USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

59

intensive surface recording versus sampling of site surface assemblages. Using grid-
based artifact recording, Sullivan (1992) presents a specific methodology for parti-
tioning individual lithic scatters within a site into component occupations (subsite
areas) through the definition of clinal variation in artifact density. Finally, Ebert
(1992:157-172) provides a thorough discussion of his “distributional fieldwork”
procedures as carried out in pedestrian survey of arid landscapes in the Eastern Great
Basin. For field recording procedures applicable to the special conditions of shovel
testing programs, refer to McManamon (1984b, 1984c) and Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore
(1987:41-42). In many situations having variable degrees of ground cover, combina-
tions of pedestrian and shallow subsurface testing (SST) approaches will be warranted
(Nance and Ball 1989) and care should be taken that the recording procedures and
survey results are comparable (Lightfoot 1989). A standardized site definition
applicable to both surface and subsurface manifestations is of obvious importance
when different discovery procedures are combined within the same survey project.

A word of caution is warranted, however, regarding the total inventory approach, for
it assumes that all researchers and field workers agree on what surface items are
worthy of recording. Apart from the ambiguities inherent in the kinds of cultural
materials or other items is the issue of size. As Cowgill (1985:381) notes, “unless the
surface is actually devoid of small objects altogether, there is simply no lower limit to
the size of fragments to be found.” Therefore, some cutoff point must be specified; i.e.,
“gome [size] level below which fragments are too small and too insignificant to collect”
(Cowgill 1985:381). No suggestion is made here that such a cutoff point be standard-
ized. Rather, that decision should be part of the overall research design tailored for
a specific study area and set of research questions. What is essential is that it be
explicitly stated for each class of cultural material known to exist in the study area.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

123

estimated amount and level of effort by labor category; and [j] list of government-
furnished material and the estimated value thereof (Management Concepts
Incorporated 1993:4.29-4.30).

As a contracting mechanism for archaeological purposes, then, the IDIQ contracting
format has several advantages that are beneficial to both Federal agencies and their
contractors. As Minor (1992:23) points out:

In removing the necessity to put each project out for bid, indefinite services
contracts streamline the contracting process, saving time and energy—and there-
fore money—for both the agency and the contractor. Another advantage of indefi-
nite services contracts is that an agency has a contractor “on call” for responding
to emergencies (e.g., accidental exposure of human skeletal remains). Finally, a
more intangible, but nevertheless important, advantage of indefinite services
contracts is that they tend to impart a feeling among contractors of working with,
not just for, the Federal agency.

Given all of the advantages of IDIQ contracts over the more common FP and CR
contracting mechanisms, it is the duty of DoD archaeologists and cultural resource
specialists to actively pursue, through their contracts office, the IDIQ contract as a
means of procuring archaeological services from private contractors. Where this is not
feasible at the installation level, the archaeologist or cultural resource specialist
should seek the help of other DoD agencies involved in archaeological compliance, such
as the nearest district office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Tri-Services
Cultural Resources Research Center at USACERL (Champaign, IL), where IDIQ con-
tracts are already in place for this type of work. As mentioned previously, Volume 3
contains a sample scope-of-work for an Indefinite Delivery contract prepared by the
Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center (see also Jackson et al. 1993:
Appendix E).

Cost Estimation for Pedestrian Survey

Before treating cost-estimation procedures for each of the three discovery techniques
treated in this report (pedestrian, SST, and DST) and the corresponding cost of post-
field analysis and report-generation, some discussion is warranted with respect to the
units by which these estimates should be measured. Several options exist for this
purpose, including total project costs, dollar costs per unit area surveyed, time esti-
mates per unit area surveyed or per test unit completed. Of these, the latter generally
yield the most consistent and comparable results, as they eliminate many extraneous
variables from consideration. These typically take the form of person-day estimates
per unit area surveyed at a given level of intensity or crew/SST/DST interval spacing.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

25

historic past. Rather, its regional landscape perspective helps correct a fundamental
bias created by exclusive focus on sites for which historic records exist (House 1977).
To quote House (1977:243) on this point, “confining historical archeology research to
sites and phenomena documented in the historic record is an unwarranted limitation
of the scope and potential scientific contribution of historical archeology.” He argues
that regional archaeological surveys using careful surface and subsurface field tech-
niques very often discover “potentially significant [yet] undocumented historic sites...
[thus providing] an archaeological record of groups of people and kinds of behavior that
are represented only very indirectly—or not at all—in the written record” (House
(1977:257). Regional archaeological surveys also provide the capability to make
reliable estimates of the relative frequency of different historic site types in a given
landscape as well as reveal regional patterns of historic site location (House 1977;
McManamon 1990). Such survey results are subject to the same requirements of
quality control and bias assessment necessary for evaluating the prehistoric archaeo-
logical record. :

Scope of Problem: Discovery Procedures and Units of Analysis

Since DoD lands are located throughout the United States, the implementation of a
uniform cultural resource management program on these installations must confront
the full range of research problems, methodological challenges, and variability in
prehistoric and historic cultural complexity and regional landscape conditions common
to North American archaeology. For present purposes, this means that special atten-
tion must be paid to the degree of fit between inventory survey techniques and levels
of intensity, on the one hand, and the modern land surface conditions and
archaeological characteristics of the region under study, on the other hand. This
requires first that a three-dimensional project volume (Wobst 1983) be explicitly
defined within which archaeological sites are to be identified. Wobst (1983:56-57)
defines this as “that arbitrary unit that is bounded horizontally by the given contract
specifications and bounded vertically, at the top, by the present land or structural
surface and, at the bottom, by either the depth of penetration of adverse project
impacts or by the maximum potential depth of archaeological resources.” By assessing
the nature of the geomorphic environment and specific landform-sediment
assemblages (LSA) within this project volume, a three-dimensional context for
archaeological deposits can be established (Bettis 1993). As Bettis has recently
observed:

LSA are associations of modern landforms arid underlying sedimentary sequences
that have predictable age relationships...[and thus]...form a useful framework for
evaluating the potential for an area to contain archaeological deposits. In order to



154

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Butler, W. B., “Interagency Archeological Service Contracting and the Contract Archeology Process,” in
Scholars as Contractors: Report of a Workshop on the Contract Archeology Process, W. J. Mayer-
Oakes and A. W. Portnoy, eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, Interagency Archeological Services Division, Washington, DC, 1979), pp 27-34.

Byrd, B. F., “A Standardized System for Recording Survey-Project Information,” Journal of Field
Archaeology, vol 8, no. 3 (1981), pp 381-383.

Canouts, V., E. E. May, N. H. Lopinot, and J. D. Muller, Cultural Frontiers in the Upper Cache Valley,
Illinois, Research Paper 16 (Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Carbondale, IL, 1984).

Carbone, V. A., “Some Comments on Contracting Workshop Issues, ” in Scholars as Contractors: Report
of a Workshop on the Contract Archeology Process, W. J. Mayer-Oakes and A. W. Portnoy, eds. (U.S.
Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Interagency
Archeological Services Division, Washington, DC, 1979), pp 35-37.

Carlson, D.L., and F. L. Briuer, Analysis of Military Training Impacts on Protected Archaeological Sites
at West Fort Hood, Texas, Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research Report No. 9
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TX, 1986).

