Preamble

The IFRAO (International Federation of Rock Art Organi sations) Standard Scale was first pro posed in IFRAO Report No. 6 (Bednarik 1991). Consultation of researchers and various specialists in the following years has led to progressive evolu tion of the design (cf. Rock Art Research 8: 156) until it was finalised in 1993.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, October 1989 (Revised 1991).

Laws directed at protecting archeological sites frequently target those located on State or federally owned property, but many sites are located on private property. These sites represent a significant portion of the identified sites in many States, meaning that large numbers of our nation's archeological resources are not protected.

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry was created to address this problem. Modeled on The Nature Conservancy's nationally successful program for protecting privately owned natural areas, the Registry represents a way to involve private landowners in the protection of Kentucky's significant archeological sites. Landowners are asked to make a commitment to preserve and protect their sites and are presented awards in recognition of these commitments. In addition, they are educated about their sites' significance, provided management assistance, and informed about stronger preservation options available to them.

Following the introduction, this publication describes the objectives of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry, how a landowner can participate in the program, and the steps in the landowner contact/site registration process. Next, the results of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry's first two years of operation are discussed, and the Registry's successes are evaluated. Finally, the role landowner contact/site registration can play as part of a broader site protection and preservation program is discussed.

This Technical Brief details the procedure for pursuing a civil violation of ARPA through the administrative law process. Its purpose is to provide a succinct blueprint for use by land managing agencies when civil prosecution under the law is the desired option. Note that in the event of any discrepancy between this Technical Brief and applicable ARPA regulations, the regulations control. Citations in this brief will depart from the standard American Antiquity style in favor of the legal citation format used by lawyers and Administrative Law Judges.

Introduction
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA)¹, as amended, provides a means to assertively protect the ancient and historic remains of the cultures that have inhabited Federal and Indian lands. The Act provides for criminal and civil penalties against those who excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface archeological resources, or attempt to do so, without a permit.² ARPA with its amendments and accompanying Uniform Regulations offer agencies flexible alternatives to employ in the preservation of resources under their protection.³

Criminal enforcement of ARPA has become an active part of the repertoire of agencies across the United States.⁴ It is not unusual for vehicles and the tools of the violation to be subjected to seizure in connection with the criminal prosecution.⁵ In contrast, civil prosecution under ARPA has been rarely and only recently pursued.⁶ The purpose of this technical brief is to provide a familiarity with the civil provisions of ARPA that may expand its future use.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, September 1990 (Revised March 1992).

Introduction

This Technical Brief is the third in a series that addresses the issues of archeological site stabilization and protection. Each Technical Brief in the series describes a potentially useful technique for maintaining the integrity of an archeological deposit. This series, and the complementary Technical Notes assembled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in its Archeological Sites Protection and Preservation Notebook, are designed to provide baseline data for the initiation of site stabilization projects. The use of vegetation always should be considered a viable means of site protection when developing a set of stabilization alternatives.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, December 1991.

This Technical Brief is the fourth in a series that addresses the issues of archeological site stabilization and protection. Each of the previous Technical Briefs in the series has described a potentially useful technique for maintaining the integrity of an archeological deposit. This one is about information exchange, which is part of the goal to foster interaction among governmental agencies, professionals, and the private sector. It is not a comprehensive guide to stabilization information, the several bibliographies that are available for different disciplines are better suited for that purpose. It also is not a substitute for contacting the agencies and professionals who have completed successful stabilization projects for detailed information. Rather, it is meant to provide a ready reference to sources that regularly collect and distribute information relevant to archeological site stabilization. These sources can be useful starting points in stabilization project development as well as important references for comparing the merits of appropriate alternatives. It also should encourage those who are planning projects to seek a wide range of multidisciplinary data, since other professions often are not aware of how important their knowledge and skills can be to preservation of non-renewable archeological resources.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, September 1989 (Revised 1991).

This is the second technical brief in the series on site stabilization and maintenance developed through cooperation among the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Mississippi, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Park Service. The series is based upon existing knowledge and stabilization project experiences to provide programmatic guidance appropriate for problem solving. As baseline information, the series demonstrates the highly variable conditions surrounding archeological site loss, discusses alternatives, and suggests how applicable stabilization techniques can be modified to meet needs.

Information exchange is an important objective of this series. The National Clearinghouse for Archaeological Site Stabilization is organized as a central location at which to seek information as well as to foster interactions among governmental agencies, professionals, and the private sector. It is one solution to the concern for improving technology transfer in historic preservation. The address and telephone number of the Clearinghouse are given at the end of this technical brief.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, July 2004.

Introduction
Federal laws and regulations encourage preserving archeological sites in place when they are threatened by roadbuilding, reservoir construction, and the like. However, proactive managers favor the idea even when sites are not immediately at risk. Excavation is costly, with the curation of artifacts adding appreciably to the expense. A resource-specific conservation plan, carefully designed and implemented, substantially reduces management costs. At the same time, the plan can be aesthetically pleasing while serving to enhance other aspects of the surroundings.

