Message #213:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To:   "'Matthias Giessler'" 
Subject: USFS Heritage Times for April 5, 1996
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:52:36 -0700 (MST)
Mime-Version: 1.0

From: William G. Reed

Heritage Times for April 5, 1996
The Forest Service Heritage Program
Volume 6: Number 3  April 5, 1996

 IN THIS ISSUE:    Editor's Corner .....................   
                   The Name Game .......................   
                         LaLande .......................  2
                         McConnell .....................  5
                   Passports ...........................  6
                   Training ............................  7
                   Meetings ............................  8
                   Crime and Punishment ................  9
                   Other News and Notes ................  9
                   Books + ............................. 10
 Editor's Corner:
 Ecological Stewardship:
              Next week I'll be meeting with members of the Heritage Management
              author team for Ecological Stewardship.  If you have any new
              ecosystem management projects that produced insights valuable to
              Heritage efforts, please drop me a note.  I have received a
              couple of papers that are excellent examples of how we can
              produce data for the EM effort, but we are lacking examples of
              how EM feeds back into the Heritage program.  I suspect that the
              full integration of Heritage into ecological stewardship will not
              be realized until we can show that Heritage stands to gain as
              much as any other discipline.
 What's in a name?
              This month we have a couple of editorial pieces regarding the
              naming of geographic places.  As political correctness continues
              to hold sway over much of history, here are two different
              perspectives.  The first piece is from Jeff LaLande, Historian
              and Forest Archeologist on the Rogue River NF. The second
              perspective is from Les McConnell, Tribal Liaison for Region 6
              and a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.  
              As always, the opinions expressed herein should not be construed
              as official direction.  These thoughts are the considered
              opinions of experts -- their perspectives should be remembered
              when considering any proposal to change the name of a geographic
              feature on NFS lands.
 The Name Game ...
 A Few Thoughts on The Renaming of Historic Places on the National Forests
              I've been involved in place-name historical research for a number
              of years.  The following thoughts occurred to me after hearing
              reports that the leadership team of at least one National Forest
              in Region Six has committed itself to renaming ethnically
              offensive place-names--in this case, the term "Squaw" as applied
              to various creeks, mountains, and so on.  Similar actions are
              being considered by other Forests. 
              I don't argue against the well-documented fact that the word
              "squaw" has origins that are considered offensive: ethnically
              bigoted, derogatory and dismissive, sexist, even lewd.  (The
              possible lewd etymological origins--dating to the 1600s or
              before--are evidently lost in the mists of time; however, the
              other negative uses of the term were certainly current throughout
              the nineteenth century, when most such place-names in the
              American West were given.)  It may be that Americans can, should,
              and will re-name every last "Squaw Creek," "Squaw Mountain," and
              "Squaw Lake" in the United States.  That may be the ultimate goal
              of some people.  However, before the Forest Service immediately
              joins this effort in earnest, maybe a few questions are worth
              asking--questions that might temper just how the agency becomes
              (1)  Is the Forest Service fully committed to all the
              follow-through measures (some of them not cost-free) that might
              be years down the road?  Place-name changes, although not
              involving an expensive procedure, tend to take a fairly long
              period of time before they become official.  They involve careful
              research for an acceptable (and historically appropriate) new
              name, as well as the opportunity for comment by local
              governments.  They require long-term commitment by knowledgeable
              Forest representatives, as well as follow-through after the name
              is changed (all those road signs, campground signs, maps, etc.)
              Is a Forest actually committed for the long-haul rather than just
              a brief "feel-good" gesture?
              (2)  Are the proposed changes really compatible with established
              place-name policy"?  It's my impression that, after a big push to
              "clean up" some of the more egregious ethnically offensive
              place-names in the 1970s, the pendulum at the national and some
              state geographic-names boards seems to be swinging away from this
              trend.  According to Geographic Names Board direction, re-naming
              in such instances will be considered only on a "case-by-case"
              basis.  With the apparent desire of some people to re-name all
              such places, will this really become in effect a "blanket" effort
              that is "case-by-case" in name only?  That may not matter to the
              proponents of the change, but it could have unintended
              consequences in the form of negative reactions from the official
              geographic names boards (who are very much part of the
              name-change process).
              Of more significance:
              (3)  What about local residents' (particularly long-time local
              residents') opinions about the proposed change?  Should we just
              assume "Uncle Sam knows best" or "the agency needs to respond to
              this particular group of people" who don't like the current
              name.  We need to be sensitive to local residents' opinions;
              consider those opinions--even go out and solicit those opinions.
              It may be tempting (especially when responding to someone who's
              effectively presenting emotionally charged demands for a name
              change) to simply send off the place-name change proposal to the
              state names board and then "let them handle the public input."
              In many cases the names board contacts only the county
              commissioners and the local historical society, where a letter
              may inadvertently sit in oblivion because of the press of more
              urgent business.
              The point is: "Names on the Land" is a very public issue.  (And,
              unfortunately, it's one fraught with all the conflicts and
              difficulties of America's current "culture wars.")  Many local
              people (no matter what their ethnicity or political outlook may
              be) don't appreciate a federal agency initiating changes to
              "their" place-names without at least consulting them first.  We'd
              do well to remember: a historical place-name forms a very
              important part of "home."  As basic reference-points embedded in
              people's memory and everyday use, place-names are central to our
              collective cultural landscape.
              Therefore, it would at least be common courtesy if, before
              submitting a place-name to the seemingly "distant and
              unfathomable" bureaucratic process of official change, a Forest
              sent a news release about the proposal to the local newspaper,
              inviting public comment.  Yes, there'll be negative, even rude
              replies; you can count on it.  But at least the effort would be
              made in an open and above-board manner by the agency that's
              proposing the change.
              If someone believes that a place-name change sponsored by the
              land-managing agency is not, in effect, a "significant federal
              undertaking," they may be unpleasantly surprised at the hostile
              and ridiculing public reaction it could lead to--particularly
              with regard to a name-change that arrives as an "after-the-fact"
              surprise to many local people.
              Early-stage notification by the land-managing agency wouldn't
              replace the official, later efforts of the names board, but it
              would supplement them.  As unwieldy and emotionally charged as
              the comment-seeking exercise might sometimes become, it could
              even result in better historical information about the original
              place-name or suggestions for a more historically appropriate new
              In this rancorous age of "County Sovereignty" movements,
              anti-government and anti-"expert" attitudes, and just overall
              public outrage about civic life in general, small actions can
              take on larger symbolic importance.  We shouldn't underestimate
              the potential for even a "simple little thing" like a
              geographic-name change to inflame local passions--and lead to
              unforseen/undesired consequences.
              (4)  Who's really upset by the old name?  Certainly there are
              place-names that have negative origins.  Doubtless some more of
              them should be and will be changed.  But consider:  Who's
              offended?  Do the proponents of the name-change come from the
              local population, and are they actually offended by a particular
              place-name on the Forest?  Or, is the proposal due to a more
              generalized issue that may reflect the well-intentioned concern
              of agency employees?   If the former, do the proponents truly
              represent as wide a spectrum of people as they purport?  A case
              in point: "Dead Indian Road" is a place-name in southern Oregon
              (dating to the 1850s) that offended, among other people, some
              American Indian residents of the area.  (For the most part, these
              people were relative "newcomers" to southern Oregon and were not
              members of groups that had "aboriginally" lived in the area.)
              Ironically, during the ensuing controversy (which, by the way,
              did not involve any federal land-managing agencies) it became
              apparent that at least some local American Indian residents (who
              were members of groups that had inhabited the immediate vicinity
              for centuries) preferred the old name to remain.  Expressing
              irritation at the "newcomers"' meddling; they felt that the name
              was an important part of their history.  This particular episode
              was very public, very political, and passions were hot.  It
              resulted in compromise.  (It's a compromise that made no one
              group "happy" but it's one that's become least for
              the time being.)
                           *     *     *     *     *
              True, the word "squaw" has derisive, racist origins.  So do a
              number of other place-names in the country.  (If we each really
              looked hard enough, I imagine we could all find a map of
              someplace in the nation with a place-name that we could interpret
              as offending our particular ethnic background, religion, or
              Perhaps, as land managers, it can be more educational and
              effective for us--at least in many such cases--merely to
              acknowledge the unattractive origins of certain historic place
              names, and then try to put them within their historical
              context--rather than simply condemn and censor them.  Why not
              treat place-names like words in a history book that we can all
              learn from?  I know some may disagree with me, but might not a
              well-written interpretive sign at a "Squaw Creek"--a sign that
              provides context in an intelligent and humane manner--ultimately
              be more healing than further "airbrushing" of our history?
 Name changes and Indian concerns:
              There has been some DG traffic on this subject over the past 2
              months.  In reading the sometimes emotional material and the
              reasoning associated with it, there appears to be one critical
              piece of information missing.
              For the past 200 years Indian Nations have been telling the
              European visitors and later the U.S. Government that Indian
              Tribes must be a part of the decision making process that takes
              place for anything that affects Indian life and what it stands
              for.  What has been happening recently with proposals to change
              names of hills, mountains, streams, or other geographic locations
              is the very same effort that Indian tribal governments have been
              warning us about for two centuries.  That is "don't tell tribal
              governments what is best for them."
              I'm not familiar with the several individuals who have written
              stories or conducted research on the use of acculturated words
              that at one time may have been a sort of Indian word.  What I do
              know is that they do not represent Indian tribal governments.  No
              one individual - or 100 individuals can represent a tribal
              government.  Throughout Indian history and the cultures that span
              several millennia, Indian governments repeatedly tell people and
              their respective governments that sovereignty is the strength of
              these complex cultures and societies.  Tribal sovereignty is
              being not only ignored in this process of proposing name changes,
              it is being challenged by "well intended individuals" who think
              they know what is best for Indian people across America and
              *  The act of making proposals without Indian Tribal priority
              placed on it is in fact taking the decision making process out of
              Indian hands.
              *  Actions taken to illustrate that all Indian People think the
              same about one word or the meaning of a single word is "Pan
              Indian Tribalism" - that is; that sovereignty does not exist, all
              Indian people think the same - which is really perpetuating the
              Hollywood Stereotype.
              *  For the USDA Forest Service to take on the mission of changing
              place names of geographic areas or locations is perpetuating the
              Big Brother image that tribes have fought so long against in
              Indian History.
              *  The movement now underway is telling Indian Nations that the
              Forest Service knows what is best for them.  This is demeaning
              and condescending to tribal sovereignty.
              *  Movements in Indian Country by national organizations are
              doing the same thing, perpetuating the stereotype and being
              disrespectful of tribal sovereignty.  It sends the clear message
              that National organizations are in control of local events and
              actions and that the local tribe is secondary to a national
              political group.
              *  Soliciting support from a local Indian Tribe is the same thing
              as making a decision on their behalf.  There are many important
              issues going on today that take up tribal Council time.  Until
              this subject becomes one of them, the Forest Service needs to
              remain respectful of the tribal priorities they set.  Even the
              silence they express on some subject smust be respected.
              *  Only Indian Tribes can tell us what is best for them.  Only
              individual tribal actions will let us know how we as a federal
              agency may assist them. Only Indian sovereignty can take these
              people into the next century with the identity they deserve.
              My advice to anyone contemplating this subject or the associated
              actions and proposals is to leave the issue to Indian tribal
              governments where it belongs.  Further, to resist any attempt to
              solicit support for your individual views on the subject, because
              if it is a tribal priority, the Tribe(s) will tell us about it.
              In Closing:  I spent Wednesday driving to Toppenish to say good
              by to my cousin who is dying due to complications from brain
              tumors and cancer.  He is only 52 years old.  He was a recipient
              of The Dalles Dam payments made in 1957.  He's enrolled Yakima,
              as are both his parents.  Someone lighted a bundle of sweet grass
              and used an eagle fan in a brief ceremony "on his behalf, or in
              his best interest".  He finally gathered up enough strength to
              let people there know that he did NOT want anything like that,
              that he was offended and to STOP!  No one bothered to listen to
              his priorities!  They made the same kind of stereotype
              assumptions being made in this effort.  Let's stop trying to
              decide what's best for Indian Country.  Let them tell us.
 Passport in Time and Public Advocacy:
              The PIT Clearinghouse is reporting a disturbing number of calls
              from frustrated individuals who have applied to 5 or 6 projects
              and never been accepted, yet know someone who consistently goes
              to the same projects every year.  Think about this from the
              public's perspective; if it were you, it would make you very
              angry.  It is the public who lobbies for and passes the laws.  It
              is the public who complains when they are poorly treated.  If we
              advertise projects and don't accept new volunteers, the praise
              PIT now enjoys will turn to criticism quickly and rightfully so.
              Local volunteers are extremely important.  Their dedication is
              the very core of community relations.  I am not suggesting that
              we turn them away in favor of new, national volunteers.  That
              would be poor public service indeed.  It is equally poor public
              service to turn away national volunteers who respond to
              opportunities we advertise.  There are solutions.  We can have
              the best of both worlds.  We can put local volunteers to work on
              long-range, multi-year projects that benefit from continuity; and
              keep PIT projects open for new recruits.  Ask your local
              volunteers to help train the new volunteers.  This will ensure
              that we have experienced volunteers to assist with long range
              research and new volunteers to expand the awareness of historic
              preservation nationally.  If you can't do both, make sure your
              PIT projects allow for your local volunteers and new recruits.
              The original and continuing goals of PIT are to increase public
              awareness and understanding of historic preservation and to
              foster public ownership and stewardship of heritage resources.
              Of course we accomplish projects through PIT.  Evaluation gets
              done, buildings get restored, collections get analyzed.  But
              those are means to an end, the end is public advocacy.  If
              getting the work done were our only goal, we could stop
              advertising PIT now and accomplish the work in-house or with the
              volunteers who have worked with us over the past five years.
              We need a public advocacy.  Witness what almost happened to the
              ACHP without it.  Witness what is happening to heritage within
              the FS when our leaders think all we do is support other
              resources because they don't hear from a public advocacy.
              Without a public advocacy, heritage, not just PIT will
              disappear.  Two Directors of Recreation in the WO, Lyle Laverty
              and Elizabeth Estill, have warned us that we needed public
              advocacy to survive in the future.  The future is here.  Heritage
              will disappear without public support.  PIT is one mechanism to
              build it.  It isn't the only one, but it's the most visible on
              the national level right now.  Let's use the tools at our
              fingertips to build public support for historic preservation.
 Training needs, lists, and opportunities? 
 W.Reed and J.Osborn:R04F02A
              Over the past several months we have been collecting a list of
              training opportunities and struggling with ways to make it
              readily accessible, useful, and easy to update.  Right now it is
              none of the above.  It is more than twenty-five pages long, but
              is available on the DG.  If you would like to see the work in
              progress, send a note to J.Osborn:R04F02A or W.Reed:R04F02A.
              Feel free to give us suggestions.
 Military History Conference
              The Council on America's Military Past will hold their 30th
              annual meeting on April 24-28 in El Paso TX.  Contact: CAMP '96
              Conference, PO Box 1151, Fort Myer VA 22211
NW Regional Environmental History Symposium
              The American Society for Environmental History will hold a
              regionally focused environmental history conference August 1-4,
              1996, in Pullman WA and Moscow ID.  Contact Paul Hirt, Dept. of
              history, Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164-4030.
              Ph: 509-335-4883 FAX 509-335-4171 e-mail:
              A web page with conference information including, accommodations
              info, is under construction at
Integrating Appalachian Highlands Archaeology
              Call for papers. Conference is to be held at the New York State
              Museum, Albany, New York; October 3-5, 1996.  Contact: Dr. Lynne
              P. Sullivan and  Dr. John P. Hart, Anthropological Survey, New
              York State Museum, 3122 Cultural Education Center, Albany,  NY
              12230   Phone: (518) 474-5813       Fax: (518) 473-8496
              E-mail: OR
Great Basin Anthropological Conference
              The GBAC will happen at Lake Tahoe in Kings Beach CA, October
              10-12, 1996.  The Call for Papers is out right now.  Deadline for
              posters and papers is May 15, 1996.  Contact Charlotte Beck, GBAC
              Conference Chair, Hunter College, Clinton NY 13323.  Phone:
              315-859-4473  FAX: 315-859-4632  e-mail:
 Mineral Withdrawal:
 James D. Keyser:R6/PNW
              Has anyone anywhere completed a formal mineral withdrawal for
              purposes of protecting a heritage property?  We are looking for
              an example of a withdrawal designed to protect a non-structural
              site (archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties,
              etc).  Of course we need to know the answer ASAP!  And we'd be
              one step ahead of the game if we could find a recent case where
              all the documentation is intact.   What I'm after is formal
              withdrawals that require action on the part of BLM in Dept of
 Metal Detectors - use and abuse?
 Donna Day:R05F17A
              The Tahoe NF is going forward with a citation involving the
              disturbance of an archaeological site - a crime aided by the use
              of a metal detector.  We are seeking information about similar
              cases over the past few years, including both successful and
              unsuccessful prosecutions.  If you have information that could
              assist us please forward the information to me at one of the
              numbers. Thanks a lot! Donna.
              Donna Day, PO Box 6003, Nevada City, CA 95959
              D.Day:r05f17a /
              (916) 478-6214
 Harrelson Sentenced:
              Jack Lee Harelson has been sentenced in Josephine County Circuit
              Court to 3 months in jail, S20,000 in fines and restitution, and
              24 months probation.  Harelson was convicted last month on 5
              counts related to theft, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with
              evidence.  He had dug artifacts (including the mummified remains
              of 2 children) from a cave on BLM land in Nevada and brought them
              to his Grants Pass home.  He buried the mummies (minus the
              skulls) in his garden.  The disposition of the skulls is still
              unknown.  The BLM and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Tribe are
              preparing an ARPA civil suit against Harelson.
 1996 Forest Fire Lookout Association Conferences
              Eastern Regional Conference
              June 21-23, 1996
              The Eastern Regional FFLA Conference will be held at Greenwood
              Lodge, Woodford, Vermont.  Greenwood Lodge is 8 miles east of
              Bennington on Route 9 at the Mount Prospect Ski Area in
              southwestern Vermont.  The site is 13 miles west of Wilmington,
              Vermont and about 50 miles east-northeast of Troy New York.
              Plans are being made for speakers, meals slide shows, and tours
              to nearby fire towers.  Mount Olga Fire Tower (5 miles east of
              Wilmington) will probably be visited on Saturday, June 22, in the
              afternoon.  There will also be tours to fire lookouts on Sunday,
              June 23.  For further information on registration and
              accommodations, contact: Mark Haughwout, P.O. Box 782, Barre, VT.
              05641 ... (802) 476-8341
              Western Regional Conference
              Sept. 13-15, 1996
              The Western Regional FFLA Conference will be held at the
              Environmental Training Centre, Alberta Forest Service overlooking
              the town of Hinton, Alberta Canada.  The conference is sponsored
              by the Alberta Chapter of the FFLA and the Alberta Forest
              Service.  Highlights will include a demonstration of the state of
              the art fire simulator, tours of a 60 ft. fire tower on thr
              grounds of the Training Centre, and tours of the Alberta Forest
              Service Museum.  There will be opportunities to network
              internationally, veiw a photographic display of all 130 Alberta
              lookouts, lookout arts and craft show, Saturday BBQ and social.
              On Sunday guided tours will be taken to at least four types of
              lookouts including tower structures, single pylon and lookout
              cabin type. Participation will be limited to the first 100
              registrants.  For further information on registration and
              accommodations, contact: Bob Young, Detection Co-ordinator,
              Alberta Forest Service, Provincial Forest Fire Centre, 10625 -
              120 Ave., P.O. Box 7040 Station M, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
              T5E5S9     (403) 427-6807
 BOOKS (and other sources)
 Cultural Heritage Research
              Cultural Heritage Research announces the following publications,
              which are available free from Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
              Experiment Station headquarters in Fort Collins. 