Carlson, D. L., 8. B. Carlson, F. L. Briuer, E. J. Roemer, and W. E. Moore, Archaeological Survey at Fort
Hood, Texas, Fiscal Year 1983: The Eastern Training Area, Archaeological Resource Management
Series, Research Report No. 11 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TX, 1986).

Carlson, S. B., H. B. Ensor, D. L. Carlson, E. A. Miller, and D. E. Young, Archaeological Survey at Fort
Hood, Texas, Fiscal Year 1984, Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research Report No.
14 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TX, 1987).

Carlson, S. B., D. L. Carlson, H. B. Ensor, E. A. Miller, and D. E. Young, Archaeological Survey at Fort
Hood, Texas, Fiscal Year 1985: The Northwestern Training Area, Archaeological Resource
Management Series, Research Report No. 15.(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TX,
1988).

Carmichael, D. L., “Preliminary Archeological Survey of Illinois Uplands and Some Behavioral
Implications,” Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology, vol 2, no. 2 (1977), pp 219-251.

Carmines, E. G., and R. A. Zeller, Reliability and Validity Assessment (Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury
Park, CA, 1979).

Carnes, L. F., R. $. Dickens, Jr., L. France, and A. Long, Cost Analysis of Archaeological Activities at
Eight Southeastern Sites (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Archeological
Assistance Division, Washington, DC, 1986).

Carnett, C., Legal Background of Archeological Resources Protection, Cultural Resources Technical Brief
No. 11 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Archeological Assistance Division,
Washington DC, 1991).


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 149

Contracting and Cost Estimation

. Development of multi-phase contracting mechanisms.

. Incremental dispersal of funds by research phase or task.

. Specification of 80 percent confidence threshold for site discovery probability.

* Routine use in cost estimation of previous survey metadata pertaining to level-of-
effort expended.

. Use of separate cost-estimation procedures in accordance with site discovery
techniques and level-of-effort used.

It is intended that specific DoD policy recommendations can be implemented in the
near future. Of the recommendations suggested herein, perhaps the most important
are those relating to the issues of survey. intensity and detailed recordkeeping of
metadata pertaining to level-of-effort expended. There is a special need to achieve
greater quantitative rigor in determining survey intensities appropriate for a given
circumstance (i.e., landscape conditions, nature and complexity of local archaeological
record, etc.), and in calculating confidence estimates for the site discovery procedures
selected in a given case. The overall goal is to make the implementation of these
recommendations both a fiscal and a logistical reality for cultural resource managers
on DoD installations. Since the recommendations clearly imply a greater labor-
intensity and analytical rigor in the design and execution of inventory surveys, it is
imperative that the DoD ensure that managers are provided with sufficient fiscal
resources and the analytical tools and techniques necessary for their successful imple-
mentation. By the same token, however, it is incumbent upon installation managers
to develop long-range, pro-active Cultural Resource Management Plans within which
archaeological inventory surveys can be effectively planned and executed.



The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication,
or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an
official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official
Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized
documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED

DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

119

with the fundamental structure of the contract itself, which generally lies outside the
control of agency archaeologists and cultural resource specialists. Butler (1978, 1979)
has examined in some detail the two prevalent forms of Federal contracts used for
archaeological research: the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract and the Cost Reimburse-
ment (CR) contract.

These can actually be considered two broad categories or “families” of contracts, each
having a series of variants. In the FFP category are four contract types: the firm-
fixed-price; the fixed-price with economic price adjustment; the fixed-price incentive;
and the fixed-price with redetermination. The CR category also includes four basic
contract types: cost and cost-sharing; cost-plus-incentive-free; cost-plus-award fee; and
cost-plus-fixed-fee. It is important to note three other “special use” contracts also exist,
one of which has important implications for Federal archaeological contracting. These
are the time-and-material (labor-hour) contract; the letter contract; and the indefinite
delivery (ID) contract. The latter can be further subdivided into the definite quantity
contract, the requirements contracts, and the indefinite quantity contract. Although
detailed treatment of these variants lies beyond the scope of this report, the funda-
mental differences between the FFP, the CR and the ID/IQ contracts will be explored
briefly. Comprehensive treatment of this topic can be found in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (48 CFR Part 1), Sub-Chapter C, Part 16, entitled “Types of Contracts”.
Fixed-Price contracts are treated in FAR, Sub-Chapter C, Sub-Part 16.2; Cost-
Reimbursement contracts in Sub-Part 16.3; and Indefinite Delivery contracts in Sub-
Part 16.5.

Butler notes that archaeological research, because of its complex multi-phased design
and largely uncertain or unpredictable results, is best handled by the Cost Reimburse-
ment contract. In such cases, “the exact cost is unknown, the end product can only be
generally described, and/or the exact steps and specifications necessary to reach the
end product cannot be detailed...” (Butler 1978:742). In contrast, the FFP contract is
more appropriate in cases where “the price (cost) is firm and fixed;...when a known end
product can be specified;...{and when] all intermediate steps and procedures used to
achieve the end product can also be specified...” (Butler 1978:741). Significantly, the
former “are usually awarded on the basis of the quality of the proposal in combinations
with reasonable cost” (Butler 1978:742), while the latter are “usually awarded on the
basis of the lowest monetary bid” (Butler 1978:741-742). CR contracts typically allow
(and require) a great deal of contract monitoring in all phases of the project, since “the
burden for completion of the contract lies with the government” (Butler 1978:742),
rather than with the contractor.

In spite of the greater suitability of CR contracts for conducting archaeological
research, it is an unfortunate reality that “most archaeologists have been doing



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

68

z ovr zt z 200 vO z Tee ow z ver falta z ze 9 SEO MN,
z 80 ze z £0 i) z Ly Zor z VE 4 z Sz est nealeld
z €0 Zar z $0 SO Zz ver ris z 0 os z 9S zl BION
7 zie vy vy ZO e0 st ves ey 7 OF e0z St g0z véL yemunog|
Zh ez Eva ze €0 €0 a 6L Z0z zr Zeb FOZ ray 4 14 ujseg Waid
th Lt sv W vO zo “ eh Sve ub xa LOE i asd ez Suleid)
vb vor o8F a 90 £0 vb 99S ver €b vst 9St vb 9 cy WSeaUNOS|
$ 919 ee ¥ v0 sO vy rezo_|_ 695€ ¥ 99 an $ vél £6 WESTPON|
Baly ainyin5|

u = * 7 = x 7 5 x uv 5 x wv = x

‘Aysusa ous ueaw aieu Kienoosig ua, Wous-JO-19Ad7 UES Bujeds uo pakaaing ealy ues

“ease anyno Aq pednoaé ‘g age) ul paysty se}soGayeo eyep 10} sanjen azis ajdwes pue ‘uonelAep puepueys ‘UeaI “9 auc.



152

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Bareis, C. J., and J. W. Porter, “Research Design,” in American Bottom Archaeology, C. J. Bareis and J.
W. Porter, eds. (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1984b), pp 1-14.

Benn, D. W., “Habitation Structures and Social Formation,” in Woodland Cultures on the Western
Prairies: The Rainbow Site Investigations, D. W. Benn, ed., University of Iowa, Office of the State
Archaeologist, Report 18, (lowa City, IA, 1990), pp 50-70.

