**CHAPTER 3**

**ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DESTRUCTION**

*It takes only a period of about a dozen years to implant a basic
culture in the mind of man\--the period between the age of two and the
age of fourteen. In a psycho-biological sense, history, tradition, and
custom are only about 12 years old (Beardsley Rumi, World Trade and
Peace Address, 1945).*

**THE DESTRUCTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND DATA**

Paul R. Nickens

**Introduction**

Archaeological sites are widely recognized as being limited in number
and nonrenewable, much like several other natural resources. What
distin­guishes archaeological sites from many of the other resource
concerns is their fragility, informational context, and necessary role
in the theoretical, methodological and technical approaches for
archaeological investigations of the past. Archaeolo­gists and the
interested public are acutely aware of the intrinsic nature of this
resource base and of the need to protect it, both for wise use for
research and preservation of significant resource elements for future
generations.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of the archaeological record that
make it so valuable also render it highly vulnerable to destructive
forces generated from both natural and human origins. Cultural materials
that make up the archaeological context range from being highly
perishable, capable of being preserved only under the most unusual
conditions, to nearly indestruc­tible items such as stone and ceramic
artifacts. However, for the archae­ologist the spatial and temporal
relationships are as important to reconstruction and interpretation of
the past as the cultural debris itself.

This article provides a brief overview of the destructive processes
whi­ch lead to alteration or loss of archaeological sites and data. We
need to understand the stresses in today\'s environment, and we need to
be able to pre­dict the severity and rate of loss associated with the
various threats. This forum only allows for a superficial examination of
the overall situation, but the discussion will provide a background for
other articles in this volume which out­line various approaches for
protecting archaeological sites.

**Archaeological Sites as Resources**

Before the various forces contributing to loss of archaeological sites
and data are examined, a brief review of why archaeological sites
deserve pro­tection is beneficial. Historically, archaeological sites
have been of great interest and value to the professionals and concerned
avocational archaeologists who study the remains and lifeways of past
human communities. Many of the larger important sites have also
generated interest among the pub­lic in their appreciation for things of
the past. Over the past few decades our society has come to realize that
archaeological sites are finite in number and there has been an
awareness that vestiges of our cultural heri­tage are being methodically
destroyed, often at an alarming rate. The increasing dema­nds upon our
natural resources and the ever growing use of land surface throu­ghout
the country have prompted increased concern for the archae­ological sites
that remain in place.

While the archaeological site is often the center of the concern, we
should remember that our concerns are better targeted at a larger
picture, which may be designated as the cultural resource base. Lipe
(1984) has defined the cultural resource base as \"the material things
produced by past human activity‑‑the artifacts, manufacturing debris,
middens, structures, mon­uments, and the like, that have survived from
some time in the past into the present.\" Lipe also notes that the
landscapes of past cultures may also qual­ify as cultural resources.

Professional interest in the preservation of such resources lies in the
fact that archaeological remains are a limited, fragile, nonrenewable
part of the environment, and any disturbance creates irreversible and
cumulative impacts. The following quote from an article by Scovill,
Gordon, and Anderson (1977:44) succinctly expresses the important
characteristics of archaeological resources for the professional
community:

The investigation of the archaeological record of the American continent
is the serious and scientific study of humankind over a span of time
numbered in the tens of thousands of years. The study seeks
knowledge‑­knowledge to describe, to explain, and to understand the
behavior of past peoples and their interactions as integral parts of
changing cul­tural and natural systems. Cultural history, cultural
physiography, cultural ecology, and cultural processes are the current
emphasis in the anthropo­logical study of the past through the
archaeological record.

Archaeological resources predominantly consist of the physical
evi­dences, or cultural debris, left on the landscape by past
societies\.... Of high significance to the investigation, analysis, and
interpretation of the cultural debris are the local and regional
geomorphological sequences, soil composition, and modern biological and
botanical base­line indicators. Critically essential to the
methodologies, techniques, and processes of studying archaeological
resources is the preservation of the undisturbed stratigraphic context
of the cultural debris. Directly stated, the cultural debris of this
nation\'s archaeological resources have no value for studying the past
once they have been rear­ranged on the landscape by a bulldozer or a
dragline.

