Northeast Historical Archaeology Volume 31 Special Issue: Historic Preservation and the Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century Farmsteads in the Article 13 Northeast

2001 Addressing an Historic Preservation Dilemma: The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast Terry H. Klein

Sherene Baugher

Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Klein, Terry H. and Baugher, Sherene (2001) "Addressing an Historic Preservation Dilemma: The uturF e of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast," Northeast Historical Archaeology: Vol. 30-31 31, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol31/iss1/13 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol31/iss1/13

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Addressing an Historic Preservation Dilemma: The uturF e of Nineteenth- Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast

Cover Page Footnote We thank Mary Beaudry, Lu Ann De Cunzo, George Miller, Richard eit, and Lou Ann Wurst for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this summary. We also thank David Landon and Ann-Eliza Lewis for their editorial suggestions, and Dena Doroszenko for taking the time to update us on how site evaluations are made in Ontario, Canada. Finally, we thank Lynne Sebastian for reminding us about William Lipe's timeless and seminal article "A Conservation Model for American Archaeology." It was amazing to see that Lipe's recommendations still serve as a guide for addressing current historic preservation issues.

This article is available in Northeast Historical Archaeology: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol31/iss1/13 Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 3D-31, 2001-2002 167

Addressing an Historic Preservation Dilemma: The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast

By Terry H. Klein and Sherene Baugher

Introduction Northeast in the context of federal historic preservation laws and regulations. This con­ As noted in the Introduction to this issue of text was the focus of the workshop because the Northeast Historical Archaeology, government majority of farmstead archaeology, at least in agencies, historical archaeologists, developers, the United States, results from compliance and others involved in any facet of historic with local, state, and federal preservation preservation often ask the questions, "Why laws, regulations, and ordinances. The pur­ study farmsteads?" "They are so common and pose of the articles in this volume is to so well documented, why do we need to exca­ advance the dialogue on 19th-century farm­ vate these sites?" "What are the research stead sites begun in Altoona, and to highlight values of these sites?" and "Are these sites various approaches for investigating and really significant?" These questions represent defining the significance of these sites. the historic preservation dilemma associated The articles present a consensus on what with 19th-century farmstead sites in the we all consider to be the "thing" that we are Northeast. Based on the recommendations and studying, interpreting, excavating, docu­ approaches presented in the articles included menting, and preserving. Though the term in this volume, we offer a framework for iden­ "19th-century farmstead" masks a wide range tifying, evaluating, interpreting, and pre­ of site types, the articles agree on the specific serving farmstead sites in the region, a frame­ site types that fall under this term. There is work that is in keeping with the new environ" also a consensus that we must consider these ment in which historic preservation is being sites in their entirety, including the fields, carried out today, particularly in the United fences, walls, outbuildings, trash pits, dumps, States. This summary article also presents rec­ outbuildings, and domestic dwellings. This ommendations on how this framework can be mirrors the consensus of the Altoona work­ made operational, including funding sources shop participants (see Klein et al. this volume). for developing and implementing this approach. We also discuss the roles of govern­ The articles also demonstrate the research ment, academia, the private sector, and the value of 19th-century farmstead sites in the public in this effort. These recommendations Northeast region, and the articles' authors dis­ and discussions will hopefully provide the cuss common research domains and topics. tools we need to answer the questions posed These include: above. 1) taking a landscape archaeology approach that examines the entire farm as· an inte­ Goals and Objectives of this Volume grated whole, examining more than just the domestic dwelling; and linking The articles presented in this issue of changes in this landscape to the nature of Northeast Historical Archaeology grew out of a and changes in technology, innovation in workshop held at the 1997 annual meeting of farm management practices, social iden­ the Council for Northeast Historical tity, and regional and national events (see Archaeology (CNHEA) in Altoona, Baugher, Beaudry, Catts, De Cunzo, and Pennsylvania. The primary goal of the work­ Schafenberger and Veit this volume); shop was to discuss the significance and treat­ 2) looking at long term change within these ment of 19th-century farmsteads in the rural places as reflections of change 168 The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast/Klein and Baugher