Bernard, H. R., Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology, (Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA,
1988).

Berry, M. S., “Sampling and Predictive Modeling on Federal Lands in the West,” American Antiquity, vol
49 (1984), pp 842-853.

Bettinger, R. L., The Surface Archaeology of the Long Valley Caldera, Mono County, California.
University of California, Dry Lands Research Institute, Archaeological Research Unit, Monograph
No. 1 (Riverside, CA, 1977).

Bettinger, R. L., “Doing Great Basin Archaeology Recently: Coping with Variability,” Journal of
Archaeological Research, vol 1, no. 1 (1993), pp 43-66.

Bettis, E. A., III, “Buried Site Potential: Determination, Evaluation, and Suggestions for Sampling 10°
m’,” paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St.
Louis, MO (1993).

Biella, J. V., and R. C. Chapman, eds., Archeological Investigations in Cochiti Reservoir, New Mexico,
Volume I: A Survey of Regional Variability, report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Albuquerque District. Contract No. CX700050431 (University of New Mexico, Office of Contract
Archeology, Albuquerque, NM, 1977).

Binford, L. R., “Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting
Stand,” American Antiquity, vol 43, no. 3 (1978), pp 330-361.

Binford, L. R., “Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation,” American Antiquity 45 (1980), pp 1-17.

Binford, L. R., In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record (Thames and Hudson, London,
1983).

Binford, L. R., “Researching Ambiguity: Frames of Reference and Site Structure,” in Method and Theory
for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, S. Kent, ed. (Columbia University
Press, New York, 1987), pp 449-512.

Binford, L. R., “Seeing the Present and Interpreting the Past—and Keeping Things Straight,” in Space,
Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, eds. (Plenum Press, New
York, 1992), pp 43-59.

Binford, L. R., S. R. Binford, R. Whallon, and M. A. Hardin, “Archaeology at Hatchery West,” Memoirs
of the Society for American Archaeology No. 24 (1970).


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

greater” empty space suggested by Thomas for small campsites is maintained or
altered as site sizes become progressively larger.

For all sizes of single component or single occupation sites, only certain areas ofa
given site may have densities high enough to detect with SST procedures. If up to 50
percent of a site surface is “empty space” and much of the rest has low artifact densi-
ties, then we have to be sure interval spacing will at least pick up core areas of higher
artifact density. This means that maximum site size (ALS) may not be the most appro-
priate analytical unit in all cases. As artifact densities become lower and artifact
density-distributions become more clustered or tightly packed over the site, propor-
tionally more of the site surface will be comprised of “empty space” devoid of the
archaeological remains that would normally indicate the presence of a site. Where
large empty spaces occur within a site boundary, the archaeologist must define the
SST sampling requirements necessary to argue that a given number of negative
shovel-probes permits one to conclude that no sites exist. Alternatively, if a single
artifact is located in one shovel probe, one needs to know how many negative shovel
probes in the surrounding area are necessary to conclude that the artifact represents
an isolated find (Stone 1981b; Hasenstab 1986). As Hasenstab (1986:3,; emphasis
added) has cogently stated the problem, we need to establish “exactly how much
negative evidence...[is] required to reliably claim absence of significant data.”

Site Discovery in the Eastern Woodlands and the Desert West

In this section, the general dichotomy between site discovery procedures in the eastern
and the western United States suggested in the earlier treatment of Tables 5 and 6
will be further explored in light of the preceding discussion of site constituents, intra-
site spatial structure, and discovery probability. This will be accomplished by focusing
on two specific archaeological regions that demonstrate significant differences both in
the nature and complexity of their respective archaeological sequences, and in the
landscape conditions that often dictate the kinds of site discovery procedures used in
regional surveys. For this purpose, the two regions selected are the “Illinois” archaeo-
logical region (primarily the state of Illinois) of the Northeast culture area (see Trigger
1978), and the “Eastern Great Basin” archaeological region (primarily the state of
Utah) of the Great Basin culture area (see D’Azevedo 1986). Pertinent comparative
data from these two archaeological regions have been amassed in Volumes 2 and 3
according to the data categories listed in Table 3. These compendia permit the devel-
opment of regionally and temporally sensitive models of archaeological site character-
istics and intrasite spatial structure. As such, they serve as examples of the kind of
archaeological background research necessary to calculate regional or local site
discovery probabilities. They also illustrate the uneven nature of past survey and



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Contents
CS) 1: |: rr cc 1
Legacy Program ...... 2.0.6.0 0 eee eeeeteen eee nnees 2
Executive Summary ......... 06.5 c eee eee ener tenet eee eee 3
Foreword ....... 0... cece et ett te ene e eet e eee 12
List of Figures and Tables ...... 2.06.00. cece ee eee teens 17

1 Introduction
Background
Objectives 2.2... teen teens
Scope of Problem: Discovery Procedures and Units of Analysis .....-.....++- 25
Approach 2.2... ttt teen ete ent e eens
Technical Terminology . . . .

2 Site Definition .............
Sites and Nonsites: Regional Defi
Regional Trends in Site Definition .
Some Consequences of Variable Site Definitions ...........-- +e essere 50
Establishing Minimal Criteria for Site Definition ...........6.- eee eee eee 52
Recommendations .......... 00sec cette eee teen eee eens 53
Management Implications . 2.6.6... 66. eee eee eee teens 56
3 Regional Archaeological Survey and Site Discovery Procedures .......... 60
Survey Intensity and Site Discovery Probabilities ... . .
Regional Trends in Archaeological Survey Design
Defining Site Constituents and Intrasite Spatial Structure ....-...--.0- ++. ee 74
Site Discovery in the Eastern Woodlands and the Desert West ........-..+-- 79
4 Survey Effectiveness and Bias Assessment .............----- eee ee 88
Background 00... 0.0 cece cette tte terete tees

Calculating Discovery Probabilities
Recommendations
Management Implications



198 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Copyright will not be claimed by the Contractor for any materials
produced under this Delivery Order. All such materials are to
remain within the public domain.

The Contractor and those in his/her employ may, during the term
of this agreement, present reports of research from this project
to various professional societies and publications. Abstracts
and copies of these reports, presentations, or articles utilizing
work sponsored by the USACERL will be provided to the USACERL
Technical Representative for approval prior to publication or
presentation.

In the event the Contractor encounters problems in fulfilling
performance requirements, or when difficulties are anticipated in
complying with the Delivery Order schedule or dates, or whenever
the Contractor has knowledge that any actual or potential
situation is delaying or threatening to delay timely performance
of tasks, the Contractor shall immediately notify the USACERL
Technical Representative in by telephone communication and in
writing noting all relevant details. However, this material will
be informational in character and this provision shall not be
construed as a waiver by the U.S. Government of any delivery
schedule or date, rights, or remedies provided by law or under
this Delivery Order.

9. COORDINATION

The USACERL archeologist will be the Technical Representative and
will be responsible for the coordination of the project, however,
the contractor shall schedule field campaigns with the AFB POC
and notify the USACERL Technical Representative in writing the
planned periods of fieldwork.

10. TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS

Travel anticipated under this contract shall consist of travel to
Poinsette Air Force Range, South Carolina to complete the tasks
outlined above. Travel costs shall be the sole responsibility of
the Contractor.

