U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Identifying Traditional Cultural PropertiesSome traditional cultural properties are well known to the residents of an area. The San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, for example, are extensively documented and widely recognized as places of extreme cultural importance to the Hopi, Navajo, and other American Indian people of the Southwest, and it requires little study to recognize that Honolulu's Chinatown is a place of cultural importance to the city's Asian community. Most traditional cultural properties, however, must be identified through systematic study, just as most other kinds of historic properties must be identified. This section of this Bulletin will discuss some factors to consider in identifying traditional cultural properties. (For general guidelines for identification see the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification [48 FR 44720-23]; National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning; and Identification in Historic Preservation Review: a Decisionmaking Guide [ACHP/DOI 1988]).
Where identification is conducted as part of planning for a construction or land-use project, the appropriate level of effort depends in part on whether the project under consideration is the type of project that could affect traditional cultural properties. For example, as a rule the rehabilitation of historic buildings may have relatively little potential for effect on such properties. However, if a rehabilitation project may result in displacement of residents, "gentrification" of a neighborhood, or other sociocultural impacts, the possibility that the buildings to be rehabilitated, or the neighborhood in which they exist, may be ascribed traditional cultural value by their residents or others should be considered. Similarly, most day-to-day management activities of a land managing agency may have little potential for effect on traditional cultural properties, but if the management activity involves an area or a kind of resource that has high significance to a traditional group--for example, timber harvesting in an area where an Indian tribe's religious practitioners may continue to carry out traditional ceremonies--the potential for effect will be high.
These general rules of thumb aside, the way to determine what constitutes a reasonable effort to identify traditional cultural properties is to consult those who may ascribe cultural significance to locations within the study area. The need for community participation in planning identification, as in other forms of preservation planning, cannot be over-emphasized.
An important first step in identifying such individuals and groups is to conduct background research into what is already recorded about the area's history, ethnography, sociology, and folklife. Published and unpublished source material on the historic and contemporary composition of the area's social and cultural groups should be consulted; such source material can often be found in the anthropology, sociology, or folklife libraries of local universities or other academic institutions. Professional and nonprofessional students of the area's social and cultural groups should also be consulted--for example, professional and avocational anthropologists and folklorists who have studied the area. The State Historic Preservation Office and any other official agency or organization that concerns itself with matters of traditional culture--for example, a State Folklorist or a State Native American Commission--should be contacted for recommendations about sources of information and about groups and individuals to consult.
Having reviewed available background data, the next step is to contact knowledgeable groups and individuals directly, particularly those groups that are native to the area or have resided there for a long time. Some such groups have official representatives--the tribal council of an Indian tribe, for example, or an urban neighborhood council. In other cases, leadership may be less officially defined, and establishing contact may be more complicated. The assistance of ethnographers, sociologists, folklorists, and others who may have conducted research in the area or otherwise worked with its social groups may be necessary in such cases, in order to design ways of contacting and consulting such groups in ways that are both effective and consistent with their systems of leadership and communication.
It should be clearly recognized that expertise in traditional cultural values may not be found, or not found solely, among contemporary community leaders. In some cases, in fact, the current political leadership of a community or neighborhood may be hostile to or embarrassed about traditional matters. As a result, it may be necessary to seek out knowledgeable parties outside the community's official political structure. It is of course best to do this with the full knowledge and cooperation of the community's contemporary leaders; in most cases it is appropriate to ask such leaders to identify members of the community who are knowledgeable about traditional cultural matters, and use these parties as an initial network of consultants on the group's traditional values. If there is serious hostility between the group's contemporary leadership and its traditional experts, however, such cooperation may not be extended, and efforts to consult with traditional authorities may be actively opposed. Where this occurs, and it is necessary to proceed with the identification and evaluation of properties--for example, where such identification and evaluation are undertaken in connection with review of an undertaking under Section 106--careful negotiation and mediation may be necessary to overcome opposition and establish mutually acceptable ground rules for consultation. Again, the assistance of anthropologists or others with training and experience in work with the community, or with similar communities, may be necessary.
Applicable research standards can be found in Systematic Fieldwork, Volume
2: Ethnographic Analysis and Data Management. (Werner and Schoepfle 1986)
Culturally sensitive consultation
Since knowledge of traditional cultural values may not be shared readily with outsiders, knowledgeable parties should be consulted in cultural contexts that are familiar and reasonable to them. It is important to understand the role that the information being solicited may play in the culture of those from whom it is being solicited, and the kinds of rules that may surround its transmittal. In some societies traditional information is regarded as powerful, even dangerous. It is often believed that such information should be transmitted only under particular circumstances or to particular kinds of people. In some cases information is regarded as a valued commodity for which payment is in order, in other cases offering payment may be offensive. Sometimes information may be regarded as a gift, whose acceptance obligates the receiver to reciprocate in some way, in some cases by carrying out the activity to which the information pertains.