within rural/ agricultural society (see investigated?" The 1997 Altoona workshop Beaudry, Catts, Sharfenberger and Veit, participants' response was "all of them." this volume); Interestingly, when discussions focused on 3) examining the ethnic and class differ­ more specific attributes of which sites should ences of farmers and farm laborers in the be investigated, there was no consensus. context of the dynamics of rural society Huey's (2000: 33-34) recent article on research (see DeCunzo, O'Donovan and Wurst, issues and problems for 19th-century sites in this volume) 4) bringing to light the historical roots and New York articulates well the view that all of values of both local modern communities these sites are important and worthy of inves­ and communities of the past (see Catts, tigation. King, this volume); and Every site is different, and no site is truly 5) using these sites to create "micro-histo­ redundant It is fortunate that so many ries," "site biographies," and "ethnogra­ 19th-century sites exist, because the larger phies" that in turn lead to a broader and more nearly total the sample size, the understanding of rural and agricultural stronger the research results will be. As culture and society (see Beaudry, Catts, every artifact at a single site is a clue in DeCunzo, Sharfenberger and Veit, this reconstructing a larger picture, so every volume). 19th-century site is a clue in better under­ Finally, the articles present similar recom­ standing a very complex period in history mendations concerning methods for historical (Huey 2000: 33)- research and for field investigations (in partic­ However, in terms of the day-to-day world ular, see Baugher, Beaudry, Doroszenko, King, of compliance with local, state, provincial, and this volume). These include: federal historic preservation laws and regula­ 1) the survey and testing of all components tions, the "all of them" response is both of the farmstead site; impractical and somewhat contrary to the pur­ 2) the excavation of large areas within the pose of these laws and regulations. The laws entire site; of Canada and the United States were never 3) the use of remote sensing within areas written with the goal of preserving everything. outside of the core of the farmstead; 4) the need for giving equal attention to loca­ Rather, historic preservation statutes and regu­ tions that contain large quantities of arti­ lations provide some measure of protection to facts and those that do not; and only what our societies consider to be impor­ 5) the use of the full range of historical tant historic and archaeological resources. sources, including literature, paintings, What is "important" or "significant" and agricultural journals and publications, therefore worthy of protection is defined in oral history, etc. these laws and regulations by general sets of criteria and guidance. The specific application A Framework for Identifying, of these criteria and guidance to actual historic Evaluating, and Preserving 19th-Century and archaeological properties is not defined. Farmstead Sites As a result, there is a need for clear and useful The common themes and approaches pre­ criteria to determine which farmstead sites sented in these articles can serve as a frame­ necessitate our consideration. But, how do we work for surveying, excavating, evaluating, determine whether or not a given farmstead interpreting, and documenting farmstead sites. site is significant and has the potential to The authors would, however, add some addi­ address important research issues? Where are tional items to this framework in order to these specific evaluation criteria found? What more fully address current historic preserva­ are the important research topics? Are these tion problems. Klein et aL's article, Table 4 topics appropriate for the components of farm­ presents the question "Which sites should be stead sites that most often fall within the Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30--31, 2001-2002 169

boundaries of construction or development nificance of archaeological sites. If an archaeo­ projects? How do we address these questions? logical site exhibits the key elements of a prop­ The answer to the latter is: historic contexts erty type associated with a given historic con­ (see De Cunzo, Klein et al., Miller and Klein, text, then the site is most likely significant. For this volume). the category "19th-century farmsteads," prop­ An historic context, as defined in U.S. erty types could, for example, include the Natj.onal Park Service guidance, is main farmhouse, outbuildings, tenant housing, agricultural landscape features, or a body of thematically, geographically, the entire farm complex. Continuing with this and temporally linked information that example, for archaeological sites to be consid­ provides for an understanding of a prop­ ered a good representation of an "agricultural erty's place or role in prehistory or his­ tory. For a historical archaeological prop­ landscape features" property type, the sites erty, the historic context is the analytical need to have intact, datable fence lines, rock framework within which the property's walls, paths, drainage systems, definable field importance can be understood and to boundaries, tree lines, and/or other landscape which a historical archaeological study is elements. likely to contribute important information Very few states in the Northeast region, (Townsend et al.1999: 25). unfortunately, have usable historic contexts for 19th-century agricultural sites; that is, historic Hardesty and Little (2000) present a good contexts that provide a detailed framework for discussion on the development and use of his­ determining both the significance of a farm­ toric contexts for historic period resources, stead site and evaluating the state of current including archaeological sites. They define knowledge on these resources within a state. four general steps in creating an historic con­ Delaware's historic context for New Castle text: and Kent Counties (De Cunzo and Garcia 1) Identify the theme, time period, and geo­ 1992) is a rare exception. The New Castle and graphic limits Kent Counties historic context, which covers 2) Assemble existing information and syn­ the period 1830-1940, presents an historical thesize the information overview and historic context narrative of the 3) Define property types two counties, a description of archaeological 4) Identify further information needs property types associated with the narrative, a (Hardesty and Little 2000: 14). range of archaeological research questions "Property types" are what link the historic linked to both the historical narrative and context to actual archeological or historic property types, and criteria for evaluation of archaeological resources, which again refer­ resources. A property type is: ences back to the narrative and. property types. The context also includes an evaluation of pre­ ... a grouping of individual properties viously inventoried sites associated with the characterized by common physical historic context. This evaluation looks at the and/ or associative attributes. Physical property types represented by the inventoried attributes include ... structural type, size sites, the types of archaeological investigations ... spatial arrangement or plan, materials, conducted within these sites, and their docu­ ... and environmental relationships ... mented physical conditions. This evaluation is Associative attributes include the prop­ used to identify data gaps and biases in erty's ... relationship to important knowledge about the counties' agricultural research topics (National Register Branch, sites. 1991: 14). In the authors' experience, one of the more "Property types" can be viewed as important, difficult aspects of developing historic contexts physical representations of an historic context, is the definition of appropriate research objec­ and are the "yardstick" for evaluating the sig- tives. It would be hoped that the selected 170 The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast/Klein and Baugher