              1. Finch, Deborah M. and Joseph A. Tainter (eds.). 1995. Ecology,
              Diversity, and Sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin.
              Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General
              Technical Report RM-GTR-268.
              2. Hadley, Diana and Thomas E. Sheridan. 1995. Land Use History
              of the San Rafael Valley, Arizona (1540-1960). Rocky Mountain
              Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report
              3. Lent, Stephen C., Joan K. Gaunt, and Adisa J. Wilmer. 1996.
              Fire Effects on Archaeological Resources, Phase I: The Henry
              Fire, Holiday Mesa, Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. Rocky Mountain
              Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report

              4. Shaw, Douglas W. and Deborah M. Finch (compilers). 1996.
              Desired Future Conditions for Southwestern Riparian Ecosystems:
              Bringing Interests and Concerns Together. Rocky Mountain Forest
              and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report
              To order any of the above contact R.Schneider:S28A
              Internet: /s=r.schneider/
              Other publications:
              5. Tainter, Joseph A. 1995. "Sustainability of Complex
              Societies." Futures 27: 397-407.
              6. Tainter, Joseph A. and Bonnie Bagley Tainter (eds.). 1996.
              Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric
              Southwest. Santa Fe Institute, Studies in the Sciences of
              Complexity, Proceedings Volume XXIV. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
 Eel River Environmental History:
 Chief's Windows on the Past Award
 Pacific Southwest Region
              Tom Keter, Assistant Forest Archaeologist on the Six Rivers
              National Forest, is the Pacific Southwest Region's winner of the
              Chief's Windows on the Past award for his long term research into
              and contributions to understanding the prehistoric and historic
              cultural dimensions of ecosystems management.  For ten years, Tom
              has studied the Environmental History and Cultural Ecology of the
              North Fork of the Eel River Basin.  He has looked at regional
              pollen and paleoclimatic data, reviewed ethnographic information
              and historical records, interviewed long-time residents, and
              conducted field research.  He has developed a diachronic model of
              past vegetation associations dating to the early Holocene, looked
              at fire history in relation to vegetation associations, reviewed
              major changes in terrestrial fauna, particularly deer
              populations, developed an historical model for anadromous fish
              populations, and documented human interactions affecting these
              and other portions of the ecosystem.  
              Tom's research is an excellent example of the role of heritage
              resources in understanding and lending historical perspective to
              the human dimension of ecosystem management.  Tom has presented
              papers related to this work at the Society for California
              Archaeology meetings, the Society for American Archaeology
              meetings, and various Forest Service meetings.  His research has
              been published by the regional office, and is just about "sold
 Titles of Interest:
              Wilderness Associates, 1995). ISBN 0-9647167-1-2.
              (New York: Plenum Press, 1996). ISBN 0-306-45173-5, $34.95.
              Yamin, Rebecca, and Karen Bescherer Metheny, eds.
              1996  Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the
              American Historical Landscape.  University of Tennessee Press,
              Knoxville TN.  **Note: Publication expected in Spring 1996.
              Contact Marketing Dept., University of Tennessee Press, 293
              Communications Building, Knoxville, TN 37992-0325, for details.
              Kemp, Emory L. (editor). Industrial Archaeology: Techniques
              (Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing, 1996). ISBN 0-89464-649-4.
 Deadlines ...          Friday, April 19th for the next issue!  
 Details ...            Articles will be accepted and considered in the order
                        received.  Articles which present major editing
                        challenges will be the last published!  Articles
                        concerning sensitive issues may require higher level
                        review (OGC).  Job  announcements will be forwarded
                        through the Heritage Workforce mailing list as soon as
                        I can process my inbox.  Whenever possible, specific
                        information requests will be forwarded to people I know
                        can answer the question.  Address info: e-mail can be
                        sent to /s=w.reed/ or
                FAX users can send to 208-364-4111;
                        FTS 2000 Mail users can reach me at !A11R4AFMRNO.
                        Until next issue ... -= Will =-