate databases, it is not clear how

successful such coordination will be. Such coordination would greatly improve the efficiency

of maintaining current information.

Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act

it is crucial to increase public awareness of the

value of significant historic landscapes if they are

to be preserved. By focusing attention on the

many landscape projects designed by Frederick

Law Olmsted and his professional successors,94

passage of the Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act

of 1987 (H. R. 17), an earlier version of which was

introduced in the 99th Congress,95 could materially aid the collection of information on all

U.S.-designed historic landscapes. Among other

things, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior:

●

●

●

●

to direct the National Park Service, with the

assistance of other Federal agencies, State

and local officials, and other interested parties, to prepare an inventory of all Olmsted

heritage landscapes consisting of “a listing

of all Olmsted heritage landscapes . . . and

a technical evaluation of all publicly owned

Olmsted heritage landscapes, and of all Olmsted heritage landscapes on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic

Places;

“in consultation with the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation, [to] promulgate . . . guidelines for applying the Secretary’s Standards for Historic Preservation

Projects to historic designed landscapes;

“provide technical assistance to other Federal agencies, State and local governments,

private organizations and interested individuals, on the identification, commemoration,

and preservation of historic designed landscapes;

“conduct and submit to the Congress . . . a

thematic study of historic designed landscapes . . . which would qualify as national

historic landmarks;

$Wver 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 Boston, MA; and Prospect Park in Brooklyn, NY.

9SH .R. 37—s= House of Representatives COmmiRee on I fIteriOr

and Insular Affairs Report 99-148, 99th Cong., 1st sess.

• “encourage a compatible program for the

use of the Frederick Law Olmsted National

Historic Site, Brookline, Massachusetts, as a

center for research, fellowships, and related

activities. ”

In the debate over t-1. R. 37 in the 99th Congress, some private owners of Olmsted properties expressed fear that passage of the Olmsted

Act would have limited their ability to control disposition of these properties, and to develop them

if desired.% However, H.R. 37 contained no provisions limiting their right to do so. The bill primarily sought to inventory Olmsted properties.

Nevertheless, opponents were concerned that

drawing attention to the historic nature of

Olmsted properties would strengthen the hand

of preservationists in opposing future development.

Having passed the House in June 1985, the bill

was referred to the Senate, where it was amended

and reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Although

the House accepted the Senate’s amendments,

the bill eventually failed to pass the Senate in the

closing hours of the 99th Congress. H.R. 17, as

introduced, is equivalent to the previous bill and

contains the few amendments agreed to in the

99th Congress for H.R. 37 (included in the 99th

Congress Senate version–S. 2091 ). It was referred

to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands on February 5, 1987.

Center for Preservation Technology

The Department of the Interior, which through

NPS provides technical preservation assistance

to Federal, State, and local agencies, could be

directed to examine the benefits and drawbacks

of a Center for Preservation Technology, and

prepare a report on what such a center might

contribute to the effort to develop cost-effective

techniques, methods, and equipment for preservation, including landscape preservation. The

Department of the Interior might choose several technologies or technology areas and explore

9b’’Hospital Challenges Preservationists on Bill To Catalogue

Olmsted Designs,” New York Times, Jan. 27, 1986.
—

41

how such a center could support the Department’s current and projected needs for preservation technology.

For example, remote sensing technologies, including spaceborne, airborne, and groundpenetrating sensors, have demonstrated their effectiveness for a variety of tasks related to the

identification and analysis of prehistoric and

historic cultural resources.97 Airborne or spaceborne remote sensing instruments are especially

useful in detecting variations of vegetation type

over an area. However, the effectiveness of different remote sensing methods varies according to

type of cultural resource and the conditions under which they are used.98 A study by the Department of the Interior could assess the ability

of a center for preservation technology to address

the needs of the Department and other Federal

agencies for support of advances in remote sensing technologies.

Education and Interpretation

Public education is an extremely important

component of the preservation process, as most

funding for historic preservation projects derives

from the public, either through donations, taxes,

or through entrance fees. In addition, public support and advocacy are needed to support inclusion and expansion of funds for historic preservation in Federal appropriations, which support

historic preservation efforts in various Federal

agencies, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and State grants administered by the

SHPOS. Public education and research seek to

answer the question: what can we learn from the

past, as revealed in our material prehistory and

history? Because the information conveyed by

public education is directly tied to what we learn

from the study of archaeological sites and historic

structures and landscapes, and should be of the

highest quality, 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.