research issues would truly provide "informa­ ated with the priority topics (Vermont tion important in history," and not lead us to SHPO, 2002: 23-24). conclusions that are trivial, already known through other sources, or are more appropri­ What makes the Vermont approach unique ately studied through historical evidence. is the inclusion of language such as "research Vermont is one of the few states in the questions significant to a broad audience." United States that presents, in its state archeo­ This is rarely seen in guidance from either logical guidelines, a detailed list of priority SHPOs or other state or federal agencies. research issues that are to be applied to his­ Vermont, however, currently does not have toric archaeological site significance evalua­ historic contexts that deal with historic period tions. Further, these research issues were archaeological sites (Giovanna Peebles, selected because they were seen ns providing Vermont Division of Historic Preservation, information that was truly "important to his­ personal communication, 2002). The priority tory." research questions included in the guidelines, The Vermont State Historic Preservation therefore, are not based on a synthesis of past Office (SHPO) recently released (2002) work evaluated within the framework of working guidelines for compliance archae­ statewide or regional historic contexts, but on ology in' the state; and these guidelines present the personal experience and knowledge of Vermont archaeologists. As noted in a recent somewhat rigorous directions on how to eval­ paper critiquing the new Vermont guidelines uate historic archaeological sites. The Vermont and how they are being applied (Manning­ guidelines note that a historic archaeological Sterling 2002), the research value of 19th-cen­ site will be studied archaeologically in the reg­ tury farmsteads is not included in the priority ulatory process if : research questions. Rather, the focus is on the 1) It addresses or is likely to address in a sig­ pre-1800 period farmstead sites. Manning­ nificant way the priority research topics Sterling notes listed in these guidelines. 2) It has the potential to add important infor­ One of the main contentions presented by mation to the written and archival record. 3) It addresses research questions significant state agencies in challenging archaeolog­ to a broad audience (2002: 23). ical investigations [in Vermont] is the These priority research topics were devel­ abundance of historic buildings and sites. oped initially by a task force of senior Vermont This argument presents several problems. archaeologists and further defined by small First, there is the flawed equation of working groups. standing structures with archaeological The research topics listed are to be used as sites: the existence of numerous extant guides in evaluating site significance, and that farmstead should not preclude investiga­ "[c]ompelling sites that don't fall into these tion of a potentially significant farmstead categories may still be considered by the site (Manning-Sterling 2002: 6-7). [Vermont SHPO] if they demonstrate the likeli­ hood of providing important information to a Manning is correct in arguing against the community or to the state"(Vermont SHPO use of existing standing historic properties as a 2002: 24). criterion in evaluating the importance of The guidelines also state that archaeological sites, as what remains standing today is not a representation of the universe of ... archaeological sites relating to a properties that once existed in the past. Catts detailed historic context that meet the (this volume) in his discussion of the work of property type's registration requirements Dell Upton, reminds us that the investigation may be considered significant by the of past historic landscapes is a study of the SHPO even though they are not associ- material culture of the "winners." Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 30-31, 2001-2002 171

The buildings that architectural historians ects that require the consideration of the entire study are examples of the "successful" farmstead site, including the fields, walls, buildings, the best, most substantial, and paths, remote outbuildings, and the like, are most adaptable to their present surround­ becoming more and more infrequent, as proj­ ings (Catts, this volume). ects now tend to involve the improvement of existing infrastructure (e.g., roadway wid~n­ Despite these concerns, the authors do, ings) or modest-scale development, rather nevertheless, view the Vermont guidelines as a than new development or construction encom­ step in the right direction, focusing on explicit passing large contiguous areas of land, such as criteria and arguments in evaluating site sig­ for power plants, new highway construction, nificance, and linking these evaluations to the new sewage treatment plants, and large scale interests of the public. What is missing, how­ residential or commercial development. ever, are the appropriate tools to implement McCann and Ewing note (this volume) the guidelines, as far as 19th-century farm­ that: stead sites are concerned, i.e., historic contexts. The need for such contexts in Vermont is rec­ It has been our experience that when ognized by the SHPO staff (Manning-Sterling archaeological survey is restricted to the 2002: 9), and these historic contexts will hope­ road frontage very little is contributed to fully be developed soon (Giovanna Peebles, our understanding of the history of mid­ Vermont Division of Historic Preservation, to-late 19th-century rurallifeways. It is personal communication, 2002). this type of archaeologicai fieldwork that Interestingly, in Canada, the Ontario most concerns us, because these projects Ministry of Culture also uses explicit guide­ raise doubts about the value of financing lines in evaluating significance on 19th-cen­ archaeological research. tury sites. The general approach is that if an historic site pre"dates 1870 it is deemed as Historic contexts must deal with this having "heritage value," but if it post-dates reality, otherwise, their utility as a tool for 1870 then there must be a rationale for why preservation compliance is considerably less­ this site has heritage value before any further ened. work can be conducted on the site. Cultural groups that are under-represented in the Impediments to Historic Context archaeological record are deemed to have her­ Development and Use itage value even if the site is post-1870. Currently, however, historic contexts are not Both. the 1997 Altoona workshop and arti­ used as a tool to evaluate site significance cles in this volume point to the need for and (Dena Doroszenko, personal communication, value ·of historic contexts in addressing the 2002). above issues. This need for usable historic con­ Whether in the United States or Canada, texts· as a tool for evaluating historic and when historical archaeologists are developing archaeological resources was also recognized the research objectives for an historic context, at the national level during the Transportation it is the authors' opinion that it is also impor­ Research Board's (TRB) 1999 forum on tant to ask: "Can the research issues posed be assessing historic significance (see applied to compliance-related archaeological Introduction, this volume). Unfortunately, the investigations?" Many projects, such as development of usable historic contexts is not roadway or some utility improvements easy. As noted in both Klein et al. and Miller involve only portions of a farmstead site, most and Klein (this volume), there are several hur­ often the front yards. Based on the authors' dles that need to be overcome, such as deter­ most recent experience within the region, proj- mining who will develop these contexts and 172 The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast/Klein and Baugher

