Burying the site

The mechanical process of burying the site must be designed
in a manner that will insure that the site matrix is protected
during the placement process. Preconstruction testing can be
used to determine the construction equipment and fill material
load limits that are allowable without causing compression or
warpage of the artifact and feature components of the site.
Compression from the weight of the machinery necessary to
place the fill should not pose a problem since relatively heavy
equipment exerts only a small amount of vertical pressure per
square inch. As the depth of the fill increases, the pressure
exerted by any equipment crossing the site is further
dissipated. Vibrations that might cause settling of the matrix
are similarly reduced and dampened as the depth of the fill
increases. Consideration should be given to damage to upper
levels of the site that may result from the grinding action of
heavy equipment taffic. It is essential that the first layer of
fill to be placed across the site be thick enough to adequately
buffer the matrix. Equipment operators should be provided
with sufficient information about the project so that they will
understand the need to protect the site from equipment
movement. Tracked equipment is preferred because the pads
on the tracks effectively spread the weight of the equipment
over a greater area.

Monitoring the site

Finally, provisions must be made to monitor the site once the
burial process is completed. In this instance, post-burial
monitoring of the site may go beyond simply making periodic
inspection visits. While monitoring must include regularly
scheduled inspections, those visits will be made for the
specific purpose of continuing to contribute to the protection
of the resource.

Post-burial monitoring, as recommended here, will have
several meanings. Any of these can be applied to any site,
but each must be used on a site-by-site basis. At its lowest
level, monitoring will be completed to do little more than
regularly ascertain the condition of the surface of the site and
to have those observations recorded. At the next level, site
condition observations will be made, problems of stability
noted, and some effort will then be made to rectify any
problems. These two views of monitoring deal with the
condition of the newly created surface and not with the buried
archeological site. The most complex of the monitoring
procedures will deal with determining the condition of the
archeological matrix. Since the resource will no longer be
readily accessible, the decision must be made during the
design phase of the project as to which monitoring approach
will be taken. If it is to be the latter course, evaluation
procedures must be incorporated into the total burial plan.

Post-burial test areas should be determined, and these loci
must be noted on appropriate maps and tied to the system of
benchmarks that will be set to mark the location of the site. If
subsurface evaluations are planned for a number of years, a
schedule of specific test loci should be prepared. The
locations of these successive test units will be in part
dependent on the types of evaluation data that are to be
recovered. Generally, if test excavation and boring place-
ments are to be used, they should be designed to avoid known
or suspected archeological feature locations. Any form of

blind subsurface testing such as boring always has the
potential of damaging or destroying significant features
unless locations are incorporated into the burial design.

Electronic monitoring of subsurface conditions also should be
considered during the design phase of the project. Various
metering gauges are available to record pressure and soil
movement both vertically and horizontally. Magnetic
displacement gauges that are designed to measure movement
under road surfaces are appropriate for use in an archeologi-
cal context and their use will not require any subfill
disturbance.

If sufficient testing is completed prior to working out a burial
design and if the burial design is properly conceived, no
additional disturbance should accrue to the cultural deposit as
a result of placement of the fill. Responsibility for the
adequacy of the design will be in the hands of the geologist
and the engineer and, given an appropriate design, site
monitoring should be concerned with only the condition of
the superimposed fill material.

To insure that the appropriate monitoring regimen is
adequately carried out, a schedule should be prepared that
details a timetable for the process and the extent to which
testing will be taken. A statement specifying the intent of the
monitoring as well as the schedule for inspection visits should
be incorporated into an agreement that will be signed prior to
completing the plans to bury the resource.

Cost considerations

Costs for the burial of a resource will vary from site to site
and are dependent on a number of factors. Certain fixed costs
can be anticipated, however. Salary or professional fees and
overhead should be included for the mullidisciplinary team
(archeologist, geologist, and engineer) for both the design and
installation phases. Geologic and engineering sample
collection and analysis costs must be anticipated, both for the
matrix and the fill material. If a natural filter is to be
installed, it also should be tested to insure compatibility with
the site’s geological and hydraulic components. Engineering
survey and setting of the permanent benchmarks will be
additional essential costs since benchmarks must be carefully
located to facilitate post-installation monitoring.

