CRM Final Paper

Ryther 1
Cultural Resource Management:
The Importance of Consultation
Carly L. Ryther
ANTY 451 Dr. MacDonald
University of Montana

Ryther 2
Abstract
In the first phase of the National Historic Preservation Act ‘s Section 106
process one must ascertain the area of effect of the project and then consult with a
state historic preservation officer (SHPO), a tribal historic preservation officer
(THPO)(if the project takes place on the reservation or involves a traditional
cultural place), involve the public, as well as other consulting parties. I believe that
this is where most case studies show a lack of consultation and a lack of
involvement with all of the consulting parties and the public. In this paper I will
examine three case studies, in three different states, each with different consulting
strategies. By examining these case studies I can illustrate why consultation and
public involvement should not be an overlooked or undervalued aspect in cultural
resource management projects.

Ryther 3
Introduction
As a part of cultural resource management laws and practices, the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process helps to ensure the
protection of historic resources that could be affected in a federal undertaking. As a
part of the NHPA Section 106 process, initiating consultation and involvement with
SHPOs, THPOs, other consulting parties, and the public are all essential in
preserving and protecting historical resources.
The goal of this paper is to explain why consultation and involvement are
important to the cultural resource management process, using the examples of the
three case studies to show where consultation and involvement were beneficial,
where they made mistakes in consultation and involvement, and how consultation
and public involvement could be improved in future cultural resource management
projects.
The case studies I intend to use are the construction of the Foley Square
federal building and courthouse in New York City, New York, the widening of Route
4 in Crow Creek Reservation, Buffalo County, South Dakota, and the First African
Baptist Church Cemetery in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I chose these case studies
specifically because they each have flaws, some major, and they can inspire future
solutions for consultation and public involvement. The one common denominator
in these case studies is that each site contained human remains.

Ryther 4
Another reason why I chose these case studies was to show that there are
other impacted communities besides Native Americans in the NHPA process. In the
New York and Pennsylvania case studies the human remains that were uncovered
were African American. Some of the issues in those case studies stem from the fact
that the consulting firms didn’t consult effectively with the impacted culture or
didn’t involve the public enough with information or participation opportunities. I
know that in most of the western United States cultural resource management
professionals are more aware of involving Native American tribes. However, on the
east coast cultural resource management professionals are less aware of this
involvement but I believe some of the strategies in consulting with THPOs should
apply to other communities of impact.
In using all three case studies we are able to see the differences in state
historic preservation guidelines, the differences in how the consulting firms decided
how to handle their projects, the differences in how the impacted communities were
or were not consulted and how they responded to the lack of involvement, the
difference in how the consulting firms dealt with public involvement in their
projects.
Important Federal and State Guidelines
In order to examine the three case studies, it is important to review their
respective state cultural resource identification guidelines. Section 106 of the NHPA
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on
historic properties, and give the ACHP an opportunity to comment. The historic

Ryther 5
preservation review process is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP. The
responsible Federal agency must first determine whether it has an undertaking that
that could affect historic properties. Historic properties are properties that are
included in the National Register of Historic Places or that meet the criteria for the
National Register. If there are historic properties found then the agency must
identify the appropriate SHPO or THPO to consult with during the process. The
agency should also plan to involve the public and contact other potential consulting
parties. If the agency determines that it has no undertaking, or that its undertaking
has no potential to affect historic properties, the agency has no further Section 106
obligations.
If the agency's undertaking could affect historic properties, then the agency
must determine the scope of work and proceed (SOW) to identify historic properties
in the area of potential effect (APE). The agency should then review background
information, consult with the SHPO or THPO, obtain information from
knowledgeable affiliations, and conduct additional studies if it is necessary.
Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in the National Register are
considered. Any unlisted properties are supposed to be evaluated against the
National Park Service's published criteria (NPS, 2013), with consultation with the
SHPO or THPO and any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that
may attach religious or cultural importance to them.
It is the decision of the SHPO, not the applicant, to request preliminary
consultation from the NPS. A preliminary consultation focuses on one or several
specific issues and it is not for the review of an entire project. NPS will then express