There are many alternatives one can employ to stabilize sites and shorelines (Thorne 1991). A modeled approach to developing a stabilization strategy has been devised that can be applied to any setting (Thorne et al. 1987; Thorne 1988a, 1989, 1990, 1991). In many cases, however, funds are severely restricted, and factors such as environmental compatibility and aesthetic appeal come into play.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, February 2006.

This technical brief outlines some of the public benefits of archeological collections as seen by the managers of collections repositories across the nation. Case studies show many ways that curators find archeological collections to benefit audiences with different interests and needs. Using archeological collections also benefits the repositories themselves by offering opportunities to demonstrate the significance of the holdings, reinforce the importance of proper management, provide a valuable public service, fulfill institutional goals of outreach and research and, most of all, activate the potential of archeology to benefit the public.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, February 2007.
Foreword, by Francis P. McManamon, Chief Archeologist, NPS; Departmental Consulting Archeologist, DOI

This technical brief describes and explains the archeological resource damage assessment process. The legal foundation for and the necessity of archeological damage assessments is described, as are the procedures for field damage assessment, value and cost determinations, and report preparation. Archeologists, attorneys, and law enforcement specialists involved in investigations of crimes against archeological resources must understand clearly the archeological resource damage assessment process and how to carry it out correctly. The credibility of these damage assessments directly affects the outcome of legal cases and the criminal or civil penalties imposed.

In November 2002, a new sentencing guideline issued by the United States Sentencing Commission became effective. This document, entitled, “Cultural Heritage Guideline,” provided the federal judicial system with consistent, rational procedures for developing potential sentences for those convicted of crimes involving cultural heritage resources, including various kinds of archeological resources. Prohibited activities include, among other things, damage to or destruction of archeological resources, unauthorized removal of artifacts, features, or other components from protected sites, theft, and illegal trafficking.

The cultural heritage guidelines make use of the concepts of “archeological value,” “commercial value,” and “the cost of restoration and repair.” All of these terms, as they are used in a formal legal context, are defined either in the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA), the federal law that most directly protects archeological resources, or the regulations that implement this law. Since ARPA, which became law in 1979, has been enforced, the ways in which these concepts and terms have been used has developed through their application in individual cases. After 25 years of practical use of these concepts, the synthesis of what had been learned through individual cases into a set of standards was warranted. Such general standards would be of use to archeologists, attorneys, and law enforcement personnel in federal agencies assigned to ensure effective prosecution of archeological resource looters, traffickers, and vandals.

In addition, the development and publication of the new sentencing guideline emphasized the need for standards because use of the guideline by judges throughout the federal judicial system meant that more judges, including those who might have had little or no familiarity with archeology or archeological resources, would be using these specialized concepts. Professional standards describing how archeological value calculations should be developed would serve two purposes. First, they would provide justification for a consistent set of procedures and guidelines for professional archeologists who conduct archeological damage assessments and calculate archeological value for specific legal cases. Secondly, the standards would provide an objective basis for judgment of the legitimacy of the damage assessments used in prosecutions of those accused of crimes against archeological resources. Judges would determine whether the standards had been followed when they evaluated the procedures used to reach archeological value amounts provided by the prosecution in specific cases.

The Society for American Archaeology (SAA), an organization dedicated to the research, interpretation, and protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas, with the support of the National Park Service, assembled a group of public and private sector and academic archeologists, government attorneys, and law enforcement experts to develop these needed standards. The group met in a workshop in March 2003. They drafted the standards at the the workshop and refined the drafts during the following months. In November 2003, the Board of Directors of the SAA reviewed and approved as official, “Professional Standards for the Determination of Archaeological Value.” This technical brief is designed to provide additional guidance for the use of the standards, drawing on decades of experience in archeological resource protection.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, April 1996.

Though the conservation and long-term management of archeological sites is now generally accepted wisdom, it, wasn't always so. A traditional bias toward excavation and the keeping of only basic site data has had effects that linger on today. Historically, and to the detriment of long-term site care, information has been collected with only fundamental concerns such as location and interpretation in mind. Excavation was favored over in-place conservation, under the assumption that the latter was too complicated and expensive. But the true cost of excavation is often more than anticipated, and often grows as the curation of objects is projected into the future.

What should a resource manager know to compose an effective long-term plan? It goes far beyond a site's age and location. What are the environmental dynamics of the setting? What kind of ground cover grows there? What is the soil type? Is damage being caused by vandals? Cyclical inundation? Timber harvesting? Off-road vehicles? Jet-skis?

This brief addresses the care of archeological sites over time, with accompanying forms to help in planning for a site's future.