**THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES MONITORING PROGRAM AT**

**THE BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND**

**RECREATION AREA, 1986 TO 1989**

Tom Des Jean

**Introduction**

The Big South Fork of the Cumberland River flows northward along the
Upper Cumberland Plateau. This formation is a part of the Appalachian
Plateau Physiographic Province and represents a true peneplain or \"a
broad area of slight relief shaped by ero­sional processes\". The swiftly
moving waters of the river have scoured deep gorges into the usually
resistant 250 million year old Pennsylvanian sandstones of the Plateau
formation. This cutting action has produced literally thousands of
rockshelters and \"bench\" or terrace areas. These locations have been
occupied by prehistoric and historic peoples living in this area for the
past 10,000 to 12,000 years.

The Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (BISO) was created
by Congress (Public Law 93‑251) in 1974 \"\...for the purposes of
conserving and interpreting an area containing unique cultural,
historic, geologic, fish and wildlife, archaeologic, scenic, and
recreational values\...for the benefit and enjoyment of present and
future generations\". At present there are 848 known archaeological
sites recorded within the BISO boundary (Figure 1) many of which have
been looted for the artifacts they contain. Only ten percent of this
National Area has been surveyed but if the remaining lands possess sites
at the same density as the areas already surveyed then the National Park
Service (NPS) is congressionally mandated to protect a huge
archaeological resource that may well exceed 8,000 sites.

An Archaeological Sites monitoring program was one step to­ward
developing site preservation at the Big South Fork National River and
Recreational Area (Faust 1986). The program was funded by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) which presented a very generalized scope of
work to assess and manage the effects that trail development and trail
use in the National Area had and continues to have on the cultural
resources at BISO. The program was then developed and conducted by the
Southeast Archaeological Center (SEAC) of the NPS from December 1986
through March 1989.

This two year program was divided into three developmental phases Phase
I (six months), Phase II (six months), and Phase III (one year). The
phases are discussed further in the research design section. A research
design was developed for the monitoring program which outlined
archaeological site impact data collection. The research design also
proposed monitoring various trails to define and isolate different types
of impacts. Baseline data collection for this program included
monitoring control areas in order to gauge variations in impacts from
area to area.

The development of the monitoring program anticipated some logistical
adjustments and technical problems that could only be overcome through
field trials. Procedural changes were made throughout the first year of
monitoring activities in order to streamline and \"fine‑tune\" baseline
data collection. Following these modifications the final phase of this
study was completed. This article presents a monitoring program
\"Template\" which can be modified for use in other areas.

**Research Design**

The goal of the Archaeological Sites monitoring program was to
understand and define various types of site impacts (natural and human)
and to develop a model for cultural resources monitoring in the BISO
area of the Upper Cumberland Plateau. To accomplish this the research
design followed a chronological set of operational steps and objectives
described below.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.379861111111111in"
height="5.498611111111111in"}

The three phases of the archaeological sites monitoring program
contained specific and overlapping objectives. The three primary
objectives were:

1\. Develop a Park Archaeological Sites monitoring program by:

a\. collecting archaeological baseline data,

b\. developing monitoring procedures within a limited area,

c\. testing monitoring procedures with park staff within a limited area,

d\. modifying monitoring procedures where needed, and,

e\. expanding the monitoring program to other areas within BISO.

2\. Evaluate the monitoring program with respect to:

a\. estimating person hours required to obtain baseline data per site,

b\. estimating person hours for various park staff to monitor different
types of sites,

c\. identifying zones which are having adverse impacts,

d\. determining the frequency of monitoring needed with respect to site
types, types of impacts, and zones, and,

e\. identifying types of impacts that occur on sites.

3\. Report results and recommendations concerning:

a\. changes and/or modifications to the Monitoring Program,

b\. identifying zones, areas, or sites needing monitoring,

c\. estimating person hours required to monitor these areas or sites,
and,

d\. recommending methods for eliminating the effects of adverse impacts
to archaeological sites at BISO.

Two secondary objectives were also defined as part of the monitoring
program:

1\. Increase the knowledge concerning the archaeological resources at
BISO through the monitoring program by:

a\. surveying new areas of the park,

b\. surface collecting of sites.

2\. Increase the public awareness concerning the park\'s non‑renewable
archaeological resources through:

a\. education programs at schools,

b\. interpretation programs for the public at the park, and,

c\. assistance to the park\'s Law Enforcement activities.

Phase I of the monitoring program addressed primarily, items 1a, 1b, 2a,
and 3a. Phases II and III addressed the remaining objectives. The
secondary objectives were collateral duties which were done by the
monitor­ing program Archaeologist or BISO Interpretation staff whenever
opportunity or occasion permitted.

