Evaluating Archaeological Sites under Criteria other than D

Evaluating Archaeological Sites under Criteria other than D As with any other resource, context is crucial for evaluating archaeological sites under any of the Criteria. The context must be based on the Criteria and areas of significance claimed for the property. The fact that a resource is simply associated with a larger trend is not enough to make it significant under Criterion A (e.g. not every school is significant for education, etc.); the association must be significant. Likewise, under Criterion C, it is not enough for a property to simply exemplify a significant architectural pattern; that pattern must be significant within a particular context and the property must convey that significance. Under Criterion B, a property must be associated with the productive life of the person, or why the person is significant, and the context must demonstrate this association. A comparative context is needed to make these arguments. Pre-Contact (Prehistoric) Sites For Pre-Contact archaeological sites (as well as historical archaeological sites and other non- archaeological properties), the National Park Service has been moving in a new direction of late. NPS has been trying to evaluate sites holistically and consider all four Criteria. Criterion A: A fully excavated archaeological site would not be eligible under Criterion D because its information potential is gone; however, that site could be eligible under Criterion A if it can be demonstrated that it is associated with important events or trends in the history of archaeological or anthropological theory (see the National Register Bulletin Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties). The resource category would still be site, but in the broader meaning of the term presented in the NR Bulletins. Keep in mind, though, that a site need not be fully excavated to be eligible under Criterion A for association with important trends or events. Type sites could also be eligible for their role in defining a chronology or cultural group. Examples would include Naina Waiya. The context would have to focus on how the site defined the complex or time period and the archaeological materials would still have to have enough integrity to show that connection. Criterion B: Archaeological sites could be eligible under Criterion B if they are associated with a significant person. If that person were an archaeologist, for instance, the context would need to examine the sites excavated by the archaeologist and demonstrate why a particular site best represents the archaeologist and his contributions to the field. A good example would be Pecos in New Mexico for its association with A.V. Kidder or Ackia and Jesse Jennings. In general, sites associated with culturally significant pre- Contact persons or deities are evaluated as Traditional Cultural Properties. Criterion C: Sites eligible under Criterion C must “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” The latter often refers to districts. The first portion of the criterion could refer to a structure or artistic expression associated with a specific cultural period or type (e.g. Late Woodland or Algonquian). The context would need to establish what the distinctive characteristics of the type are or how it possesses high artistic value and why this site is a significant example. For example, mounds could be significant under Criterion C for Architecture because they embody the distinctive characteristics of building traditions during a certain period of prehistory. The remains do not, necessarily have to be visible aboveground; this criterion could refer to a village plan and layout, for instance. In terms of artistic value, petroglyph sites are works of art that can be easily evaluated under Criterion C because they both embody the distinctive cultural traditions of a specific prehistoric period and possess artistic value. Contact and Historic Sites For Contact and Historic sites, it may be easier for the layperson conceptually to understand the case for significance under Criteria other than D because they may be more familiar with such resources and, often, may be able to “see” them. Keep in mind, however, that archaeologists often “see” patterns in the archaeological record that can convey significance for events, architectural or artistic features, or persons. Criteria A and B: For Criteria A and B, keep in mind that the archaeological record is just another line of historical evidence, equally as important as the written record or oral history or historic mapping, and so on; therefore, it can be easily used to support Criterion A or B significance. Documentation and explanation is key to making the case for historical archaeological sites under Criterion A or B. Documentation can take the form of photographs, maps, etc. and the preparer must be able to explain the significance and integrity of the site and make it clear to the layperson. Areas of significance and integrity are also key to evaluating an archaeological site under Criterion A or B. In addition, the site does not need to contain above-ground remains (this will be touched on more in-depth in the next section on integrity). As mentioned previously, as with any property being nominated to the National Register under Criterion A, association with a significant trend or event does not necessarily make a site eligible; the association must be significant as well. Examples would include the archaeological remains of Thomas Edison’s laboratory or Jefferson College and the hanging of Aaron Burr. In addition, Native American sites can be eligible under Criterion B if the person associated with the property is individually significant within a particular context. As with all Criterion B properties (not just archaeological), you must demonstrate the strength of the association between the person and property and consider what other properties exist to convey that aspect of the person’s significance and discuss why this particular property is the best one to do that (a comparative context). The preparer must evaluate significance first and consider if the property is a rare example or the only property left to convey a certain aspect of a person’s productive life. For both precontact and historic properties, archaeological sites are very important to consider under this Criteria if there are no other properties associated with a person. Criterion C: The above discussion of Criterion C applies equally here. Again, context is key: identify the distinctive characteristics of the type, period, or method of construction and demonstrate how this site is a significant example of it. Examples of historical archaeological sites that could be eligible under Criterion C include the ruins of a steel mill that clearly embodies the distinctive characteristics of the type (see the National Register Bulletin Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties). Other good examples might be the archaeological remains of industrial sites such as mills, canals, or furnaces where the archaeological remains can clearly convey or represent a significant pattern of building for a class of resources. As with any resource, a comparative context and integrity should be considered. While above ground remains may help strengthen the case for significance (because they are visible and non-archaeologists can “see” them), below ground remains may also be eligible under this Criteria. Some properties were intentionally built below ground (like mining properties, such as the Experimental Mine for instance). Integrity When evaluating archaeological sites under Criteria other than D, an important consideration (beyond the area of significance), is integrity as applied to archaeological sites (see 3.3. Assessing the National Register Integrity of Archaeological Sites). Integrity is relative to significance. Consider what other properties can represent this particular resource under the context. As mentioned previously, an archaeologist must be able to read the significance and be able to communicate it through the National Register nomination. A couple of examples include Windsor Ruins or Bee Lake. Ruins are not required for a property to be eligible under Criteria other than D; however, they may help strengthen the case, or be easier for a non-archaeologist to understand. If a property was not meant to be permanent (for instance, a WPA-era building that was built for the duration of a project), it cannot be held against a property if the building is no longer standing, particularly if foundations or other archaeological features remain. Under Criteria A and B, the essential physical features during a site’s association with an event or person must be intact. Setting, Feeling, and Association, as applied to archaeological sites, are very important. Would the person recognize the property today? If a property has poor integrity, but it is the only property left associated with that person, however, the property might still be eligible. Likewise, if you are considering an archaeological property and the structure once on the property is no longer standing, the property might still be eligible under Criterion B if the other aspects of integrity (setting, feeling, etc.) are still intact and there are no other properties associated with this aspect of the person’s significance that exist. Under Criterion C, Materials, Workmanship, and Design, as applied to archaeological sites would be paramount. Keep in mind that while Setting and Feeling might require a person to discuss visible surroundings, other aspects of integrity such as materials, workmanship, association, location, and design can easily be represented by below ground or non- visible (to the non-archaeologist) resources.