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.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, 1988.

Filter fabrics have been available for several years and are used most frequently as an underliner for roadbeds and in other construction related activities. These materials are produced both as woven and nonwoven fabrics and are available in varying weights and porosities. Fabric selection is based on the proposed application and the specifications that the desired material must meet. If filter fabric is selected as the stabilization technology that is to be used, it has the advantage of being available from several manufacturers whose products are competitively priced. These materials, regardless of manufacturer, are relatively inert geosynthetics that are resistant to ultraviolet degeneration.

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, May 2007.

Archeological site stewardship programs can be a valuable component of protection plans for archeological resources on both public and private lands. These programs provide important assistance to land managers, who are often constrained by limited budgets and staff support. Site stewardship programs also involve landowners in the protection of archeological resources on private property. These programs facilitate communication among professional archeologists, government agencies, and the public. This technical brief explores the necessary components of successful development and implementation of an archeological site stewardship program.