Ryther 6
a verbal response directly to the SHPO. Even when a preliminary consultation has
occurred, NPS advises applicants to submit their applications early so that any
disputed treatments can be resolved before work can begin. (NPS, 2013)
If questions arise about the eligibility of a given property, the agency may
seek a formal determination of eligibility from the National Park Service and the
Keeper of the National Register. If the agency finds that no historic properties are
present/affected and it can provide documentation to the SHPO or THPO to that
effect it may then continue with its undertaking. If the agency finds that historic
properties are present, they must proceed to assess possible adverse effects. The
agency, in consultation with the SHPO or THPO makes an assessment of adverse
effects on the identified historic properties based on criteria found in ACHP's
regulations. (ACHP, 2013) If the ACHP agrees that there will be no adverse effect,
then the agency may continue with the undertaking.
The agency consults to resolve adverse effects with the SHPO or THPO and
others, who may include Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations,
local governments, permit applicants, and the public. The ACHP may participate in
consultation if there are significant impacts to important historic properties, there is
a potential for procedural problems, or there are concerns in regards to Indian
tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations.
Consultation usually results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which
outlines agreed-upon proceduresthat the agency will take to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate the adverse effects. If an MOA is agreed upon then the agency proceeds
with its project under the terms of the MOA. If consultation proves irreconcilable,

Ryther 7
then the agency or the SHPO or THPO or ACHP itself, can terminate the consultation.
The agency has to submit correct documentation to ACHP and request ACHP's
comments. The agency head must take into account ACHP's written comments in
deciding how to proceed but does not actually have to abide by them. (ACHP, 2013)
Public involvement is an absolute key ingredient in successful Section 106
consultation, and the views of the public should be sought and considered
throughout the process.
One common rule followed by all states is that an historic resource must be
at least fifty years old or be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. For
the First African Baptist Cemetery in Philadelphia one should refer to the
Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey. (The State Museum of Pennsylvania and the
Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
2008) This document is designed by the Section of Archaeology under the State
Museum of Pennsylvania and the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission to show the criteria of the identification of
prehistoric and post-contact sites in Pennsylvania. This criterion follows the model
of: A) Associated with events of historical significance, B) Associated with persons of
historical significance, C) historical buildings identified through engineering and
architecture, and D) sites with information potential or data. (King, 2013)
In this case study there was the discovery of human remains, which should
be handled by abiding the Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in
Pennsylvania (Bureau of Historic Preservation, 2008) standards for handling human
remains. Section 106 requires that the responsible Federal agency have to develop

Ryther 8
a plan for the treatment of any human remains that are located in the course of the
federal undertaking. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission has a
policy for treatment of human remains that includes notification of descendent
populations and negotiated plans for removal, study, and reburial of these remains.
Any project with the potential to encounter human remains should develop a plan
for their treatment prior to the commencement of fieldwork. (Bureau of Historic
Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 2008)
The Guidelines for Identifying Cultural Resources: Bureau of Land Management
for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota Handbook (Ott, 2003) would be used
for the expansion of Route 4 on the Creek Reservation in South Dakota case study.
The only difference in what is considered a historical resource in the guidelines for
South Dakota is that there is mention on traditional cultural places as defined by
National Bulletin 38. Most guidelines for archaeological investigations for the east
coast do not mention traditional cultural places.
Their standards for the treatment of human remain are that once a human
skeleton has been turned over to the state archaeologist or has been exhumed under
permit, it should be examined by a qualified skeletal analyst in a timely fashion in
order to determine its sex, age, and state of health and its racial, cultural, or ethnic
affiliation if possible. Records of the analysis must be kept on each individual and
included in the report to the state archaeologist. Once any human remains have
been identified as belonging to a modern tribe as a result of the skeletal examination
or the historical or archaeological evidence, the state archaeologist should contact