11. SAFETY

The Contractor will at all-times conduct operations in a safe
manner and in accordance with the USACERL safety plan. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual (EM
385-1-1 Revised Oct. 1987) will be followed for all work.

12. INSPECTION OF WORK IN PROGRESS

The USACERL Technical Representative reserves the right to
periodically inspect all phases of work in progress or after
completion of the project, or any portion thereof, to insure that
the work is performed in compliance with the terms of this
Delivery Order and Contract. If the USACERL Technical



128

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

of the archaeologist. This variability can make reliable cost estimation somewhat
problematic.

McManamon (1984a:262) suggests two possible methods for calculating the time
requirements or labor intensity of different subsurface probes:

One is to calculate only the time required for excavating, inspecting, recording, and
backfilling individual probes of different sizes. This is a basic cost that can be
multiplied by the number of probes planned, and added to related costs such as the
costs of setting up a test grid, moving between tests, and traveling between areas
to be tested to calculate the total cost of tests. More commonly, the time needed to
test a particular-size area is reported. Area coverage time estimates combine the
time required for all the activities just listed above and are associated with a
particular number and alignment or system of aligning the probes. Being linked
to specific applications, these statements of time requirements are less easily
compared than those for individual probes.

Data provided by McManamon (1984a:266, Table 4.11) from his survey at the Cape
Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts show excavation rates for a series of shovel-
tests placed at 25-m intervals, as well as comparative data on execution rates for soil
cores and augers. These are given as number-of-tests/person-day. For the 40-cm-
diameter shovel-tests, ranging from 25 to 75 cm in depth, the average excavation rate
was 18 probes per person-day, with a range of 8 to 40 (Table 14). Some of this
variability was due to the nature of the excavated deposits (i.e., whether they fell
within a site or not) and to crew experience. Still the mean value of 18 probes per
person-day is in line with estimates made by other archaeologists, given the size and
depth of McManamon’s probes. Lightfoot (1986:494), for example, estimates an
excavation rate of 20 to 30 test probes per person-day for a probe size of 30 cm x 30 cm
(Table 14). In contrast to these completion rates, Nicholson (1983) reports values at
the low end of McManamon’s (1984a) range. In a comparative experiment using
several site discovery techniques in southern Manitoba, Canada (Nicholson 1983),
shovel-testing resulted in an estimate of only 7 probes per person-day for a probe size
of 50 cm in diameter and 40 cm in depth (Table 14). No screening was used, but
thorough trowel sorting was carried out. Although these probes were slightly bigger
than those excavated by McManamon (1984a), yielding 80,000 cu cm of sediment
volume as opposed to 63,000 cu cm, it is unclear why the completion rate was so much
lower, especially given the fact that McManamon’s probes were all screened.


134 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Cost Estimation for Deep Subsurface Testing (DST) Survey

Of the three general types of site discovery techniques treated here, deep subsurface
testing is perhaps the most difficult for making reliable cost-estimates due to the
bewildering variety of devices (both manual and mechanized) that can be used and the
associated logistical demands that they present in terms of transport, set-up, and
execution time. The two principal techniques classified under the DST category are
deep coring and deep backhoe trenching. The former is the more commonly used
technique for purposes of site discovery (Stein 1986, 1991; Schuldenrein 1991). How-
ever, deep trenching by backhoe is gaining increasing acceptance as a site discovery
tool in addition to its more common role in geomorphological exploration.

As a site discovery technique, deep coring is not always effective for the subsurface
recovery of artifacts and features on archaeological sites due to the extremely small
size of its “inspection window” (ranging anywhere from just over 1.0 up to 10 cm in
diameter). However, it is an effective way to locate deeply buried soil formations that.
are likely to contain sites. In certain areas where deeply buried cultural deposits are
thought to exist, geomorphological investigations based on deep coring become an
indispensable preliminary step to archaeological inventory surveys (e.g., Muto and
Gunn 1981; Britsch and Smith 1989; Bettis 1993), as they alert the investigators to
high probability buried landscapes that can then be selectively tested through more
labor-intensive excavation techniques where warranted. Cost estimation can be based
either on the labor time required to complete a single core of a specified depth (e.g.,
number of 3-m cores/p-d), or alternatively on the total number of linear meters cored
per person-day regardless of the number of individual cores this represents. The
danger of using the latter estimate, however, is that it fails to consider the travel time
and equipment set-up time necessary for the execution of each core.

Deep coring devices (i.e., greater than 1.00 m below surface) can be generally subdivid-
ed into manual corers and mechanical corers, both of which must be more or less port-
able for areally extensive site discovery applications in remote and often difficult
terrain. At the Carlston Annis shell mound in western Kentucky, Stein used a
12.7-mm split-spoon soil probe for systematic coring at the intrasite level (Stein 1986;
Marquardt and Watson 1983). She reports having executed 97 cores (to a maximum
depth of 2 m) in 52 person-days. This gives a completion rate of 1.9 cores/p-d. If we
assume that all cores attained a 2-m depth, an estimate for coring rate would be
3.7 linear meters/person-day (Table 15). Many variables are involved in these



190 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

It is expected that within the survey areas some land will
have been previously disturbed. These locales shall be
identified in the field through visual verification, or if
necessary by shovel or auger testing, and excluded from
survey. Documentation of the extent of these disturbances
shall be made and incorporated into the final report.

Poinsette Range also contains a number of threatened and
endangered species of plants and animals. Archeological
survey work must be coordinated with ongoing natural
resources surveys and monitoring efforts at the
installation. To facilitate this coordination, survey teams
shall be required to become familiar with the visual
identification of the sensitive species in question and
avoid damaging them. Assistance in this effort shall be
provided by the AFB POC.

5. MAJOR REQUIREMENTS. In order for the contractor to accomplish
the work under this delivery order, it will be necessary for the
Contractor to coniplete the following tasks:

A. Task 1. The contractor shall produce an historic and
prehistoric archeological OVERVIEW. This OVERVIEW
shall include historic and prehistoric archeological
baseline data and an historic context for Poinsette Air
Force Range. The goal of the OVERVIEW is to gather,
analyze, and report the data necessary to provide an
historic and prehistoric context from which to build a
set of research questions to be addressed in the phase
1 survey design. This archeological context will also
serve as a tool for the significance evaluation of
archeological sites discovered in the survey.

The OVERVIEW shall incorporate Geomorphology/Geology
data and shall utilize published maps, published
studies and field observations to characterize the
various categories of soil deposits at the
installation, to arrive at relevant conclusions in
reference to the location of archeological sites, their
depth below the present soil surface, and their
potential state of preservation. Areas of erosion and
deposition shall be identified and the potential for
the presence of archeological sites should be
evaluated. The OVERVIEW shall address in particular the
question of prehistoric archeological site
distributions in relationship to the Carolina Bay
formations. The OVERVIEW shall include a set of trial
conclusions based on this information. A preliminary
site visit should be scheduled.