These two paragraphs by Scovill and his co‑authors clearly convey the
feeling of the professionals regarding archaeological sites as
significant resources and point to the reasons why protection of these
resources is impor­tant for those charged with management of the
nation\'s public lands. In addi­tion to protection and wise use of the
resource base today, we also need to be concerned with proper
stewardship and preservation of resource elements for the future. As
noted some years ago in an article by William Lipe (1974), it is highly
desirable to save archaeological sites in place whenever possible as
opposed to excavating them without consideration of preservation and
thereby promoting removal of yet another piece of the rapidly
disappearing resource. Lipe\'s arguments for a conservation ethic within
the profession still have considerable relevance today.

**An Overview of Archaeological Site Destruction**

A number of agents can be identified which, in most cases, result in
either damage, alteration, or complete loss of archaeological sites and
data when the agent and the resource come into conflict. An outline of
these destructive agents is shown in Figure 1. To be sure, additional
sources of disturbance could readily be identified and added to the
list; however, those categories indicated cover the major threats to the
resource base.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="3.5631944444444446in"}

Before these categories are examined, some general comments can be
offered concerning the various agents of destruction as they relate to
site and data loss. The first, and perhaps most obvious, fact is that a
large deg­ree of interrelationship exists between the agents and modes of
resource dest­ruction noted in Figure 1 in that much association with
respect to cause and effect circumstances is clearly evident among the
various categories. For example, in some cases recreation on public
lands and hobby collecting (or even malicious vandalism) may be
considered interrelated activities. In other instances, the two may be
quite differentiated. Likewise, a combination of erosion impacts and
land reclamation undertakings may create an environmental battlefield
with archaeological sites being among those resources caught in the
middle.

The agents of destruction under discussion are not in every case
com­pletely harmful to archaeological sites and data. For example, many
important archaeological sites would go unrecognized if not for natural
erosion or human‑caused land alteration, or even as a result of the
efforts of interested hobbyists. Some of these agents, particularly the
human incidental catego­ries, lead to critical funding for data recovery
programs when such activities take place on federal or state lands.
However, far more archaeological sites are lost to these agents than are
preserved, on public and private lands alike. It is well recognized that
with the present legal, funding, and man­agement situations, every worthy
site cannot be investigated or even saved. On the positive side, though,
the impacts generated by certain forms of destructive activities can be
mitigated through increased effectiveness of educa­tional and protective
programs. Moreover, interest in reducing the effects of vandalism and
finding ways to physically protect endangered resources is on the
increase and meaningful results should be evident in the near future.

We also need to keep in mind that the archaeological record, by its very
definition, is one that has lost important elements of critical
information due to various destructive processes. As Michael Schiffer
has noted in his various writings (e.g., 1976, 1983, 1987) on the
formation processes affecting the archaeological record, cultural
materials suffer varying degrees of infor­mational loss as they are
transformed from a systemic or ongoing behavioral system to the
archaeological context. The rate of loss is especially calami­tous for
perishable items. Schiffer goes on to point out that the archae­ological
record may undergo changes which transform cultural materials from one
state to another within the archaeological context (e.g., natural
erosion or human intervention such as plowing or land leveling), and
that the archae­ological context may even return to a systemic one when
the archaeologist (or vandal) retrieves the cultural materials. Our
concern in this discussion is limited to the destructive processes which
take place within the archaeologi­cal context and, more importantly, the
conflicts which arise as the materials come face to face with the
systemic contexts of today.

**Agents of Destruction**

Sources of potential destructive forces for archaeological sites and
data come from almost every conceivable source in the environmental
setting. The two major categories include those of a natural origin and
those associ­ated with human activities on the landscape. The human
agents can be further subdivided into incidental and intentional
actions.

**Natural Agents**

Natural processes and events which affect archaeological sites are
legion, ranging from the effects of earthworm and crayfish soil mixing
to the devastating consequences of volcanic and earthquake events. In
between these extremes we find that the activities of various plants and
animals and erosive actions of wind, water, and temperature take a great
toll on cultural mate­rials in the archaeological context, leading to
loss of items and abundant variation in the record. For the interested,
excellent descriptions and dis­cussions of these processes as they relate
to archaeological sites can be fou­nd in Mathewson (1989), Schiffer
(1987), Wildesen (1982), and Wood and Johnson (1978).

**Human Agents**

Human‑caused actions which have harmful effects on archaeological sites
and data are also multitudinous and continue to increase in number and
mag­nitude as lands are developed and exploited and the pressures of
population expansion increase. By and large, legislative actions at both
the federal (see McManamon this volume) and state levels have been
enacted to lessen or mitigate the effects of associated impacts to
archaeological sites on public lands; however, the prob­lems associ­ated
with many types of activities have in no way been totally eliminated. As
they pertain to archaeological sites, destructive actions can be divided
into two subcategories: incidental and intentional. As noted previously,
the va­ri­ous actions which may be listed under either one of these
headings are not totally independent of each other. The advent or growth
of a land development activity, for example, will surely create a host
of interrelated potential impacts, both in the short‑ and long‑­term,
including, in all probability, a rise in the incidence of vandalism or
depreciative behavior.

***Incidental Actions***

These activities may be defined as those destructive actions associated
with the many forms of land development and resource exploitation that
take place on the landscape. In other words, the destruction of
archaeological sites and data is not the primary motive behind such
actions, but the end res­ult is that another part of the archaeological
record disappears from the lan­dscape. These activities may be generally
categorized as (1) land develop­men­t; (2) agriculture and land clearing;
(3) grazing; (4) land reclamation and flood control; (5) water
development projects; (6) recreational pursuits; (7) construction of
roads, public utility features and pipelines; (8) mining and quarrying;
and (9) indust­ry.

In many cases, the precise effects of these types of land alteration
activities have not been quantified; however, it is not difficult to
imagine that each undertaking creates special and ultimately harmful
results for the archaeological record if allowed to continue unchecked.
These impacts lead to either partial or total destruction, or, at best,
mixing and displacement of the resources.

Fortunately, the recent emphasis on proper resource management on public
lands has brought about a better understanding of the range and
seriousness of impacts resulting from such activities. This emphasis has
also led to regulated identification and evaluation of archaeological
resources in the impact zones and, when needed, effective mitigation of
the adverse effects resulting from those impacts.

The body of literature examining the interplay between human occupation
and use of the landscape and protection and preservation of
archaeological sites and data has grown over the past twenty years as
archaeologists have become more aware of the need to better understand
the overall effects of such undertakings. Thus we can find references
providing data on such potentially destructive and diverse activities as
military training (Carlson and Briuer 1986), livestock grazing (Osborn
et al. 1987), forest chaining (DeBloois et al. 1975, Haase 1983), river
navigation (Gramann 1981), agricultural practices (Ford and Rollingson
1972, Medford 1972, Roper 1976, and Knoerl and Versaggi 1984), reservoir
inundation (Lenihan et al. 1981), stream channelization (Schiffer and
House 1977), traffic vibrations on prehistoric structures (King and
Algermissen 1985), fire (Kelly and Mayberry 1980, Noxon and Marcus 1983,
and Switzer 1974), and tourism (Gale and Jacobs 1987). In spite of these
and other studies, many gaps still exist in our knowledge pertaining to
the nature of specific impacts on archaeological resources from the
various land ­disturb­ing activities listed above.

***Intentional Actions***

Intentional actions which lead to loss of archaeological sites and data
are critical in that they are inherently harmful to the resource base,
but, in most cases, are guided by motives that are difficult to prevent
or control. The worst of these actions, those related to vandalism, are
particularly dam­aging since they lead to destruction without any return
of scientific informa­tion. Intentional actions causing resource
destruction can be subdivided into three categories: institutionalized
destruction, predatory vandalism, and malicious vandalism.

***Institutionalized Destruction:*** Some forms of archaeological site
and data destruction have been either tolerated or accepted over the
years. In this category, we refer to the loss of cultural materials and
information that oc­curs during professional investigation or associated
with the management of archaeological resources.