**Data Collection**

Baseline data collection, as indicated in the above discus­sion, required
a lot of trial and error in the field. The basic procedure was to locate
rockshelters in the three zones (hiking trails, horse/jeep trails, and
remote areas) described in the research design and to define every
rockshelter by length, height, depth, size category, color, aspect,
presence/absence of artifacts, presence/absence of digging, photographs,
locational description and field sketch, and a locational map. A
permanent metal tag was then attached to every rockshelter that was
recorded. All of this data was collated onto 5\" X 8\" field index cards
and then entered into a \"dbase file\".

Once an area had been recorded seasonal visits were made to all of the
tagged sites in that area and any new disturbance was noted on the
monitoring cards. The locational cards and photographs worked well but
there were a few sites in steep, jagged and densely overgrown terrain
that were not able to be relocated for a year. Other sites located in
monitoring areas of rugged terrain were overlooked and only identified
long after the program had been in place.

Discerning evidence of new looting from old looting activity was easier
as monitoring became more frequent and as the person monitoring became
more familiar with each site in the database. It also became easier to
recognize various clues about site disturbances. It would be a very
helpful technique to be able to read computer \"bar code dates\" which
are now found on most product labels discarded at sites during illegal
digging. Often the trash left by looters did contain readable product
expiration dates which provided a Terminus Ante Quem (time before which)
for disturbances. Additionally, sun bleaching of labels and plastic, the
growth of mold/lichen on backdirt piles, rounding of the sharp edges of
backdirt piles, rainfall and erosion, blown in leaf litter, and the
disappearance time for footprints, gave some indication of the time
since disturbance.

The rate of change for many of these signs differ for every disturbed
rockshelter site. An example of this is that shallow footprints or
handprints will disappear within a matter of a few hours to a day in
rockshelter soils containing high to moderate amounts of Nitrates.
Erosional processes also vary considerably from rockshelter to
rockshelter and this tends to obscure episodes of \"new digging\".

Many of the disturbed rockshelter sites were so impacted that
discovering clues to indicate recent looting activity was very
difficult. One idea proposed to address this situation was to \"sweep\"
rockshelter sites so that it would be easier to identify new looting
activity. An assistant was hired for three months to accompany the
monitoring program researcher and \"sweep\" these heavily disturbed
sites leaving a smooth surface which would reveal any new impacts. This
technique worked well and helped to determine 32 new impacts and speed
up the monitoring process.

Determining types of impacts involved identifying human versus animal
disturbances. This was not always easy to do but the presence of animal
denning materials, animal feces and other animal signs were adequate to
differentiate those sites recently disturbed by animals. Most of the
time the presence of human garbage was enough to indicate that the
observed disturbance was not of natural origin. Also the size of
disturbances varied from minimal amounts in the case of animal activity,
to unusually large and deep craters or numerous small impacts that
resulted from human activities.

Rockshelter locations were initially investigated using a three zone
research design. This design proposed monitoring archeological sites
within stratified zones. The zones were defined as, Zone I-hiking
trails, Zone II-horse/jeep trails, and Zone III-Remote areas. It became
clear early in Phase II that no prehistorically occupied rockshelter was
immune to impacts. Even the \"Remote Zone\" sites have been and continue
to be looted (Des Jean 1987a:8-9). While evidence was collected
indicating that disturbed rockshelter sites along the more heavily used
trails suffered a slightly lower rate of looting compared to other
zones, no zone or area in BISO has remained free of intensive site
looting or site destruction (Figure 2). This fact is not unique to the
Big South Fork area. Lack of easy access is not a consideration to
dedicated relic collectors and this fact has been noted by other
researchers in numerous areas of the country (Lightfoot and Francis
1978:89; Ison et al. 1981:29; Lyneis et al. 1980:152; Williams 1978:
Table 33).

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.040277777777778in"
height="2.509027777777778in"}

Verification of this factor at BISO convinced the monitoring program
archeologist to modify the program\'s research design and elimi­nate the
Stratified Zones originally defined (Des Jean 1987b). Rockshelters were
then logged‑in as either on or adjacent to jeep roads or trails (100m
either side), or not on or adjacent to jeep roads or trails. This
modification still provided the data which answered questions that the
funding agency (COE) wanted addressed (impacts to rockshelters on
trails) and it provided the control information (non‑trail rockshelter
impacts) with which to interpret that data. Data continued to be
collected on all of the sites logged‑in to the database from the
beginning.