97homas Sever and james Weisman, “Remote Sensing and Archaeology: Potential for the Future, ” National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Earth Resources Laboratory, january 1985.

gBTechno/og;es for prehistoric and Historic Technology, op. cit.,

ch. 3.

Historic cultural sites, buildings, and landscapes

are milestones in our Nation’s history. Public education is most effective when it helps the public

understand and experience prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and landscapes in relation

to cultural and political history. In representing

events, people, and styles of life that affected or

helped form our current values and beliefs, it

evokes an understanding of our relationship to

the past; it makes history live.

Accessible, clearly presented information about

historic landscapes can help the public to understand, for example, that even a designed iandscape may reflect broad economic, political, and

social values, as well as the personal aesthetic

values of its designer or patron. Information about

prehistoric landscape sites can make the public

more aware of the cultural and scientific achievements of Native America ns.99

Among Federal agencies, the National Park

Service (NPS) has a long history of public education concerning cultural resources, which grew

out of its interest in interpreting natural settings

and values to its park visitors.100 Other agencies,

such as the Bureau of Land Managementl 101 and

the U.S. Forest Service also maintain interpretive

staffs and develop interpretive materials. NPS sees

cultural resource management and interpretation

as complementary. “Interpretation communicates

the significance and value of the resource to . . .

‘the public’ .’’102 interpretation also assists in “developing support for preserving” the parks’ resources, including cultural resources.103 “The

~see, for example, Ray A. Williamson, Living the Sky: The COSmOS

of the American /ndian (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), for

an extensive discussion of prehistoric structures and Iandforms that

display evidence of Native American knowledge of the motions

of the celestial sphere.

ICOBarv Mackintosh, /interpretation in the National park Service:

A Historical Perspective (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, 1986).

101 For example, the western Regional Office of the Bureau of

Land Management maintains a Cultural Resources Series that

presents material both to professionals and laymen on the cultural

resources of the region.

IOICu/tura/ Resources Management (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, NPS-28), ch. 3, p.

34, August 1985. See also Interpretation and Visitor Services Guide-

/ine (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, NPS-6, August 1985).

“JJ’’The Role and Responsibility of Interpretation in the National

Park Service, ” position paper attached to Memorandum from William Penn Mott, jr., NPS Director, to NPS Regional Directors regarding Interpretation, Feb. 10, 1986.
42

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. Research results are

an important part of the significance and value

of cultural resources, and often form a part of NPS

interpretive presentations.

The Federal Government, especially NPS,

could enhance the public’s understanding and

importance of prehistoric and historic landscapes

by including interpretive material on landscapes

in the presentations park rangers give to the millions of park visitors each year. However, this

would require NPS to develop additional interpretive materials.

Guidance to States

One of the most important functions the Federal agencies can serve with respect to prehistoric

‘Wbid., p. 8.

and historic preservation is to provide training to

State and local preservation agencies and groups.

As noted below in the section on State and Local Landscape Preservation, the States could benefit from access to information on carrying out

landscape surveys. In addition, the extensive Federal experience with designing and using various

kinds of databases would benefit the State

Historic Preservation Offices,

Tax Incentives

Tax incentives have provided an incalculable

boost to preservation of historic structures. One

tangible way of imparting value to the preservation of historic landscapes would be to allow tax

credits and incentives for their preservation and

restoration. Current legislation permits historic

preservation tax credits for buildings only. Participants suggested that local governments be encouraged to use combinations of zoning, scenic/

historic easements, and property tax incentives

to encourage landscape preservation, whether independent of historic structures or in conjunction with them.
STATE AND LOCAL LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION

From the beginning of the preservation movement, State and local governments, along with

private organizations and many individuals, have

provided the support and the incentive for preserving significant aspects of this Nation’s history.

Local residents wish to have a strong hand in preserving their own history. Under the terms of the

National Historic Preservation Act, States are responsible, through the State Historic Preservation

Offices, for a wide variety of preservation activities, including landscape preservation. Although

the technical guidance and support of the Federal Government can assist States’ efforts to make

more effective use of technology for landscape

preservation, ultimately the impetus must come

from within the States.

The States’ approaches to landscape issues are

very uneven. As noted earlier, only Ohio, Massachusetts, and New Mexico have made significant strides in the identification of landscapes.

However, except for New Mexico, which maintains a registry of historic landscapes (box D),105

their efforts are related to specific, discrete

projects. If the States are to have a wider role in

preserving prehistoric and historic landscapes,

such landscape surveys should be institutionalized, and broadened to include all possible

classes of prehistoric and historic cultural landscapes.