The OVERVIEW shall include archival investigations
covering the entire AFB area and shall fully utilize



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 179

SURVDATA: site definitons, page 4

duration of huaan activities’ (p.173). The authors go on to distinguish between "isolated occurrences’ and "site
locations’, The foraer ‘are defined as single occurences of artifacts or features, or low density scatters of
artifactual reaains over very broad areas of landscape. These units of observation are differeatiated froa ‘site
locations’ in that they provide inforaation about subsistence or settlesent behavior priaarily through analysis at a
regional rather than locus-specific scale’ (p.174} The latter "are defined as clusters of artifactual and/or
architectural features vhich can be deliaited spatially to a particular locale upon the landscape. Site locations are
felt to represeat spatial locales which potentially provide information about locus-specific subsistence pursaits
through intrasite analysis of aaterial reaains. Site locations are thus differentiated from isolated occurrences as
units of observation because they erbibit artifactual and/or architectural variability indicative of greater intensity,
diversity or duration of behavior within definable spatial boundaries’ (p.174). See extended discussion of these
definitions on p.174.

20

Keynaze: Schiffer & House 1975

Sort Key: Southeast (Qzark-Ouchita highlands region)

Site Definition: "The definition of archaeological sites used by the Cache Project was ‘any area with observable
evidence of past caltural behavior'® (p.47). ‘The ainiaal criterion used for site designations vas suggested by Dan
Morse: A site had to yield at least a double hand-full of caltural aaterial. Locations of cultural naterial not meeting
this criterion were not designated as sites but were recorded. In areas of continuous distribution of material, any
observable concentrations were aapped as separate sites. Sone large areas of uniforaly scattered aaterial, however, were
designated single sites’ (p.48).

a

Reynane: Oetting 1989

Gort Key: Great Basin (northern region)

Site Definition:."Sites vere deterained pragaatically, based oo the agount and density of saterials observed and the
conditions of observation. No inflexible site criteria vere eaployed, rather, sites were identified as those areas with
local concentrations of artifacts, suggesting more than aerely passing hunan occupation (Aixens and Minor 1977:4), 'a
locas of hoaan activity vhich can be delineated specifically by observable cultural renains (artifacts or features) and
can be separated by distance and/or by distinct geozorphic features from other such loci (Qetting and Pettigrew
1985:19)'? (p.36).

12

Reynane: Cheathaa 1968

Sort Key: Northwest Coast (lower Coluabia River/¥illaaette Basin region)
Site Definition: None given.

13

Reyname: Cook. & Falmer 1981

Sort Key: California (southera coastal region)

Gite Definition: "Site boundaries were defined on the basis of topography and a fifty-aeter artifact interval rule,
corresponding to a theoretical redaction in density to less than .0001/a. In some areas,...the density of isolated
flakes or sherds appeared to be higher thao this arbitrary figure, and the density value was adjusted. Sites were
initially classified under BLY codes {see Cooabs 1979: 141-148], with eaphasis of site description oa estiaating the
range of artifact types, variablility within these categories, and the overall deasity of naterials* (p.50}.

24

Keynane: Reher 1977

Sort Key: Southwest (eastern Anasazi tegion)

Site Definition: one given; however, sites are clearly distinguished from "isolated finds’. "Isolated artifacts aad
other “non-site' finds vere collected and assigned a ‘locality’ nuaber as opposed to a site agaber...An occasional
isolated artifact, a scatter od several sherds ot flakes with 0 apparent locus, was designated by a locality nuaber*
(2.15).

25
Kaynane: Chapaan & Kiaball 1935



74

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

by 4.5 meters, down to 20.8 meters. Mean level-of-effort increases by over 1.8 times,
to 49.1 p-d/sq mi. And finally, mean site density increases rather dramatically by 9.6
times, to.a value of 41.4 sites/sq mi. These temporal data clearly demonstrate an
increasing concern for survey intensity and level-of-effort that is quite obviously
reflected in the number of sites found per square mile of area surveyed. The use of less
restrictive site definitions in the 1980s may also be contributing to the elevated site
densities.

As this brief discussion of small data sets from the North American archaeological
literature has demonstrated, survey design and site discovery procedures can have
significant effects on the results of regional archaeological surveys, not to mention the
scientific interpretations and managerial decisions based on those results. Variable
site definitions and variations in survey intensity have been cited as critical problem
areas where some measure of standardization would be desirable. In the next chapter,
survey effectiveness and bias assessment are discussed in terms of site discovery prob-
ability and the various factors that must be considered in estimating that probability.
First, however, the next section explores how the identification of regional site consti-
tuents and intrasite spatial structure can aid in the development of survey design and
in the calculation of discovery probability. This issue is illustrated through a compara-
tive consideration of the archaeological sequences of two contrastive regions of the
United States.

Defining Site Constituents and Intrasite Spatial Structure

For purposes of exploring site discovery probabilities in a given archaeological region,
several sets of archaeological data are important. These include site size and shape,
as well as several properties of the archaeological materials and residues that make
up the site itself. The latter are collectively referred to as site constituents
(McManamon 1984a) and include the following: artifacts; features; anthropic soil hori-
zons; and chemical and geophysical soil anomalies. Finer distinctions among some of
these include the properties of artifact density and density-distribution; tool density
and density-distribution; and feature density and density-distribution. Another
related category is item diversity (i.e., artifact, tool, and feature diversity), which can
be further examined in terms of richness and evenness. These constituents have been
treated in considerable detail by McManamon (1984a) among others, and provide
useful criteria for the quantitative spatial characterization of an archaeological site.
As McManamon (1984a:227) has argued: “the types, frequency, and intrasite spatial
distribution of different constituents within a site strongly affect the likelihood of its
detection.” The implications of this observation are explored in greater detail below.


32

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Table 1. Sample database record for selected data extracted from archaeological survey monograph.

Keyname

Survey type

Study area size
Sampling fraction
Sampling unit size
Sa ding unit shape
Cultural sequence
Survey intensity
Accessability
Obtrusiveness
Surface visibility
Total area surveyed
No. of sites found
Site area found
fotal persoa-days

Mean site density
Site recording tine
Mean asite densit;
Nsite recording tin
Level of effori
Discovery rate
Site size

mean)

sd)

range)

ite depth

av
Tange)
ite density (by...

Site d-dist (by...
Site diversity

SPt size/voluse
SPT spaclag
avg)

range)

PT agont

¥ of SPT's/sam unit
Feature size

geal)

sd

Tange) .
feature density
Feature d-dist
Feature diversity
Art. density (by...

Art. d-dist (by...
Art. diversity

Sort key
Aanotation

{Lightfoot et al 1987 . .

ipegbabilistic tegional survey, stratified random sampling and stratified judgemental sampling
ig ha or 8.25 sq ka

[ratiable: 120-340 a x 20-40 m for transects; 0.5-10 ha for quadrats
variable: transects (stratified randoa} quadrats (stratified judgemental)
Late Archaic, Barly, Middle & Late Woo fand, Contact

Q m spacing between shovel probes

iw
ha or 0.44 sq km

hi

2 (NOTE: calculation of person-days based on figures presented in Lightfoot 1986};
fer/Wells: 307)
sites/ha

§ sites/ha

02 person-days/ha or 502 p-d/sq ka (Schiffer/¥ells: 6.9 p-d/ha)
ld Te eT er alnellcl dit) ( P

60 ca

ite density is given by 6 ecological ones ot "habitats* (3 coastal habitats and 3 apland
abitats), as follows: coastal strip = 5 sites/ha; tidal creek = 1.8 sites/ha; salt pond zl
ites (hai oak-heath = 0.12 sites/ha; oak-hedge = 0.44 sites/ba: and freshwater = 0.67 sites/ha.
solated finds given as follows: coastal strip = 10 if/ha; tidal creek = 0.9 if/ha; salt pond =
«3 if/ha; oak-heath = 0.41 if/ha; oak-hedge = 0.51 if/ha; aad freshwater = 1.0 if/ha.

site types defined: residential bases, field camps, lithic workshops, plant procurement stations,
ellfish procurement stations
cn dian x 40-50 cm deep; est vol: 99,930 cu ce

Se

jsguare grid
variable; total # of SPf's: $523

{18.25 cw
16,30 ce
i338 ca
wt

aft
1 feature classes defined: hearths pits (with shell), aad post nolds .

