The Trouble with Traditional Cultural Places

Thirty years ago, the late Patricia L. Parker and I tried to encourage the United States (U.S.) government to respect “traditional cultural properties” (TCPs)—places communities’ value as parts of their cultural heritage. We did this by co-authoring “National Register Bulletin 38,” issued by the U.S. National Park Service. Bulletin 38 has enjoyed mixed success. It’s been used by Native American groups, but seldom by other communities. It’s been invoked in courts of law with variable results. It’s It has not been widely integrated into the operations of government agencies, environmental regulators, or heritage protection bodies. Among the obstacles to getting TCPs the respect accorded to places and things valued by historians, archaeologists, and architectural historians are elitism; reluctance by advocates to seek and develop alliances; naivety on the parts of communities and their attorneys, the organization and assumptions of government heritage programs; and general governmental scorn for the governed. I believe that we cultural heritage practitioners need to rethink our methods, our strategies, and indeed what we define as the subjects of our efforts. We need to reach outside our disciplinary boxes and make common cause with people whose cultural values may be dramatically different from our own.