If public use, describe

If sheet erosion, describe ground surface and indicate direction of source of water

If shoreline of stream bank erosion, specify:

primary cause of erosion estimated equilibrium slope
current waves Soil type: __—_sands

primarily wind generated __ravels
primarily boat generated ___ unconsolidated
primarily primary waves __clay
combination primary and rebound waves other

wave fetch direction

length of wave fetch

prevailing wind direction
If vandalism, describe types of activities

If looting, describe extent

If timber harvesting, identify impacts: timber cutting shidder tracks Staging area haul roads
If off road vehicles, describe type of impact and type of vehicles, and frequency of intrusion

If cyclical inundation, indicate frequency and maximum depth of water

Map site location to scale, including section, township, range, and quad (attach)


DEVELOPING A SITE CONSERVATION DATABASE

IMPROVING
THE INFORMATION BASE

The briefs series is designed and produced
by the 00! Cepartmental Consulting
Archeologist/MPS Archeology and
Ethnography Program. The series editors are
Francis P. McManamon and Richard C.
Waldbaver. Send comments, ideas for
briefs, and requests for copies to:

Editor

HPS Archeology and
Ethnography Program

P.O. Box 37127

Washington, D.C. 20013-7127

ologist must return to the field to collect information for a management plan. Ideally, the man-
aging archeologist should be able to complete that plan with information already in hand

Archeological projects guided by a scopes of services usually call for the collecting of man-
agement-level information according to professional guidelines. In many cases, however, the
guidelines emphasize anthropological value over management concerns.

Archeological sites tend to be dynamic natural settings, since they would have provided the
original inhabitants with access to the greatest diversity of resources. Increasingly intense con-
temporary land use has led to physiographic and topographic alterations that, in turn, inten-
sify the effects of naturally destructive processes. These culturally derived forces affect not only
the contents of archeological sites, but their locations as well, and not always in ways that can
be anticipated.

Flooding of stream valleys is both expected and predictable. The impact of the 1993
Mississippi flood on archeological resources has not been fully assessed, but some of the results
can be predicted. Sites in the crevasses of the levee system are likely to be scoured over their
surfaces, with some of their deposits removed. Conversely, sites in areas covered by slowly
moving flood waters may have been covered with a film of silts. In either case, the depositional
environment of the artifacts would be altered, and the long-term effects on the various classes
of artifacts within the site would be difficult to predict.

Post-flood data on the effects of hydraulic forces and standing water can be useful in the
future. Pre-flooding site location data may not be sufficient as the basis for assessing impacts.

Most survey projects are recorded in field notes and on various forms. But it is the forms rather
than the field notes that usually serve as documentation when devising a management plan for
a threatened site. These forms contain an attenuated version of the information from the orig-
inal field notes, but as noted earlier, this information is usually intended for site location,
chronology, and interpretive use, not for management. Therefore, field archeologists should
collect more information than usual during their surveys. Having to go back and reassess a site
only adds to the cost of management.

The two sample forms in this brief have been devised to encourage the collection of basic
management data. They are presented in two formats. While they may not meet all of the
needs of every management agency, they can serve as a model for creating appropriate forms.
Managers may add or delete classes of data according to their needs.

To abate the protest that will follow the suggestion for more paperwork, every effort has been
made to ensure that the information in the recommended data set is necessary for the manage-
ment of an archeological property, An alternative to the creation of additional forms would be
to incorporate some or all of the suggested data categories into existing data collection systems.

£ a Bulk Rate
¢ O....0 Third Class Mail
ae Progam? Postage and Fees Paid

USDI-APS Permit
NO. 6-83


ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE MANAGEMENT DATA

Site number Field site number State County
Management agency Site file number
Utm zone Utm coordinates: north east

Type of site (midden, mound, etc.)

Site dimensions: long axis orientation short axis orientation maximum depth
Admitted to the National Register ‘Determined eligible for the National Register
Describe the location and environmental setting of the site (shoreline, riverbank, field, etc.)

Aitifact classes in site

Is resource loss immminent? yes. 0
Estimated immediacy of loss
Estimated rate of loss (feet/year, etc.)
Percentage and type of ground cover: TL ograsses 7 bushes TL trees other
Causes of adverse impact: agricultural development public use Sheet erosion Shoreline erosion

vandalism looting timber harvesting __off-road vehicles jetski cyclical inundation
If agricultural identify primary crops and type of agriculture {row crops, drilled, no tll, etc.)