One other modification to the research design was to eliminate use of
BISO staff participation in monitoring activities. This was an
optimistic goal which, because of the shortage in staffing, was never
really able to be implemented. There were, however, several individuals
from all of the BISO divisions who reported new impacts observed. One
exception to staff participation in this program was a biology
researcher who was able to monitor a prehistorically occupied
rockshelter site associated with his year long monthly sampling regimen.
After more than two years of data collection the monitoring program has
identified a number of patterns in looting behavior not previously
recognized.

**Results**

The monitoring program archeologist logged‑in 226 rockshelter locations
and made an average of 5 visits per site during the two year program.
The number of visits ranged from only one visit at some rockshelters to
a maximum of thirteen visits to rockshelter #RS22. This latter site,
Muleshoe rockshelter, was the one closest to BISO Headquarters and the
one used in an interpretive tour to illustrate to the public the effects
of looting and vandalism.

Out of the 226 rockshelters that have been recorded in the monitoring
program database 139 (62%) were identified to be prehistoric
archaeological sites. Looting activity is evident at 128 (92%) of these
sites. This is similar to the 95% looting impact rate given for the
Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) which has a common boundary with
BISO (Ison 1989).

The 11 archeological sites in the monitoring program database which have
not been looted are either intact due to roof-fall, have very difficult
access and/or low visibility, of small size, have low artifact
densities, or all of the foregoing. Since the beginning of the
monitoring program 208 incidents of looting have been recorded. Most of
these were past episodes but 86 incidents of looting were relatively new
and 32 of these were repeat looting incidents occurring between
monitoring visits. Eight other rockshelters suffered digging impacts
made by animals.

One hundred nine rockshelters were monitored that had no artifacts
evident. Only 18 of these had been looted and many of these were in the
small (\<20 linear meters) category. It appears then, that the one
critical element that looters use to determine site location is the
presence of chert debitage. Usually this material is visible in the
dripline of a rockshelter but the 18 \"tested\" sites indicate that some
looters do understand that not all prehistoric rockshelter sites will be
immediately evident. The 91 rockshelters that have had no disturbances
will be dropped from future monitoring activities. Also archaeological
sites which have had no new impacts for a year or more can be monitored
on a yearly basis following the season of greatest activity, which in
BISO is during the Fall.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.229861111111111in" height="2.23125in"}

It was initially assumed that more archaeological site looting would be
evident along the federally constructed trails where heavy public use
occurs. It was also assumed that remote areas where few roads or trails
are located would have the least amount of looting. Figure 3
demonstrates that these ideas are not correct. While the hiking trail
areas, Zone I in the original monitoring program research design, have
suffered a tremendous amount of site looting more impacted sites were
found along Zone II, the horse trails and jeep roads. This fact was also
found to be true for jeep trails by Lightfoot and Francis (1978:89) on
US Forest Service lands in Colorado.

A direct relationship has been reported to exist at BISO and elsewhere
between rockshelter site looting and linear distance to jeep or
secondary roads (Ferguson et al. 1986:232; Wylie 1989) but monitoring
program data do not appear to reflect this very strongly. This may be
due to the fact that there are a number of unrecorded roads in the area
that serve to provide looter access. The same thing is evident in the
National Forest (DBNF) according to Ison et al. (1981:29), who found
that, \"\...accessibility is no problem because of numerous unrecorded
roads and undeveloped trails\". Another reason that this relationship
appears to be weak is because of the intense site looting that occurred
during TVA trail construction at BISO where unsupervised workers, some
of them avid relic collectors, worked for five years from 1981-1985
(Personal Informant 1987).

Remote areas of BISO, Zone III, evidenced more looting impacts
numerically but in the Zone II areas no archaeological rockshelter sites
were found that were not looted. Both Zones I & III, at least, possessed
some non-looted prehistoric rockshelter sites. New disturbances continue
to occur along hiking trails but to a lesser degree than in other areas
of BISO. The explanation for slightly lower site looting along
frequently used hiking trails may be found in a looters reluctance to
dig in areas where discovery would be more likely.

Regardless of accessibility or location rockshelter sites suffer from
repeated looting. The one evident fact is that \"Proximity to roads will
have a powerful influence on the **degree** of disturbance which can be
expected\" (Ferguson et al. 1986:239; bold added). This has been
observed to be the case during the monitoring program: remote location
offers little protection from repeated site looting.

