**SIGNING AS A MEANS OF PROTECTING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES**

John H. Jameson, Jr. and Marc Kodack

**Introduction**

This article discusses the effectiveness of signing as a tool for
protecting archaeological sites. The signing data are drawn largely from
the results of a nationwide questionnaire that was sponsored by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES). For
convenience and consistency, we have centered our discussion on the
comments and answers from the National Park Service (NPS) that comprised
nearly half of the questionnaire respondents, and whose responses appear
to be representative of the whole. We include a brief description of an
available field study, a before-and-after scenario from the Anthony
Shoals site in southeastern Georgia.

The posting of formal, written signs has probably been an important form
of communication for many thousands of years. Perhaps it is with some
degree of irony that modern-day archaeologists and resource managers
employ signing as a communication technique in order to protect and
preserve the remains of former lifeways, the \"signs\" of the past.

In the following discussion, we present an assessment of signing as a
method or means of protecting archaeological sites from looters and
other resource abusers. We draw, to a limited extent, on our own
experiences and observations, but have relied heavily on data collected
by a nationally distributed questionnaire (Kodack 1990a; 1990b; 1990c).
We have used these data to draw a number of conclusions about the
utility of signing as a site protection tool. This assessment of signing
is by no means an exhaustive or complete analysis, and should be
considered preliminary.

**Previous Assumptions**

Many archaeologists, including the authors, have long held certain
assumptions about signing that are common within the field of cultural
resource management (GAO 1987: 46-47). These pre-conceived notions on
the value and usefulness of signing were based on limited personal
experiences with signs, on conversations and communications with
colleagues, and on what were considered to be common sense ideas in the
application of various signing strategies and conditions. Briefly
stated, these assumptions were that: (1) it is better to have signs than
to not have signs, except in remote or less obtrusive areas, where signs
may draw unwanted attention; (2) signing may help in a majority of
cases, but it is more effective when accompanied by monitoring and
enforcement activities; and (3) signs, whether placed on-site or on a
nearby access road, should contain a warning about what laws will be
broken, what specific actions are against the law, and information on
possible penalties.

The creators of the U.S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental
Station (WES) questionnaire shared these ideas and assumptions, but
hoped to establish a more objective basis for evaluating the nature and
overall effectiveness of signing within the field of cultural resource
management (Paul Nickens, personal communication, 1990).

**A Nationwide Questionnaire**

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers many archaeological sites
and features that occur near and adjacent to the Nation\'s navigable
waterways. The Corps has recognized that, as part of its protection
responsibilities, a proactive program of management of these
archaeological materials is needed. As part of this program, with the
purpose of measuring and analyzing the expressed experiences of the
nation\'s archaeological resource managers, a questionnaire was designed
and distributed by WES. The questionnaires were sent out in early 1989
to federal, state, and local agencies throughout the United Ss. The
authors believe that the Corps\' nationwide questionnaire can be thought
of as a test of the above stated common assumptions about the \"whys\",
\"hows\", \"whats\", and \"whens\" of signing.

The questions in the nationwide questionnaire were divided into three
parts. In Part 1, respondents were asked for an opinion on how strongly
they agree or disagree with statements on the effectiveness of signs,
the location of signs, what the message on a sign should say, and what
archaeological materials should be signed. In Part 2, other protection
strategies supplemental to signing, such as law enforcement and
interpretation, were addressed. Part 3 could be used by respondents for
additional statements.

As mentioned above, the questions in Part 1 ask the respondents for an
opinion on how strongly they agree or disagree with general statements
on the nature and effectiveness of signing. The possible choices for
answers included one of the following: strongly agree, agree, neither
agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. In this analysis
the \"strongly agree\" and the \"agree\" answers and the \"strongly
disagree\" and the \"disagree\" answers have been combined in an attempt
to determine how the majority of people are leaning in their answer to a
question. By combining these answers, a clearer indication of the
general opinion about a question is possible. Because the \"neither
agree nor disagree\" answers represent the absence of any leaning one
way of the other on a statement, these responses have been eliminated
from the analysis.