Part of the problem is that few of the SHPOS

have staff with expertise in historic landscapes;

as a result, the SHPOS are less apt to understand

and appreciate historic landscape issues. State

offices should be encouraged to maintain surveys

on computer databases so they can be enlarged

and corrected frequently and cost effectively.106

For example, as mentioned earlier, the State of

New Mexico plans to put its Registry of Historic

Landscapes on a computer database.107 A yearly

Iosstate of New Mexico, Op. cit.

l~see OTA, TeChnOIOg@ for Prehistoric and Historic %WWtion, op. cit., “Ch. 5: Preservation Information,” for a discussion

of State preservation databases.

Iozstate of New Mexico, op. Cit., p. 7.

report to the State legislature detailing that year’s

efforts might assist in obtaining additional support for statewide work.

Landscape surveys designed to gather information through interviews with local residents would

have the salutary effect of making them aware

of the value of landscapes and landscape preservation. It would also involve them in the survey process.

The Olmsted Historic Landscape Preservation

Program of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

provides one model for a statewide landscape

preservation initiative. It authorizes $15 million

for historical research planning, and capital

improvements for 12 municipally owned parks

across Massachusetts. The program has developed innovative funding sources and has involved the local communities in the process of

thinking about landscape preservation. Early inventory efforts by the Massachusetts Association

for Olmsted Parks, a non-profit organization,

served as a catalyst for this initiative.108

Creating awareness of the importance of historic properties within local communities is an

important part of public education about 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.109 Such

activities are most effective if the local community is involved in planning and setting goals for

the management and interpretation of the properties. Obtaining support of the local community,

and involving them in setting project goals, are

important aspects of public education. The local community then develops a sense of contributing to preserving the resource.

l~shay page Berg, personal communication, 1987

l~For example, Sunnyside, in New York State, sends its interpretive staff into the local community to make citizens aware of their

local history.

43
Photo credif: Nat/onal Park Service, National Register of Historic Places

Acoma Pueblo, New Mexico. Aerial photograph and photogrammetric drawing prepared from stereo aerial photography

for the Historic American Buildings Survey, National Park Service.
45
LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

APT Bulletin (Association for Preservation Technology), vol. XV, No. 4, 1983. (Note: entire

issue is devoted to landscape preservation).

Austin, Richard L., et al., The Yearbook of Landscape Architecture: Historic Preservation (New

York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1985).

Barlow, Elizabeth, et al., Rebuilding Central Park:

A Management and Restoration P/an (New

York, NY: Central Park Conservancy, 1985).

Beveridge, Charles E., “Frederick Law Olmsted’s

Theory of Landscape Design,” reprinted from

Nineteenth Century.

Beveridge, Charles E., Hoffman, Carolyn F., Berg,

Shary Page, and Levee, Arleyn A., The Master

List of Design Projects of the Olmsted Firm in

Massachusetts, 1866-1950 (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Association for Olmsted Parks,

1986).

Cranz, Galen, The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America (Cambridge,

MA: The MIT Press, 1982).

Crumley, Carole L., and Marquardt, William H.,

Regional Dynamics: A Landscape History of

Burgundy (New York, NY: Academic Press,

Inc., in press).

Favretti, Rudy, and Favretti, Joy Putnam, Landscapes and Gardens for Historic Buildings

(Nashville, TN: American Association for State

and Local History, 1978).

Fleming, Ronald Lee, and Haldeman, Lauri A.,

On Common Ground: Caring for Shared Land

From Town Common to Urban Park (Cambridge, MA: The Harvard Common Press,

1982).

Historic Massachusetts Inc., The Massachusetts

Preservation Resource Handbook (Boston, MA:

1986).

Hooke, J. M., and Kain, R.J. P., Historica/ Change

in the Physical Environment: A Guide to

Sources and Techniques (London: Butterworth

Scientific, 1982).

Howett, Catherine Anne, “Landscape Research:

Keeping Faith With Today and Tomorrow,”

The Yearbook of Landscape Architecture: Historic Preservation (New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983), pp. 3-7.

Hufford, Mary, One Space, Many Places: FolkIife and Land Use in New Jersey’s Pinelands

National Reserve (Washington, DC: American

Folklife Center, Library of Congress, 1986).

Hume, Audrey Noel, Archaeology and the Colonial Gardener, Colonial Williamsburg Archeological Series No. 7 (Williamsburg, VA:

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1974).

Jackson, John Brinkerhoff, The Necessity for

Ruins (Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1980).