Material costs will include the benchmarks, the filtering agent
and its installation, the fill material and its transportation and
placement, and any remote sensing monitoring devices. If
revegetation of the newly created surface is a part of the
design plan, acquisition and installation of cover plants will
form part of the total cost. If fertilizer must be used as a part
of such a plan, care must be taken that it not affect the
chemical composition of the archeological deposits

Monitoring costs for the proposed period should be an-
ticipated, and a mechanism must be devised to insure that
future funding is available. Most previously completed
projects recommend subsurface testing over a period of years
that typically goes beyond the ability of any agency to
guarantee funding. The direct consequence is that agencies
will be reluctant at best to enter into such an agreement, since
budgetary structuring is established on a year-by-year basis.



-8-

1989

1988

1986

of site burial as a reasonable mitigation measure. He concludes what appears to be a negative view of site burial by
indicating that limited knowledge about a significant archeological site is sufficient justification for its preservation
using this method. More importantly, Appendix 2 describes the proposed burial activity. It includes as part of that
description portions of the Bureau of Reclamation’s original burial proposal with data on compaction, settlement,
and slumping which were used to predict how the archeological component might react to burial under a 3-foot
protective covering. This appendix provides a great deal of insight into the planning and testing required prior to the
burial of an archeological property.

Mathewson, Christopher C. (editor)

Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Physical-Chemical-Biological Processes Affecting Archeological Sites. Contract
Report EL-89-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.

The information in this report was collected to develop an archeological site decay model that can be applied in
planning and design activities for intentional site burial projects. It presents the papers of the workshop as a
convenient summary of current scientific knowledge concerning site development processes and their influences on
cultural materials, Cultural and natural processes are discussed, particularly to identify interactions of physical,
biological and chemical factors with archeological site components. The archeological site decay model is based
upon the decay matrix illustrated in Figure 1 (in this technical brief).

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

The Archeological Site Protection and Preservation Notebook. Environmental Research Program, Vicksburg.

‘The notebook contains a regularly updated series of technical notes that summarize original research and abstracted
published and unpublished accounts about site preservation. They address the causes of site degradation and
techniques for in situ site protection. The notebook is organized into eleven chapters that cover different protection
categories. The chapter on intentional site burial contains three technical notes. Two additional notes on the subject
will be published in the immediate future.

Wilkie, Duncan C., Michael T. Aide, and Ray Knox

Phase Ill, Archaeological Mitigation of Archaeological Sites 23BU239 and 23BU241. Report submitted to the
Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, Jefferson City.

‘The authors summarize both the Phase I and Phase II work completed at these two sites and the Scope of Work for
the mitigation project. Site burial and artifact reburial are included as basic components of the mitigation plan. They
further indicate that the research design for Phase II] work will be based on an improvement of the CALTRANS site
burial test project. They indicate that the present project is designed to test the impact of moderately deep burial on
both artifacts and intact site components. Portions of both sites were left undisturbed and scheduled to be covered as
a part of the construction phase of Route 60. Following sclective excavation and detailed analysis of the recovered
artifacts, representative examples were returned to the site and reburied in their original locations.

Recommendations for measuring burial impact include soil chemistry tests at 2-year intervals and excavations to
compare undisturbed features and reburied artifacts after a 10-year interval. This interval should allow the detection
of any impacts that burial and reburial will have on the site and its contents. A description of the engineering design
used in the burial of these two sites is not contained in the Scope of Work, the mitigation proposal, ot the archeologi-
cal report. One is left to assume that standard Missouri Highway and Transportation Department engineering ancl
construction design was used. Complete physical and chemical data as well as some soil compaction data were
gathered to serve as a baseline in (uture studies.



ment activities is the most direct benefit, particularly when
the multidisciplinary team responsible for the stabilization
design plan clearly defines and sets such goals.

Protection from natural processes

Naturally occurring loss is a combination of site and content
aging with some form of erosion. If a site is not shielded
from the consequences of rainfall, the combined effects of
frost heaves, subsequent rainfall and strong winds, deflation
of the surface will be continuous. The effects of acid rain on
site contents are as yet poorly understood, but some form of
protection may be necessary.