Ryther 9
the SHPO and THPO to discuss what to do with the remains and any associated
burial goods. (Bureau of Historic Preservation, 2008)
If the tribal representatives accept the remains for tribal reburial, the state
archaeologist will then deliver the remains to the parties involved. If those remains
that either are not claimed by the tribe or could not be identified as to belonging to a
tribe should be reburied in a cemetery designated by the Office of History. The
reburial of remains under the jurisdiction of the state archaeologist occur within
five years of being exhumed except in cases, like the discovery of mass burials or
large numbers of skeletons, where the process of identification will take longer or
where the remains are determined to be of scientific importance. In those cases, up
to five additional years can be taken before reburial is required. (ACHP, 2013)
The last case study of the construction of Foley Square’s courthouse and
federal building in New York City should have followed the Cultural Resource
Standards Handbook: Guidance for Understanding and Applying the New York State
Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations (The New York Archaeological Council
Standards Committee, 2000) that was prepared by the New York Archaeological
Council Standards Committee. Once again the standard for identifying a significant
historical resource are criterion A through D. Their treatment of human remains, if
discovered are a long the same lines as South Dakota’s treatment of human remains.
The difference here is that it is only treated as an archaeological site if the remains
are historic and the lineal families wish for them to be undisturbed or if it they are
prehistoric and require a consultation with local tribes, if there are any.

Ryther 10
Native American tribes, if involved, have the last say in how the remains are
handled, whether they remain buried there undisturbed or exhumed and allowed
for research or are returned to tribal lands. Ultimately these discussions between
tribal representatives and the consulting agency make or break the project. If the
tribal representatives do not wish for the remains to be disturbed the project cannot
move forward in that location. (ACHP, 2013) However, if the tribal representatives
and the consulting agency come to an agreement about the removal and reburial of
the remains then, the project can go on during its original timetable.
Manhattan Colonial Era Slave Burial Ground at Trinity Church, New York
Now that we’ve discussed the guidelines for cultural resource management
for the Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and New York case studies, we can now move
fully into the details of these case studies. The largest and, possibly, most highly
publicized case study is that of the Foley Square federal building site where the
largest colonial era enslaved African American burial ground was uncovered during
construction in 1991.
In this case the General Services Administration (GSA) was the agency on
site when the remains were uncovered. We’ve seen already that most guidelines for
conducting cultural resource management require that agencies include the
formation of a plan to properly treat human remains, if they are discovered, as a
part of their project plans. The agency in charge of this site had no plan in place to
handle human remains. (Henley Dean & Dwin Vaughn, 2003)

Ryther 11
GSA continued to plan a full remains retrieval of the site. As they began their
exhumation, they did not anticipate the scope of work that would be required at this
site; 420 persons were exhumed and there were still more to be uncovered. At the
same time that they were exhuming the human remains they were also continuing
with the construction at the site. This flagrantly flies in the face of how to protect
and preserve historic resources. At this point the blunders of the GSA had made it
into the public sphere of knowledge and the African American community of the
New York City area became very concerned that the remains of this hugely
important site were being mistreated and disrespected. They also felt, as a
community, disrespected by the GSA because upon finding the remains no one had
consulted any of the African American community in the area, experts in the African
diaspora to the United States, or even brought any African American archaeologists
to help with this exhumation.
After this slight, the African American community began to protest the sight
because not only had they not been consulted in any aspect of this project but, there
were many graves and remains that were destroyed by the construction process.
These protests drew a lot of attention to GSA and they halted work on the site as to
show some compliance to community wishes and to really assess the work ahead.
(Henley Dean & Dwin Vaughn, 2013) As a nation our history really emphasizes the
enslavement of African Americans in the South, but not much is known about
slavery in the North. The invisibility of slavery in the North is what makes this site
so very important not only to the community of African Americans in New York City,

Ryther 12
it is important for our national history to properly represent slavery in the entirety
of the United States.
The oversight of this project increased with the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation (ACHP) and the community activists. The protests against GSA’s plan
continued not only with the community activists but, also politicians and scholars
who had become aware of the disappointing archeological work being done on the
most important colonial era slave site above the Mason-Dixon Line. The result of
this attention was a hearing in the House Subcommittee of Public Works where
many came to testify against the GSA and their treatment of the site and the human
remains.
After the hearing, several changes occurred in the project. The city switched
archaeologist firms to, physical anthropologist, Michael Blakey and his team and
students from Howard University, a historically African American university. This
was beneficial because African American scholars and students became involved in
their own history. The disadvantage of this situation is that many artifacts stayed
with GSA’s consulting agency while Howard University was in charge of the
forensics. Splitting the sites findings is detrimental to studying the sight as a whole
and communication between the two groups was lacking. The construction at the
site stopped entirely because the community activists lobbied President George H.W.
Bush to cease the destruction of their ancestral remains and appropriate $3 million
to build a memorial there. By 1992 this site was listed under the National Register
of Historic Places because of its regional and national significance. (Joseph, 2004)

