State Historic Preservation Office Research Articles

Kuleana and Commitment: Working Toward a Collaborative Hawaiian Archaeology by Kathleen L Kawelu

Reviewed by: Kuleana and Commitment: Working Toward a Collaborative Hawaiian Archaeology by Kathleen L Kawelu Jan Becket Kuleana and Commitment: Working Toward a Collaborative Hawaiian Archaeology, by Kathleen L Kawelu. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2015. isbn 978-0-8248-4680-0; xi + 141 pages, glossaries, notes, references, index. Cloth, us$39.00. Kathleen Kawelu, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Hawai‘i–Hilo, is to be commended for venturing into the sensitive terrain of relations between archaeologists in Hawai‘i and Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians); her book, Kuleana and Commitment: Working Toward a Collaborative Hawaiian Archaeology, is an honest attempt to bridge cultural, racial, and historic chasms. Despite leaving a few questions unexplored, it succeeds admirably in raising issues that too often emerge only at heated community meetings related to particular land development projects, where they are compressed into sound bites for the evening news. In the introduction, Kawelu divulges that the intent of the book is to explore power asymmetries related to cultural heritage management and the reasons Native Hawaiians are often critical of the practice of archaeology in Hawai‘i. The author discusses a few of the hot-button issues: the historic role played by a Western discipline in the subordination of Kānaka Maoli, the lack of meaningful consultation and communication with Kanaka Maoli communities, and the attitude of some archaeologists that “viewed ancient peoples as separate from contemporary descendants” (14). Anticipating her conclusion, Kawelu comments, “What we perceive as a vast divide between descendant communities and archaeologists does not exist and must not be perpetuated” (13). She also outlines the book’s methodology, an ethnographic study of the field of archaeology through a series of interviews with practicing archaeologists and Kanaka Maoli stakeholders. A chapter on the history of archaeology in Hawai‘i reveals that the traditional kāhuna kuhikuhipu‘uone (priests responsible for the building of heiau [places of worship]) practiced a non-Western form of indigenous archaeology. However, the chapter principally covers the span of Western presence in the Islands, from missionary times to the present, and touches on the major institutions that now shape the profession: the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, the Department of Anthropology at the University of Hawai‘i–Mānoa, and the State Historic Preservation Office. Kawelu’s treatment delivers an excellent formal overview of each sector. Like the chapter on the history of archaeology in Hawai‘i, the subsequent chapter on seven controversial projects serves as an excellent, if brief, overview of land and burial issues that sometimes took decades to resolve. The projects include the island of Kaho‘olawe; the h-3 freeway, the construction of the Ke‘eaumoku Street Walmart, Mōkapu, and the Kawaihae Cave Complex, all on the island of O‘ahu; Honokahua on Maui; and the Hōkūli‘a development in Kona on the island of Hawai‘i. Clearly not intended to be comprehensive accounts, her summaries of these projects will be valuable for students entering the field and serve nicely to reinforce subsequent chapters. [End Page 192] The book is primarily an ethno-graphic study of the field of archaeology itself as it is practiced in Hawai‘i. The following three chapters make up its core ethnographic portion. Eighty-nine people were interviewed, including Kanaka Maoli community members, Kanaka Maoli archaeologists, and non–Kanaka Maoli archaeologists. Kānaka Maoli are defined as either activist or non-activist, with a discussion of what factors went into making that distinction. Archaeologists are also divided into groups representing those working in government, cultural resource management, and academia. Research methodology, interview questions, and interview techniques are all laid out comprehensively, with specific background details offered for those anonymous interview subjects whose views are summarized or quoted. Comments by Kanaka Maoli respondents affirm the very worst views of archaeologists as patronizing intruders extracting knowledge with little respect for individuals or communities. Some of the phrases relayed in the statements include terms such as “cultural voyeurism,” “maha‘oi” (rude), and “nīele” (plying with frivolous questions). In a telling contrast, one senior white archaeologist observes that he does not believe there are any difficulties between archaeology and Kānaka Maoli and comments that...

How State Historic Preservation Offices Say “Yes”