An obvious advantage of site burial is that surface erosion of
the archeological matrix is eliminated when a new land
surface is produced. Similarly, future freezing and thawing
can be eliminated by designing the fill depth to exceed the
depth of the frost line. Newly created land surface or strata
can also provide relief from the absorbed effects of acid rain
as well as serving to shed rainwater. Sites that are within
reservoir or lake drawdown zones or along the splash zone of
lake margins are not considered to be prime candidates for
this treatment. Earth burial is only an appropriate means of
stabilizing sites in wave impact environments if the design
plan includes some form of hard covering that will protect the
newly created surface, e.g., riprap, bulkheads, or filter fabric.
(See Thome 1988b for discussion of the use of filter fabrics
as protective hard covering.)

Revegetation should be a part of the stabilization plan to
insure land surface stability, and the newly created land
surface can be used for a variety of purposes within specified
limits. In specific instances, surface stability can be assured
while cash crops are being cultivated on the newly placed fill.
Care must be exercised in allowing agricultural production to
continue after fill is in place (Figure 2), and there must be
regular monitoring to insure that post-burial damage is
minimized (Figure 3).

If properly designed, the site and the superimposed fill can be
used as extra-load bearing strata for parking lot construction.
The broadest possible post-burial uses of the new land surface
should be anticipated during the preservation planning and
design phase. The design criteria for those uses must be
incorporated into the stabilization program.

Project Methods and Procedures

Several other concems must be taken into account before
proceeding with the actual burial of an archeological
resource, First among these is the establishment of a
reference or benchmark system so that the site and specific
loci within it can be relocated in the future. This is particu-
larly important if future scientific investigation is specified as
a goal for the burial project. Permanent markers should be set
and appropriate maps should be marked to indicate the
location of the site. Pertinent benchmark data should be
noted on the maps as well as contained in a written report.
Clear and easily located on-the-ground marking is particularly
important if the site is likely to be in a construction impact
zone in the future. If post-burial use of the newly created

Figure 2. The Rock Creek Site, Natchez Trace Parkway,
Alabama: Site returned to cultivation.

Figure 3. The Rock Creek Site, Natchez Trace Parkway,
‘Alabama: Buried site approximatively two years later
showing damage from farm equipment.

stratigraphic layer is anticipated, benchmark placement
should be done in such a manner as to accommodate the new
use.

To insure that there is no inadvertent mixing between the
archeological matrix and the covering material, the installa-
tion of some form of horizon marker may be desirable. A
number of filter fabrics are available that can serve such a
purpose (Thorne 1988b). Most of the filter fabrics are
chemically inert and have a relatively long lifespan if
exposure to the sun is minimized. Alternatively, culturally
sterile sand, gravel, furnace slag (1/4"), or a clay-gravel lens
may be placed between the fill and the site matrix to clearly
mark the stratigraphic contact zone. Gravels and other
naturally occurring materials may be used, but only if they
have a zero distribution within the archeological matrix. Care
must also be taken to insure that the horizon marker does not
alter the chemical or hydrostatic character of the cultural
deposit unless such a change has been intentionally incorpo-
rated into the burial design. The use of tightly compacted
clays or clay-gravels has the potential of altering the
permeability of the site as well as introducing pH variations.



It may be that the most direct route to post-burial monitoring
funds will be through a specific line item request in the
operations and maintenance budget of the appropriate branch
of an agency. In many instances, the construction unit of an
agency will relinquish responsibility for a project once
construction is completed, and maintenance for the post-
burial period will become the responsibility of another
branch. Communication of responsibility between branches
is an absolute necessity if these responsibilities are to be
adequately met.

To insure that adequate funds are available and that the
monitoring process is regular and timely, funds should be
placed in the line item budget on a yearly basis. Once the
item becomes a specific part of a budget, continuation on a

yearly basis will be less difficult and will insure also that the
monitoring effort meets preservation requirements.

Request for Assistance

Information exchange about site stabilization is available
from and should be reported to:

Dr. Robert M. Thorne

National Clearinghouse for Archaeological Site
Stabilization

Center for Archaeological Research

University of Mississippi

University, MS 38677

Archeological Site Stabilization Bibliography

‘The National Clearinghouse for Archaeological Site Stabilization maintains a bibliography that is intended to support the concep-

tualization, design, and development of site stabilization and preservation projects. The bibliography

divided into four sections:

(1) Philosophy, (2) Technical Support, (3) Management Recommendations, and (4) Practical Applications. Annotations follow
some of the entries and provide the user with a brief but sufficient sketch of the entry. As new source materials become available
they are entered into the reference work.