**An Analysis of National Park Service Responses**

Nearly half (47.7 percent) (n=203) of all the questionnaires that were
returned were answered by NPS personnel. Because their responses appear
to be representative of the responses as a whole, and for sake of
convenience and consistency, we have chosen to focus our discussion on
the NPS material.

In the course of tabulating the data in the questionnaire, we noticed
that the total number of responses varied for each question.
Consequently, the total number of responses for each question is
occasionally less than the total number of respondents. In the following
discussion, in order to allow the reader to follow this variation and
level of participation for each question, we have given the
corresponding number (n=) of responses for each question or statement
addressed in the questionnaire when that information was available.

**Overall Effectiveness of Signs**

The first section of Part 1 of the questionnaire addressed general
topics and sought to measure the opinions of respondents on the overall
effectiveness of signing at archaeological sites. They contain four
basic opinion statements:

-   *Signs can be used as an effective protective strategy at sites*
    (n=172). Ninety percent of the respondents to this statement agreed,
    while 10% disagreed. The overwhelming majority think that signs are
    or can be a successful method in trying to protect the large numbers
    of archaeological sites and resources.

-   *Signing contributes to vandalism or casual collecting* (n=150). Of
    the participating respondents to this statement, 45% agreed and 55%
    disagreed. The majority opinion was that, although identifying these
    materials by signing may draw attention to them and have an
    unintentional negative affect, ***overall***, signs are useful in
    protecting archaeological materials from looting and vandalism, but
    this is not the normal expectation.

-   *Signing is more protective if placed off site than on site*
    (n=129). Forty-four percent agree, while 56% disagreed; a majority
    of the respondents believe that signs should be placed directly on
    site.

-   *Signing will be most effective if employed with other protective
    strategies, e.g. interpretive exhibits, visitor center, fence,
    patrol or control of access* (n=196). With only 1% disagreeing,
    there is virtually unanimous agreement that the most effective way
    to use signs is for signing *not* to be the sole protection
    strategy.

**Sign Messages**

The next section of Part 1 posed the following question, followed by a
list of possible alternatives messages: \"*Once a decision has been made
to sign archaeological materials, what kind of message should be on the
sign?\"*

-   *Nonspecific, e.g. \"Off Limits\" or \"Do not Disturb\"* (n=144):
    33% agreed, 67% disagreed.

-   *Specific, e.g. \"Archaeological Site\--Do Not Disturb\"* (n=151):
    66% agreed, 34% disagreed.

-   *Interpretive, e.g. \"This is an important Mississippian mound
    group\...\"* (n=167): 87% agreed, 13% disagreed.

-   *Warning, or threatened sanction, e.g. \"Archaeological Site -
    Protected by Law\" and giving penalties* (n=162): 90% agreed, 10%
    disagreed.

-   *Bogus, e.g. \"poison ivy\" or \"Hazardous Waste\"* (n=160): 23%
    agreed, 77% disagreed.

-   *Combination of one of more of the above formats?* (n=159): 94%
    agreed, 6% disagreed.

*\"Which combination?\"* (n=147)

-   Nonspecific\\Interpretive 1%

-   Nonspecific\\Warning 3%

-   Nonspecific\\Bogus 1%

-   Specific\\Interpretive 14%

-   Specific\\Warning 2%

-   Interpretive\\Warning 41%

-   Interpretive\\Bogus 1%

-   Warning\\Bogus 1%

-   Other 36%

Although messages with interpretive or warning language were endorsed,
the combination of these two messages is considered most effective. A
third message theme, one specifically identifying the archaeological
material, could be integrated with and incorporated into the
interpretive/warning sign. The only message theme that was not strongly
endorsed was one presenting false information to the visitor via a bogus
message.

