Chris Moreno asked me
some questions in an email this morning.
Since I imagine Chris is not alone in his puzzlement about these
matters, I asked him if I could post his questions and my responses; he agreed. Here they are:
Chris’ question:
In relation to (National Register) Bulletin 38 (http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/), what is the rule
of thumb for ascribing affiliation to a potential traditional cultural property
(TCP)? More specifically, for it to be
eligible as a TCP, can more than one cultural group ascribe affiliation? Any insight on multiple affiliation and TCPs
would be helpful.
My response:
First, a TCP is a TCP if
those who value it say it's a TCP. The National Register doesn't
determine TCP-nes; it determines eligibility. But as either a TCP or a
Register-eligible TCP, of course multiple groups can assign significance to
it. Consider the site of the Solomonic and Herodic temple in Jerusalem --
a major TCP for Jews, Christians, and Muslims; the fact that one ascribes
significance to it doesn't mean the others can't, or that an objective outside
governmental body (e.g. the U.N., or God) shouldn't recognize all three
ascriptions.
Chris’ question:
What is the main difference between TCPs and Properties of
Traditional and Religious Importance from an National Register evaluation standpoint?
My response:
Logically,
"properties of traditional and religious importance" are TCPs, but
not the ONLY kinds of TCPs, since anyplace to which a group of people ascribes
tradition-grounded cultural significance can be a TCP (e.g. tribal plant
gathering areas, urban neighborhoods, areas where a community traditionally
recreates, etc.). Historically, "properties of traditional and
religious importance" (actually "properties of traditional religious and cultural importance") was the terminology adopted in the 1992 amendments
to the National Historic Preservation Act to smack down the three agencies
(BLM, Forest Service, and BIA) that had refused to recognize Bulletin 38, but
since it was tribes and intertribal organizations pushing the amendment, and I
as amendment-drafter didn't think it proper to refer to my own freshly minted
term (TCP), the amendment simply refers to tribal properties of traditional and
religious importance. In retrospect I'm sorry we didn't find a way to
make the terms synchronous, but that's the way it goes. See pages 35-36
of Places That Count (http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-Cultural-Properties-Resource-Management/dp/0759100713)
for details.
Chris’ question:
Lastly, is there any
specific National Register criterion that you know of that applies to
Ethnographic Landscapes?
My response:
"Ethnographic"
landscapes (I hate the term, because it implies that such places are important
because ethnographers say so, rather than because people in communities say so)
can be eligible under any of the NR criteria, but most often are eligible under
Criterion A (association with significant events, patterns, etc.). For an
example, see http://www.amazon.com/The-Mushgigamongsebe-District-Traditional-ebook/dp/B008AK7AJQ/ref=la_B001IU2RWK_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1345553507&sr=1-21
Hope this helps, but remember
that I speak, above, for no one other than myself, and you certainly can't
count on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation or National Park Service
to say anything similar.
Tom King
No comments:
Post a Comment