How State Historic Preservation Offices Say “Yes” Erik Hein (bio) “Better Check with the SHPO,” is a phrase many preservationists either hear or say on a regular basis. Of course, they are referring to the State Historic Preservation Offices that can be found in 59 states and territories as well as the District of Columbia. SHPOs are defined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) as having specific responsibilities for our federal historic preservation program as well as for establishing their own state programs. Their role is to say “yes” to owners and developers who want to rehabilitate properties in historically and architecturally appropriate ways; to citizens who want to see significant places recorded, recognized and preserved; and to federal agencies that make sure that their projects, the permits they issue or the grants they award are not used to destroy the places that matter to all of us. SHPOs rely on the funding they receive from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), which they must match with their own state funds. Authorized and appropriated by Congress, the amount of HPF funding available is always subject to change, so the preservation community must be continually vigilant in advocating for funding support. As of this printing, the authorization for the HPF expired on September 30, 2015. There is now a broad legislative effort underway to ensure that our national commitment to historic preservation remains intact. SHPOS PROMOTE STATE AND LOCAL PRIORITIES SHPOs are the product of a national historic preservation program that is unique to the United States. Rather than relying on a centralized, top-down or national “ministry” or some other government entity, our national program, defined by the NHPA, established a system whereby states and local governments would be required to have a voice in determining what historic resources were important in their communities. [End Page 58] Click for larger view View full resolution Applicants for historic tax credits work closely with their SHPO to make sure their rehabilitation projects meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. One prominent tax credit success story is the Fox Theater in Oakland, California, which underwent a $70 million rehabilitation following a prolonged period of vacancy and deterioration. PHOTO BY NATHANAEL BENNETT. SHPOs can be effective advocates for the protection of significant local and regional places because they are positioned to know what resources are important in their states. They maintain comprehensive survey information and are the official repositories of vast amounts of historical data, maps, artifacts and other materials that help tell the stories of the communities in their respective states. There is great variety from state to state not only in the volume of information but also in how this information can be acquired, stored, digitized and shared. Much depends on available funding but also on the types of resources in a state. For example, Western states frequently are more comprehensive in listing archaeological resources while Eastern states’ data sets contain more built resources. Guiding all of the work of the SHPOs are State Preservation Plans, which are required as a condition of the federal funding SHPOs receive. These plans are far reaching and cover topics ranging from ensuring that diverse cultures are represented to addressing the potential impacts of flooding or other climate-related issues. They also describe how the SHPO will provide public education and outreach as well as technical assistance. To ensure that the plans reflect the concerns, priorities and values of many different communities, SHPOs actively seek public input and participation from diverse stakeholders. You can find copies of state plans on the National Park Service website at www.nps.gov/preservation-planning/stateplan-links.html. [End Page 59] Click for larger view View full resolution State Historic Preservation Offices gather information about archeological resources as well as built heritage. Archeologists from the Texas Historical Commission, the SHPO, were excited to uncover, on a private ranch, French cannons buried by the Spanish at Fort Saint Louis in 1689. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION. SHPOS CONNECT STATE AND LOCAL PROJECTS TO FEDERAL RESOURCES Protecting the places that matter to their communities is sometimes difficult. In today’s challenging economic environment, funding sources for preservation...

Archaeological Survey Data Quality, Durability, and Use in the United States

AbstractHigh-quality archaeological surveys and data are vital to preservation planning and mitigation efforts. Federal and state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) are accumulating and reviewing more data at an ever-faster pace. Given the critical nature of this information, a SAA task force was charged with assessing current survey practices and concerns. Our review indicates that survey policies and archaeological standards have improved substantially over the last two decades, but SHPOs remain challenged by insufficient professional training for field archaeologists, the need for standardization and integration of new technologies in field work, reporting, and review, as well as the sheer quantity and variety of digital data. A number of analytical tools and metrics are available to assess data quality, but seemingly there is not time or money for states to evaluate how to improve existing and future survey data. We draw upon a survey of SHPOs, a review of current literature, and our own experience to assess archaeological survey quality, data utility and durability for current and anticipated future uses. We offer suggestions on how to move forward, including consideration of an e-106 system for streamlining transfer and exchange of digital data and upgrading current approaches to survey and planning.

Significant Events in the Historic Preservation Movement in Oregon

In this extensive timeline, Elisabeth Potter documents significant historic preservation events in Oregon, which range from the founding of the Oregon Historical Society in 1898 through recent historic preservation court rulings in 2016. Potter was an original staff member of the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and served the program until she retired in 1998. Her breadth of knowledge and experience is reflected in this detailed account of national, state, and local historic preservation initiatives and provisions that have impacted Oregon's landscape.

A Look Back at Oregon's Future with Space, Style and Structure

In this review essay, Oregon's Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Christine Curran describes the importance of Space, Style and Structure: Building in Northwest America, a bicentennial commemorative study published by the Oregon Historical Society. Containing over one thousand images of the built environment in the Pacific Northwest, the two-volume book of essays is extensive in scope, providing analysis of both past and then-contemporary projects — some of which had yet to be constructed. While “Style, Space and Structure was conceived as a dispassionate planning tool, it is unapologetic about its preservation bias…without resorting to self-indulgent nostalgia.” Curran credits the book with providing contexts for conserving the region's built environment, including resources of the recent past, while helping us all “understand that the past is a moving target.”

Off Course? A Career in Archaeology Outside of the Academy

Off Course? A Career in Archaeology Outside of the Academy

Preserving and Researching Modern Architecture Outside of the Canon: A View from the Field