In the questionnaire response narratives (Part 3), a number of opinions
on sign messages were expressed. Many respondents stated that sign
messages that refer to the legal penalties for disturbing or destroying
archaeological resources need to be updated to reflect the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and *not* the mostly
superseded 1906 Antiquities Act. This is important because the
ambiguities in the 1906 Act, specifically the reference to \"object of
antiquity\", make successful prosecutions under the Act highly unlikely,
as has been borne out by court case histories. The lowering from \$5,000
to \$500 in the dollar value threshold for a felony in the assessment of
damages to an archaeological resource should help to discourage looting
and vandalism and increase the number of successful prosecutions. Signs
used to mark the boundaries of a NPS park unit (this could be applied to
other federally managed lands as well) should include some warning about
the removal or disturbance of both archaeological and natural materials.
All signs should be free standing or attached to a modern device such as
a fence or railing, if possible. Signs should not be attached to trees,
historic buildings, and other landscape features, in order to avoid the
paradox of placing signs with a resource protection message in a manner
that results in further damages to trees, buildings, or other features.

**Visibility of Archaeological Materials**

The next section of the questionnaire addressed the subject of whether
sites in remote or inconspicuous areas should be signed.

-   *Only large or highly obtrusive resource sites which are receiving
    impacts should be signed* (n=173): 57% agreed; 43% did not agree.

-   *Generally, unobtrusive sites should not be signed* (n=173): 75%
    agreed; 25% disagreed.

-   *Sites located in remote areas with only periodic or little
    surveillance should not be signed* (n=169): 68% agreed; 32%
    disagreed.

The respondents felt that the ability of a visitor to see archaeological
materials should be considered when signing these resources. Those sites
that are highly visible, prehistoric or historic, that have been subject
to past looting or vandalism, should be prominently signed to prevent
further attacks. Those resources that are

much less noticeable by the casual observer or are located in areas
infrequently visited, should not be signed. The reduced visibility and
inconspicuous location of these sites has brought a measure of
protection that would be diminished by the placing of an identifying
sign.

**The Need to Investigate Specific Signing Strategies**

The final question in Part 1 asked whether controlled case studies are
needed:

-   *Do you think it would be useful to investigate, under controlled
    conditions at select archaeological sites, specific signing
    strategies in order to evaluate their relative effectiveness?*
    (n=197): 95% said \"yes\", while only 5% said \"no\".

A large majority of these respondents would like to see a field program
designed so that their opinions could be verified or negated.

**Experiences with Past Signing Projects**

The twelve questions or inquiries in Part 2 of the questionnaire asked
for descriptions of specific signing projects and opinions on how
effective these projects have been. Some questions are similar in format
to Part 1 and these answers have been summarized by category. For other,
more open-ended questions, a greater variety of answers were possible.

-   *Type of resource signed* (n=99): historic (54%); prehistoric (29%);
    both (17%). Respondents indicated that both prehistoric and historic
    resources have been signed, although almost twice as many historic
    sites have been involved in signing efforts.

-   *Location and context of signed resource*. A combination of off-site
    and on-site projects are reported, with the majority of signs placed
    on site. However, because entire Park Service units can be
    archaeological resources, all signs placed within the boundaries of
    that unit are, by definition, \"on site\". When signs are present,
    they are integrated into park interpretive efforts. Signs are
    positioned at trailheads and along trails, in developed and
    backcountry areas, along shorelines, near camp sites, along roads
    and park boundaries, at looted/vandalized sites, and as a part of
    wayside exhibits.

-   *Impacts and reasons for signing.* One of the more common visitor
    impacts described is the climbing or walking on prehistoric or
    historic structures, which destroy the structure by increasing
    erosion or disturbing the physical integrity. Hikers and children
    taking short cuts create unwanted \"new\" trails across structures
    and features. Acts of looting/vandalism include graffiti and illegal
    excavation of artifacts. Signs were erected to prevent these kinds
    of destructive activities, whether they are intentional or not.
    While many signs are erected for interpretive purposes, not all
    signing projects are specifically targeted at archaeological
    materials.

The respondents further commented that park visitors include local or
regional residents who are regular users, persons from elsewhere in the
United States, and foreign nationals on vacation. The number of visitors
who annually visit these NPS areas ranges from several thousand to
several million. Although the specific objectives of these transient
visitors are unknown, most do not intentionally disturb or destroy
archaeological sites.

