The U.S. National Park
Service (NPS), National Register of Historic Places, has asked its “preservation partners” and others to advise it
about the need for new guidance on “traditional cultural properties” and “Native
American landscapes.” If you want to
comment, address nr_info@nps.gov,
and be sure to put “TCP/NAL Comment” in the subject line. Below are my comments:
I see that you have
requested “comments on identifying, evaluating, and documenting traditional
cultural properties and Native American landscapes” from “tribal, national,
state, and local historic preservation partners, National Park Service regional
offices and parks, other Federal agencies, and the public at large.” Presumably because I fall into none of the
above categories, you have not requested such comments from me, but I will
provide them anyway, below.
You say:
With the 1990 release of National Register
Bulletin 38, Guidelines for
Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, NPS
clarified a broader scope of properties that could be considered eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) for their significance
as Traditional Cultural Properties, and provided written guidance on working
with these properties.
Comment: This is
a misleading introduction, to the extent it is comprehensible as an English
language sentence. It implies that
Bulletin 38 expanded the range of property types that could be considered
eligible for the Register, and it did no such thing. The Bulletin simply provided a name for such
properties, examples of which had been determined eligible and listed on the
Register since the very beginning of the Register’s existence, and provided
some guidelines for identifying and evaluating them.
You say:
This policy direction was followed by the
provision in the 1992 amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act
stating: “Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to
an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be determined to be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register.”
Comment: It might
be worth noting that this amendment did not appear out of thin air. It was a tribally encouraged congressional
reaction to the flat refusal by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest
Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to pay any attention to Bulletin 38.
You say:
While Bulletin 38 remains an essential, basic
resource for identifying, evaluating, and documenting TCPs, in recent years the
number of requests for additional assistance in this regard from State and
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, Federal agencies, and preservation
professionals has increased significantly.
Comment: It may
be revealing that such requests have apparently not come from tribes or members
of the public. Does this tell you
anything?
You then list a series
of topics on which you are considering publication of more “guidance.” Let me first suggest that you take a good
hard look at the guidance you already have, and consider ways to resolve
inconsistencies that exist among the voluminous piles of paper you have generated
in the past. This should certainly be
done before you burden the world with MORE of the stuff. Let me also suggest that if you’re going to
issue guidance, you get help from people who know something about the subject,
and that you pay some attention to the literature that has been produced in the
last 22 years dealing with it. I realize that these suggestions may
run counter to long-standing NPS policy.
Below are comments on
each of the points on which you say guidance is in order:
· What
constitutes a “traditional” community
Comment: A
traditional community is a community that values its traditions, including but
not limited to communities of American citizens.
·
“Continuity of use” by a traditional community
Comment: I am at
a loss to understand where and how you have come up with this “continuity of
use” nonsense. It is not in the
Bulletin, but NPS keeps coughing it up as an excuse for not recognizing a place
as eligible. It is particularly galling
when applied to a tribal property.
“Well, sure, we ran all over you militarily, killed most of you with our
diseases, marched your survivors off to a reservation 500 miles away from this
place you say you value, and imprisoned you there – so gee, we’re sorry, but
you haven’t continued your use of the place, so it’s not eligible.” You really should be ashamed of yourselves
for even murmuring this sort of insulting drivel.
· Evolving
uses of resources by a traditional community
Comment: Yes,
they evolve, as do communities. So
what? What business is it of yours
whether and how they do?
· Multiple
lines of documentary evidence
Comment: Multiple
lines of evidence happen. Sometimes they
accord with one another, sometimes they conflict. That’s life.
So what?
· Broad
ethnographic landscapes
Comment: Broad or narrow, the term “ethnographic
landscape” is insulting to those who value cultural landscapes; it implies that
a landscape is important because of its role in ethnographic research. It may be, but that’s usually beside the
point. Traditional cultural landscapes
(including but not limited to many "Native American
landscapes") are simply that – traditional cultural properties that
happen to be landscapes, landscapes that have traditional cultural value. Ethnography has nothing to do with it.
Please discard the term.
· Property
boundaries
Comment: As Bulletin 38 says, boundaries are often
difficult if not impossible to define.
They are usually arbitrary, and usually irrelevant to the way a
community (notably a tribe) defines the place.
They comprise an artifact of the National Register’s roots in local
planning and zoning. They are often
irrelevant to determining effects under NHPA Section 106 – the real world
context in which traditional cultural properties are most often
considered. Any guidance should stress
that they need be defined only to the extent there is a practical reason for
doing so.
· Resource
integrity
Comment: If the people who value a place say it has
integrity, it has integrity. It is that
simple. The place is significant in
people’s minds, so if in their minds it has integrity, it obviously has
integrity. This is not rocket
science.
You go on to say that
you are willing to consider other “user-identified” TCP-related issues. I doubt if you would define me as a “user,”
and I do not intend to cater to the Register’s intellectual lassitude by
re-stating what I have written in the past.
Rather, I request that you consider the issues discussed in at least the
following of my publications:
· Places that Count: Traditional Cultural Properties
in Cultural Resource Management. AltaMira Press 2003
· “Rethinking Traditional Cultural
Properties?” George Wright Forum 26:1:28-36, 2009, George Wright Society,
Washington DC.
· “A Listless Approach to Resource
Management.” Heritage Management 3:1:97-100, 2010.
· Chapters relevant to traditional cultural properties in CRMudgeoneity, . Kindle Books,
Amazon.com, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I trust you will
not find my comments "inappropriate ..... or misleading or
discriminartory" (sic)
Thomas
F. King