Keller, Timothy J., and Keller, Genevieve P., How

To Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic

Landscapes, National Register of Historic

Places Bulletin 18 (Washington, DC: National

Park Service, 1987).

Kunst, Lisa A., and O’Donnell, Patricia M., “Historic Landscape Preservation Deserves a Broader Meaning, ” Landscape Architecture, January

1981, p. 53-55.

Kyvig, David E., and Marty, Myron A., Nearby

History: Exploring the Past Around You (Nashville, TN: The American Association for State

and Local History, 1982).

Leighton, Ann, American Gardens in the Eighteenth Century (Amherst, MA: University of

Massachusetts Press, reissued 1986).

Leighton, Ann, American Gardens of the Nineteenth Century (Amherst, MA: University of

Massachusetts Press, 1987).

Leighton, Ann, Ear/y American Gardens (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press,

reissued 1986).

Lynch, Kevin, and Hack, Gary, Site Planning

(Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1984).

Mac Dougall, Bruce E., Microcomputers in Landscape Architecture (New York, NY: Elsevier,

1983).

Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Management, O/rested Historic Landscape

Preservation Program: Guidelines and Criteria

for Impiementation (Boston, MA: 1985).

McPeck, Eleanor, et al. (eds.), Olrested in Massachusetts: A Pilot Project for a National inventory (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Association

for Olmsted Parks, 1983).

46
47

Meining, D. W., The Interpretation of Ordinary

Landscapes (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1979).

Melnick, Robert Z., Cultural Landscapes: Rural

Historic Districts in the National Park System

(Washington, DC: National Park Service,

1984).

Melnick, Robert Z., and O’Donnell, Patricia

(eds.), “preservation: Defining an Ethic,” Landscape Architecture 77, July/August 1987. (Note:

Entire issue is devoted to landscape preservation).

Moonsammy, Rita Zorn, Cohen, David Steven,

and Williams, Lorraine E. (eds.), Pinelands Folklife (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press, 1987).

Morgan, William N., Prehistoric Architecture in

the Eastern United States (Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 1980)

National Park Service, Biotic Cukural Resources:

Management Considerations for Historic Districts in the National Park System, Southeast

Region (Atlanta, GA: National Park Service

Southeast Region, November 1985).

National Association for Olmsted Parks, Summary

of the Workshop Proceedings, 7983 World

Conference (New York, NY: 1983).

Newton, Norman, Design on the Land: The Development of Landscape Architecture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).

Peck, Eleanor M., Morgan, Keith, and Zaitzevsky,

Cynthia (eds.), O/rested in Massachusetts: The

Public Legacy (Brookline, MA: Massachusetts

Association for Olmsted Parks, 1983).

Schlereth, Thomas J., Artifacts and the American

Past (Nashville, TN: American Association for

State and Local History, 1980).

Schlereth, Thomas J., US 40: A Roadscape of the

American Experience (Indianapolis, IN: indiana Historical Society, 1985).

Scott, Frank J., Victorian Gardens, the Art of

Beautifying Suburban Home Grounds, A Victorian Guidebook of 1870 (Watkins Glen, NY:

Library of Victorian Culture, American Life

Foundation, 1982).

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservationt

Federal Register, vol. 48, No. 190, Sept. 29,

1983,

Stilgoe, John R., Common Landscape of America: 1580 to 7845 (New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1982).

Stilgoe, John R., “Popular Photography, Scenery

Values, and Visual Assessment, ” Landscape

Journal, vol. 3, No. 2, 1984, pp. 111-121.

Stipe, Robert E. (cd.), New Directions in Rural

Preservation, Preservation Planning Series

(Washington, DC: Heritage Conservation and

Recreation Service, 1980).

Tilden, Freeman, Interpreting Our Heritage

(chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1977).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation, OTA-E-31 9 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1986).

Watts, May Theilgaard, Reading the Landscape

of America (New York, NY: Collier Books,

1 975).

Webb, Melody, “Cultural Landscapes in the National Park Service, ” The Public Historian 9,

1987, pp. 77-89.

Weinstein, Geraldine, “Replacing the Understory

Plantings of Central Park, ” Arnoldia, spring

1985.

Whitehill, Lucinda Adele, Historic Grounds Report and Management Plan, Frederick Law

O/rested National Historic Site (Boston, MA:

National Park Service, 1982).

Young, Jane M., Signs From the Ancestors: Zuni

Perceptions of Rock Art (Albuquerque, NM:

University of New Mexico Press, in press).

Zaitzevsky, Cynthia, Frederick Law O/rested and

the Boston Park System, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).