Lydia Mattice Brandt University of South Carolina Preserving and Researching Modern Architecture Outside of the Canon: A View from the Field Two mid-twentieth-centuryfederal buildings stand next to one another in downtown Columbia, South Carolina. Marcel Breuer designed the Strom Thurmond Federal Building and United States Courthouse in 1975-9 (Figure 1). The General Services Administration, the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, and the National Park Service deemed the rawconcrete tower ofBreuer'sbuilding architecturally significant enough to nominate it to the National Register of Historic Places years ahead of its fiftieth birthday (the usual temporal benchmark for designation as an ''historic"building).1 Its neighbor , a five-story, International Style office building constructed for the Veterans Administration in 1948-51, has recently been slated for demolition to make room for a parking lot.2 William G. Lyles, Thomas J. Bissett, William A. Carlisle, and Louis M. Wolff were among the consortium of local architects who designed the VA Building (Figure 2). At the same time, these four men formed LBC&W, a firm that would work on thousands ofarchitecture, planning, and engineering projects across the Southeast over the next thirty years. But while the Bauhaus -affiliated Breuer occupies a solid position in the history ofmodern architecture,you've probably never heard ofLBC&W. As its buildings disappear, you might never get the chance. At a time when even works by such world-renowned architects as Paul Rudolph and Frank Lloyd Wright face demolition, the glass towers, concrete plazas, and minimalist shopping centers designed by small town architects like LBC&W are among America's most threatened architectural resources.3 What do we-as preservationists, researchers, and educatorsknow about these buildings and their architects? What arguments can we make for their significance? Are they even worth saving? The history of local modernism presents special opportunities and challenges. Over the past year, I have begun to use LBC&W's oeuvre as alaboratoryfor studying and teaching mid-century modern architecture.4 My aim is to develop arguments for the significance ofthese buildings and to determine 72 new ways to tell the story ofmodern architecture in America. The study of local mid-twentieth-century architecture reveals issues often ignored in modernism's master narrative but that were central to America's experience ofthe movement. It transcends the ideal ofthe singular creative genius that dominates the history modernism cultivated by architects (both Wright and Louis Sullivan wrote their autobiographies in the third person). Recently, architectural historians have begun to lookto the draftsmen (and draftswomen),the interior designers, and even the clients behind the masters.5 Examinations ofmodernism on a local scale make such pursuits even easier: without the weight ofa master's biography, a far more nuanced narrative ofthe commission, design, and constructionprocesses is possible. So how do we begin evaluating a building like LBC&W's Banker's Trust Tower of 1974 (Figure 3), one of the dominant structures ofColumbia's skyline? Is it derivative ofMies van der Rohe's 1958 Seagram Building? Sure. It would be a waste of time to try to argue that it rivals Mies's tower; it lacked the Seagram 's extraordinary construction and maintenance budgets, as well as what William Jordy identified as the ''laconic splendor of the metal frame:'6 Butitis crucial to underscore the fact that the Banker's Trust Tower, and other structures like it,were how most Americans experienced modernism. Louis Wolff, lead designer for LBC&W, published an article in the 1953 edition ofSouth CarolinaMagazineentitled"ModernArchitecture- Its Purposes and Aims" for a lay audience.7 In a popularjournal likely to sit on many ofhis potential clients' coffee tables,Wolfflaid out such modern dictums as "form follows function"and the importance ofcity planning. Through such clever marketing,Wolffand his firm convinced their conservative Southern citythat modernism was accessible and desirable. The success ofsuch efforts should not be overlooked. In order to argue for a deeper significance of such buildings, we need to admit that they are watered down versions ofworks well situated in the canon-and then move on. Examination oflocal modern architecture also makes room FIELD NO TE S Figure 1. In the foreground : Lafaye, Lafaye and Fair an d Stork and Lyles. Associated Architects. with Wa lter F. Petty, Bissett, Carlisle and Wolff, Veterans Ad mi...

A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture by Virginia Savage McAlester