At first, it may appear that to designate the activities of the
archae­ologist, whose goal it is to retrieve data from the archaeological
context and make sense of it, as being destructive is somewhat
contradictory. Realisti­cally, however, it must be said that each and
every archaeological endeavor leads to the loss of varying amounts of
information. This situation will nev­er be completely alleviated since
far too many factors are involved (e.g., professional competence, data
recovery techniques, and time and funding con­straints). Further, we must
recognize that a tremendous amount of archaeo­logi­cal data was lost
during the early phases of discovery and investigation in this country
when zeal often took predominance over scientific discretion. It is,
however, difficult to excessively castigate many of those early efforts
from our present‑day vantage point. Undoubtedly, our successors will at
some point in the future decry the \"primitive\" data recovery and
analytical tech­niques used by archaeologists in the 1980\'s and 1990\'s
and complain of the data loss which took place.

More to the point at hand, certain archaeological practices, which
unfortunately continue to exist, do result in intentional and harmful
effects to the resource base. These actions range from survey techniques
in which, for example, artifacts are collected without corresponding
mapping of artifact loci, to much more serious problems involving the
use of limited research des­igns to guide excavation of archaeological
sites. Even more damaging is the act of conducting investigative work
and not pursuing the necessary analy­sis and reporting of the results. It
is probably fair to state that in the past and even today some
archaeological fieldwork was/is undertaken without any intention on the
part of the investigator to adequately analyze the resul­tant data and
make them available. Hopefully, the time is near when well-­mean­ing but
overworked investigators are no longer allowed to conduct field work
beyo­nd their capacity, professional or financial, to effectively
complete the res­earch process. As has been noted by others, this
practice is little more than a form of archaeological vandalism.

Similar losses of archaeological sites and data can result from
manage­ment practices on the part of agencies charged with this
responsibility (see Spoerl 1988). Actions leading to resource
destruction can include ineffective management orientations, a lack of
rigorous evaluation methodologies for eval­uating significance of sites,
or failure to fully realize the impacts that an agency\'s activities or
operations may have on archaeological resources. Exam­ples of the latter
activities might include the side effects from timbering actions or
shoreline and downstream impacts to archaeological sites from oper­ation
of a reservoir.

***Predatory Vandalism:*** This form of intentional activity is the most
widespread and leads to the most serious consequences for archaeological
resources (Nickens et al. 1981, U.S. General Accounting Office 1987). It
is charac­terized by a motive dictated by personal gain, either of a
noncommercial or commercial nature. In the first case, the effort may
involve actions such as adding items to one\'s collection of relics,
satisfying a curiosity about antiquities, or perhaps egocentric
autographing of resource sites. Commercial ventures are guided by a
motive of retrieving artifacts for sale and profit. In either case, the
impact to archaeological resources is much the same, loss of cultural
elements and contextual information.

To understand the problem it will be useful to examine its extent as
indicated by one study completed a few years ago. In that investi­ga­tion,
Williams (1978) surveyed the management problem of cultural resource
vandalism in federal and state agency recreation areas throughout the
Rocky Mountain West. In compiling the results provided by resource
managers throughout sev­eral states, Williams listed the following
vandalism practices which impact cultural resource sites (arranged in
decreasing order by reported absolute frequency):

\- Excavation (digging, pothunting, use of heavy machinery)

\- Carving, scratching, chipping, general defacement

\- Surface collection of artifacts (especially lithic artifacts)

\- Removing, shooting at, painting, chalking, making casts and tracings
of rock art

\- Theft of artifacts from structures

\- Stripping weathered boards or other timbers

\- Removing part or all of a structure or causing structural damage

\- Dismantling, general destruction of structure (but apparently no
removal)

\- Arson

\- Climbing or walking on resources

\- Building new roads over, using modern vehicles on historic roads,
off­road recreational vehicle use

\- Rearrangement of or relocating of resources

\- Breaking artifacts, objects, windows

\- Breaking and entering

\- Knocking structures over

\- Use as firewood

\- Throwing rocks into excavated ruin

\- Handling, touching

***Malicious Vandalism:*** The final category of intentional vandalism
includes acts which may be classified as those brought about by revenge
or frustration with government policies, or those which result from no
discernible motive at all (Chokhani 1979:10). Basically, this category
of vandalism includes those inexplicable, unprovoked actions for which
there are no avowed motives. Such behavior can be the result of wanton
activities, or even the end product of psychotic or inebriate conduct.
Fortunately, this type of aggressive vandal­ism, quite often highly
destructive in nature, occurs less frequently in com­parison to other
forms of vandalistic behavior. An example of such senseless vandalism
occurred in 1979 at Arches National Park near Moab, Utah, where a highly
significant rock art panel was obliterated by brushing a chemical
sol­vent across the panel face (Noxon and Marcus 1980).