how to define the important research issues In developing the survey instrument, Klein that will be included in these contexts. As et al. did not anticipate the infrequent use of demonstrated by a recent nationwide study in historic contexts in resource significance deci­ the United States, even when historic contexts sion making, so they did not include a ques­ exist, these contexts are generally not used by tion in the survey that asked why these tools agency staffs or Cultural Resource were not used by the agencies. In reading the Management (CRM) consultants as part of NCHRP report, however, one can surmise that their significance evaluations of farmstead the reasons why historic contexts are not being sites and other archeological resources. used: they are out of date; do not contain In November 2001, the TRB and the useful information or guidance; or are not National Cooperative Highway Research readily accessible. Also, in the day-to-day deci­ Program (NCHRP) fw1ded a nationwide study sion making that takes place in CRM firms and of the use of information technology in evalu­ agency offices, it is always easier and quicker ating cultural resource significance in associa­ to rely on one's own knowledge and experi­ tion with transportation projects (Klein et al. ence than to consult a document sitting on a 2002). The first phase of the study involved the shelf. collection of information on how state So, given all of these issues, problems and Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and constraints, what can be done? One option is SHPOs use (or do not use) information tech­ to use the approach presented by Miller and nology in making decisions on resource signif­ Klein (this volume), and not attempt to icance. This was accomplished through exten­ develop these historic contexts. The focus of sive literature research and a survey question­ Miller and Klein's strategy is on site integrity naire sent to all DOTs and SHPOs. Both the as the primary measure of a site's importance, survey and literature search examined without reference to specific research issues; whether or not these agencies maintained cul­ and, as DeCunzo notes in her article: tural resource inventories and historic contexts in electronic formats, and if these inventories all 19th and early 20th-century agrarian and historic contexts were used in significance sites with archaeological integrity and evaluations. clear temporal contexts offer the potential to help delineate the "culture of agricul­ Key findings of the NCHRP study (Klein et ture" (DeCunzo, this volume). al. 2002) were as follows: The value of Miller and Klein's approach is 1) Only 17% of SHPOs and 24% of the DOTs that sites with high visibility and intact maintain or update their historic contexts, deposits and/or features will not be elimi­ and most exist only on paper. nated simply because they do not fit within a 2) DOT and SHPO staffs use their historic narrow research framework. Data can be gath­ contexts 25% of the time or less to eval­ ered by historical archaeologists working uate cultural resources. They rely, within the time and financial constraints of instead, on their own personal experi­ compliance-driven fieldwork, and a few pre­ ences and knowledge, and those of their liminary research questions could be cultural resource consultants. addressed, while other potential questions and 3) DOT and SHPO staff are generally not research domains would be noted. Most satisfied with the tools that they have to importantly, data collection would not be lim­ make and justify their decisions on ited by one or two research questions. The arti­ resource significance, and would like to fact assemblages would be catalogued so that see increased sharing of information and they could be accessible to future researchers approaches among agencies and states. interested in other research issues. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 173

Research conducted after the completion of recently by a White House Executive Order several high profile New York City projects (E.O. 13274, September 18, 2002) that also serves as an example of this approach. focused on the streamlining of transportation Graduate students and professors have used project environmental reviews. The White the data from these projects to pose new House also established a task force in May research questions and undertake new ffinova­ 2001 for streamlining reviews associated with tive studies (see Janowitz 1993, Rothschild energy projects (see www.whitehouse.gov/ 1990, Wall1994). As these post-project studies news/releases, Executive Order 13212). have demonstrated, the form and research Successful environmental streamlining focus of the original project does not neces­ requires access to information on the location sarily hamper future research using the collec­ and nature of significant e·nvironmental tions and data generated by these projects. resources, including archaeological sites, early If Miller and Klein's approach is not in the project and program planning process. acceptable to historical archaeologists and Historic contexts provide this type of informa­ other historic preservation professionals, then tion in a clear and justifiable (and defensible) we must find the time, money, and resources framework. So, continuing the status quo in to develop usable and up to date historic con­ terms of how we identify and evaluate impor­ texts'(or historic contexts that may include tant archaeological sites runs contrary to these Miller and Klein's approach or similar strate­ new streamlining mandates in the United gies). The only other option is to proceed States, resulting in delays and conflict with under the status quo, dealing with these sites project designers and planners, other environ­ on a case-by-case basis, relying on the experi­ mental specialists, and at times, the public. If ence and knowledge of the historic preserva­ we continue with the status quo, we do so at tion professionals involved in the current our own peril. process. Unfortunately, many of these experi­ enced professionals will be retiring in the not Advancing the Development of Historic too distant future, and all of this knowledge Contexts: Models, Approaches, and and expertise will no longer be available, as these individuals are replaced by those with Funding much less experience or not replaced at all (see Historic context development, therefore, Klein et al. 2002: 72). Maintaining the status should be a major focus of our future efforts in quo is also contrary to the movement within terms of the identification, evaluation, and the United States to streamline compliance preservation of 19th-century farmstead sites in with environmental laws and regulations. Canada and the United States. There are ways Environmental streamlining calls for to overcome the impediments in the develop­ improved environmental/regulatory review of ment and subsequent use of these contexts. federally linked projects. It involves the reduc­ The Oklahoma Department of Transportation tion and elimination of delays and unneces­ (OOOT) is proposing an innovative approach sary duplication in current environmental pro­ to deal with these issues in the context of 20th­ cedures, including those associated with his­ century archaeological resources that can be toric preservation. Streamlining also calls for easily applied to 19th-century farmstead sites earlier and more efficient coordination among in the Northeast. agencies involved in the environmental deci­ In a paper presented at the 2002 summer sion making process (see Klein et al. 2002: 71- meeting ofTRB's Committee on Archaeology 72). In 1998, the U.S. Congress mandated the & Historic Preservation in Transportation, streamlining of the environmental review John Hartely of the Oklahoma DOT reported process for transportation projects (see Klein et that: al. 2002: 71-72). This has been followed ... the Oklahoma SHPO and ODOT ate in 174 The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast/Klein and Baugher