BOOK REVIEWS many excluded. Selftends to favor projects with iconic intentions and ambitious, transformational urbanistic aspirations. The museums considered are the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth (Fort Worth, Texas; Tadao Ando & Associates); the Contemporary Art Center (Cincinnati, Ohio; Zaha Hadid, Architects); the Kunsthaus Graz (Graz, Austria; Spacelab Cook/ Fournier); the Nasher Sculpture Center (Dallas, Texas; Renzo Piano Building Workshop); the Museum of Modern Art expansion (New York, New York; Yoshio Taniguchi and Associates); the Walker Art Center expansion (Minneapolis, Minnesota; Herzog & de Muron); the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia expansion (Madrid, Spain; Ateliers Jean Nouvel); the de Young Museum (San Francisco, California; Herzog & de Muron); the Toledo Museum ofArt Glass Pavilion (Toledo, Ohio; Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa/SANAA); the Denver Art Museum (Denver, Colorado; Studio Daniel Liebeskind); the Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston (Boston, Massachusetts; Diller, Scofidio +Renfro); the NelsonAtkins Museum of Art Bloch Building (Kansas City, Missouri; Steven Holl Architects); the Akron Art Museum (Akron, Ohio; Coop Himmelb(l)au); the New Museum (New York, New York; Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa/SANAA); the Acropolis Museum (Athens, Greece; Bernard Tschumi Architects); the Museum Brandhorst (Munich, Germany; Sauerbruch Hutton); and the Museo Nazionale delle Arri dell XXI Secolo (Rome, Italy; Zaha Hadid Architects). This list of case studies includes virtually all the major players in contemporary art museum design, though Renzo Piano, the leading art museum architect of the period, is represented only by the Nasher Sculpture Center which, though incorporating his trademark glass roof and natural lighting, is not the most representative of his work because of the institution's sole focus on sculpture. Important projects conspicuous in their absence are the DIA: Beacon Riggio Galleries (Beacon, New York; the ARRIS 70 § Volume 25 § 2014 installation artist Robert Irwin, in association with OpenOffice); the Musee de Quai Branly (Paris, France; Jean Nouvel); and the Smithsonian American Art Museum/National Portrait Gallery expansion (Washington, DC; Foster+ Partners). This said, these exclusions are largely explained by Self's interest in what he terms "the Bilbao effect" or "the Sydney effect": the quest of clients and architects to use these buildings to create destinations that will also become transformative symbols of their cities. Further, the other pole of contemporary art museum design (that of the understated, spiritual envelope for collections) has been virtually monopolized over the past thirty years by the practice of the Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Self's critiques are always judicious, taking into account the realities of process and clients' desires rather than long discussions of aesthetic preferences, though he clearly articulates the relative success and failure of the buildings analyzed. The journalistic origins of the case studies are apparent, however, in their uniform length; some of the more complex projects, such as the MoMA or Reina Sofia expansions, would have benefited from longer exposition and exploration than some ofthe simpler projects. Perhaps a little more time could also have been spent on the museological implications of radical architecture (Self acknowledges that many of the projects present challenges to curators; should they? The preference of many ofthe great collections for "white cube" galleries and warehouse-type exhibition spaces endures for a reason), but The Architecture ofArt Museums presents a terrific summation of the building type over the first decade ofthe twenty-first century and is the definitive reference work on the subject. It belongs on the shelf of any architect engaged in museum design. ERICMICHAEL WOLF The Menil Collection Houston, Texas A Field Guide to American Houses Th Definitiv Guid to Identif ing and Und r tand.ng Am nca Dome tic Architec ure Virginia Savage McAlester Virginia Savage McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and UnderstandingAmerica's Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 2013, 848 pp., black-and-white illustrations, hardcover, ISBN 978-1-4000-4359-0. This book is the long-awaited second edition of the nationally recognized standard for identifying American domestic architectural styles. The first edition, published in 1984 and in print since its release, is in the library of every preservation architect, State Historic Preservation Office, historic preservation specialist, and educator and serves the professional and advocate with an illustrated and comprehensive architectural vocabulary and a national...

Going Big

AbstractIn 2008, the Carlsbad Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) made a fundamental change in how they work with the energy industry in the Permian Basin of southeastern New Mexico, one of the nation's busiest “oil patches.” Through a collaborative effort that involved the Bureau of Land Management, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, and industry representatives, they developed and implemented the Permian Basin Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). This agreement allows energy development proponents to contribute funds to archaeological research in lieu of spending an equivalent amount of money on traditional archaeological field survey. The mitigation program governs how BLM addresses long-term damage and cumulative impacts to archaeological resources as new development proceeds in the Permian Basin MOA area. Now in its fifth year, the program has succeeded in key ways: industry has gained control over schedules and time, while archaeologists have gained control over where and how they do archaeology. Key lessons have been learned along the way: The funding mechanisms of the program work well, but doing archaeology through a collaborative working group takes a lot of time and energy.

Decolonizing Heritage Management in Hawai‘i

Hawai‘i struggles with many issues confronting heritage management programs globally. While some State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) regularly engage in long-term planning and public outreach, the Hawai‘i SHPO often struggles with regulatory backlogs, staff reductions, and frequent staff turn-over. Nevertheless, grass roots efforts to better manage Hawaiian cultural sites are becoming more prevalent. We summarize key trends that have affected Cultural Resource Management (CRM) in Hawai‘i since the 1960s and address how the relationships between CRM professionals and indigenous communities have transformed over that time. One of the largest obstacles to the decolonization of heritage management in Hawai‘i has been the under-representation of CRM professionals from descendant communities. A contributing factor is a common perception that CRM (as it is often manifested in archaeological studies prior to development) is antithetical to Hawaiian values. A second factor is that state regulations require principal investigators in CRM firms to obtain graduate degrees in anthropology or closely related fields, but opportunities for graduate training in Hawai‘i are limited. Here, we make the case that community-based archaeology is a vital aspect of Hawaiian cultural revitalization, and that the extension of graduate programs in heritage management to predominantly indigenous communities is essential to decolonization efforts.

Feral swine disturbance at important archaeological sites

Feral swine are well known as environmentally destructive invasive animals in many areas around the world, where they degrade native habitats, harm rare plant and animal species, damage agricultural interests, and spread disease. We provide the first quantification of their potential as agents of disturbance at archaeological sites. Our study was conducted in south-central Florida at Avon Park Air Force Range, a base comprising over 40,000 ha and containing many archaeological sites. To determine the identifiable prevalence of feral swine disturbance, we examined 36 sites registered with the Florida State Historic Preservation Office and also eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Moreover, we evaluated the extent of swine disturbance at a prehistoric site of extraordinary significance to Florida's prehistory, "Dead Cow." Fifteen of the 36 NRHP-eligible sites (42 %) had some level of swine disturbance, including 14 of 30 (47 %) sites known to have artifacts within 20 cm of the surface (well within swine rooting depths). At the Dead Cow site, we documented disturbance at 74 % of shovel test points. Sites with shallow artifact depositions appeared highly vulnerable to disturbance by feral swine, threatening destruction of artifact stratigraphy and provenience. Our observations likely are a minimal representation of accumulated damage. These irreplaceable sites tell the area's land use story across the millennia. That they are under threat from feral swine should serve broad notice of potential threats that feral swine may pose to archaeological sites globally, making effective swine management imperative for site protection.