-   *Wording of sign message.* The following are examples of messages
    listed:

> \"Protect Your Past, Help Preserve the Past for the Future\...\"
>
> \"Walking on Mounds Causes Erosion - Please Stay Off - Thank You\"
>
> \"NOTICE, Please Help Us Protect America\'s Resources\...\" (includes
> description of legal penalties)
>
> \"Help Protect this Historic Hill, Use Walks\"
>
> \"The Past Belongs to the Future, But Only the Present Can Preserve
> it\...\"
>
> \"Do Not Approach Rock Art Panel Past This Point\"
>
> \"Use of Metal Detectors Prohibited\"
>
> \"In Order to Protect the Park\'s Historic Resources No Recreational
> Activities are Permitted on this Site. Sunbathing, Ballplaying,
> Picnicking, Car Polishing and Other Recreational Activities are
> Permitted Only in the Recreational Field\"
>
> \"Caution Relic Hunting is Against the Law\"
>
> \"No Hunting or Trapping. Protected Area, All Natural, Historic &
> Archaeological Features are Protected By Law\...\"
>
> \"Pets not allowed on trails or in ruins\"

Respondents reported that many sign messages are interpretive and are
specific to the unit in which they are located. Some signs are selected
from the NPS Sign Manual. Both Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest
Service antiquities signs have been used.

-   *Sign location and method of placement.* Respondents stated that
    signs are located both off site and on site. Signs are either free
    standing, supported by stakes or posts, or they are attached to a
    man-made or natural object such as a building, tree, gate, or fence.

-   *Was sign used in conjunction with other protective strategies?*
    (n=96): 89% answered \"yes\"; 11% answered \"no\". *If yes, what
    were they?* In order of preference, these other strategies were
    listed: (1) interpretive programs; (2) patrols; (3) physical
    barriers; and (4) visitor center/museum.

-   *Number of signs used per cultural resource*. Most signing efforts
    have used between one and four signs per site. The most common
    number of signs used is one per site.

-   *Available guidance in planning and implementing the signing
    effort.* In most cases described, no guidance was available for a
    signing project. Most local efforts relied on staff experience and
    common sense. A minority of persons have received guidance from
    archaeologists, NPS law enforcement personnel, NPS Regional Office
    personnel, the NPS Sign Manual, or the NPS Harper\'s Ferry (Mather)
    Center.

-   *What changes in impacts have you noticed after signing?* (n=83):
    large increase (4%); some increase (7%); no change (27%); some
    decrease (31%); large decrease (6%); not determined (25%). The use
    of signs does not usually increase on-site looting/vandalism; no
    change or a decrease in adverse impacts takes place when signs are
    used. This supports the above responses on the overall effectiveness
    of signs.

-   *Has the sign itself been vandalized?* (n=89): yes (62%); no (38%).
    *If yes, in what manner?* The respondents stated that little
    creativity has been shown for persons who damage or destroy signs.
    Pistol or rifle shots are the most common form of vandalism, with
    burning, graffiti, breaking, scratching, and stealing occasionally
    occurring. The most determined method reported was the use of a blow
    torch to remove a sign.

-   *Do you have a scheduled or formalized monitoring strategy for
    determining and evaluating the success or failure of the signing
    effort?* (n=93): yes 16%); no (84%). *If yes, briefly describe the
    strategy*. Respondents stated that most evaluations are conducted
    while staff is on patrol. The frequency of patrols varies from
    daily, to bi-weekly, monthly, or yearly. One respondent reported a
    program of evaluation that documented the presence and location of
    artifacts along an historic trail. These artifacts were mapped in
    place and not removed, while an initial artifact map helped in
    assessing the s and presence of artifacts over time. This respondent
    highly recommended the use of similar field experiments for other
    park units.

-   *What kind of documentation is available describing the signing
    effort?* Very few references were noted by the respondents. The
    handful that did mention a reference stated that the sign project is
    included in some type of management plan or sign plan.

To summarize the NPS experience with signing projects, it can be stated
that signing must be one part of a preservation and protection program,
and that signs need to be supplemented by other kinds of strategies such
as law enforcement, interpretation programs, visitor center and/or
museums, and physical barriers.

