Abstract
It may be observed that the treatment of historic sites in federally-mandated historic preservation programs does not do justice to those resources. Indeed, the review and compliance procedure is inconsistent and at times capricious in dealing with archaeological sites of the Historic period. Accordingly, so that the intent and purpose of historic preservation legislation can be fully realized, affirmative steps must be taken to correct present deficiencies in the system.
Toward that end, a symposium was held at the 1987 Society for Historical Archaeology meetings in order to identify some of the problems inherent in the historic preservation process and seek their resolution. This paper discusses some of the issues that were articulated in the day-long symposium and introduces four papers selected from among the 13 formal contributions; commentary by Douglas Scott follows presentation of the papers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnes, Mark R., Alton K. Briggs, and Jerry J. Neilsen 1980 A Response to Raab and Klinger on Archaeological Site Significance. American Antiquity 45:551–553.
Glassow, Michael A. 1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 42:551–553.
Keel, Bennie 1986 Letter to John L. Cotter, December 18, 1986.
King, Thomas F. 1985 If an Orange Falls in the Forest, Is It Eligible? A Comment on Tainter and Lucas. American Antiquity 50:170–172.
Klinger, Timothy C., and L. Mark Raab 1980 Archaeological Significance and the National Register: A Response to Barnes, Briggs, and Neilsen. American Antiquity 45:554–557.
Lynott, Mark J. 1980 The Dynamics of Significance: An Example from Central Texas. American Antiquity 45:117–120.
National Park Service 1988 Preparing National Register Nominations for Historic Period Archaeological Properties. National Register Bulletin (draft). Ms. on file, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington.
Noble, Vergil E. 1987 A Problem of Preservation: Assessing Significance of Historic Cultural Resources in Illinois. In Nineteenth-Century Historic Archaeology in Illinois, compiled by T. E. Emerson and C. L. Rohrbaugh, pp. 33–43. Illinois Cultural Resources Study 2. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.
Raab, L. Mark, and Timothy C. Klinger 1977 A Critical Appraisal of “Significance” in Contract Archaeology. American Antiquity 42:629–634.
1979 A Reply to Sharrock and Grayson on Archaeological Significance. American Antiquity 44:328–329.
Sharrock, Floyd W., and Donald K. Grayson 1979 “Significance” in Contract Archaeology. American Antiquity 44:327–328.
Tainter, Joseph A., and G. John Lucas 1983 Epistemology of the Significance Concept. American Antiquity 48:707–719.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lees, W.B., Noble, V.E. Other questions that count: Introductory comments on assessing significance in historical archaeology. Hist Arch 24, 10–13 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374124
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374124