Ryther 13
GSA then proposed partial mitigation of adverse effects to the burial ground
by undertaking programs of data analysis, curation, and education, they were also
required to reinter the remains in a timely fashion. The ACHP has questioned
whether GSA truly fulfilled their mitigation requirements due to the length of time it
took to complete. The National Park Service (NPS) also voiced concerns over GSA’s
compliance with the research design, especially completion of the artifact analysis.
The NPS also noted that GSA failed to consult with NPS regarding the implication of
the proposed reburial on the integrity of the site and its status as a National Historic
Landmark. At the present, the remains were reinterred October 2003 following
activities planned by GSA to commemorate the site leading up to the reburial.
(Henley Dean & Dwin Vaughn, 2013) There is a documentary called Unearthing the
Slave Trade that really shows this project in detail and the problems it has had, that
is very helpful for anyone who wants to understand the project.
From this case study we can see that mistakes were made. First GSA and
their consulting agency should have had a plan of action ready for the possibility of
finding human remains and they were severely unprepared for this possibility.
Once the human remains were discovered site exhumation and construction
occurred at the same time causing destruction of historical resources and human
remains.
The agency did not consult with the community of descendants, experts in
African diaspora, or included African American archaeologists or Archaeology
students to participate in the excavation. After the site became the team at Howard
University’s responsibility, GSA lagged in completing their partial mitigation of

Ryther 14
adverse effects that occurred at the burial site under their jurisdiction. GSA also did
not consult the National Parks Service about the proposed reburial of remains that
were a part of a National Historic Monument. (Joseph, 2004)
A lot went wrong in the cultural resource management process here. This
site and its complications had a huge impact on the future of cultural resource
management. Many archaeologists would say that the result of the huge force of
community activism and media attention really enforced the process of including
descendent communities in salvage excavations, especially when human remains
are involved. Even though cultural resource management has changed to more
heavily emphasize the inclusion of descendent communities, we still see too many
cases where there is a lack of consultation. The result of this is that is becomes a
publicized blunder by cultural resource management professionals and the
community and public become very active in seeing mitigation done properly and at
the agency’s expense.
Philadelphia First African Baptist Cemeteries, Pennsylvania
The next case study is similar to the New York colonial slave burial ground,
The First African Baptist cemeteries rediscovered on Eighth and Tenth Street in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I admit now that I knew about this site before I had ever
taken an archaeology class because I lived in the Philadelphia area and it became a
subject that lingered on the news for many months. These long forgotten
cemeteries were two of the first cemeteries to be the resting places for free African
Americans practicing religious freedom. The Eighth Street cemetery was in use

Ryther 15
from 1823 until 1842 and the Tenth Street cemetery was used from 1810 until 1822.
(Cotter, 1992)
The Tenth Street cemetery was first uncovered when ramps were being
constructed for the new Vine Street Expressway. Once discovered, archaeologist
Michael Parrington led the excavation from 1983 until 1984 under the contract with
the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia with supplemental funding
from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the William Penn Foundation. The Eighth Street cemetery was
discovered in 1990 directly in the path of the new expressway, archaeologist John
McCarthy and his team undertook this excavation. Both archaeological recoveries
were done in accordance with federal historic preservation legislation under the
NHPA. (Jeppson, 2007)
The two cemeteries were a part of the two First African Baptist Church
congregations. The cemeteries collectively were in use from 1810 until 1842 and
during that time the city of Philadelphia saw a huge rise in the African American
population, swelling from 4,200 persons to 11,000. These cemeteries show the
growth in African American population due to freed slaves migrating north through
a fifty-year period of time.
The remains at both sites allowed archaeologists to observe the presence of
West African burial rituals in early to mid 19th century free African American
gravesites. (Parrington & Wideman, 1986) The remains also gave clues as to what
the quality of life were like for free African Americans during this time. They also
did some forensic work showing mother-infant mortality, prevalence of diseases,