**Other General Comments**

As stated above, Part 3 of the questionnaire could be used by
respondents for general comments. One theme that occurs repeatedly
throughout these comments is the strong feeling that archaeological
materials which currently are unsigned and are not being adversely
impacted should remain unsigned. If signed, unwanted attention might be
directed towards these resources. The total number of signs that are
used should be balanced between their purpose or \"mission,\" and the
visual impact to the surroundings where these signs will be placed. Too
many signs would be an intrusion on the natural, prehistoric, or
historic setting.

The use of signs is generally supported and is felt to work well with
larger, more visible kinds of archaeological materials. Additional
protection measures, such as law enforcement and regular monitoring,
should also be used in conjunction with signing.

One commentator presented a good summary of the issues to be considered
when designing signing projects: \"Signing of cultural resources can be
an effective deterrent to negative human impacts. There can be no
absolute rule by which managers may sign or not sign a particular
resource. The variables which the manager must consider include:

\(1\) The significance of the resource (which may change with area
management or national policy, availability of scientific data, the
needs of the scientific community, etc.);

\(2\) Agency policy and guidelines;

\(3\) Area development and management needs;

\(4\) A history of vandalism, pothunting and souvenir or relic hunting;

\(5\) Kinds of problems that the signs are to solve (legal warning,
public interpretation, public education, etc.)

\(6\) Level of or immediacy of threat to the resource;

\(7\) Remoteness/accessibility of the site, either to looters, vandals
or law enforcement patrols;

One question that should always be asked is, \'Will signing the resource
increase the threat of damage?\' Once that question is answered, it is
only necessary to determine the management approach to the resource,
kind of verbiage, appropriate placement of the sign, etc.\"

**Signing Experiences Outside the National Park Service**

In general, the non-NPS respondents, including State Historic
Preservation Offices (n=34) and various other federal, state, and local
agencies, mirrored the opinions expressed by the NPS respondents:
signing coupled with other methods can be an effective way to monitor
and deter looting/vandalism against archaeological resources. Sites that
are highly visible are probably the best candidates for signing as the
signs may help to discourage vandalism and looting. Signing sites that
are not threatened by looting/vandalism should be avoided to prevent the
signs from acting as a beacon, drawing unwanted curiosity to the site.
Public education on archaeology and why it is important to protect
archaeological resources is pointed out as the only real solution to
looting/vandalism. Some distinctive aspects of the non-NPS responses are
summarized below.

-   [U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)]{.underline} (n=58). When
    compared with the NPS responses, BLM officials place more emphasis
    on law enforcement efforts, which may be a reflection or result of
    BLM\'s multiple land use mission; archaeological resource
    preservation or protection must be balanced against other
    \"competing\" resources, such as minerals exploration, forest
    management, and cattle grazing. A point that is stressed in the BLM
    responses is that it is important to install identifying signs for
    federal lands and their accompanying archaeological sites for
    successful prosecution under ARPA and other statutes.

-   [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)]{.underline} (n=45). The Corps
    answers parallel the NPS answers more closely than BLM. Concern for
    law enforcement is common, but a concern for interpretation is also
    present. Signs with both warning and interpretive messages have a
    better chance of deterring looting/vandalism or unwanted behavior
    than signs that possess only a warning message.

-   [U.S. Forest Service (FS)]{.underline} (n=57). The FS answers
    emphasize law enforcement somewhat more then the NPS, but not as
    much as BLM. Sign messages should be both interpretive and warning.

**Signing at the Anthony Shoals Site**

The results of the WES questionnaire indicate that signs are an
essential element in any strategy to protect archaeological sites.
However, no objective field studies have been available that can confirm
this observation. In an attempt to measure the affects of signing at a
previously unsigned site, observations were made over a two year period
at the Anthony Shoals Site (9 Ws 51), located in southeastern Georgia.
The site, which has suffered from severe looting for a number of years,
is co-managed within the Broad River Wildlife Management Area by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the lessee, the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division (DNR) (Jameson 1990).