If development, describe



ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE MANAGEMENT DATA

Site number Field site number State County
Management agency Site file number
Utm zone Utm coordinates: north east

Type of site (midden, mound, etc.)

Site dimensions: long axis orientation Short axis orientation maximum depth
Admitted to the Hational Register Determined eligible for the National Register
Describe the location and environmental setting of the site (shoreline, riverbank, field, etc.)

Artifact classes in site

IStesource loss immminent? yes in
Estimated immediacy of loss
Estimated rate of loss (feet/year, etc.)
Percentage and type of ground cover: 1. grasses 1. bushes trees other
Causes of adverse impact:

as

Adverse impact Comments of description
Agriculture Identify type of agriculture (row crops, drilled, no till, etc.) and crops

tS
§ f M PLE 2


Developing an Archeological Site
Conservation Database

Robert Thorne

National Clearinghouse for Archaeological Site
Stabilization, Center for Archaeological Research,
University of Mississippi

hough the conservation and long-term management of arche-
ological sites is now generally accepted wisdom, it wasn’t
always so. A traditional bias toward excavation and the keep-
ing of only basic site data has had effects that linger on today.
Historically, and to the detriment of long-term site care, infor-
mation has been collected with only fundamental concerns such as loca-
tion and interpretation in mind. Excavation was favored over in-place con-
servation, under the assumption that the latter was too complicated and
expensive. But the true cost of excavation is often more than anticipated,
and often grows as the curation of objects is projected into the future.
What should a resource manager know to compose an effective long-
term plan? It goes far beyond a site’s age and location. What are the envi-
ronmental dynamics of the setting? What kind of ground cover grows
there? What is the soil type? Is damage being caused by vandals? Cyclical
inundation? Timber harvesting? Off-road vehicles? Jet-skis?
This brief addresses the care of archeological sites over time, with accom-

panying forms to help in planning for a site’s future.

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTING ARCHEOLOGIST
ARCHEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY PROGRAM

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, CULTURAL RESOURCES

NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

pril 1996



a

Adverse impact
Development

Public use

Sheet erosion

Shoreline/streambank
erosion

Vandalism

Looting

Timber harvesting
Off-road vehicles

Jet ski
Cyclical inundation

Comments or description
Describe.

Describe.

Describe ground surface and indicate direction of water source.

Primary causes Estimated equilibrium slope
current waves
primarily wind generated Soil type:___ sands
primarily boat generated ___oravels
primarily primary waves ___ unconsolidated
combination primary and rebound waves __ clay
wave fetch direction other
length of wave fetch
prevailing wind direction
Describe.
Describe extent.

timber cutting Skidder tracks staging areas haul roads
Describe type of vehicle, impact, and frequency of intrusion.

Indicate frequency and maximum depth of water.

Map site location to scale, including section, township, range, and quad (attach)
—— SS


me

DEVELOPING A SITE CONSERVATION DATABASE

“Traditionally trained archeologists are
often unprepared to provide alternatives
for site conservation, which means that
fesource managers have been forced to
accept the recommendations from pro-

fessionals in other fields.*

Cost CONSIDERATIONS

Toward Proactive Management

n the last three decades, the management of archeological resources has slowly shifted from
solving site destruction problems as they are discovered to actively identifying and managing
resources whether they are being damaged or not. More proactive treatment of cultural
resources does not necessarily signal a policy change on the part of land managers. Rather, it
may indicate that agencies charged with stewardship are becoming increasingly aware of their
mandated responsibilities.

Soon after the passage of the legislation that has proven to be the driving force in resource
management—the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979—numerous fed-
eral and state agencies found that their cultural resource officers were trained neither in arche-
ology nor any of its allied disciplines. Many managers lacked an understanding of their legis-
lated responsibilities. Many were without the professional staff needed to adequately manage
archeological properties. Some simply saw archeological resources as the bane of their exis-
tence and only grudgingly committed funding and manpower to identify and protect elements
of our national heritage. Other managers, to their credit, worked diligently to protect cultural
resources even though they had little understanding of what they were protecting. Site man-
agement was only as effective as available expertise and funding allowed it to be.

During the 1970s, when an archeological site was endangered, the most frequently consid-
ered management options were data recovery or resource avoidance. Active resource conser-
vation was undertaken only in a few instances, even though it was a preferred mitigation
choice in the legislative and regulatory process. Avoidance was viewed as a means of protect-
ing a resource against an immediate adverse effect. While the avoidance approach does con-
stitute a form of conservation that can address a primary impact, it may not consider secondary
impacts.

