In the wake of the second world war, the US embarked on a construction frenzy that began decimating the country’s existing urban fabric. The federal government encouraged much of this Make-America-Shiny-Again activity through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Many people, however, were concerned with the onslaught of destruction, and rightfully so.



In response, in 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in to law. The act attempted to keep federal agencies in check and ensure that they considered the impact of their actions on historic properties, including archaeological sites. This year the NHPA turned 50, and as 2016 comes to a close, I thought this tiny piece of legislation, what I often think of as archaeology’s best kept secret, should be recognized and celebrated.



Ramesses II, victor of Kadesh: a kindred spirit of Trump? Read more

One result of the NHPA that is probably the most familiar to the general public remains the National Register of Historic Places, a special designation that identifies the most important historic and cultural properties in the US. Although the National Register includes more than buildings, most people associate the register with an old Victorian house or the mid-century mod commercial building on main-street.

Today the National Register includes thousands of archaeological sites, such as the recently listed Bent’s New Fort, a mid-nineteenth-century trading post on the Colorado frontier that welcomed migrating easterners just before they crossed the Rocky Mountains, and unfortunately was also the point of departure for brutal military actions against American Indians. The story of the site didn’t end with the Army abandoning the fort. Its latest chapter is the story of how a ranching family on the eastern plains have been diligent stewards for the last century, and this year had the property listed to the National Register.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest USGS aerial photograph of Bent’s Fort, a mid-nineteenth-century trading post on the Colorado frontier. Photograph: Source: Santa Fe Trail Research, St. John Kansas.

Unbeknownst to most of the general public, the bulk of the NHPA encourages federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on historic resources like archaeological sites. These activities usually happen behind the scenes of a larger project, and are not the focus of projects themselves. While done for the public benefit, the public has little to no idea that these activities even occur. However, these types of activities account for 90% of the archaeological investigations done in the US today.

Archaeology sheds light on Mongolia’s uncertain nomadic future Read more

Initially, archaeology was a tough fit for the nascent law. It was a bit of an after-thought and the inclusion of archaeological sites into the framework of the National Register left many archaeologists of the era worrying that it may in fact hamper protection efforts. Despite this concern from the professional and scientific communities, the NHPA completely re-shaped the discipline. By the 1970s, an entire contracting industry was born, complete with private archaeological firms who today employ thousands of field technicians for evaluating and identifying sites. In addition, federal agencies need archaeologists to help them negotiate the process set forth in the legislation, and other entities such as State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices were created to assist federal agencies in those endeavors.

The NHPA is not regulatory, like some US environmental laws. There is no over-arching agency that can dictate what will and will not occur with a historic property or archaeological site. There are standards and guidelines set forth by the Secretary of the Interior that provides a framework for identifying whether something that is at least 50 years old is significant: is the property associated with an important event or person in our history, is the building or structure architecturally notable, or can the site provide data to answer important questions about our past? This last criteria, D for Data, can be a catch-all for archaeological sites, but an archaeological site can also be significant under the other three criteria as well. Once it’s established that a site has significance, it is evaluated for seven different aspects of integrity, meaning can the site still convey the reasons why it is significant. This is all decided through field work, research, and active discussion between various participants in a project.

Therein lies the beauty of the NHPA.

All the stakeholders- the federal agency, a project proponent, the historic preservation officers, local governments, historical societies, your grandma’s knitting club- everyone has a seat at the table, and decide the meaning of a site. What are the effects of the proposed project? How can we avoid that archaeological site? What should we do if we can’t avoid that site? It all comes out in dialogue, in formal letters, in drafted agreements. The criteria and standards laid out by the Secretary of the Interior serves as a guideline to determine what is important to save and why, but not how. That ends up being a group project, and can have amazing results.

Mostly dead: what archaeology reveals about death and resurrection Read more

A great example is PO-29, a pre-Columbian site in Puerto Rico that was lying in the footprint of a proposed dam. In 2007 work commenced on the site, and the excavations revealed a spectacular ball court with petroglyph-carved walls. In addition, the archaeologists identified human burials and artifacts that brought to life a ceremonial center of a chiefdom that had existed nearly 1200 years ago. Fortunately, plans for the dam were adjusted to preserve the site for the benefit of the citizens of Puerto Rico.

The National Historic Preservation Act is the single most important piece of legislation protecting archaeological sites in the US. It is also the least known and the least understood. In part this is because the legislation focuses on federal properties, so the successes of the legislation are not always apparent. The other reason the NHPA is so misunderstood is that the legislation is just boring. It’s difficult to make a bureaucratic process sexy, no matter how many fun acronyms are thrown around. But this legislation has saved countless numbers of archaeological sites in the last five decades, provided scientists with valuable data regarding the past, and provided fodder for our imaginations. I for one would like to tip my glass to the NHPA: here’s to another 50 years.