At Anthony Shoals, despite specific lease stipulations for resource
protection, the Corps (and not DNR) has assumed the active management
responsibilities for protecting it from rampant looting/vandalism. The
site, approximately 4 hectares (10 acres) in size, is composed of a
relatively large, multi-component prehistoric occupation, that is
located on the flood plain of the Broad River. It is easily accessed by
a county maintained dirt road and by water on the south bank of the
adjacent river. Exposed and easily spotted artifacts and features are
numerous. The site was initially inspected by Corps archaeologist John
Jameson in May, 1987, who reported several freshly dug pot holes.
Following a Corps-sponsored program of archaeological testing in 1987,
an archaeological contractor recommended a three-pronged approach to the
long-range management here: stepped up site monitoring; data recovery in
a small portion of the site that is exposed on the surface; and
restoration of looted areas to their original contours (Wood and Smith
1988). With no funding as yet allocated to carry out these
recommendations, efforts by the Corps to curb the rate of
looting/vandalism have been limited to posts as roadblocks placed on
site along the unpaved access road, slightly increased monitoring of the
site by Corps rangers, and signing.

Because the area remains accessible by both land and water, these
efforts have had marginal success. Revisits to the site by the senior
author (Jameson) in March 1989, shortly after the signs had been
installed, and again with Marc Kodack in May, 1990, show that
significant looting is still occurring, but at a reduced rate. The
March, 1989, visit uncovered evidence for some minor surface scratching,
indicating that, at least at that time, the *rate* of destruction at the
site had abated. However, the May, 1990, visit recorded renewed
looting/vandalism in the form of several freshly dug pot holes and a
large backhoe-excavated area within the access road. One of the two
on-site posted metal signs, which had been installed at eye level on
wooden posts, approximately 500 feet apart and adjacent to the intrusive
access road, had been removed. At two points along the access road, the
posts have been pulled out of the ground. Notwithstanding the more
recent observations of damage, the present rate of destruction still
appears to be less than in 1988 and earlier.

It is difficult to assess at this time whether the signs
[alone]{.underline} have contributed as a deterrent to looting. However,
due to the very minimal monitoring that has been conducted (less than
one visit per month), and the failure of the installed road barriers,
signing has probably played the most significant role. Nevertheless, for
the signing effort to be more than marginally effective, it must be
accompanied in the future by more intensive monitoring and law
enforcement efforts.

**The Importance of Signing for Law Enforcement**

The criminal prosecution of the looters at Anthony Shoals and other
sites located on federally controlled properties may well hinge on the
presence or absence of warning signs. Recent court cases have
demonstrated that the presence of warning signs is a key element in
almost all successful prosecutions under ARPA. Although the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) is a general intent law
(meaning that a person cannot plead ignorance of the law as an excuse
for not abiding by the law), some defense attorneys attempt to convince
federal judges that ARPA is a specific intent law, when ignorance of the
law can constitute a successful defense. The issue is further confused
by misinformed or inexperienced judges. In a recent court case in Utah,
for example, a judge incorrectly instructed a jury that ARPA is a
specific intent law, thus possibly jeopardizing the outcome of future
court cases in that state (Martin McAllister, personal communication,
1990).

Understanding the importance of on-site or near-site signing, most
prosecuting attorneys, before taking or pursuing an ARPA case,
invariably ask if the resource in question was signed; the specific
versus general intent argument becomes moot when the site is signed.
Other protection statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. 641 (theft of government
property) and 18 U.S.C 1361 (destruction of government property), which
have been used in the prosecution of looters, are also much easier to
enforce when the site is signed (McAllister, personal communication,
1990) (GAO 1987: 53).

In some cases, warning signs posted off site on access roads, trails,
and other conspicuous places have assisted law enforcement. At Big South
Fork National River and Recreation Area, for instance, an ARPA warning
sign was undoubtedly the key to successful prosecution of the looters.
Visitor information centers, campground bulletin boards, and other
public notice areas are good locations for signs that convey the ARPA
warning message. In addition to signs, public use brochures, exhibits,
tour guides, interpretive talks, and even hunting licenses, are all good
media for the posting of warning messages (McAllister, personal
communication, 1990).