The Future of the National Register

The Future of the National Register Carol Shull (bio) Our National Register of Historic Places continues to expand in breadth and reach. As of September 2012, the 88,200 listed historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects include nearly 1.7 million historic resources—almost three times the number from when I wrote my article in 1987. National Register bulletins now provide guidance on nominating rural and designed landscapes, traditional cultural properties, boats, suburbs, airplanes, and properties that have achieved significance in the last 50 years, among others. The National Register's website, webinars, and social media outreach make information about the National Register more accessible as do other training and assistance efforts. Much of the National Register documentation is digitized and online. Soon the National Register is expecting to begin accepting nominations electronically. The National Park Service's Teaching with Historic Places program provides online lesson plans and advice for educators and preservationists on how to engage students, and its online Discover Our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary Series guides visitors to thousands of historic places. The United States has the world's most egalitarian and participatory national inventory. Our National Historic Preservation Act authorizes federal agencies, states, and American Indian tribes to nominate sites and local governments and every individual to participate in the nomination process. More than 1,800 Certified Local Governments and over 130 American Indian tribes participate in the national preservation program today. Some 68 percent of listings are for properties of local significance. The National Register is not a comprehensive catalog of the nation's historic resources. States list in excess of 8 million properties in their inventories and CLGs added 10,000 properties to local registers in 2011, sometimes using different criteria than the National Register and conferring a range of restrictions and benefits under state and local laws. States have not been delegated authority to list properties in the National Register as proposed in 1987. Because listing has federal consequences, including conferring eligibility for federal tax incentives and grants, these decisions still occur at the federal level. Some 75 percent of registered properties are in private ownership with federal tax benefits the motivation for many nominations. The federal tax incentives have generated more than $62 billion in the rehabilitation of income-producing historic properties. Federal preservation grants for registered historic properties have not been appropriated since 2010. [End Page 5] The number of listings continues to vary widely from state to state as do nomination priorities, but many agencies submit multiple property nominations based on surveys, which provide historic context and facilitate registration. The National Park Service has begun urging its partners to nominate more properties associated with underrepresented ethnic and cultural groups. The NPS is sponsoring theme studies on American Latino Heritage and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to assist in evaluation and National Historic Landmark nominations. The 2009 report, "Building Capacity to Preserve and Protect Our Cultural Heritage," (www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/guidance/NHPII_Final_NPS.pdf) demonstrates how far we are from creating a comprehensive inventory of historic properties and making inventories more compatible and accessible. In 2009, 56 percent of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), 6 percent of Federal Preservation Offices (FPO), and no Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) had accessible inventory data online and relatively few SHPOs, THPOs, and FPOs were capable of easily sharing historic property data in compatible formats. Lack of funding was cited as the foremost reason that inventories were so inadequate. Virtually all SHPOs and THPOs indicated their highest priority was to complete additional historic property surveys for Section 106 compliance and National Register of Historic Places purposes, but funding is limited. The nearly $47 million in federal Historic Preservation Fund grants to states in 2012, when adjusted for inflation, is estimated to have approximately the same buying power as the $21 million appropriated in 1982. The more than 130 participating tribes share a little less than $8.4 million in 2012. The preservation partners have moved ahead with some of the 1987 recommendations of the National Historic Preservation Forum Historic Identification Study Group, but should look at them again and find ways to step up efforts to achieve the goal of identifying, registering...

Balancing Engineering Criteria and Historic Significance to Preserve Select Bridges

This paper describes Indiana's efforts to prioritize historic bridges for preservation with the use of a systematic analysis that considers both relative historic significance and engineering condition. The state's historic bridge preservation program was initiated in 2006 with the execution of a programmatic agreement (PA) between FHWA, Indiana Department of Transportation (DOT), Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (INSHPO), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The PA streamlines the Section 106 regulatory process and allows Indiana DOT and local agencies to manage the state's population of historic bridges effectively and programmatically instead of using an inefficient project-to-project approach. The most innovative aspect of Indiana's historic bridge program is the establishment of a prioritization method. Each historic bridge is evaluated and then classified as either select, meaning the bridge is an excellent example of its type statewide and is suitable for preservation, or nonselect, meaning the bridge is not the best example of its type and may not be suitable for preservation. Upon agreement by FHWA, Indiana DOT, and INSHPO, lists of select and nonselect bridges were issued in March 2010. The methodology for identifying and prioritizing individual bridges is explained, highlighting the effort to achieve balance between historic significance and engineering and economic criteria, including functionality, safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. Indiana DOT also developed standards for treating historic bridges on low-volume roads. If historic bridge rehabilitation can meet the standards, then rehabilitation for vehicular use must be implemented.