Ogi ce pt iT hal «aS TOLLOWSs: 2
jArtifact density given by 6 ecological zones or habitats, as follows: coastal strip = 30
jartifacts/ba; tidal creek = 16 ar! facts/ha; salt pond = 45 artifacts/ha; oak-heath = 2.4
iaytifacts/ba, oak-hedge = 7.2 artifacts/ha; freshwater = 8.3 artifacts/ba.
aft
i Classes defined: chipped stone (13 categories), ground stone, fire-cracked rock, ceramics, shell,
jvettebrate faunal remains.
jhortheast feoastal region) ce vee
See pp. 4-16 for discussion of ‘diversity indexes* applied to artifact assemblages and specific

ralgoritha for calculating J-inder (after Whittlesey and Reid 1982).

claim is made for a statistically defensible representativeness of the gray literature, nor
is the “sample” a particularly large fraction of the vast number of potentially informative
survey monographs now available in the United States. It is intended to give a general
idea of broad macro-regional trends in survey methodology, field procedures, reporting
standards, etc., and in the nature of the archaeological record itself.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

103

of being intersected (column 8) and a 19 to 24 percent chance of being detected (column
11). These probabilities provide rough approximations for Site 9DP in the Massachu-
setts data set in Table 10 which has a site size of 17 m in diameter and an intrasite
artifact density of 128.9 artifacts/sq m. For a 40-m diameter site with an artifact
density of 10 artifacts/sq m (cf. Site 7TP in Table 10), intersection probability increases
to 79 to 80 percent while detection probability increases to 47 to 48 percent. For a site
of the same size but with an artifact density of 100 artifacts/sq m (cf. Site 7SP in Table
10), intersection probability remains at the 79 percent confidence threshold, while
detection probability increases to a range of 69 to 74 percent, depending on the
density-distribution. Note that the 60-m diameter site size category marks a signifi-
cant juncture in detection probability at this low level of sampling intensity. With only
one exception (a 60-m diameter site with a density of 10 artifacts/sq m and clustered
density-distribution), all sites above 60 m in diameter have a better than 85 percent.
chance of being detected at artifact densities ranging from 10 to 140 artifacts/m. In
terms of the Massachusetts data set, then, the seven sites, which range in size from
88.8 to 143.3 m in diameter (Table 10), would all have a 100 percent probability of
intersection and detection (Table 11, columns 8 and 11, respectively), with the possible
exception of Site 7CP (104.2 m in diameter with a density of 7.1 artifacts/sq m). This
site can be compared with the simulated probabilities for a site measuring 100 m in
diameter and a density of 10 artifacts/sq m (Table 11) which still yields a relatively
high detection probability of 94.6 to 99.8 percent (column 11).

As might be expected, the increased sampling intensity of the 100 probes/ha simula-
tion results in very significant gains in discovery probability for sites sizes and artifact
densities comparable to those in the Massachusetts data set. Table 12 shows the
sample output file from the STP program using the same sampling intensity and
geometry as in the case of Table 8; i.e., 100 probes per hectare in a staggered sampling
grid. By comparing these simulated values with those of the sites listed in Table 10,
it becomes clear that all combinations of site size and artifact density in the
Massachusetts data set would easily be detectable at this level of sampling intensity.
Even the smallest site (DP), with a diameter of only 17.0 m, would be detected with
a confidence estimate greater than 99 percent due to its relatively high artifact density
(128.9 artifacts/sq m). Likewise, even the lowest artifact density (7.1 artifacts/sq m at
Site 7CP) is associated with a site of sufficient size (104.2 m in diameter) to ensure
detection at the 100 percent confidence threshold.

As these examples illustrate, Monte Carlo simulation provides a useful method for
experimenting with hypothetical outcomes of sampling design geometry. and various
properties of the archaeological record. Several options exist for the application of
such exercises. As Kintigh notes, “[t]he method can either be used ex post facto to



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

39

societies or complex chiefdoms. Following the work of Binford (1980) on hunter-
gatherer settlement systems, Ebert and Kohler (1988:132) view archaeological
localities as reflecting a continuum of occupational intensity depending on the degree
of intensification reflected in the subsistence system(s) under study, ranging from
“foraging” to “collecting” to “casual or extensive domestication” to “intensive domes-
tication.” As we shall see below, many site definitions commonly used in North
America establish minimal criteria which effectively exclude from serious archaeologi-
cal consideration the ephemeral remains of foragers and collectors. Moreover, they are
often regarded as beyond the reach of cost-effective cultural resource management
(Klinger 1976; Brooks 1979; Tainter 1983; Barber 1984; Sullivan 1988), since no
demonstrable archaeological “significance” can be assigned to them for the normative
purposes of the Section 106 and Section 110 compliance process. As Wait (1983:62-62)
has pointed out in reference to Southwestern U.S. archaeology:

The activities of nonsedentary peoples tend to produce thin, diffuse deposits of
artifacts whose boundaries are ill-defined. The difficulties of dealing with such
deposits are manifested in a common tendency to label them ‘lithic scatters,’ and
to proceed in analysis as if they did not exist. In some research efforts, lithic
scatters are ignored even in the data collection stage.

A strikingly similar statement can be found in the literature of eastern U.S. archae-
ology, as follows:

Many surveys...record isolated artifacts but do not consider them sites. In other
reports, isolated artifacts have been considered spot finds and small concentrations
of cultural material—localities... However, in most cases examined, little was done
beyond recording the presence of these archaeological manifestations. Implicit
(although never too clearly) in the recording of these resources is that they are not
considered significant and are summarily not important enough to merit further
attention (Brooks 1979:169).

These kinds of unobtrusive, low-density material remains can only be incorporated
into the cultural resource management and compliance process through a dual
approach that redefines the nature of the archaeological “site” (see below) and that
considerably expands the concept of archaeological “significance” so that dispersed and
low-density remains are recorded and assessed in terms of the broader archaeological
research questions of local and regional importance. As Butler (1987) has pointed out,
such unobtrusive lithic scatters can legitimately be considered “significant” under the
terms of Criterion (d) of the National Register of Historic Places criteria for signifi-
cance evaluation (Department of the Interior Regulation 36 CFR Part 60). Under
Criterion (d), in order for an archaeological site to be eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places, it must “have yielded, or...be likely to yield,



164

USACERL SR 96/40, Voi 1

McManamon, F. P., “Geographical Orientation and Intrasite Units of Analysis,” in Results of the Cape
Cod National Seashore Archaeological Survey, 1979-1981, Volume 1: Background, Stratigraphy,
and Chronology. In Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape Cod, I, F. P. McManamon, ed. (U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Division of
Cutlural Resources, Boston, Massachusetts, 1984), pp 45-94.