Ryther 16
life expectancy, etc. All in all they were very exciting and important site in
archaeology.
What is most notable about the Tenth street site is how the consultation and
public involvement was accomplished. The sudden substantial archaeology
outreach program began with this project, very early for its time. The First African
Baptist Church is still extant and its congregants were contacted very early on in the
planning phase for both sites. The church and its congregants were, of course, very
interested and excited about this project and lent their extensive knowledge of the
history of the church to the researchers. During the first excavation from 1983 to
1984 a wooden viewing platform was built around the site for members of the
public to observe the archaeological work being done. (Cotter, 1992)
Detailed handouts were also made up and sent around the community and
local schools to notify them that they would like for the public to come and see the
work being done. Almost 3,000 people came to observe the site during this time,
many of them congregation members and schools. The Afro-American Historical
and Cultural Museum formed tours and platform interpretations of the work being
done for its museumgoers. A very popular article was published in Archaeology at
the same time a documentary about the sites, Ground Truth: Archaeology in the City,
came out.
The Eighth Street cemetery site, unfortunately, was not open for public
viewing because of its location pretty much smack-dab in the middle of a very busy
and under construction Vine Street Expressway. However, during the analysis of
the remains, the John Milner Associates opened their laboratory for more than 50

Ryther 17
groups, many of whom were from inner city schools, to observe some of the analysis
being done. The recovered collections were housed between the Afro-American
Historical and Cultural Museum as well as at the Atwater Kent Museum of
Philadelphia for an exhibit on urban archaeology called City Beneath Our Feet.
(Cotter, 2004)
The First African Baptist cemeteries were excavated around the same time as
the Manhattan Colonial Era Slave Burial Ground. Yet, when you compare them side-
by-side they couldn’t have been handled more differently. The first had a multitude
of dramas that severely impacted the archaeological site and was highly publicized
in a bad light during the course of the project. The second seemingly went off with
out a hitch. This is due to the correct implementation of national historic
preservation legislation and consulting and communicating to descendent
communities and the public.
By engaging the First African Baptist Church congregation the archaeologist
gained so much more knowledge about the history of their site than if they had just
stuck to historical documents related to the site. By engaging the public with the
excavation of Tenth Street site and the data analysis of the Eighth Street site they
brought a lot of good publicity for archaeology in the city and partnered with the
Atwater Kent Museum of Philadelphia and the Afro-American Historical and
Cultural Museum for added patronage.
1997 Widening of Route 4 Creek Reservation, South Dakota

Ryther 18
In 1997 the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) proposed a reconstruction of an
eight-mile section of Route 4 that runs through the Crow Creek Reservation in South
Dakota. The BIA shared its plans for construction and that there would be historic
properties affected by said construction with the South Dakota SHPO. However,
earlier documentation at the SHPO showed that the BIA submitted an archaeological
data recovery report that stated no historic properties affected. (Standill, 2004)
Because of the conflicting nature of the reports the South Dakota SHPO requested
and ACHP investigation of the project.
The archaeological investigation exposed ten archaeological sites that were
in the area of the construction project. The sites were reported to have been
associated with previously identified archaeological districts and a National Historic
Landmark. The BIA proceeded with archaeological data recovery at three of these
sites before it resolved National Register-eligibility issues, reached a finding of
either adverse or no adverse effect on historic properties, or consulted to develop
mitigation measures with the SHPO, the ACHP, or other consulting parties.
In addition to that whole mess are the outside reports that hundreds of
human remains were uncovered during the archaeological data recovery at three
Plains Village storage pits that were estimated to date back to the contact of the
affiliated tribes and European Americans. This discovery is thought to represent the
devastation of the local tribes from the introduction of non-native disease (e.g.
smallpox). (Standill, 2004)
The BIA had reported that it had conducted consultation with the Crow Creek
Reservation and three affiliated tribes about how to properly proceed with the

Ryther 19
removal and reinterring of the human remains. However, the persons identified by
the BIA as contacts for the Crow Creek Reservation and three affiliated tribes denied
any kind of notification or contact by the BIA.
This case, while not as highly publicized as the Manhattan Colonial Era slave
burial ground, has shown a great deal of poor cultural resource management. The
lack of communication or miscommunication between the BIA and the South Dakota
SHPO and THPO is truly unbelievable. The BIA’s reports were very inconsistent.
The BIA reported that there weren’t any historic properties affected and then there
were ten. This project just seems like a lot of misdirection by the BIA, who probably
had a tight schedule to adhere to and not an abundance of consideration for NHPA,
NAGPRA, and the state guidelines for cultural resource management. In those
aspects, I feel like this project actually was worse than the Manhattan Colonial Era
slave burial ground. For as poorly as the Manhattan CRM project went at least there
was some consideration and mitigation for historic properties that were affected
even if it was after the fact.
Conclusion
As we have seen by examining the cultural resource management procedures
in the three cases studies presented here, the consultation process is extremely
important. Poor consultation results in bad publicity for the agency disrespect
shown to lineal descendants and the communities that have been impacted by the
botched projects. The NHPA Section 106 process is in place so that federal agencies
have a guideline to follow to preserve history. It also mandates consultation with

