National Park Service
Date of this Version
11-2002
Citation
Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service November, 2002
Abstract
Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Background ....................................................................................................................2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................3 Results...........................................................................................................................8 Discussion ....................................................................................................................14 Endnotes.......................................................................................................................21 References Cited...........................................................................................................22
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introduction
Anthropological archaeologists have long recognized that the nature of the archeological record at a “site”, defined spatially and by artifact assemblage, is sometimes the result of hundreds of years of intermittent and diverse activities by unrelated individuals or kin groups. Many “sites” with observable remains of prehistoric or historic Native American activities are places amenable to contemporary use by individuals in an era of sophisticated mobility. These means of moving about the landscape often result in increased use of a place by any number of individuals but with less time occupying the place per individual. The result being that a place may be visited by a great number of individuals for a short period of time per person. The siting of a “campground” on public land, for example, is often topographically situated such that humans may have intermittently occupied this place for centuries, with the resultant material remains of past activities. One consequence of this siting is conflict between the preservation of the remains of these historic activities and that of continued use of the place, where “use” may involve the potential alteration or destruction of these remains.
Cultural resource management, as developed and practiced in the realm of archaeological sites on public lands, is primarily oriented toward preservation via protection of the remains of past human activities – where emphasis is placed on the antiquity of these activities. The goal of “historic” preservation, as sanctioned and codified socio-economically in western society, is conducted by way of “protecting” these remains from human induced and sometimes, non-human, damage – what Loubser (2001:83) has called “freeze-frame methodology”. Understanding how and why places of social value change, however, is of increasing interest to social scientists and of utility to those assigned responsibility for their preservation.