McManamon, F. P., “A Regional Perspective on Assessing the Significance of Historic Period Sites,”
Historical Archaeology, vol 24, no. 2 (1990), pp 14-22.

McManamoon, F. P., “Site Discovery and Estimation: Retrospect and Prospect,” paper presented at the
57th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology Pittsburgh, PA (1992).

McManamon, F. P., “Discovering and Estimating the Frequencies and Distribution of Archaeological Sites
in the Northeast,” in Cultural Resource Management: Archaeological Research, Preservation
Planning, and Public Education in the Northeastern United States, J. E. Kerber, ed. (Bergin and
Garvey, Westport, CT, 1994), pp 99-114.

McManamon, F. P., ed., “Results of the Cape Cod National Seashore Archaeological Survey, 1979-1981,
Volume 1: Background, Stratigraphy, and Chronology,” in Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape
Cod, I, (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office,
Division of Cultural Resources, Boston, MA, 1984a).

McManamoon, F. P., ed., “Results of the Cape Cod National Seashore Archaeological Survey, 1979-1981,
Volume 2: Other Specific Studies and Synthesis,” in Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape Cod, I
(U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Division
of Cultural Resources, Boston, MA, 1984b).

MacCord, H., “Where Do You Draw the Line?,” American Society for Conservation Archaeology, Report,
vol 15, no. 1 (1988), pp 6-15.

Madsen, B. D., “Review of Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider,
eds.,” American Anthropologist, vol 95, no. 4 (1993), pp 1028-1030.

Management Concepts Incorporated, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) Course,
Course Syllabus (Vienna, VA, 1993).

Marmaduke, W. S., and L. Conway, A Sample Survey: Cultural Resources on Potential Agricultural
Development Lands on the Gila River Indian Reservation, report submitted to the Central Arizona
Project, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Contract No. 0-07-30-X0072
(Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, AZ, 1984).

Marquardt, W. H., and P. J. Watson, “The Shell Mound Archaic of Western Kentucky,” in Archaic
Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, J. L. Philips and J. A. Brown, eds. (Academic
Press, New York, 1983), pp 23-339.

May, R. V., “Broadside from the West: Response to Howard MacCord,” American Society for Conservation
Archaeology, Report, vol 15, no. 2 (1988), pp 10-14.


64

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

probability components depend on properties of a given sampling design as well as
properties of the archaeological record. As Figure 2 illustrates, intersection probability
is affected by the geometry of the sampling design (i.e., test pit spacing and layout) as
well as the configurational properties of the archaeological remains (i.e., the size and
shape of archaeological sites and their defining characteristics). In a similar fashion,
productivity probability depends on the inspection method of the sampling design (i.e.,
the size of the test pits and the sifting and recovery methods used) as well as the
statistical properties of internal site structure (i.e., artifact/feature density and their
degree of spatial clustering).

While full consideration of these independent probabilities is absolutely essential for
conducting accurate and reliable subsurface surveys in areas of obscured or buried
archaeological remains, it also is highly relevant for pedestrian surveys. Although
several archaeologists have examined the properties of sampling design (search geome-
try and surface inspection method) for their effects on discovery probabilities in the
context of surface surveys, very few have considered the effects of the archaeological
remains themselves (site configuration and the statistical properties of internal site
constituents). As Nance and Ball (1986) argue, both sets of properties should be
routinely considered in evaluating both pedestrian and subsurface survey results (see
Figure 3). As our knowledge of the archaeological record in a given area increases,
“cyclical estimates of site size/shape distributions and artifact density/aggregation
distributions” should accumulate, permitting progressively more “accurate estimates
of the parameters of the archaeological record” (Nance and Ball 1986:478). These
estimates can then be used to refine earlier estimates of the intersection, productivity,
and overall discovery probabilities “so that more effective TPS [SST herein] and
pedestrian surveys may be designed, or to estimate approximate biases for a given
sampling design” (Nance and Ball 1986:478). As stated earlier, greater effectiveness
and objective bias assessment in archaeological inventory survey are central concerns
of the present project.

In spite ‘of ongoing controversy over the effectiveness and overall utility of subsurface
testing as a site discovery technique (Keller 1982; Krakker, Shott, and Welch 1983;
Wobst 1983; McManamon 1984, 1994; Shott 1985,1989; Nance and Ball 1986, 1989;
Lightfoot 1986, 1989), it is still the only practical alternative for systematic site survey
in areas where pedestrian surface inspection is made impossible either by depositional
processes or by dense vegetation.

While subsurface testing is admittedly not a very effective technique for intersecting
and detecting small sites (i.e., less than 30 m in diameter) with low artifact densities
distributed in highly clustered fashion, even in these cases the technique permits
reasonable estimation of the probability of not finding them, and is thus preferable to


204

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

6. FINAL REPORT thirty (30) days after receipt of comments
on draft report.



148

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

shovel-probe, posthole, or augering surveys in areas with low-to-nonexistent surface
visibility, and deep coring programs in areas where geomorphological processes have
resulted in deeply buried archaeological sites.

A related issue is the contracting process through which inventory surveys are planned
and executed. Recommendations have been made to permit the archaeological con-
tractor more flexibility in developing and implementing research designs and in field
logistics at the same time that DoD contracting agencies are permitted a greater flexi-
bility in the dispersal of payments and in monitoring of the field work as it proceeds.
The dual issues of site definition and survey intensity, of course, are intimately related
to cost estimation and the efficient planning and execution of archaeological inventory
surveys. Thus the cost-estimation guidelines developed in this project take into consid-
eration the recommendations adopted for standardization of site definition and for
greater rigor in the definition of survey intensity.

Recommendations

The principal recommendations are listed below under the three basic topical issues
treated in this document:

Site Definition

. The definition of an archaeological site should follow that of Tainter (1983: p 132;
emphasis original) in which a site is “any location where human behavior has
resulted in the deposition of at least two different artifacts in close proximity, or
other evidence of purposive behavior.”

Survey Intensity and Site Discovery Procedures

¢ — Assessment of regional landscape conditions by the installation manager.
Specification of anticipated archaeological resource targets and predictive models
of archaeological sensitivity across the landscape by the installation manager.

¢ Routine calculation of discovery probabilities through Monte Carlo simulation by
the installation manager.

. Specification of sampling design, site discovery procedures, and pertinent logisti-
cal “metadata” by the archaeological contractor.

. Specification of survey intensity by the archaeological contractor.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Table 3. List of items included in site characterizations.

SITE DESCRIPTION

SITE DISCOVERY PROCEDURE(S)

SITE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE(S)

INTRA-SITE SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS
--Anthropogenic Soil Horizons
--Cultural Features
--Feature Density
--Feature Density-Distribution
--Artifacts
--Artifact Density
--Artifact Density-Distribution
--Associations (if any)

SITE INTERPRETATIONS

Technical Terminology

Before entering into an extended discussion of site definitions and site discovery
procedures, it may be helpful to define terminology useful for discussions of archaeo-
logical survey methodology and sampling theory. Some of these terms have already
been introduced in the preceding paragraphs; they include: precision, accuracy, reli-
ability, validity, bias, and the concept of “confidence.”