the initial stages of developing a context of the recent past; study to help clarify the actual value of 5) The feasibility of developing broad signifi­ archaeological data in the understanding cance categories for recent archaeological of cultural events in the recent past. We resources, allowing certain low-signifi­ are hoping to secure at least $350,000 cance categories to be excluded from rou­ through the TEA-21 Enhancement pro­ tine documentation and evaluation gram to fund the majority of the requirements under Section 106 [of the study ... SHPO will use the study to National Historic Preservation Act] and develop a context for 20th-century archae­ other similar review processes, and; ological resources in the Statewide 6) The identification of the most potentially Historic Preservation Plan ... The study significant categories of such resources will involve the archaeological, archival, and developing programmatic method­ and ethnohistoric evaluation of a ologies for their evaluation and preserva­ statewide sample of between 40 to 70 tion (Hartely 2002). 20th-century rural archaeological sites, An important component of Oklahoma's representing different regions of the state: approach is the development of programmatic Euro-American, African-American, and methods for evaluating and preserving these Native American components; differing sites. In this way, all parties involved in this economic status, differing degrees of program will have an agreed upon strategy on how these sites are to be dealt with; therefore, integrity, content, size and complexity; reducing project delays and conflicts. The pro­ and other key variables. An overarching grammatic methodologies become the way in goal of the project is to determine the con­ which the components and recommendations ditions under which archaeological inves­ of the historic context become operational. tigations are likely to be the primary The TEA-21 Enhancement program means of addressing significant research referred to by Hartely is a program created by questions regarding 20th-century history Congress in relation to the Intermodal Surface in Oklahoma (Hartley 2002). Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which was continued under the Oklahoma's historic context will include Transportation Equity Act for the 21st­ the evaluation of several key issues: Century (TEA-21). These acts authorized states 1) The type of deposits, features, and general to spend a percentage of their allocation of content of 20th-century sites should pos­ surface transportation funds on enhancement sess before they have a reasonable poten­ projects that meet 12 specific enhancement tial to provide substantive historical, activities. These activities include such things anthropological, or economic data; as scenic or historic highway programs, land­ 2) The extent to which substantive anthropo­ scaping and other scenic beautification, reha­ logical, historical, or economic informa­ bilitation and operation of historic transporta­ tion regarding recent occupations ... can tion properties, historic preservation actions be more efficiently or accurately gathered that have a transportation link, and archaeo­ by oral history and documentary research; logical research and planning (see 3) Regional, ethnic, cultural, or develop­ http://www. fhwa. dot. g ov/e n vi ron me nt). mental differences in different areas of Transportation enhancement monies are one Oklahoma, and how these differences source for funding historic context develop­ may affect the potential significance of ment in the United States. archaeological resources from the recent The Oklahoma study provides one past; example of how to develop historic contexts 4) Appropriate archaeological methodologies and to place this effort within the context of for the identification, assessment, and both historic preservation and the environ­ preservation of archaeological resources mental review process. The problem of Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30--31,2001-2002 175

defining appropriate and important research what is needed is a permanent task force issues against which sites can be evaluated is of historians and archaeologists to utilize accomplished through a multidisciplinary archaeological data that have been and approach that also involves detailed research are being generated and to reexamine his­ and field investigations of a representative torical interpretations of the nineteenth sample of the resources across the state. We century. are not recommending the total adherence to the Oklahoma approach, as parts of the study Huey's recommendations echo those made are problematic. For example, the issues used by William Lipe back in the 1970s. Lipe (1977) in the evaluation of significance include the called for a similar approach in the context of notion that if information on the past can be what was referred to then as "salvage archae­ more "efficiently or accurately gathered" ology." Referring to recommendations offered through documentary sources, then the by Tom King and Robert McGimsey, Lipe dis­ archaeological record of some of these 20th­ cusses the need for developing research priori­ century sites is of less value and not signifi­ ties for each region of the country and that the cant. As many of the articles in this volume regional plans be updated periodically. He have demonstrated, our understanding of the goes on to discuss the historic past and the research issues we posed are greatly enhanced when multiple lines of ... formation of regional archaeological evidence are used. Also, the Oklahoma study "cooperatives" to facilitate team does not appear to include the interest of the approaches to regional research designs public as one of the factors in determining sig­ and permit regional organization of sal­ nificance. Again, as noted in several of the vage and archaeological resource manage­ volume's articles, the value of these sites to the ment. Such cooperatives would integrate public must be an integral component of any the efforts of archaeologists from universi­ evaluation of significance. The Oklahoma ties, colleges, museums, and avocational study, nevertheless, is a valuable model for groups . . . Such notions are appealing, for states and provinces to implement, adapting they provide means whereby academic this study to local conditions, research, and research might be coordinated with emer­ public interest. gency salvage proper and whereby the An important component of any effort to knowledge, expertise, and influence of identify appropriate research issues for inclu­ many individuals from diverse institu­ sion in an historic context is the synthesis of tions could be pooled (Lipe 1977: 37). previous investigations. Any synthesis effort would require the inventory and assessment of Today, one would add local, state, provin­ reports and findings on file at state and federal cial and federal agencies, along with CRM agencies, in addition to the creation of 19th­ firms, to Lipe' s list of those that should be century farmstead site databases. As Huey involved in such "cooperatives." Lipe's recom­ (2000: 33-34) notes: mendations, when applied to the identifica­ tion, evaluation and treatment of 19th-century A searchable database is needed, listing farmstead sites, are compelling. Such "cooper­ all nineteenth-century sites that have been atives," or "task forces" as recommended by found, and it should include a variety of Huey, could be the source for both the identifi­ attributes for each site in addition to loca­ cation of research issues and the creation of tion and approximate date range. With viable historic contexts. these data, archaeologists have both the What would be academia's role in such an opportunity and the responsibility to pro­ effort? The authors recommend that acad­ duce meaningful research results. Perhaps emia's role would mirror an existing mission 176 The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast/Klein and Baugher

of universities and colleges: long term, focused tained within the site, i.e., archaeological data research. The world of CRM, unfortunately, recovery). In these situations, all of the parties does not allow its practitioners the time and involved make a decision to direct some of the resources to conduct long-term research, in data recovery funds toward the development depth synthesizes of past work, nor detailed of syntheses or historic contexts. The develop­ re-evaluations of past studies and collections. ment of these syntheses or historic contexts The fruits of such research are extremely valu­ would be viewed as a means to improve the able, resulting in new insights and viewpoints, preservation outcome of the project, to the and in advancing our knowledge of the past. benefit of archaeological resource protection Lu Ann De Cunzo's and O'Donovan and and preservation in the area. Transportation Wurst's articles in this volume are good exam­ enhancement monies and creative mitigation ples. These authors used the results of mul­ are only two ways to fund development of tiple compliance-related archaeological proj­ syntheses and historic contexts. There are ects, supplemented by their own research, to many other creative ways that agencies, present and support their observations about including SHPOs, can redirect current preser­ these sites and their placement in rural society. vation dollars toward addressing these critical Another good example is Diana Wall's disser­ needs. tation research on the early 19th-century cult The development of Delaware's agricul­ of domesticity and the separation of home and tural historic contexts employed some of the work place. Wall presents her case using sev­ above recommendations and approaches. eral archaeological sites excavated as a result Delaware's efforts were funded by the of New York City's historic preservation regu­ Delaware SHPO, with funds from their federal lations, and she re-examined the collections Historic Preservation Fund allocation, and by from these sites as part of her research efforts the University of Delaware through the Center (Wall1994) for Archaeological Research, with additional Students and faculty at universities and support from Delaware Department of colleges could direct some of their research Transportation (De Cunzo, personal communi­ efforts to the great number of CRM reports cation 2002). The first step in creating the his­ and collections that exist throughout the toric contexts was the development of a region, and assist in synthesizing and Management Plan for Delaware's Historical advancing our current approaches to farm­ Archaeological Resources (De Cunzo and stead sites. This research would be conducted Catts 1990), which laid out the broad research in partnership with both government agencies domains later used in the historic contexts, and CRM firms, with the agencies providing and established the contexts as priority proj­ the funding. A product of these efforts would ects. Next, the historic contexts were pro­ be the creation of historic contexts. duced for New Castle and Kent Counties (De Funding for this research and historic con­ Cunzo and Garcia 1992) and Sussex County text development could be sought, in the (De Cunzo and Garcia 1993). The historic con­ United States, through transportation text authors worked with a committee of his­ enhancement monies, like the Oklahoma torical archaeologists in the state to establish study. Other funding mechanisms include cre­ priorities, research domains, significance state­ ative mitigation efforts, often referred to as ments, property types, etc. "off-site mitigation." The latter involves the redirection of portions of the funds that would The Role of the Public normally go to the excavation, analysis and/ or reporting of a site that was to be destroyed by What is the public's role in the establish­ a project (that is, the adverse effects on the site ment of any "archaeological regional coopera­ are resolved through the retrieval of data con- tive" or "task force," or in the creation of his- Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30--31, 2001-2002 177