Research Files: Oregon's Historic Sites Database: A Tool for Tapping the Research Potential of the Built Environment

RESEARCH FILES Oregon sHistoric Sites Database A ToolforTapping the ResearchPotential ofthe BuiltEnvironment byRogerRoper HISTORICAL RESEARCHERS are adept at gleaning facts from obscure places. They know the nuances and secretofferingsof thevarious archives, libraries, and repositories of public and private records. Yet they often overlook a key primary source: his toric structures themselves. What was built and how it was built often helps answer some of history's "whys."And sometimes there is physical evidence of how a structure has been used and adapted thatofferscompelling insight into the people and practices of the past. The following examples illustrate the point: VictorPoint School, Marion County: This 1889 one-room schoolhouse originally had fourwindows along each side of the building, but those on the south sidewere laterremoved. This actionwas in response to an educational expert's recommendation that cross-lighting was damaging to students' eyes. To compensate forthe loss of natural light, three more windows were thenadded to thenorth side.The building stillreflects thatpolicy change. Marshfield Sun Building, Coos Bay: The deeply worn floorboards where pub lisherand printer JesseLuse planted his foot to run the hand-operated press is testament to his commitment to pro ducing a newspaper for the community from 1891 to 1944. Roba Ranch House, near Paulina: Deco rative stone carvings on the exterior of this 1900house suggestold-world tradi tions brought to theAmerican West by theCzech immigrant family who estab lished the ranch and built thehouse. Crook County Courthouse, Prineville: This dignified courthouse, set back from the street in a park-like setting, commands our attention and respect ? both for the edifice itself and, not coincidently, for the county govern ment and its workings. Architects of the 462 OHQ vol. 110, no. 3 ? 2009 Oregon Historical Society Vi?c?or Powf School,pictured here in 1919,northofSublimity,was typicalofmany one-room schoolhouses of theperiod with a gable-end door and evenlyspaced windows along both sides. Windows on thesouth (right) elevationwere later removed,as seen in the inset photograph, toprotect students'eyesfrom the perceived harmful effects ofucross-lighting.y) period understood the importance of establishing, through settingand archi tecture, the proper tone forhow both occupants and visitors should conduct themselves on the premises. These buildings and stories may not be headliners in the same sense as more recognizable landmarks, such as the State Capitol, Vista House, or Union Station in Portland, but both landmarks and lesser-known struc tures provide important insights into Oregon's diverse history. Learning to read and interpretthem takes timeand training. Ithelps tremendously ifthere is a comprehensive and reliable set of records about all those structures. It helps even more if those records are computerized and can be queried in a variety ofways to respond to awide range of research questions. Oregon has such a record set in the State Historic Preservation Office's Historic Sites Database ? a one-stop source for answering a wide variety of research questions. Have you ever wondered, for example, which build ing inyour community is the oldest? How about the oldest in the state? Or maybe you have a more complex research question about historic struc tures inOregon, such as: How many grange halls are there, and which of them are listed in theNational Reg Roper,Oregon's Historic SitesDatabase 463 Courtesy ofOregon SHPO TheMarshfield Sun Building inCoos Bay isnow a museum featuring original printing equipment and relatedartifacts.Itsmost compellingfeature, however, may be the worn floor boardsfrom theoperator's shoesas he leveragedhisweight to engage the press ?for somefifty years. isterof Historie Places; are there any nineteenth-century library buildings still standing; which counties still have their historic courthouses; and what are thedates of construction and locations ofBeaux Arts stylebuildings, Queen Anne houses, Octagonal struc tures, buildings designed by Pietro Belluschi, and CCC-era fire lookout towers? The database has been created by theOregon State Historic Preserva tionOffice (SHPO) in recent years to better organize, track,and research the tens of thousands of historic building records in itsfiles.The federal govern ment and the state established SHPO in 1967, and ithas been coordinating the collection of information about the state's historic buildings and sites ever since. This information iscritical tohistoric preservationists and histo rians statewide. Maintaining amaster record set of all...

Riverside's Mission Inn: The Beginning of a Landmark

Research Article| April 01 2008 Riverside's Mission Inn: The Beginning of a Landmark Maurice Hodgen Maurice Hodgen Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Southern California Quarterly (2008) 90 (1): 27–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/41172405 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Maurice Hodgen; Riverside's Mission Inn: The Beginning of a Landmark. Southern California Quarterly 1 April 2008; 90 (1): 27–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41172405 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentSouthern California Quarterly Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 2008 Historical Society of Southern California Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

House of Plenty: The Rise, Fall, and Revival of Luby's Cafeterias (review)