Signs are most effective for law enforcement when they contain the
following combination of messages: culture history or interpretative
message describing the importance of the archaeological resource and why
the resource is fragile and irreplaceable, plus information on possible
fines and imprisonment, and ending with an \"up\" note to \"enjoy but do
not destroy your cultural heritage\". For purposes of law enforcement,
people react more positively when there is an interpretive
message/importance message or restoration message. This will have a
positive effect on all but commercial looters, who are not interested in
archaeological protection. In some instances, commercial looters have
been known to actually steal and use signs to promote the risk factor,
thus able to demand a higher price for the looted relics. However, most
artifact and relic hunters [do]{.underline} care and will react
positively when the right message is given (McAllister, personal
communication, 1990).

**The Need for Controlled Case Studies**

A major finding of the WES questionnaire was the strongly expressed need
for case studies on a wide variety of signing conditions and scenarios.
The use of signs to protect archaeological resources is apparently open
to question because of the lack of controlled field studies. A program
of field experiments to gather data on signing is essential to move away
from qualitative impressions.

**A Proposed Field Experiment Design**

Kodack (1990c) has outlined a proposed experimental design for a field
experiment on signing at archaeological sites. He proposes that a
controlled field experiment be composed of four basic elements: (1) site
creation and field setup; (2) development and use of pseudo-site
variables; (3) a monitoring program; and (4) development and
distribution of a field questionnaire.

***Site creation and field setup***.

As a case example, Kodack suggests that a flintknapper manufacture
artifacts and flakes for the creation of a \"lithic scatter\" site.
Restricting the materials to stone would eliminate the longer periods of
time needed to manufacture other artifacts such as pottery or textiles.
Once the artifacts and flakes have been manufactured, they can be
quickly positioned in the field.

Each artifact would then be photographed and drawn prior to placing it
in the field to provide a record of the artifact. The location for this
\"pseudo-site\" would be checked to insure that the area does not
contain real archaeological materials. Once all the artifacts are in
position, a permanent site benchmark would need to be created and
installed. This benchmark would serve as the reference point for mapping
the artifacts.

***Development of pseudo-site variables**.*

Important variables that could directly influence the success of the
experiment are the visibility and density of the stone materials.
\"Visibility\" is defined as a measure of how easily the surface
materials can be seen by someone passing (walking) by. Visibility is
affected by the kind of material the stone artifacts are manufactured
from, the density of the surrounding vegetation, and nature of shadows
(time of day). The lithic raw material chosen for manufacturing the
artifacts should be of a type that occurs naturally and is commonly
found on real sites in the area, so the material itself will not draw
attention to the pseudo-site. Since the density of the stone materials
will also affect their visibility, Kodack would use three different
density scenarios to determine what effect density has on visibility.

The physical placement of the pseudo-site with respect to visitor
traffic is another potential variable that would be a major factor in
the \"discovery\" of the site. For purposes of comparison, sites could
be placed in high visitor use areas (100 or more people per day), medium
use areas (50 to 100 people per day), and low use areas (1 to 50 people
per day). In addition, a pseudo-site might be placed in a remote
location, off vehicular and pedestrian trails, to test the effects that
infrequent or negligible visitor use would have on the archaeological
materials.

Sign placement should be tried both on site and off site. Off site
placement of signs should be at least 30 meters away from the site.
Different sign messages and combinations of messages should be tried,
both off site and on site. These messages could be rod from one
pseudo-site to another through time. Kodack suggests keeping sign size,
material, and height above ground constant, so the effect of the message
will not be influenced by these variables. All signs should be free
standing to allow for maximum flexibility in their field placement.

***Monitoring program**.*

The monitoring frequency (daily, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly) is the
most critical part of the experiment. Insuring that the observations
provided by the monitoring are accurate is the most difficult aspect of
this experiment. Kodack suggests that at least a bi-weekly frequency be
tried at the start of the experiment, to be increased to a monthly rate
if impacts are not visible, or decreased to a weekly rate if too many
impacts are occurring. Monitoring should consist of an overall
assessment of the conditions of both the sign *and* the pseudo-site.

Photographs of the sign and site should be taken with verbal
descriptions of any impacts. Remeasurement of the artifacts on the
surface would be necessary to provide an interim catalog of what
artifacts are present versus those that are missing. Caution should be
applied to insure that any \"missing\" artifacts have not been
inadvertently buried by humans as a result of human foot traffic,
animals, or natural processes such as wind and erosion.