Another statistic that was thought to have some significance in
documenting looting behavior is that of rockshelter size. It was thought
at the outset of this study that the larger rockshelters would indicate
selectively greater evidence of impacts. This, however, was not the
case; a fact also documented by the University of Tennessee Survey
(Ferguson, 1986:234). Rockshelters were divided by opening length into
small (1‑20m), medium (\>20m‑50m), and large (\>50m) sizes. The medium
sized rockshelter sites exhibit about twice as much impact as both large
and small rockshelter sites (Figure 4). This may be due to a selective
bias of looters for rockshelters larger than 20m in length and because
there are fewer prehistorically occupied small rockshelters. It may also
be a result of fewer prehistorically occupied large (\>50m) rockshelters
that are able to be dug into (Figure 5).

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.090277777777778in"
height="2.3534722222222224in"}

Many of the large category rockshelter sites have a great deal of
roof-fall which prevents them from being looted. Ison, Norville, and
Pollack (1981:28, 30) noted this fact too, in a study done in the Red
River Gorge area of the DBNF, where it was reported that while roof-fall
does protect some sites looters will attempt to break up roof-fall
boulders to dig under them for artifacts. One collector interviewed by
the monitoring program archeologist stated that he takes a block and
tackle back to particularly good sites in order to remove roof-fall.

Earlier findings of this study indicated that the hunting season (Fall)
accounted for most of the looting of archaeological resources in the
National Area (Des Jean 1987b:10). This situation has not changed but
new evidence indicates that looting activity is now occurring in the
summer at higher levels than anticipated (Figure 6). This summertime
looting activity may be the result of a continually rising rate of
visitation (Figure 7). The Red River Gorge study at DBNF (ISON et al.
1981:24) found that as visitation increased, so too did looting impacts,
at the rate of 10% for both developed and remote sites. The increase
observed in summertime looting may also be due in part to the fact that
the monitoring program database was not adequately set up during the
previous year (1987) to predict seasonal

trends by 1988. Impacts that occur during hunting season, based on
current data, still account for the majority (53%) of known sites looted
in BISO (Des Jean and Wilson 1989:5).

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="4.8in" height="2.3256944444444443in"}

**Assessing the Monitoring Program**

The three primary objectives of the monitoring program were accomplished
or modified as the program developed. Most of these procedures worked
well but a few problems that were encountered and a few successes that
were noteworthy will be discussed. Objectives (1c, 2a-2b) concerning
staff participation in monitoring activities were unworkable because of
limited personnel and Big South Forks\'s large and dispersed cultural
resource base. While no real systematic monitoring by BISO staff was
possible they were enthusiastic and did report 13 instances of recent
looting activity. Although not totally effective at BISO, staff
monitoring may work well in other areas where staffing is larger and the
cultural resources are better defined and concentrated.

The concept of horizontally stratified zones of archaeological site
impacts (2c) used in guiding the logistics and planning of the
monitoring program was not applicable here and was discarded. Objective
2d, determining the frequency of monitoring needed with respect to site
types, impacts, and zones, was generally not difficult to do but in a
few cases did prove impossible. Various reasons account for this: some
sites are assumed by looters to be \"played out\" while other sites
continue to be dug. In a few cases, sites are repeatedly and predictably
looted/vandalized allowing enforcement strategies to come into play with
a greater prospect of success.

The one useful variable for archaeological site protection strategies
was the determination that site looting was a seasonal activity geared
to greater visibility as a result of leaf fall and vegetation dieback in
the Fall. The Fall season also coincides with snake hibernation and the
hunting season. The latter providing a time to be in the woods and the
opportunity to search in many areas without worrying about snakes, which
are numerous on the Upper Cumberland Plateau.

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="4.6097222222222225in"
height="2.3868055555555556in"}

Secondary objectives included increasing the knowledge of cultural
resources in the Big South Fork area and increasing public awareness.
Secondary objective 1 called for surveying new areas of the park and
surface collection of sites to help define a cultural chronology for
this area of the Upper Cumberland Plateau. As a result the monitoring
program identified approximately 150 new archeological sites and
collections made at these sites has helped to establish a more reliable
cultural chronology.

The other Secondary objective was for the monitoring program
archaeologist to provide education programs at local schools, to help
develop interpretation programs at BISO, and to help law enforcement
personnel in archaeological site protection efforts. A number of
programs were developed to educate the public using school \"chalk &
talk\" programs, a cultural hiking trail, an area \"Dig Box\" activity,
and posters and activity hand outs for children.

Primary objective 3d and secondary objective 2c concern recommendations
for eliminating effects of adverse impacts. Suggestions were made to
reduce looting impacts through law enforcement measures using up-to-date
data supplied by the on‑going monitoring program. This was done with the
result that four suspects were apprehended in the act of looting an
archaeological site. These suspects later pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. This
conviction was one of the first made in the Eastern United States for
the looting of a prehistoric site.