472Southwestern Historical QuarterlyApril system (the interstates) looking back with nostalgia at a quirky highway (Route 66) diat better suits their mentality" (p. 102). Building on the notion diat Route 66 as a culturaljourney has always mattered as much as the destination, Dedek concludes with a study of the road ahead. Specifically , he argues for focused historic preservation efforts, building on successes of state historic preservation offices (including the Texas Historical Commission) and the Route 66 Corridor Act of iggg, as well as private organizations such as the Historic Route 66 Association ofArizona. As an analytical cultural history, Hip to the Trip challenges die reader to consider Route 66 holistically, bodi in the past and in the present. In diat regard, though, it could have benefited from a brief comparative review of other historic national roads such as the Meridian, Dixie Overland, and Lincoln highways. Such a context would have served to strengthen arguments for uniqueness, historical integrity and sustained cultural viability. A series of localized maps, denoting especially die smaller communities mentioned in the book, would also have been beneficial to the general reader. These are only minor limitations, however. Hip to the Trip remains a significant and fresh study of Route 66, contributing to further understanding of how a linear and limited artifact of die automobile era grew in symbolic worth and cultural meaning. As Dedek demonstrates, it remains ajourney important in both destination and interpretation. Texas Historical CommissionDan K Utley House ofPlenty: The Rise, Fall, and Revival ofLuby's Cafeterias. By Carol Dawson and CarolJohnston. (Austin: University ofTexas Press, 2006. Pp. 288. Illustrations, family tree, selected sources, index. ISBN g78-o-2g27o-656-g. $21.00, cloth.) It would be a rare person in the Soudiwest who at sometime or other had not eaten at a Luby's Cafeteria. They were modest places known for good food at reasonable prices and quick service. Inspired in part by die Ford automobile assembly line, Harry Luby opened his first cafeteria in Springfield, Missouri, in 1 g 1 1 . He followed the oil towns and inaugurated his first Texas restaurant in Beaumont in ig2i. The stores were immediate successes and Luby franchised his cafeterias to his large extended family. After establishing eleven places in four states Harry Luby retired at age thirty-nine. A second generation of relatives led by Robert Luby and Charles Johnston took over after World War II and expanded slowly and carefully. "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," said Johnston (p. 162). They were careful to train managers in all aspects of the business before letting diem run a cafeteria. Such ajob required a thirteen-hour workday, and Luby's rewarded them with forty percent of the net profit.Johnston explained such generosity: "The advantage ofgiving management a large percentage ofa store's profits should be obvious. You don't have to wake the person up, dress him, and show up to do hisjob for him" (p. 54). Expansion by interlocking partnerships became confusing, however, so Luby's incorporated in ig58 and began to sell common stock in ig73· They continued to grow, mainly through the use ofinternal cash flow, and there existed 100 stores in 2??8Book Reviews473 1987. At this point, however, die older leadership began to retire and newly elected non-food people started to dominate the board of directors. By 1 996 there were 200 Luby's Cafeterias in eleven states, but there were not enough trained managers . The reward system broke down, and the quality of food declined. In 2001 heavily in debt and on the verge of collapse Luby's was taken over by Christopher and Harris Pappas of Houston who closed fifty stores and attempted to restore die quality of service. Carol Dawson, a novelist, and CarolJohnston, the daughter of CharlesJohnston , relate this story of Luby's Cafeterias and the history of the Luby family. It is not a detailed business history; diere is no use ofinternal business records except for annual reports. It is pieced together from interviews and mainly reflects die viewpoint of CarolJohnston. There are no footnotes or endnotes. The writing is smooth and at times dramatic such as with the opening chapter that tells about a...

CISPRI CULTURAL RESOURCES VIDEO

ABSTRACT Human habitation in Cook Inlet first occurred around 5,000 BC. Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary that varies from 78 miles wide at its southern mouth to less than 9 miles at its northern extremity. The first inhabitants were Eskimo, who were later displaced by the Athabaskan Dena'ina people. The Athabaskan Dena'ina people were called “Kenaitze” by the Russian fur traders who first made contact in 1741. At that time, an estimated 1,000 Dena'ina inhabited the Kenai River area alone. European contact with the Athabaskan Dena'ina first occurred about 1756. In 1778, Captain Cook sailed Cook Inlet looking for the Northwest Passage. A Russian trading post was established in Kenai in 1791. The relatively mild winters of Cook Inlet and abundance of wildlife both onshore and offshore made human habitation very viable. Consequently, its shoreline is literally filled with historical and cultural sites. Other villages or cities of note within Cook Inlet include Anchorage, Tyonek, Ninilchik, Homer, Seldovia and Port Graham, many of whom continue to maintain a subsistence lifestyle. Cook Inlet Spill Prevention & Response, Inc. (CISPRI) provides oil spill response for the entire Cook Inlet;, a pristine piece of south-central Alaska with over 1300 miles of shoreline. A significant potential problem identified with oil spill recovery efforts involves the identification and protection of sensitive historical and cultural sites. To lessen any potential impact to these areas, CISPRI, in conjunction with Alaska Clean Seas, SERVS, Alaska Chadux and SEAPRO, have produced an 8 minute video tape demonstrating how to identify potential sensitive areas. It then directs appropriate actions to take until experts can be consulted to further direct methods of lessening impact. The narrative was developed by a local expert in cultural resources, and representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska State Historic Preservation Office, and native organizations who represented their individual concerns. The video tape has been well-received by CISPRT's member companies and agencies and has been recognized as a good “get acquainted” tool for anyone involved in protecting cultural and historic resources during spill response.

