Archaeological Landscapes and Districts and Section 106 of the NHPA - Examples from California

Summary

Archaeological sites have traditionally been considered only as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (data potential) of the NRHP, but professionals in the field of Cultural Resources Management have begun to push for archaeological sites to be considered under Criteria A (significant events), B (significant people), and C (artistic value or method of construction) as well. Furthermore, archaeological sites are increasingly considered using a landscape approach, often incorporating multiple sites into a district. This approach breaks the traditional boundaries of archaeological site analysis to incorporate cultural importance to Native Americans and the general public, as well as highlighting how archaeological sites may represent important people and major events of the past. This poses an interesting challenge when archaeological districts or landscapes fall within the Area of Potential Effects for a federal undertaking that may alter or destroy portions of the constituent sites. This presentation uses examples from the California Office of Historic Preservation's Section 106 review units to discuss practical applications of landscape archaeology approaches to prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites in the Section 106 process.

SAA 2015 abstracts made available in tDAR courtesy of the Society for American Archaeology and Center for Digital Antiquity Collaborative Program to improve digital data in archaeology. If you are the author of this presentation you may upload your paper, poster, presentation, or associated data (up to 3 files/30MB) for free. Please visit http://www.tdar.org/SAA2015 for instructions and more information.

This Resource is Part of the Following Collections

• Society for American Archaeology 80th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA (2015)

Keywords

Spatial Coverage