Section I - Philosophy provides an overview for site preservation and stabilization and provides the user with sufficient background
to philosophically justify archeological site stabilization projects. Section 2 - Technical Support draws together technical informa-
tion that is generally unknown to archeologists. Reliance on and knowledge of these data are integral to the design of stabilization
projects, particularly if cost effective and innovative stabilization measures are to be put into place. Section 3 - Management
Recommendations contains a mix of projects to provide the user with an idea of how site stabilization has been approached.
Section 4 - Practical Applications is devoted to the presentation of specific archeological site stabilization case histories. Data

contained in these case histories will provide an insight into the planning and implementation of stabilization projects.

For a copy of the the Bibliography, write to the address listed above.

References Cited

Carr, Christopher
1982
‘American Archeology Press, Evanston.

Chace, Paul G.
1981
Archeology) 3(1).

Chapman, Jefferson
1978

Perspectives on Archeological Site Capping.

Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying: Interpretation of Data from Earthen Archeological Sites. Center for

Contract Abstracts and CRM Archeology (now American

The Bacon Farm Site and a Buried Site Reconnaissance. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology

No. 21, University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations Number 23, Knoxville.

Garfinkel, Alan P., and Bobby L. Lister
1983
Department of Transportation, Sacramento.

Haynes, C. Vance, Jr., and E. Thomas Hemming
1968

Jensen, Peter M.
1976

Effects of High Embankment Construction on Archaeological Materials. Transportation Laboratory, Califomia

Mammuoth-bone Shaft Wrench from Murray Springs, Arizona. Science 159:381 1.

Archaeological Investigations at CA-MER-27. The First California Site for which Total Coverage with Soil has

been Agreed to as Partial Mitigation. Report prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento.



£ ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
: Technical Brief No. 5, September 1989 (Revised 1991)

INTENTIONAL SITE BURIAL:
A Technique to Protect against Natural or Mechanical Loss

By Robert M. Thorne

Center for Archaeological Research, University of Mississippi

This is the second technical brief in the series on site
stabilization and maintenance developed through cooperation
among the Center for Archaeological Research at the
University of Mississippi, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
the National Park Service. The series is based upon existing
knowledge and stabilization project experiences to provide
programmatic guidance appropriate for problem solving. As
baseline information, the series demonstrates the highly
variable conditions surrounding archeological site loss,
discusses alternatives, and suggests how applicable
stabilization techniques can be modified to meet needs.

Information exchange is an important objective of this series.
The National Clearinghouse for Archaeological Site
Stabilization is organized as a central location at which to
seek information as well as to foster interactions among
governmental agencies, professionals, and the private sector.
It is one solution to the concern for improving technology
transfer in historic preservation. The address and telephone
number of the Clearinghouse are given at the end of this
technical brief.

Introduction

In an absolute sense, the preservation of archeological sites is
an unattainable goal, since the aging process of all materials
is ongoing. Techniques are available, however, to retard
losses to site integrity that are the result of natural and/or
cultural processes. To the extent that the processes that cause
these losses can be slowed, resources can be stabilized and
protected, and in that sense, preserved. Intentional site burial
is offered as another of several alternatives that may prove to
be appropriate means of achieving that goal.

Covering archeological sites is not a new phenomenon, since
the natural burial of sites is a common occurrence. The
Murray Springs site in southem Arizona (Haynes and
Hemming 1968) and the Bacon Bend site in eastern Ten-
nessee (Chapman 1978) were covered as a result of gradual
colluvial and/or alluvial deposition, while the ancient Roman
cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii were rapidly sealed by
volcanic activity. Natural covering in these instances has
worked in much the same manner as artificial covering: some
kinds of artifacts and ecofacts are well preserved, while the
loss of other kinds may be accelerated.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

In reality, stratified archeological deposits may be viewed as
microcosmic cases of site burial. Each succeeding occupation
or each succeeding flooding episode buries the preceding
deposits and to some extent, protects the earlier, lower
occupational levels from changes that may be the result of
physical and chemical processes on the land surface. Cultural
and environmental changes proceed at sufficiently gradual
rates so that in most cases succeeding depositions are
chemically and biologically compatible with the lower levels
and decay of the lower levels is not accelerated. Mechanical
loss of the lower levels of sites occurs as new pits are dug,
new posts are set, and as a result of bioturbation associated
with the latest in the series of occupations. Like the burial of
the Murray Springs and Bacon Bend sites, differential
preservation of the various artifact classes is an accepted
property of archeological sites.