Note on a Possible Chipped Stone Grubbing Tool from Upshur County, Texas

During the period August 6-27, and November 18-20, 2003, archeologists from Geo-Marine Inc. (GMI), of Plano, Texas, conducted a pedestrian survey of a 51.5 km-long corridor for the proposed Southside Regional Water System in Marion, Harrison, Upshur, and Gregg counties, Texas. The proposed waterline is intended to draw water from Lake O The Pines in the Big Cypress drainage system and distribute it to various communities in both the Big Cypress and Little Cypress Creek basins in the aforementioned counties. Specifically, the pipeline will benefit the communities of Ore City, Old Diana, Diana, and James before the pipeline crosses Little Cypress Creek and winds southeastward to a booster pump station for further distribution to other communities through existing pipelines. During the survey, random shovel testing near the community of James found an isolated, expended chipped stone "grubbing implement" made of gray siltstone. Due to the scarcity of such tools, and the desire to call attention to the locus of this unusual item, the State Historic Preservation Office suggested that GMI assign the location an archeological site number, rather than retain it as an isolated occurrence. The purpose of this brief note is to discuss the find location, describe this relatively unusual artifact, and draw comparisons with similar implements.

Archaeology under a Microscope: CRM and the Press

Cultural Resource Management (CRM) archaeology receives regular press and media attention. This coverage can shape public perceptions and attitudes about the field. Furthermore, press coverage and public opinion can affect CRM project and policy decision-making. Analysis of the content of newspaper articles collected by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) related to CRM archaeology over the five-year period between 1995 and 2000 included documenting the types of issues that received press attention and assessing the amount of positive and negative press coverage. Recommendations to encourage improved media coverage of CRM archaeology include: increased recognition of the importance of press coverage; increased efforts to encourage positive press coverage of CRM; improved skills for working with the press; greater participation from archaeologists in academia; and continued evaluation and assessment of newspaper and media coverage of CRM archaeology.

SESAH–The First Twenty Years: A History and Reminiscence

SESAH-The First Twenty Years: A History and Reminiscence Robert M. Craig I n the fall of 2002, SESAH (Southeast Chapter of the Society of Architectural Historians) will hold its twentieth annual meeting, a milestone which cannot pass without a certain reflection upon, and recording of, the SESAH at Poplar Forest, October 2000 (Travis McDonald) society's history. It seems like only yesterday, as SESAH entered its eleventh year, that I was asked to pen an earlier brief history, and now another decade has passed! But as I remind myselfthat I started restoring my Victorian house in Atlanta the year before SESAH was formed, I am aware more than anyone except my wife of how very long SESAH has been around. As an organization of scholars, SESAH has been something of a balancing act. It is, first and foremost, a local chapter of the Society of Architectural Historians, but SESAH, as an eleven-state regional society, is not typical of SAH local chapters; indeed SESAH is legally an independent society. Claimed by some members of SECAC [Southeastern College Art Conference] to be an affiliate, SESAH has never been so formally, although it maintains a friendly relationship as a sister society to SECAC, has a few members in common, and occasionally holds joint annual meetings, as it will do this fall in Mobile. SESAH's members are sometimes employed by the National Park Service (NPS) or State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) (and as preservationists many SESAH members participate in inventory surveys and documentation of historic architectural resources in the Southeast), but SESAH is not, per se, a preservation organization. Members of SESAH are authors of the Buildings ofthe United States book series, compiling those volumes covering states from Louisiana to Virginia and Arkansas to Florida, and SESAH has regularly supported the series with annual donations, but BUS is a project of the national society, not of local chapter(s) of SAH. Although SESAH's focus is architecture, we are not affiliated with the American Institute ofArchitects (AlA). Our members include scholars active in material culture and vernacular studies , but we are not affiliated with the Vernacular Architecture Forum, the Society for Commercial Archaeology, or the Popular Culture Association. And finally, although many SESAH members teach in schools of architecture, we are not a regional society of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA). In summary, ARRIS I ROBERT M. CRAIG SESAH is not SAH, SECAC, NPS, SHPO, BUS, AlA, VAF, SCA, PCA, or ACSA. We are (( " see-saw. If the above alphabet soup describes what SESAH is not, how might we describe who we are? Our Constitution-bylaw does so succinctly: The Southeast Chapter, Society of Architectural Historians is a regional society dedicated to the promotion of scholarship on architecture and related subjects and to an interchange of ideas among architectural historians, architects, preservationists , and others involved in professions relating to the built environment. This means we are not Americanists exclusively , not local historians with interests limited to the Southeast, but the society is open to the widest range of scholarship among professionals interested in the built environment and its history . The Constitution continues to define SESAH's mission: To further this purpose, an annual meeting is held; a professional scholarly journal, ARRIS, and a newsletter are published; and local meetings as well as publications are encouraged and, if possible, supported. Consistent with this purpose, cooperation shall be encouraged between the Southeast Chapter, Society of Architectural Historians and other organizations in the region with mutually reinforcing goals. Hence the alphabet soup on our members' vitae. As SESAH treasurer, I should not fail to mention (as I write this a mere few weeks after April rs), that SESAH is also a voluntary association incorporated in the State ofArkansas (May 24, 1991) and subsequently (August 7, 1992) granted federal income tax exemption under section sor (a) of the Internal Revenue Code as a sor (c) (3) organization ). Your contributions may be tax deductible! How did all this come about? Ironically, the ball started rolling toward the establishment of SESAH as a result of the initiative of four individuals none of whom is still a SESAH member nor has been for most of...