It may not always, or even often, be possible to arrange for information to be sought in precisely the way those being consulted might prefer, but when it is not, the interviewer should clearly understand that to some extent he or she is asking those interviewed to violate their cultural norms. The interviewer should try to keep such violations to a minimum, and should be patient with the reluctance that those interviewed may feel toward sharing information under conditions that are not fully appropriate from their point of view.
Culturally sensitive consultation may require the use of languages other than English, the conduct of community meetings in ways consistent with local traditional practice, and the conduct of studies by trained ethnographers, ethnohistorians, sociologists, or folklorists with the kinds of expertise outlined in Appendix II. Particularly where large projects or large land areas are involved, or where it is likely that particularly sensitive resources may be at issue, formal ethnographic studies should be carried out, by or under the supervision of a professionally qualified cultural anthropologist.
Field inspection and recordation
It is usually important to take knowledgeable consultants into the field to inspect properties that they identify as significant. In some cases such properties may not be discernible as such to anyone but a knowledgeable member of the group that ascribes significance to them; in such cases it may be impossible even to find the relevant properties, or locate them accurately, without the aid of such parties. Even where a property is readily discernible as such to the outside observer, visiting the property may help a consultant recall information about it that he or she is unlikely to recall during interviews at a remote location, thus making for a richer and more complete record.
Where the property in question has religious significance or supernatural connotations, it is particularly important to ensure that any visit is carried out in accordance with appropriate modes of behavior. In some cases, ritual purification is necessary before a property can be approached, or spirits must be propitiated along the way. Some groups forbid visits to such locations by menstruating women or by people of inappropriate ages. The taking of photographs or the use of electronic recording equipment may not be appropriate. Appropriate ways to approach the property should be discussed with knowledgeable consultants before undertaking a field visit.
To the extent compatible with the cultural norms of the group involved, traditional cultural properties should be recorded on National Register of Historic Places forms or their equivalent. (For general instructions on the completion of National Register documentation, see National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.) Where items normally included in a National Register nomination or request for a determination of eligibility cannot be included (for example, if it is culturally inappropriate to photograph the property), the reasons for not including the item should be explained. To the extent possible in the property's cultural context, other aspects of the documentation (for example, verbal descriptions of the property) should be enhanced to make up for the items not included.
If making the location of a property known to the public would be culturally inappropriate, or compromise the integrity of the property or associated cultural values (for example, by encouraging tourists to intrude upon the conduct of traditional practices), the "Not for Publication" box on the National Register form should be checked; this indicates that the reproduction of locational information is prohibited, and that other information contained in the nomination will not be reproduced without the permission of the nominating authority. In the case of a request for a determination of eligibility in which a National Register form is not used, the fact that the information is not for publication should be clearly specified in the documentation, so that the National Register can apply the same controls to this information as it would to restricted information in a nomination. (Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides the legal authority to withhold National Register information from the public when release might "create a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction.")
Where available documents fail to identify a property as culturally significant, but contemporary sources identify it as such, several points should be considered.
Particularly because properties of traditional cultural significance are often kept secret, it is not uncommon for them to be "discovered" only when something threatens them--for example, when a change in land-use is proposed in their vicinity. The sudden revelation by representatives of a cultural group which may also have other economic or political interests in the proposed change can lead quickly to charges that the cultural significance of a property has been invented only to obstruct or otherwise influence those planning the change. This may be true, and the possibility that traditional cultural significance is attributed to a property only to advance other, unrelated interests should be carefully considered. However, it also may be that until the change was proposed, there simply was no reason for those who value the property to reveal its existence or the significance they ascribe to it.
Where ethnographic, ethnohistorial, historical, or other sources identify a property as having cultural significance, but contemporary sources say that it lacks such significance, the interests of the contemporary sources should be carefully considered. Individuals who have economic interests in the potential development of an area may be strongly motivated to deny its cultural significance. More subtly, individuals who regard traditional practices and beliefs as backward and contrary to the best contemporary interests of the group that once ascribed significance to a property may feel justified in saying that such significance has been lost, or was never ascribed to the property. On the other hand, of course, it may be that the documentary sources are wrong, or that the significance ascribed to the property when the documents were prepared has since been lost.
Similar consideration must be taken into account in attempting to reconcile conflicting contemporary sources. Where one individual or group asserts that a property has traditional cultural significance, and another asserts that it does not or where there is disagreement about the nature or extent of a property's significance, the motives and values of the parties, and the cultural constraints operating on each, must be carefully analyzed.
In general, the only reasonably reliable way to resolve conflict among sources is to review a wide enough range of documentary data, and to interview a wide enough range of authorities to minimize the likelihood either of inadvertent bias or of being deliberately misled. Authorities consulted in most cases should include both knowledgeable parties within the group that may attribute cultural value to a property and appropriate specialists in ethnography, sociology, history, and other relevant disciplines. (For excellent examples of studies designed in whole or in part to identify and evaluate traditional cultural properties based on both documentary sources and the testimony of contemporary consultants, see Bean and Vane 1978; Carroll 1983; Johnston and Budy 1983; Stoffle and Dobyns 1982, 1983; Theodoratus 1979.)
|National Register Home | Publications Home | Previous Page | Next Page|