The burial or intentional covering of archeological properties
has been used as a means of protecting resources from natural
or mechanical loss (U.S. Department of the Interior 1975:
Jensen 1976; Chace 1981; Klinger 1982; Garfinkel and Lister
1983; Thome, et al. 1987; Wilkie, Aide, and Knox 1986).
Most of the completed intentional site burial projects that
have been reported are in or adjacent to construction areas.
An annotated bibliography describing some of those efforts is
given at the end of this technical brief.

Design of an Effective Project

The objective of this technical brief is to provide guidance on
design of an effective project for intentional site burial. {
identifies the process by which an archeological program
manager can: (1) evaluate the components of the site; (2)
measure potential impacts, including decay processes, against
the goals for protecting the site; (3) assess the benefits of
intentional site burial; and (4) specify the methods and
procedures to be used in the project, including cost
considerations.

Documented cases of site burial can be referred for back-
ground technical and methodological support when a new
Project is being considered, but every site that is considered
for artificial covering must be treated as a separate case. This
is due in part to the extent of variability among individual
sites as well as the degree to which the components



Klinger, Thomas C.
1982 The Mangrum Site, Mitigation Through Excavation and Preservation. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research
Series No. 20, Fayetteville.

Mathewson, Christopher C.
1988 Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Sites through Burial: A Multidisciplinary Problem. Paper presented
at the 1988 Society for Applied Anthropology Meeting. Paper on file at the Center for Engineering Geosciences,
Texas A & M University.

Mathewson, Christopher C. (editor)
1989 Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Physical-Chemical-Biological Processes Affecting Archeological Sites. Contract
Report EL-89-1, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.

Mathewson, Christopher C., and Tania Gonzales
1988 Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Sites through Burial. In Engineering Geology of Ancient Works,
Monuments and Historical Sites: Preservation and Protection, edited by Paul G. Marinos and George C. Koukis,
pp. 519-526. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Thome, Robert M.
19882 Guidelines for the Organization of Archeological Sites Stabilization Projects: A Modeled Approach. Technical
Report EL-88-8, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.

1988b Filter Fabric: A Technique for Short-term Site Stabilization. Archeological Assistance Program Technical Brief
No. 1, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Thorne, Robert M., Patricia M. Fay, and James J. Hester
1987 Archeological Site Preservation Techniques: A Preliminary Review. Technical Report EL-87-3, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.

U.S. Department of the Interior
1975 Professional Considerations Surrounding Non-Aqueous Burial of Archeological Sites. Interagency Archeological
Program Administrative Memorandum No. 4; Supplement No.1. Interagency Archeological Services, U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Wilkie, Duncan C., Michael T. Aide, and Ray Knox
1986 Phase Ill, Archaeological Mitigation of Archaeological Sites 23BU239 and 23BU241. Report submitted to the
Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, Jefferson City.

Annotated Bibliography

Garfinkel, Alan P., and Bobby L. Lister
1983 Effects of High Embankment Construction on Archaeological Materials. Transportation Laboratory, California
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), Sacramento.

The authors report on a field study conducted by CALTRANS to determine the effects of placing a 75-foot-high
embankment over an area constructed to simulate a North American Indian archeological site. Two small test units
were excavated, and artifacts were placed in three layers. The locations of all artifacts were carefully plotted, and
both units were instrumented with soil pressure meters. Access to the test units beneath the fill was monitored
through a 5-foot culvert that terminated with a 72-inch “T" section. Ground water levels beneath the fill was
measured through a well drilled into the "T” section. Soil pressure meters were also placed in an actual site on an
adjacent project to provide comparative data. Examination of the buried materials indicated soil compaction around
the artifacts, and gross morphological changes in the test materials were noted. Guidelines and recommendations for
future site burial projects are included. This project is also covered by a technical note in the Archeological Site
Protection and Preservation Notebook, described below.

Jensen, Peter M.
1976 Archaeological Investigations at CA-MER-27. The First California Site for which Total Coverage with Soil has
been Agreed to as Partial Mitigation. Report prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento.

Jensen presents the results of archeological investigations that were conducted prior to the burial of CA-MER-27.
He includes a 10-page discussion of the future burial of the site and raises a series of questions regarding the validity



of a single site will vary internally. Each site incorporated
into a stabilization design must be judged on its particular
internal and external components, even though several sites,
in close proximity to each other, may be scheduled for
treatment.

Evaluation of Site Components

Since the stabilization of an archeological site follows an
orderly sequence of events (Thome 1988a), a  site’s
archeological components will have already been defined at
the beginning of a preservation project. Testing for National
Register eligibility will have demonstrated the range of
artifacts that must be protected, including bone, shell, ceramic
and lithic artifacts, wood and charcoal, and the variety of
features that must be considered in the development of a
preservation plan. In order to complete the evaluation of site
components that is necessary for the development of a design
for the burial of a particular site, additional information on
components other than artifacts will be required. These data
may go beyond those that are collected during the course of
normal archeological investigations and may include: pH
determinations taken from a number of loci within the site;
data indicating ongoing and potential oxidation/reduction
processes; and soil samples of the site's matrix as well as the
underlying strata. Many approaches to the analysis of
archeological soils have been taken. One example is from
resistivity surveys (Carr 1982). The definition for site matrix

follows Mathewson (1988) and Mathewson and Gonzales
(1989). (See Figure 1 below.) The soil samples may have to
be tested for compression strength and permeability.

The collection of these data will allow the development of
reasonable estimates of how a site’s artifact and ecofact
components have reacted to their physical and chemical
environments through time. A model can then be derived to
predict how the artifact component will be affected by the
placement of an artificial covering. These additional data are
necessary for the proper selection of the fill material that will
be used to cover the site, since chemical and organic
compatibility of both the site and fill are necessary.
Post-burial monitoring assessments must also rely on these
data since they will form the baseline from which all
evaluations will be made.

Measurement of Impacts and Setting Goals
for Protection

The design plan for intentional burial must be conceived in a
manner that will insure that maximum protection is afforded
the resource while minimizing any negative effects caused by
such an overburden. In order to determine the best design, a
multidisciplinary team of specialists is recommended. This
team should include an archeologist, a geologist, and an
engineer. Each will have specific responsibilities in
developing the stabilization design plan.

SITE COMPONENTS,

Ee ENHANCES PRESERVATION
‘A= ACOSLERATES DECAY
Ne NEUTRAL OR NO SFFECT

FEATURES

ACID ENVIRONMENT

ORY (CONT,

WET ANAEROBIC(CONT.)

PROCESSES

>l>l>|>|z[>]2]>]mim [im] >» | ste

zl>l>|>]|>|/>]>] 2] >] m]m]m | > | Anuieones

zi>l>l>l[>l>]>] 2] >| mim] > im] pans

N

zl>]>]>|>]>l>]>]>]>|[m]2]2 | anon

ziz[>lz/z[z2|>|2]2]>]2] 2 | | cavstauneumacs
>> [>]>T>]2]/>]2]2]>]m[m|> | eunumes
zl>|>[>/z2lz2]>]z]>]>]z]=2] = | cenwes
zl2|[>[>l|>[z]>/>]>]>]2] 2] 2 | some!
>l|m|>[>|>lz2}]>]>|>] >] 2] > | > | sovarmeures

z][z}jz}>|z]>|>J]2]/z2]>]m]>]> | mews
>|>]|>]z2{>]>]2]/>]|>]2)2 | 2 | 2 | one
>|m|>]>lz]>]>]2}]2]>] m/z | > | sororcconrer

z]z}>jz2jz}2]> [> ]>]>]2 [2 | z | croc

Figure 1. This model relates a change in the physical, chemical, or biological environment of a site buried for preservation fo
the impact of that change on a specific site component or spatial relationship. (Matrix courtesy of Dr. Christopher Mathewson,

Texas A and M University)



Their efforts must be integrated and not performed as a series
of independent steps. The archeologist must define the
various classes of artifacts that are to be preserved and
indicate what classes, if any, may ultimately be unprotected
or lost (more about this later). The geologist must review the
basic preservation (artifact class) requirements that have been
set by the archeologist. The geologist should understand the
mechanisms of artifact decay and on that basis be able to
prescribe fill materials that will best fit the preservation needs
of the resource. Finally, the engineer will be charged with
designing the mechanics of the burial procedure. His or her
level of understanding must extend from fill acquisition and
placement to the hydraulic properties of the site and how
hydraulic changes will affect the site's contents. He or she
will also be responsible for designing the placement of the fill
so the site components will not warp as a result of heavy
equipment movements or the weight of the fill column over
time.

During the process of arriving at the best plan for covering a
site, engineering and geologic design criteria that are imposed
on the project may seem unreasonable or unrealistic from the
perspective of the archeologist. Such instances should be
overcome through team negotiations. Successful design
negotiations will be dependent on a shared understanding of
the preservation needs of the resource by all team members.
Frequently, however, design standards that must be met are
set by the land managing agency or by one of the organiza-
tions that have established governing regulations for
construction, e.g., the American Society for Testing Materials
(ASTM). When external critcria of this kind must be taken
into account, the archeologist must be prepared to yield to
those constraints. The best solution to problems of this kind
may be to seek innovative ways of meeting required standards
while protecting the archeological resource.

Decay Processes

Predictions about future reactions must be based on an
understanding of the decay processes ‘that operate on the
various components of an archeological site. Mitigation of
the effects of the decay processes and the external forces that
impact the resource is the primary goal of the stabilization
effort. A secondary goal of not accelerating ongoing decay or
adding new destructive processes must be a consideration of
the stabilization design.

Chemical processes related 1 oxidation and reduction
combined with soil pH characteristics are most likely to be
the primary causes for naturally ulated site content loss.
Cyclical wetting/drying and free7ing/thawing can affect the
decay process through both chemical and mechanical means.
Culturally derived disturbance can act as a catalyst that will
speed up chemical and mechanical loss. Biological degencra-
tion of a resource is accelerated by macroorganism activities,
e.g., burrowing animals. Any cnvironmental alteration that
increases the number of microorganisms will hasten the decay
of some classes of artifacts and ecofacts.

Current preservation technology, combined with the nature of
the decay processes that affect archcological materials, is

such that not all artifact classes can be protected simul-
taneously. Mathewson (1988) has outlined some of the
problem areas in site burial, and the model of site decay can
be useful in both understanding and predicting how the
preservation-natural decay process will proceed (Figure 1).

Even though our current technology limits how far we can go
toward total stabilization, we can success(ully design against
further loss of some of a site’s components. As can be seen
from the Mathewson model, some design criteria will
promote the preservation of one kind of artifact while
accelerating the loss of some others. This suggests that when
stabilization through burial is considered, the design team
may need to allow the loss of certain classes of artifacts for
the sake of preserving others. The natural decay processes
that occur as a midden develops will almost always include an
aspect of differential preservation of artifact classes. The
artificial burial of a cultural deposit will embody those same
aspects, but in a carefully conceived framework.

To illustrate the usefulness of the model, it is possible through
inspection to predict that if a continuously dry environment is
designed, preservation of some aspects of the site will be
enhanced while other artifact classes will remain unaffected.
This type of dry environment would be nearly identical to
those found in the caves of semi-arid and arid areas. In most
parts of the United States we are unlikely to construct a
continuously dry environment. We can, however, engineer
site covering plans in such a manner that the hydraulic
character of the site is altered dramatically from its natural
state and a site’s matrix dried considerably. Conversely, and
as can be seen from the model, the rate of loss to more classes
of artifacts increases with the level of moisture.

Again, drawing from the model, if an alkaline environment is
artificially created, bone, shell, and the granular li
assemblage would be better preserved while plant material,
soil attributes, and metal artifacts would be lost at a faster
rate. If by design the site stays continuously wet and an
aerobic state exists, decay of all organic artifacts and remains
will be hastened.

Benefits of Intentional Site Burlat

The difficulties of covering a site are more apparent than real
and can be overcome through a stabilization program that is
designed with care. Advantages will accrue to the resource
that have been previously unavailable. Protection from loss
can be extended to both natural and cultural processes. (A
convenient summary of these processes appears
in Mathewson 1989.)

Protection from cultural processes

Culturally derived site loss includes vandalism, looting, and
the full range of development activities. Vandalism, which is
considered to be acts of deliberate or unintentional damage to
or destruction of archeological resources, will be totally
eliminated since the site and its contents will be removed
from immediate accessibility. Site burial should at least make
looting of site contents for personal pleasure or financial gain
more difficult, if not impossible. Protection from develop-