**Conclusion**

The Applicability of various protection strategies has been discussed
extensively at BISO and has resulted in an Archeological Resources
Protection Plan (Des Jean 1988b). The plan outlined a number of
strategies which rely on information developed from an ongoing
archeological sites monitoring program. These suggestions include: law
enforcement methods involving remote sensing, increased backcountry
patrolling, increasing warning signs, and increased seasonal protection;
management strategies, including focusing protection efforts in critical
zones, selective protection of critically significant sites, and closing
public access to critical areas; maintenance strategies, involving
rerouting roads and trails and erecting barricades to prevent looting in
critical rockshelter sites; and, interpretation efforts to increase
public education programs.

Information gathered during the monitoring program indicates that there
are three types of looters: (1) opportunists, (2) those that collect for
personal acquisition, and (3) those who collect for profit (Des Jean
1988a:6). Ison, Norville, and Pollack (1981:30‑32) also identified 3
classes of looters/vandals; un‑intentional (opportunists), relic
collectors (acquisition), and commercial looters (profiteers). Law
enforcement, Interpretation, and Education strategies may have to be
tailored to the characteristics of each class of looter in order to
effectively combat the impacts of this activity.

In addition to the deterrence provided by increasing law enforcement,
public education is the other necessary approach towards protection of
the archaeological resources on our public lands. The Red River Gorge
study (Ison et al. 1981), the Little Colorado Planning Unit Study (Plog
1978), and this monitoring program study have all come to the same
conclusions: that Law enforcement and public education are the most
important deterrents to archaeological site destruction (Ison et al.
1981:34); and that, \"Education is the most important means of
protecting archaeological resources\" (Lightfoot and Francis 1978:34).
Educating the general public on the elementary, middle school, high
school, and adult level will instill a degree of appreciation and
understanding for the value of cultural resources. Hopefully this will
prevent unchanneled interest in prehistoric peoples from becoming a
frenzy of site destruction and relic collecting. The dividends from such
public education programs, though, will not be observed for years. Of
course for some looters education will have little effect. For those the
only deterrent is the criminal justice system.

**References Cited**

Des Jean, T. (1987a) Monitoring Archaeological Site Impacts. Paper
Presented at the 44th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Charleston, South Carolina.

Des Jean, T. (1987b) Monitoring Program Interim Report: Following the
Completion of Phase I of the Archaeological sites Monitoring Program at
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. National Park
Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee

Des Jean, T. (1988a) Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for FY88 through FY92. National
Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee

Des Jean, T. (1988b) Looting Activity: A Folk Tradition of the Upper
Cumberland Plateau. [Lamar Briefs No. 11:6-7]{.underline}, Watkinsville,
Georgia

Des Jean, T. and Wilson, R. C. (1989) Vandalism Behavior in the National
Parks: Diagnoses and Treatment. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual
Meeting of the Soc. for Am. Archaeology, Atlanta

Faust, R. (1986) Archaeological Resources Status Report, Big South Fork
National River and Recreation Area. National Park Service, Southeast
Archaeological Center, Tallahassee

Ferguson, T.A., Pace, R.A., Gardner, J.W., and Hoffman, R.J. (1986)
Final Report of the Big South Fork Archaeological Project: Survey,
Testing and Recommendations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville
District

Ison, C. (1989) Oldest Indian Site in Kentucky, 7-12-89. [Lexington
Herald-Leader]{.underline}, Lexington

Ison, C., Norville, C., and Pollack, D. (1981) Vandalism of Rockshelter
Sites in Red River Gorge, Kentucky: An Assessment. Dept. of
Anthropology, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington

Lightfoot, K.G., and Francis, J.E. (1978) Management Information and
Recommendations. In [An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resource
Management: The Little Colorado Planning Unit]{.underline}., F.C. Plog,
ed. Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers No. 13.,
Tempe, Arizona

Lyneis, M.M., Weide, D.L., and Warren, E. (1980) [Impacts: Damage to
Cultural Resources of the California Desert]{.underline}. Dept. of
Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Plog, F. (1978) [An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resource Management:
The Little Colorado Planning Unit]{.underline}. Arizona State
University, Anthropological Research Papers No.13. Tempe, Arizona

Wylie, J. (1989) Archaeological Protection Efforts. [Federal Archaeology
Report, August 1989 Vol.2, No.3:pp5]{.underline}. Washington, D.C.

Williams, L. R. (1978) Vandalism of the Resources of the Rocky Mountain
West. [Cultural Resources Report No. 21]{.underline} USDA, United States
Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque.