APPENDIX II. Introducing a Landscape Approach for Evaluating Communities’ Traditional Senses of Time and Place Kurt F. Anschuetz (adapted from Anschuetz 2001; Anschuetz and Scheick 1998) Introduction communities occupy their landscapes. I emphasize that these analyses will never yield a comprehensive understanding of The purpose of this essay is to introduce an anthropolog- the ideational systems communities use to ascribe particular ical landscape approach. It considers landscape broadly as meanings to places within their landscapes. I next define the the physical and conceptual interaction of nature and culture landscape concept and review its formal properties. Lastly, I rather than the sum of material modifications, which people consider how landscapes constitute cultural-historical memo- might make to a particular geographic space. I suggest that ries with which communities interact in their day-to-day cultural resource managers might find this perspective useful living. in the future when they consider how people of traditional The fourth part defines the concepts of community and and historical communities in the region construct and sustain communion. I argue that these ideas are relevant to evalu- their associations with the Valles Caldera National Preserve ations of landscapes because they help condition people’s (VCNP). Using concepts developed by the U.S. Department of patterned perceptions and interpretations of the spaces they Interior, National Park Service (NPS) for managing culturally inhabit. This discussion also appraises the idea of commu- significant landscape resources, this discussion goes beyond nion, which is an emotional tie to place. a simple emphasis on the readily visible built environment. It The final section offers a review of approaches that may also considers the cultural-historical traditions through which be used to implement the ethnographic landscape concept. people of affiliated communities have sustained their associ- I introduce the idea of the “storied landscape” (Kelley and ations with the VCNP as part of their traditional homelands Francis 1996) as the principal means for applying the land- based on their land use history and traditions. scape perspective introduced in this essay. This essay consists of five parts. The first introduces the NPS landscape concepts, which now are widely in use across National Park Service the United States in evaluating the significance of cultural landscapes in terms of National Register of Historic Places Landscape Concepts (National Register) criteria. It also reviews the limitations of these approaches and a recently adopted ethnographic land- The NPS formally identified cultural landscapes as a type scape definition developed by the NPS Applied Ethnology of cultural resource in its management policies in 1988 (Page Program (Evans et al. 2001). This definition offers an impor- et al. 1998:7). The NPS defines cultural landscape “as a tant step toward the resolution of the shortcomings inherent in geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources the National Register process. and the wildlife or domestic animals therein) associated The second part considers the ubiquity of cultural land- with a historic event, activity, or person, or that exhibit other scapes and their significant cultural meanings in the world cultural or aesthetic values” (NPS 2000:1; see also Page et in which people live, using the intimacy of the relationship al. 1998:12). These values, in turn, allow the evaluation of a between traditional land-based communities and their envi- cultural resource for eligibility for inclusion in the National ronments in the southwestern United States as an illustration. Register (Evans et al. 2001:53). Moreover, the NPS uses the The purpose of this discussion is to convey more fully how term cultural landscape as a conceptual umbrella to encom- significant cultural-historical associations can be manifest in pass four principal landscape types warranting recognition landscape even though material traces of human occupation and protection (after NPS 1994; see also NPS 2000; Page et are rare or subtle in appearance. al. 1998:7). The third section considers the challenges to researchers The first landscape type is thehistoric site, which is signifi- and managers in recognizing landscapes and comprehending cant for its association with important activities, events, and/ these cultural constructs within appropriate contexts. I open by or persons. Examples include battlefields and presidential addressing issues concerning landscape analyses of the way properties (NPS 2000:2). The second is the historic designed USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-196. 2007 249 landscape, which represents deliberate artistic creations that Travis 1994). Cowley (1991:10, 1994:28) observes further manifest recognized design styles. Aesthetic values play a that landscapes can represent a multitude of cultural-histor- significant role in designed landscapes, which include parks, ical associations and values among the people of different campuses, and estates (NPS 2000:1–2). The third is the historic communities. vernacular landscape, whose use, construction, and layout The NPS’ recognition of the essential role of contempo- expresses cultural values and illustrates people’s patterns of rary cultural associations in the documentation, evaluation, land use. Function plays a significant role in vernacular land- and interpretations of landscapes is illustrated further through scapes, which include rural historic districts and agricultural its seminal work in defining the traditional cultural property landscapes (NPS 2000:2). The last cultural landscape type is concept. Although the traditional cultural property concept the ethnographic landscape. As defined by the NPS, ethno- also was developed for use in documenting and evaluating graphic landscapes contain “a variety of natural and cultural heritage resources eligible for listing in the National Register resources that associated people define as heritage resources. (Parker 1993a; Parker and King 1990; see also Evans et al. Examples are contemporary settlements, sacred religious 2001:54–55), its conceptual framework is applicable to cultural sites, and massive geological structures. Small plant commu- landscapes generally and to ethnographic landscapes specifi- nities, animals, subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often cally. According to National Register Bulletin 38 guidelines, components” (NPS 2000:1). Evans and others (2001:53) traditional cultural properties are those “eligible for inclusion observe, “Ethnographic landscapes within the NPS context in the National Register because of…[their]…association with are broader and do not depend on National Register eligibility cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are criteria for their existence, and importantly, are identified and rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in defined by the cultural groups associated with them rather maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the commu- than by historic preservation professionals.” For this reason, nity” (Parker and King 1990:1; see also Parker 1993b:1). and to better serve the purposes of its Ethnographic Resources The four widely published NPS cultural landscape type Inventory Database, the NPS’ Applied Ethnography program definitions convey major aspects of this concept. These terse, has defined the termethnographic landscape as: static descriptions, if viewed in isolation, however, offer relatively little to help us understand how the NPS cultural . a relatively contiguous area of interrelated places that landscape idea relates to dynamic cultural and historical contemporary cultural groups define as meaningful because processes. it is inextricably and traditionally linked to their own local or The expanded ethnographic landscape definition offered regional histories, cultural identities, beliefs, and behaviors. recently by the NPS Applied Ethnology Program (Evans et al. Present-day social factors such as a people’s class, ethnicity, 2001) is both recognition of the shortcomings inherent in the and gender may result in the assignment of diverse meanings four-part typology and an important step toward their resolu- to a landscape and its component places (Evans et al. tion. On the one hand, the four-part typology—historic site, 2001:54). historic designed landscape, historic vernacular landscape, and ethnographic landscape—serves usefully in assisting With this definition, Evans and others (2001:54) report that managers to distinguish the values that give landscapes their the NPS acknowledges that ethnographic landscapes are not significance. It also aids managers in determining how the merely a cultural landscape category. They recognize that it landscape should be treated, managed, and interpreted (Page et can represent distinct types of landscapes in their own right al. 1998:9). On the other hand, rigid adherence to this classifi- that might overlap with or contain historic cultural landscapes. cation threatens the conceptual segmentation of the landscape People of communities affiliated with an ethnographic land- concept in ways that are not fully congruent with the effec- scape determine the significance of a given space within the tive implementation of a holistic approach. Page and others physical environment and are empowered with the authority (1998:9) observe that these landscape types are not mutually to identify and describe these places with which they