toric contexts, or at a more basic level, in and service-learning is that community mem­ defining what is and is not a significant farm­ bers often become involved in their own com­ stead site worthy of our consideration? Both munity history and particip?te in oral history the articles in this volume and the 1997 projects (Baugher 2000). They also become Altoona workshop highlight the importance grass root supporters of archaeology and his­ and value of public involvement and educa­ toric preservation. Participatory action tion. The public needs to become both partners research and related approaches should, there­ and advocates in the preservation of 19th-cen­ fore, become part of any historic context devel­ tury farmstead sites. The 1997 workshop par­ opment effort. In this way, what the public ticipants recommended that this could be values is considered in tandem with what is accomplished, in part, by appealing to the important to historical archaeologists. As a public's sense of history. By tapping into this result, we move beyond the status quo and sense of history, we can demonstrate that gain a richer interpretation and understanding farmstead archaeology is worth doing and is of our history. meaningful to local communities. The interests and concerns of the public Common mechanisms to engage the public must be given careful consideration by historic would include working with local historical preservation specialists, even though the sites societies and museums, communicating with the public values might not meet standard sig­ the local media, designing museum exhibits, nificance and integrity criteria (which in the and having public tours of archaeological sites. United States are defined by the National Jameson's (1997) edited volume Presenting Register Criteria and the "Seven Aspects of Archaeology to the Public contains many exam­ ples of successful public outreach efforts asso­ Integrity" as presented in National Register ciated with compliance-mandated archaeolog­ Bulletin 15, Interagency Resources Division, ical projects. However, we should also explore nd). Though not strictly within the purview of more innovative and interactive approaches to historic preservation laws, such values need to public outreach. be considered in the context of other environ­ University-based social scientists, espe­ mental statutes, such as the National cially sociologists, often conduct what is Environmental Policy Act, in the United States referred to as "participatory action research," (see King 2002 for an interesting discussion of also known as "PAR." In participatory action this issue). research community members become part­ ners with academics, and the goals and focus An Action Agenda of research are decided jointly. Community members also assist in the research rather than The 1997 farmstead workshop in Altoona just being the subject of the research, and they ended with the identification of an action may suggest research that was not the initial agenda, focusing on two questions: "How do priority of the social scientist. In the end, how­ we, as a discipline, proceed with the research, ever, these joint projects are often richer and interpretation, and preservation of these more detailed than a solely academic-focused sites?" and "What specific actions should an effort. PAR is at the heart of "service­ organization like CNEHA take?" The authors learning," the higher education reform move­ hope that the recommendations in this sum­ ment to connect community service to aca­ mary along with the articles in this volume demic courses. The National Community provide an initial framework to address these Service Act of 1993 further strengthened these two questions. It is imperative that we act now a·cademic initiatives for public outreach. So, given the continued loss of these resources how do these educational reform movements through government undertakings, in addition relate to our 19th-century farmstead site to private development for which there is even dilemma? One very positive benefit of PAR less oversight. In addition, the mandates for 178 The Future of Nineteenth-Century Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast/Klein and Baugher

environmental streamlining coming out of the Series on Service-Learning, Volume 3. United States federal government will force Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. the issue even more. This should be a concern for all archaeologists, whether they are in gov­ De Cunzo, Lu Ann, and Wade P. Catts ernment agencies, CRM firms, universities, or 1990 Building a Framework for Research: museums. Delaware's Management Plan for The resources needed to accomplish the Historical Archaeological Resources. tasks at hand are readily available but we need Northeast Historical Archaeology 19: 1-49. to recognize that these resources exist and, use them. If we are truly willing to answer the De Cunzo, Lu Ann, and Ann Marie Garcia question "We've got thousands of these! What makes an historic farmstead significant?" 1992 Historic Context: The Archaeology of (Wilson 1990), we must move away from the Agriculture and Rural Life, New Castle status quo and take some bold actions. We and Kent Counties, Delaware, 1830-1940. also need to more fully engage our public part­ Report on file at the Delaware State ners, including local communities, historical Historic Preservation Office, Dover. societies, educators and students, and the media. With public support and advocacy, De Cunzo, Lu Ann, and Ann Marie Garcia 19th-century farmstead sites in the Northeast 1993 "Neither a Desert Nor A Paradise:" will receive greater attention within the con­ Historic Context for the Archaeology of text of future historic preservation efforts. Agriculture and Rural Life, Sussex County, Delaware, 1770-1940. Report on Acknowledgements file at the Delaware State Historic Preservation Office, Dover. We thank Mary Beaudry, Lu Ann De Cunzo, George Miller, Richard Veit and Lou Hart, John P. and Charles L. Fisher, editors Ann Wurst for their insightful comments on 2002 Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century earlier drafts of this summary. We also thank Domestic Site Archaeology in New York State. David Landon and Ann-Eliza Lewis for their New York State Museum Bulletin 495. The editorial suggestions, and Dena Doroszenko for taking the time to update us on how site University of the State of New York, The evaluations are made in Ontario, Canada. State Education Department, Albany. Finally, we thank Lynne Sebastian for Hartley, John D. reminding us about William Lipe's timeless 2002 Grandma's Trash-Today's Archaeology: and seminal article "A Conservation Model for A Growing Problem in Cultural Resource American Archaeology." It was amazing to see that Lipe's recommendations still serve as a Management and Project Planning. Paper presented at the TRB Committee on guide for addressing current historic preserva­ tion issues. Archaeology & Historic Preservation in Transportation 2002 Summer Meeting, Kansas City, Missouri. References Hardesty, Donald L. and Barbara J. Little Baugher, Sherene 2000 Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for 2000 Service-Learning and Community History: Archaeologists and Historians. AltaMira Archaeological Excavation, Historical Press, Walnut Creek, California. Documentation, and Oral History, ed. by Therese A. O'Connor and Leonard J. Huey, Paul Vargas-Mendez, pp 5-11. Working Papers 2000 Research Problems and Issues for the Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 179