**Conclusion**

The aim of the foregoing discussion has been to review the various
agents which interact to extirpate elements of our nation\'s
archaeological heritage. The importance of maintaining archaeological
sites in pristine con­ditions cannot be understated, nor can the need to
provide protection and pre­servation for the vestiges of this resource.
The actions of natural pro­cesses upon archaeological sites and the
ever-expanding demands by our popu­lation on the landscape are agents of
destruction that will continue to adversely affect archaeological
resources. It is simply not possible to com­pletely halt all the
detrimental stresses resulting from environmental pro­cesses. The effects
of such impacts can, in many cases, be mitigated by using physical
protection technologies, given appropriate need and funding. It should
be noted that the natural agents of destruction tend to occur more
slowly than human‑caused ac­tions and therefore may be considered to have
a lower overall priority in cul­tural resource management than those
detrimental effects tied to human activi­ties. However, given the amount
of past destruc­tion of archaeological sites and data and that continuing
today, we cannot afford hesitation on any front of the conservation
battle.

While some problems still exist, incidental impacts to archaeological
resources as by‑products of land alteration and resource exploitation
are by and large mitigated by legislative enactments, at least on
federal and state lands. Control of vandalism, however, continues to be
a formidable challenge. Severe problems continue to be associated with
destructive actions on private lands, with the result being that
valuable archaeological remains are disap­pearing at an alarming rate.
This fact makes it even more important that such resources on public
lands be adequately protected.

**References Cited**

Carlson, D. L. and Briuer, F. L. (1986) [Analysis of Military Training
Impacts on Protected Archaeological Sites at West Fort Hood,
Texas]{.underline}. U.S. Army Fort Hood, Archaeological Resource
Management Series, Research Report No. 9, Fort Hood.

Chokhani, P. (1979) Destruction on the Public Lands: A Closer Look at
Van­dalism. [Our Public Lands]{.underline} 29:9‑11.

DeBloois, E., Green, D., and Wylie, H. (1974) [A Test of the Impact of
Pinyon­Juniper Chaining on Archaeological Sites]{.underline}. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Intermoun­tain Region, Ogden.

Ford, J. L. and Rolingson, M. (1972) Site Destruction Due to
Agricultural Pra­ctices in Southeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological
Survey, [Research Series]{.underline} 3:1‑40.

Gale, F. and Jacobs, J. M. (1987) [Tourists and the National Estate:
Proce­dures to Protect Australia\'s Heritage]{.underline}. Australian
Heritage Commission, Publi­cation Series No. 6, Canberra.

Gramann, J. H. (1981) Navigation‑Related Impacts on Cultural Resources
of the Upper Mississippi River System. [Contract Abstracts and CRM
Archeology]{.underline} 2(3):11‑16.

Haase, W. R. (1983) Mitigation of Chaining Impacts to Archaeological
Sites. [Journal of Range Management]{.underline} 36:158‑160.

Kelly, R. E. and Mayberry, J. (1980) Trial by Fire: Effects of NPS Burn
Pro­grams upon Archaeological Resources. In [Proceedings of the Second
Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks]{.underline},
Vol. 1, pp. 603‑610, U.S. Gov­ernment Printing Office, Washington.

King, K. W. and Algermissen, S. T. (1985) [Seismic and Vibration Hazard
Inves­tigation of Chaco Canyon National Park]{.underline}. U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 85‑529, Denver.

Knoerl, J. J. and Versaggi, N. (1984) Plow Zone Sites: Research
Strategies and Management Policy. [American Archaeology]{.underline}
4:76‑80.

Lenihan, D. J., Carrell, T. L., Fosberg, S., Murphy, L., Rayl, S. L.,
and War­e, J. A. (1981) [The Final Report of the National Reservoir
Inundation Study]{.underline}, 2 Vols. National Park Service, Southwest
Cultural Resources Center, Santa Fe.

Lipe, W. D. (1974) A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. [The
Kiva]{.underline} 39:213‑243.

