Archaeologists conducting cultural resource management studies are often confronted with unique challenges in assessing the significance of historic archaeological sites. Archaeological sites dating to the recent past, due to temporal bias, are sometimes casually dismissed as possessing limited research significance or information value. Further, without the benefit of detailed documentary context, the significance of a site might be overlooked during significance evaluation. In the following article, suggestions are offered for assessing the significance of historical archaeology sites encountered during cultural resource management studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeedleP. L. and GyriscoG. M., Editors 1996The Farm Landscape: A Bibliography of the Architecture and Archaeology of Farmsteads and Settlement in Wisconsin and the Areas of Origin of its Settlers in the United States and Europe.Division of Historic Preservation, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison.
2.
BrooksA. and JaconS.1994Homesteading and Agricultural Development Context, South Dakota State Historical Preservation Center, Vermillion.
3.
ButlerWilliam1987Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process, American Antiquity, 52:4, pp. 820–829.
4.
CabakMelanie A. and InkrotMary M.1997Old Farm, New Farm: An Archaeology of Rural Modernization in the Aiken Plateau, 1875-1950, Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 9, Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
5.
CabakMelanie A.GrooverMark D., and InkrotMary M.1999Rural Modernization During the Recent Past: Farmstead Archaeology in the Aiken Plateau, Historical Archaeology, 33:4, pp. 19–43.
6.
CastañedaQuetzil and MatthewsChristopher N.2008Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
7.
Colwell-ChanthaphonhC. and FergusonT. J.2008Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
8.
De CunzoL. and CattsW. P.1990aManagement Plan for Delaware's Historical Archaeological Resources, University of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research, Newark.
9.
De CunzoL. and CattsW. P.1990bBuilding a Framework for Research: Delaware's Management Plan for Historical Archaeological Resources, Northeast Historical Archaeology, 19, pp. 1–49.
10.
De CunzoL. and GarciaA. M.1992Historic Context: The Archaeology of Agriculture and Rural Life, New Castle and Kent Counties, Delaware, 1830-1940, University of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research, Newark, New Jersey.
11.
FowlerDon2000Assessing Archaeological Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
12.
GrooverMark D.1998The Gibbs Farmstead: An Archaeological Study of Rural Economy and Material Life in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
13.
GrooverMark D.2001Linking Artifact Assemblages to Household Cycles, Historical Archaeology, 35:4, pp. 38–57.
14.
GrooverMark D.2003aIdentifying Consumption Differences between Social Groups, North American Archaeologist, 24:3, pp. 245–257.
15.
GrooverMark D.2003bAn Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material Life: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920, Springer, New York.
16.
GrooverMark D.2004Household Succession as a Catalyst of Landscape Change, Historical Archaeology, 38:4, pp. 25–42.
17.
GrooverMark D.2008The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
18.
GrooverMark D.2009Exploring Hoosier Material Culture: Landscape and Architectural Archaeology at the Moore-Youse House and Huddleston Farmstead, Tennessee Archaeology, 1&2, pp. 162–179.
19.
HardestyDonald L.LittleBarbara J., and FowlerDon2001Assessing Archaeological Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
20.
JosephJ. W.HambyT. M., and LongC. S.2004Historical Archaeology in Georgia, Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper, No. 14, prepared for the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Athens, Georgia.
21.
LittleBarbara J.2007Historical Archaeology: Why the Past Matters, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
22.
LittleBarbara J. and ShackelPaul A.2007Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement, Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
23.
MillerG. L. and KleinT. L.2002A System for Ranking the Research Potential of 19th- and 20th-Century Farmstead Sites, Northeast Historical Archaeology, 30-31, pp. 155–166.
24.
OrserCharles E.Jr.1996A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World.Springer, New York.
25.
OrserCharles E.Jr.2004Historical Archaeology, Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
26.
PeetRichard and HartwickElaine2009Theories of Development: Second Edition, Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives, Guilford Press, New York.
27.
SmithSamuel D.1990Site Survey as a Method for Determining Historic Site Significance, Historical Archaeology, 24:2, pp. 34–41.
28.
SmithSamuel D.2006A Retrospective on 30 Years of Historic-Period Archaeological Site Survey, paper presented at the South Central Historical Archaeology Conference, Memphis, Tennessee.
29.
SouthStanley A.1977Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.
30.
TerrellM. M.2006Historical Archaeology of Minnesota Farmsteads: Historic Context Study of Minnesota Farmsteads, 1820-1960, Vol. 4, prepared by Two Pines Resource Group, LLC, Shafer, Minnesota, prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota.
31.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (USDI)1990How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin 15, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, D.C.
32.
WilsonJohn P.1990We've Got Thousands of These! What Makes an Historic Farmstead Significant. Historical Archaeology, 24:2, pp. 23–33.