Archaeology of Ninteenth-Century Lipe, William D. Farmstead Sites in New York State. In 1977 A Conservation Model for American Nineteenth - and Early Twentieth-Century Archaeology. In Conservation Archaeology: Domestic Site Archaeology in New York State., A Guide for Cultural Resource Management ed. by John P. Hart and Charles L. Fisher. Studies, ed. by Michael B. Schiffer and pp 29-36. New York State Museum George J. Gumerman. pp 19-22. Academic Bulletin 495. The University of the State of Press, New York. New York, The State Education Department, Albany. Manning-Sterling, Elise 2002 The Diminishing Importance of Historical Interagency Resources Division Archaeology in Vermont. Paper presented nd How to Apply the National Register at the 2002 annual meeting of the Council Criteria of Evaluation. National Register for Northeast Historical Archaeology, Bulletin 15. Interagency Resources Wilmington, Delaware. Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, National Co]lllllunity Service Act D.C. 1993 National Community Service Act, 1993, Public Law 103-82, 103rd Congress, HR Jameson, John H. Jr., editor 2010. 1997 Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. National Register Branch 1991 How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. Janowitz, Meta F. National Register Bulletin 168. U.S. National 1993 Indian Corn and Dutch Pots: Seventeenth­ Register Branch, Interagency Resources Century Foodways in New Division, National Park Service, U.S. Amsterdam/New York. Historical Department of the Interior, Washington, Archaeology 27(2): 6-24. D.C.

King, Thomas F. Rothschild, Nan A. 2002 Thinking about Cultural Resource 1990 New York City Neighborhoods. Academic Management: Essays from the Edge. AltaMira Press, New York. Press, Walnut Creek.

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Klein, Terry H., Mark R. Edwards, Dan F. Cassedy, Knoerl Rebecca L. Peer, Juistin S. Patton, Bruce R. 1999 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Penner, Robert J. Mutaw, and A.E. (Gene) Evaluating and Registering Historical Rogge Archaeological Sites and Districts. US 2002 Review and Improvement of Existing Department of the Interior, National Park Processes and Procedures for Evaluating Service, Washington, D.C. Cultural Resource Significance, Project No. 8-40, FY 2000. Prepared for the National Vermont State Historic Preservation Office Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2001 The Vermont State Historic Preservation Transportation Research Board, National Office's Guidelines for Conducting Research Council, Washington, D.C. Archaeology in Vermont-Working Draft. Prepared by URS Corporation, Florence, Division of Historic Preservation, New Jersey. Montpelier, Vermont. 180 Tlze Future of Nineteenth-Centun; Farmstead Archaeology in the Northeast/Klein and Baugher

Wall, Diana diZerega Sherene Baugher is an associate professor at 1994 The Archaeology of Gender: Separating the Cornell University in the Department of Spheres in Urban America. Plenum Press, Landscape Architecture. She is also affiliated New York. with Cornell's Archaeology Program and Historic Preservation Program. From 1980 to 1990, she served as the first official archaeolo­ Wilson, John S. gist for the City of New York. Since coming to 1990 We've Got Thousands of These! What Cornell in 1991, her excavations have focused Makes an Historic Farmstead Significant on rural sites, including farmsteads. Her Historical Archaeology 24(2): 23-33. research interests focus on ethnicity and class issues, especially in relationship to cultural landscapes (both rural and urban). She works Terry H. Klein is the Assistant Executive with planners, preservationists and Native Director of the SRI Foundation, a nonprofit Americans to excavate and preserve endan­ gered Indian, colonial and 19th-century organization dedicated to the advancement of archaeological sites. historic preservation through education, training, public outreach, and research. Prior Terry H. Klein to joining the SRI Foundation, he directed and SRI Foundation managed two large Cultural Resource 333 Rio Rancho Drive Suite 103 Management organizations. He received his Rio Rancho, New Mexico 87124 bachelor's degree from the University of [email protected] Arizona with a major in anthropology and his master's degree in anthropology from Sherene Baugher Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Department of Landscape Architecture His primary interests are in historic preserva­ Cornell University 440 Kennedy Hall tion planning, and the archaeology of farm­ Ithaca, New York 14853 steads and urban sites. [email protected]