Lipe, W. D. (1984) Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. In
[Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage]{.underline}, pp.1‑11. Ed. H.
Cleere, Cambridge University Pre­ss, Cambridge.

Mathewson, C. C., Ed. (1989) [Interdisciplinary Workshop on the
Physical­Chemical‑Biological Processes Affecting Archeological
Sites]{.underline}. U.S. Army Engi­neer Waterways Experiment Station,
Contract Report EL‑89‑1, Vicksburg.

Medford, L. D. (1972) Agricultural Destruction of Archeological Sites in
Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, [Research
Series]{.underline}, 3:41‑82.

Nickens, P. R., Larralde, S. L. and Tucker, G. C. (1981) [A Survey of
Van­dalism to Archaeological Resources in Southwestern
Colorado]{.underline}. Bureau of Land Manage­ment ‑ Colorado, Cultural
Resources Series, No. 11, Denver.

Noxon, J. S. and Marcus, D. A. (1980) The Moab Panel Site of
Southeastern Uta­h: Its Defacement and Significance in Southwestern
Prehistory. [American Rock Writing Research Newsletter]{.underline}
1(5‑80):1‑3.

Noxon, J. S. and Marcus, D. A. (1983) Wildfire‑Induced Cliff Face
Exfoliation and Potential Effects on Cultural Resources in the Needles
District of Canyon­lands National Park, Utah. [Southwestern
Lore]{.underline} 49(2):1‑8.

Osborn, A., Vetter, S., Hartley, R., Walsh, L., and Brown, J. (1987)
[Impacts on Domestic Livestock Grazing on the Archaeological Resources
of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah]{.underline}. National Park Service,
Midwest Archeological Center, Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No.
20, Lincoln.

Roper, D. C. (1976) Lateral Displacement of Artifacts Due to Plowing.
[Ameri­can Antiquity]{.underline} 41:372‑375.

Schiffer, M. B. (1976) [Behavioral Archeology]{.underline}. Academic
Press, New York.

Schiffer, M. B. (1983) Toward the Identification of Formation Processes,
[Amer­i­can Antiquity]{.underline} 48:675‑706.

Schiffer, M. B. (1987) [Formation Processes of the Archaeological
Record]{.underline}. Uni­versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Schiffer, M. B. and House, J. H. (1977) Assessing Impacts: Examples from
the Cache Project. In [Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural
Resource Management Studies]{.underline}, pp. 309‑320. Eds. M. B.
Schiffer and Gumerman, G. J., Aca­demic Press, New York.

Scovill, D. H., Gordon, G. J., and Anderson, K. M. (1977) Guidelines for
the Preparation of Statements of Environmental Impact on Archaeological
Resources. In [Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource
Management Stud­ies]{.underline}, pp. 43‑62. Eds. M. B. Schiffer and
Gumerman, G. J., Academic Press, New York.

Spoerl, P. M. (1988) Management Impacts on Cultural Resources: an
Assessment of Forest Service Research Needs. In [Tools to Manage the
Past: Research Pri­or­ities for Cultural Resources Management in the
Southwest]{.underline}, pp. 17‑25. Eds. J. A. Tainter and Hamre, R. H.,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, General Technical Report RM‑164, Fort Collins.

Switzer, R. R. (1974) The Effects of Forest Fire on Archaeological Sites
in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. [The Artifact]{.underline}
12:1‑8.

U.S. General Accounting Office (1987) [Cultural Resources: Problems
Protecting and Preserving Federal Archeological Resources]{.underline}.
GAO/RCED‑88‑3. U.S. Govern­ment Printing Office, Washington.

Wildesen, L. E. (1982) The Study of Impacts on Archaeological Sites. In
[Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory]{.underline}, Vol. 5, pp.
51‑96. Ed. M. B. Schiffer, Academic Press, New York.

Williams, L. R. (1978) [Vandalism to Cul­tural Resources of the Rocky
Mountain West]{.underline}. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southwestern
Region, Cultural Resources Report No. 21, Albuquerque.

Wood, W. R. and Johnson, D. L. (1978) A Survey of Disturbance Processes
in Archaeological Site Formation. In [Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory]{.underline}, Vol. 1, pp. 315‑381. Ed. M. B. Schiffer,
Academic Press, New York.