The true measure of the effectiveness of a sign at the end of the
experiment will be the observation of the number of artifacts still
present (provided they are not buried or have not been so widely
dispersed as to be unrecoverable). To determine this, a systematic
examination of the surface should be carried out. The recorded
observations for the current s of the materials can then be compared to
the position of the artifacts on the original site map. Some minor
excavation of the original area where the artifacts were placed may have
to be done to determine if any of these artifacts has been buried. If
all the artifacts are present, and are not widely dispersed due to
unintentional human foot traffic, the selected sign and/or sign message
used will be considered effective.

***Distribution of a field questionnaire***.

The field experiment should be coupled with a questionnaire targeted to
local residents and transient visitors. To insure the integrity of the
field experiments (visitors\' and local residents\' behavior towards
signs might be affected by their participation in a sign questionnaire),
the collection of the questionnaire information should be performed in a
separate location. For example, if the field experiment was set up in
Zion National Park, the collection of the questionnaire data might be
conducted in Grand Teton National Park.

Modifications to the suggested field experiment would be needed for
areas with other kinds of materials and structures. Although the field
testing of signs targeted at protecting archaeological resources is
possible, these tests must be regularly monitored, if the effectiveness
of the signs is to be assessed.

**Conclusion**

From the foregoing discussion on archaeological signing, we can conclude
the following:

\(1\) Signs are usually an effective means of protecting archaeological
sites, especially when the sites are larger and more conspicuous. Signs
can be one part of a plan that seeks to manage archaeological resources
for the benefit of public visitors and simultaneously provides
protection of these resources. Those sites that are currently undergoing
impacts from looters and vandals and are readily visible might be the
starting point for any new signing programs;

\(2\) All signs should be used in conjunction or in combination with
other forms of protection such as law (ARPA) enforcement and routine
monitoring;

\(3\) Sign messages should present the visitor or public land user with
information that interprets the archaeological material, but also
describes the legal protections that have been enacted and the
associated penalties that can potentially be levied on violators;

\(4\) There is a pressing need for controlled case studies in future
assessments of the effectiveness of signing. Objectively designed field
experiments, such as outlined in this article, are needed; and;

\(5\) There is a current lack of Government-wide or agency policy that
addresses the specific issues in the signing of archaeological sites. As
was pointed out by the NPS respondents, the current NPS Sign Manual is
inadequate because it does not provide any justification or discussion
of why and how we should be signing archaeological materials; no
official guidance was available to any of the questionnaire respondents.

**Acknowledgements:** The authors wish to thank Paul Nickens of WES, the
principal questionnaire developer, for allowing us to use the WES
questionnaire data.

**References Cited**

GAO (United States General Accounting Office) (1987) *Cultural
Resources: Problems Protecting and Preserving Federal Archeological
Resources.* United States General Accounting Office Report to
Congressional Investigators, GAO/RCED-88-3. Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Jameson John H., Jr. (1990) Co-management of Vandalized Sites;
Opportunities and Problems. In *Coping with Site Looting: Essays in
Archeological Resource Management,* edited by John E. Ehrenhard.
Interagency Archeological Services Division, Southeast Regional Office,
National Park Service, Atlanta.

Kodack, M. (1990a) A Summary of the National Park Service Responses to a
Questionnaire on the Signing of Archaeological Sites. Unpublished
manuscript submitted to the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Copy on file at Interagency
Archaeological Servies Division, Southeast Regional Office, National
Park Service, Atlanta.

\-\-\-- (1990b) Comments on Part 3 of the Sign Questionnaire Answered by
Non Park Service Respondents. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the
Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Copy on file at the Interagency Archeological Services
Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta.

\-\-\-- (1990c) A Outline for a Field Experiment to Test the
Effectiveness of Signing of Archaeological Sites. Unpublished manuscript
submitted to the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Copy on file at the Interagency
Archeological Services Division, Southeast Regional Office, National
Park Service, Atlanta.

Wood, W. D., and C. A. Smith (1988) Archeological Evaluation of the
Anthony Shoals Site, 9Ws51. Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc.,
Athens. Copy on file at the Environmental Resources Branch, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Savannah District Office, Savannah, Georgia.