Ryther 20
SHPO, THPO, and affiliated persons with the project. The problem encountered in
Manhattan and Crow Creek Reservation is the poor display of consultation. The
agencies did “consult” but it was not to the extent that a well-done CRM project
should be.
When consultation is done with the right way CRM projects run smoother.
Comparing the Philadelphia case study to Manhattan and Crow Creek Reservation
shows that it is possible to complete a CRM project with in depth consultation and
public involvement with out sacrificing a reasonable timetable for completion.
There should be no excuse for any agency to not consult to the best of their abilities.
Hopefully, in the future of CRM, there can be some modification to NHPA Section
106 and NPS consultation guidelines to hold agencies and cultural resource
management professionals to a higher standard of archaeology that includes a
stronger consultation and public involvement guideline.
It is incredibly important to include lineal descendants and the community in
archaeology projects. This involvement increases the knowledge and the possible
data archaeologists can collect from those sites. Encouraging community
participation can unlock historic documents that are not kept by the local
government and important oral traditions that have thrived since the past. The
history of past communities is part of how our present cultural identities are
formed.

Ryther 21
References
King, T. (2013). Cultural resource laws & practice. (4th ed.). Lanham, Maryland:
AltaMira Press.
Cotter, J. (1992). The buried past: An archaeological history of philadelphia.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Henley Dean, L., & Dwin Vaughn, C. Department of the Interior, Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation. (2003). New york: Construction of foley square u.s.
courthouse and federal building, new york.
Standill, A. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Advisory Council for Historic Preservation.
(2004). South dakota: Widening of route 4, crow creek reservation, buffalo
county.
The New York Archaeological Council Standards Committee. (2000). Cultural resource
standards handbook guidance for understanding and applying the new york state
standards for cultural resource investigations. In New York City, New York: New
York State Archaeological Council.
Ott, M. C. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. (2003). Guidelines
for identifying cultural resources: Bureau of land management, montana, north
dakota, and south dakota handbook h-8110-1 (H-8110-1). Retrieved from
website:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/blm_resources/public_room/h
andbooks.Par.6926.File.dat/H-8110-
1_Guidelines_for_Identifying_Cultural_Resources.pdf

Ryther 22
The Section of Archaeology, The State Museum of Pennsylvania and the Bureau of
Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. (2008).
Site identification criteria pennsylvania archaeological site survey files.
Retrieved from the Section of Archaeology, The State Museum of
Pennsylvania and the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission.
J. W. Joseph. Historical Archaeology Vol. 38, No. 1, Transcending Boundaries,
Transforming the Discipline: African Diaspora Archaeologies in the New
Millenium (2004), pp. 18-31 Published by: Society for Historical Archaeology
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25617129
Parrington, M. C., & Wideman, J. (1986). Acculturation in an urban setting: The
archaeology of a black philadelphia cemetery. Expedition, 28(1), 55-62.
Retrieved from
http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/28-
1/Acculturation.pdf
Jeppson, P. L. (2007). Digging up the past: An exhibit review. The African Diaspora
Archaeology Network, Retrieved from
http://www.diaspora.illinois.edu/news0907/news0907-8.pdf
Bureau of Historic Preservation. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Historic
Preservation. (2008). Guidelines for archaeological investigations in
pennsylvania. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission.
National Parks Services (2013). Department of the Interior, National Parks Service.
(n.d.). Preliminary consultations. Retrieved from website:
http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/app-process/preliminary-
consult.htm

Ryther 23
Advisory Council of Historic Preservation. Department of the Interior, Advisory
Council of Historic Preservation. (2013). Section 106 regulations summary.
Retrieved from website: http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html

CRM Final Paper

More Related Content

Similar to CRM Final Paper (20)

CRM Final Paper