There are a number of reasons why data recovery has traditionally been the preferred option
for archeologists:

—Archeologists are generally trained to excavate sites, not to conserve them.

—Managers believe that the data contained in the site is vitally important in answering
research questions.

—Few managers know about the variety of techniques available to conserve archeological
sites.

—Managers think that conservation, in the long run, is more expensive than recovery;
perhaps the most important consideration in determining whether a site would be
excavated or conserved.

Traditionally trained archeologists are often unprepared to provide alternatives for site con-
servation, which means that resource managers have been forced to accept the recommenda-
tions from professionals in other fields. As a consequence, most techniques for in-place conser-
vation have followed traditional engineering design. Such methods are most effective in dynam-
ic environments such as coastal shorelines, but they are considerably more expensive than data
recovery, particularly when the cost of long-term maintenance is added. In less volatile envi-
ronments, other techniques can conserve a resource over a long period of time, have a lower
initial cost, and require only limited maintenance. Whatever the case, long-term maintenance
must be the cornerstone of a conservation plan, regardless of the techniques chosen.

Recent changes in the regulatory process have introduced new mandates that will require a
careful comparison of long-term conservation costs as opposed to excavation and curation.


Budgeting for excavation, analysis, and report preparation is almost routine, but this is only
part of the total project cost. To be truly accurate, budgets should figure in the long-term
expense of curation as now mandated. The problem is, the full range of curatorial problems
that can arise from an excavation has not been identified, nor have the respective costs. If the
cost of curating any single class of artifacts under controlled conditions is not known, no mit-
igation budget can be complete.

Stone tools, for example, require little care, but consider wooden artifacts that have been in
wet environments for hundreds or thousands of years. Once removed, they will deteriorate
rapidly unless kept continually wet. Special treatment can slow and in some cases arrest dete-
rioration as these artifacts adjust to the curation environment. But special treatment drives up
excavation costs.

The non-artifactual portion of an excavation can contain long-term costs as well. The useful
life of electronic storage media seems as yet unknown. Some estimates are as little as five years,
which raises the question of how often records and reports will have to be replicated.
Computers and programs tend to become outdated quickly. Some data sets could conceivably
become inaccessible unless the software itself is curated. As curation becomes more demand-
ing, the services of curation facilities will most likely become more expensive.

A mote recent cost that must be figured into any data recovery program is compliance with the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Projects completed prior to NAGPRA
approximated the cost of compliance. However, compliance costs have not been accurately doc-
umented. As these costs are documented, they will be added to project budgets, and the cost of
mitigation by excavation will rise accordingly. In situ conservation of archeological remains
(when possible and practical) will eliminate much of the cost associated with mitigation.

As amendments have strengthened cultural resource management laws, agencies have gained
experience in managing their resources. Proactive treatment has also become more accepted
An increasing number of non-archeologists are attending archeology management workshops
sponsored by the National Park Service, which discuss in situ conservation as well as excava-
tion and curation.

Most land-managing organizations now have either in-house archeologists or contracts for
archeological expertise. But while the general management picture has changed dramatically
over the last three decades, the collection of baseline archeological data has not met these agen-
cies’ management needs. This is not to imply that archeological information was or is not avail-
able. Rather, it shows how the traditional purposes for collecting this information are no longer
adequate.

All states (and many federal agencies) maintain site location files for the properties they man-
age. But the focus of most state inventories has been primarily on answering questions as:
Where is the site located? When was it occupied? Is it eligible for the National Register? Is it
being damaged? By what, or by whom? This information may be more than adequate for site
interpretation, but not enough for resource management. Inventories of federal land holdings
have been mandated, but have not yet been completed. Land managers must still rely on site
location data that was recorded 50 years ago, and data currently being collected may not be
adequate 50 years from now.

At many land managing agencies, archeologists are becoming increasingly office bound with
dwindling knowledge of the resources in their charge. They must rely on surveys to direct and
support their management efforts. In many cases, to supplement what data do exist, an arche-

“While the general management picture
has changed dramatically over the last
three decades, the collection of baseline
archeological data has not met agencies’
management needs.”

INADEQUACIES OF SITE Data

DEVELOPING A SITE CONSERVATION DATABASE