When there is a high concentration of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) in a given area there is a higher risk of them being destroyed. When there is a higher concentration of mineral resources in a given area there is a higher risk to sites being destroyed within the area of potential effect (APE) and in the close proximity of the surrounding one mile area by oil and gas development projects. With a rush to start and complete projects throughout the field season there is a competitive push by companies which causes sites to be at an even higher risk of being missed during field work and project construction stages. TCPs are at a higher risk than other cultural and historic sites when there is a lack of knowledge and skills at identifying these particular sites when companies do not perform TCP field work on projects. The question is what to do about this issue within the larger discipline of Cultural Resources Management (CRM). Another issue is the lack of properly trained personnel to identify and record TCPs. The standard for years (and continues) was to completely disregard or acknowledge that TCPs existed at all.
The development of the protection of TCPs started much later than the protection of historic properties in the United States. The National Historic Preservation Act was enacted in 1966. The development of the discipline to protect TCPs became prevalent[1] in recent decades with a focus on the creation of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1979[2] and the amendments to the NHPA in 1992.[3] Since then there has been a contentious and deleterious impact to TCPs due to the highly charged differences in cultural values, sociocultural and ethnocentric beliefs, and the significance placed on historic properties in Architectural Historic preservation over that of archaeological sites and especially TCPs. A lack of understanding and knowledge on TCPs has led to a chasm between Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)[4] and State Historic Preservation Offices.[5]
In the norther Great Plains and other areas of the country where oil, gas, wind and solar projects are fast-moving the issues are complicated. In North Dakota the development of the Tribal Consultation Committee (TCC) Programmatic Agreement has helped to build relationships and create positive change in the CRM industry. There are many issues that need to be discussed and work out in order to stop the onslaught of degradation to sites of religious and cultural significance to tribal groups.
[1] Native people have worked hard to protect their sacred sites and burials for years prior to the enactment of any laws. I call the work to protect TCPs by practitioners a discipline as that is what it has become. This will be discussed in a separate blog post.
[2] Other laws exist which pertain to the protection of archaeological resources. I will discuss each of them in turn from a native viewpoint.
[3] I will attach documents to the blogs I post for your research and further reading.
[4] The acronym THPO refers to Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. It has always seemed odd to me that the term is always referenced incorrectly yet it would be a bit ackward to insert “officer” and also include “offices.” The acronym references both. I am in the process of compiling a list of THPO glossary terms. Refer back to my website in the near future to view the downloadable TCP glossary.
[5] A separate blog post will be devoted to this topic at a future point.
The development of the protection of TCPs started much later than the protection of historic properties in the United States. The National Historic Preservation Act was enacted in 1966. The development of the discipline to protect TCPs became prevalent[1] in recent decades with a focus on the creation of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1979[2] and the amendments to the NHPA in 1992.[3] Since then there has been a contentious and deleterious impact to TCPs due to the highly charged differences in cultural values, sociocultural and ethnocentric beliefs, and the significance placed on historic properties in Architectural Historic preservation over that of archaeological sites and especially TCPs. A lack of understanding and knowledge on TCPs has led to a chasm between Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)[4] and State Historic Preservation Offices.[5]
In the norther Great Plains and other areas of the country where oil, gas, wind and solar projects are fast-moving the issues are complicated. In North Dakota the development of the Tribal Consultation Committee (TCC) Programmatic Agreement has helped to build relationships and create positive change in the CRM industry. There are many issues that need to be discussed and work out in order to stop the onslaught of degradation to sites of religious and cultural significance to tribal groups.
[1] Native people have worked hard to protect their sacred sites and burials for years prior to the enactment of any laws. I call the work to protect TCPs by practitioners a discipline as that is what it has become. This will be discussed in a separate blog post.
[2] Other laws exist which pertain to the protection of archaeological resources. I will discuss each of them in turn from a native viewpoint.
[3] I will attach documents to the blogs I post for your research and further reading.
[4] The acronym THPO refers to Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. It has always seemed odd to me that the term is always referenced incorrectly yet it would be a bit ackward to insert “officer” and also include “offices.” The acronym references both. I am in the process of compiling a list of THPO glossary terms. Refer back to my website in the near future to view the downloadable TCP glossary.
[5] A separate blog post will be devoted to this topic at a future point.