Anne M. Wolley Vawser

Midwest Archeological Center

National Park Service

Think back to your first field school when you learned the basics of archeological investigations, whether it was excavating a roman ruin or conducting pedestrian survey in some western US state. Your professors and TAs were always after you to document, document, document through field notes and forms, and maybe later you were lucky enough to help write up part of the report of your findings. This is where we first learned to write it all down and to share it with the archeological community to further the understanding of our incredible archeological resources. After all, if we don’t document our investigations we are no better than looters who destroy archeological sites in the hunt for arrowheads or pots to be kept in their homes or sold for cash. But how we have traditionally documented and shared our work may now be contributing to an increased danger of archeological sites falling prey to looting or collecting. And much of this has been brought about by the digital revolution.

These issues are particularly perplexing in the realm of CRM Archeology where investigations are frequently conducted as a part of compliance with Sec. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Like any good scientific study, we must conduct research and provide enough documentation to support our conclusions about the potential effect an undertaking might have on historic properties. To this end most states require reports that include full descriptions of identified archeological resources along with maps of site locations and boundaries. Many states now request these documents be provided in digital format, often along with spatial data in the form of Geographic Information System (GIS) data or Global Positioning System (GPS) data. And because these documents are now digital born documents they can end up in places one never anticipated. Even paper copies of these reports can end up in places you wouldn’t expect. I was horrified recently to find one of our offices sensitive technical reports for sale on Amazon!

A little googling around on the internet for sensitive archeological site data can quickly send you into panic mode about just how many documents might be out there. Even our own government offices, that should know better, can be a source of improperly released data. I stumbled on a series of US Fish and Wildlife archeological reports on Data.gov. Concerned, I tracked down the regional archeologist for one of the reports and he did not know the reports were out there and vowed to make sure they came down. The reports are currently still listed on the site but cannot be downloaded. It seems Data.gov had the reports in an archive and made PDF versions available on the web without consulting the authors or agency.

This appears to be a case of what I am seeing much more of lately, government agencies or other institutions deciding that they need to have open data and making documents available online without proper evaluation of the sensitivity of those documents. Another example is HathiTrust. This organization states that they are “a partnership of academic and research institutions offering a collection of millions of titles digitized from libraries around the world.” Most of the documents are labeled as digitized by Google and list the original library source. I have found several sensitive archeological site reports on this website which were labeled, albeit maybe not too clearly, as not available for public distribution.

Again, Google and HathiTrust made a decision to make documents public without a proper evaluation of the content. Even our own agency, the National Park Service, erred in making millions of technical documents public without proper consultation with the originating offices or evaluation of the content.

As soon as I saw this headline I knew there would be sensitive archeological reports included in that collection that were improperly released to the public, and indeed, there were, and we had to work with the NPS’ Technical Information Center to remove them.

So how do we keep these things from happening? There may be no way to avoid occasional releases of sensitive documents through instances like these for existing reports, especially older reports that make up the massive amount of gray literature that is typical of archeological documentation. These reports were often produced in a limited number of unpublished copies intended as internal documents and thus were not labeled as sensitive or restricted. Unless you are a professional archeologist you would be unlikely to know that the report contains sensitive data subject to the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) that is not meant for public access. We will only be able to keep these things off the web by being proactive about educating offices and institutions about the need to evaluate collections before they are scanned and made public, or by acting as our own Data Police and occasionally searching the web for things that shouldn’t be there. But moving forward there are some steps we can take to keep our data more secure with a few changes to traditional practices.

As odd as it may sound, databases are probably a more secure place for sensitive site location information than reports. Documents are easy to share, but databases can be secured through technological applications that allow managers to limit access, viewable content, and sharing. Technical reports should document the methods, the location of investigations, and findings of effect but don’t necessarily need to provide detailed information about the location of sites or other cultural features. These details are already being provided to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) on site forms and often GIS files. That means the data is always available to the SHPO or THPO to evaluate the findings of effect in our reports without duplicating that information in the report itself. Reports compiled in this manner can be shared with professional archeologists who need them for research or other investigations without the concern over where they will ultimately end up. And legitimate researchers can contact the SHPO or THPO, or the original report author, for more information about site details if necessary. Alternatively, if SHPOs or THPO demand that details be provided in a report format, sensitive information can be compiled in a separately bound appendix, that is clearly marked as sensitive, allowing the main body of the report to be shared without releasing the sensitive data.

This brings us to the question of what should be considered sensitive. Two clauses in ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470hh, Confidentiality of information concerning nature and location of archaeological resources and 16 U.S.C. 470hh(a), Disclosure of information), provide a good legal basis for making these determinations.

Section 9 (a) Information concerning the nature and location of any archaeological resource for which the excavation or removal requires a permit or other permission under this Act or under any other provision of Federal law may not be made available to the public under subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 [of the United States Code] or under any other provision of law unless the Federal land manager concerned determines that such disclosure would—

(1) further the purposes of this Act or the Act of June 27, 1960 [the Reservoir Salvage Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 469- 469c-1] and

(2) not create a risk of harm to such resources or to the site at which such resources are located.

While this would seem to apply only to Federal lands, Section 16 U.S.C. 470ee©, Trafficking in illegal interstate or foreign commerce in archaeological resources, provides for some protection for archeological resources managed under state or local laws:

(c) No person may sell, purchase, exchange, transport, receive, or offer to sell, purchase, or exchange, in interstate of foreign commerce, any archaeological resource excavated, removed, sold, purchased, exchanged, transported, or received in violation of any provision, rule, regulation, ordinance, or permit in effect under State or local law.

Thus, even revealing the location of archeological resources on the lands of state or local governments could result in violations under APRA if materials were subsequently removed from those sites.

And the NHPA provides guidance for historic preservation in Section 16 U.S.C. 470(b), Purpose of the Act, that could provide state and local governments with inspiration not disclose the location of sensitive archeological resources that may be subject to looting, vandalism, or other damage

(2) the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people;

(3) historic properties significant to the Nation’s heritage are being lost or substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency;

(4) the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans;

The NHPA, Section 16 U.S.C. 470w-3, Limitations on access to information and Section 16 U.S.C. 470w-3(a), Confidentiality of the location of sensitive historic resources, also provides that

(a) The head of a Federal agency or other public official receiving grant assistance pursuant to this Act, after consultation with the Secretary, shall withhold from disclosure to the public, information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic resource if the Secretary and the agency determine that disclosure may—

(1) cause a significant invasion of privacy;

(2) risk harm to the historic resources; or

(3) impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners.

Both of these acts also call for public education about the values of our historic cultural resources, but there are plenty of locations where archeological sites are interpreted and open to the public to learn about our past, so does the public really need to know the location of every archeological site?

There are also descendent communities to think about when sharing archeological site information. Those communities may consider the information to be sensitive for reasons other than those codified in the laws mentioned above and they should be consulted before sharing data.

Ultimately, we should ask ourselves these questions when we are documenting and reporting on archeological resources. What is the potential benefit of making detailed site location information available to the public? What are the potential dangers in doing so? Do I really need to include detailed site location information in the report? Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Can you share information in a way that will further the science of archeology and our understanding of history without endangering the very resource we seek to preserve for future generations? It is time to educate ourselves about the real dangers to archeological resources that we ourselves might be enabling and seek out the best professional practices to keep them safe.

• Presesntations