As Wandsnider and Camilli (1992:170) noted with respect to archaeological survey
procedures, “precision, reliability, and accuracy are attributes both of measuring
instruments and direct measurements made with those instruments,” and as a result
precision and reliability are often used interchangeably. Following their usage, and
that of Bernard (1988:49), precision “refers to the resolving power of the measurement
instrument.” As used in this document, it directly relates to the survey intensity (i.e.,
the level of spatial resolution) used in a given site discovery procedure; it is thus an
attribute of the archaeologist-as-measuring-instrument. It should be noted that this
definition differs in important respects from the traditional statistical definition of
precision. Ina strictly statistical sense, precision “is a measure of the probability that
the one sample mean we actually obtain differs by more than some given amount



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

cases of pedestrian survey where no data was provided on number of person-days
expended, Level of Effort was estimated using the method suggested by Schiffer and
Wells (1983:352), where Survey Effort = 402/crew spacing (indicated in Table 5 by
values followed by an asterisk). In some cases these estimates were also used to
calculate the associated Discovery Rate. As Schiffer and Wells (1983) carefully point
out, these estimates are subject to the vagaries of extraneous variables such as low
accessibility and lengthy site recording time, and in such cases should be corrected
accordingly. According to Schiffer and Wells (1982:352), “a good rule of thumb is that
a large-scale pedestrian survey using 20 m intervals requires about 20 person-days/
square mile under average conditions for areas of good visibility and fairly low
resource densities.” This algorithm will be explored in greater detail in the discussion
of cost estimation for pedestrian surveys in Chapter 5. Table 6 provides the means,
standard deviations, and sample sizes for these data categories by culture area.

Turning to the data presented in Table 5, the most useful comparisons can be made
between the surveys in Northeast and Southeast on the one hand, and those of the
Plains, Great Basin, and Southwest, on the other. These two macro-areas illustrate
the greatest differences in survey design and site discovery procedures and they also
demonstrate interesting internal variability, as discussed later. The culture areas of
the Plateau, the Northwest Coast, and California are included in Tables 5 and 6 for
general comparison, but samples sizes are too low to conduct detailed evaluations.

In the Great Basin and Southwest, pedestrian surface inspection methods were used
exclusively, while in the Southeast and Northeast, due to dense ground cover and
generally low visibility, SST methods were either used exclusively or were combined
with surface inspection where surface visibility permitted. In the Plains, most surveys
were conducted with pedestrian surface inspection techniques. For the two exceptions
where SST procedures were used (Scott et al. 1982; Lebo and Brown 1990), no meta-
data were provided regarding person-day labor expenditures. Thus the Schiffer/Wells
algorithm for estimating level-of-effort in pedestrian surface survey was used and no
doubt underestimates real labor expenditures by a considerable margin. As a general
rule, SST greatly increases the labor-intensity per unit area surveyed (see discussion
by Lightfoot 1986), ‘and this increase should manifest itself in a variety of ways, both
in survey design (e.g., field logistics, labor costs, etc.) and in the results obtained.

Regarding the total area surveyed, it is important to note that in the Great Basin,
Southwest, and Plains, the total areas surveyed are generally much larger than those
in the eastern United States (see Tables 5 and 6). In the Great Basin (mean = 28.1 sq
mi) and Plains (mean = 27.8 sq mi), survey tracts were over three times larger that
their counterparts in the Northeast (mean = 9.7 sq mi) and Southeast (mean = 7.6 sq
mi). For the Southwest (mean = 18.2 sq mi), survey tracts were between 1.9 and 2.4



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 191

existing studies, publications, pertinent maps,
records, and other sources to obtain necessary
information on prehistorical and historical use of the
AFB area. Early records pertaining to the area shall
receive priority in the study. The product shall
include an identification of all known historical and
prehistoric archeological resources, a statement of
their significance, their eligibility status for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), the deed/title/probate inventory study of known
historic sites, and a categorization of records and
sources checked for individual sites.

This task also requires development of the following
maps: (1) landforms; (2) updated disturbance areas not
requiring survey; (3) areas previously surveyed and
excluded from survey; (4) known site locations; and (5)
archeological sensitivity areas. The Contractor shall,
during development of the OVERVIEW, research and
provide documentation to support their findings. The
OVERVIEW shall include recommendations that justify
exclusion of areas from survey as appropriate. The
Contractor shall list resources for which eligibility
has been determined, and those needing additional
investigations (and the nature of these investigations)
before eligibility can be determined. The OVERVIEW
shall complete the baseline database and historic
context necessary to make determinations of
eligibility, according to 36 CFR 60, with
recommendations for additional field work specified.

Task 2. The Contractor shall develop an archeological
survey RESEARCH DESIGN for the purpose of locating
prehistoric and historic archeological sites based on
the OVERVIEW developed under Task 1, above. A
consideration in the RESEARCH DESIGN shall be the depth
of potential impacts on archeological sites in the
proposed target ranges. The archeological survey
RESEARCH DESIGN shall produce a bias assessment for the
discovery of archeological sites, with justification
based on site size and artifact density gleaned from
the archeological literature for the area. It shall
include, but not be limited to discussion of the
following topics:

Definition of Study Area and Targeted Archaeological
Resources: The survey study area should be determined
in accordance with the installation’s overall mission,
its past impact on the landscape, and its probable
future impact on the landscape and associated cultural
resources. Prior to the initiation of survey
activities, the study area should be "stratified" into
different archaeological sensitivity zones based on a



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 197

Poinsette Air Force Range staff periodically which shall include
the Contractor’s Principal Investigator (P.I.). The USACERL may,
with the approval of the ACC and the Poinsette Air Force Range
POC, also arrange meetings with the SHPO and ACHP that may also
include the Contractor’s P.I. The Contractor may request a
meeting at any time with the USACERL Archeologist, the COR, the
Poinsette Air Force Range POC.

7. SUPERVISION

The Technical Representative from the Tri-Services Cultural
Resources Research Center at USACERL, the ACC, and the
Poinsette Air Force Range POC will review the Contractor’s work
by the quality of the delivered products and the success of this
program. The draft and final deliverables serve as partial
evidence of performance and final deliverables are the items that
will also represent the work to the professional community at
large if applicable.

8. GENERAL PROVISIONS:

Potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) shall be discussed on discovered cultural resources and
determined if such criteria can be discerned during the survey.
Eligibility recommendations shall include three categories: (1)
unusual sites that the contractor recommends for eligibility
based upon survey data; (2) sites in which contractor cannot
make recommendations without more information (unknown); and (3)
sites contractor recommends as ineligible based upon the
information gathered during survey. Archeological site
evaluations and recommendations for any additional work, if
necessary, will be made by the Contractor based upon information
derived from the methods outlined within this Scope of Work. A
South Carolina State Site Form will also be prepared on all
archeological site loci recorded for completion of this Delivery
Order. The State Site Form will provide a current and easily
used reference of cultural resources with the survey area.

The Contractor is required to obtain all necessary rights-of-way
and shall verify with the USACERL that such rights-of-way have
been obtained prior to visiting the project area.

Official trinomial site identification numbers will be used on
all site forms, index forms, maps, charts, tables, graphs, and
reports.

Neither the Contractor nor their representative shall release or
publish any sketch, photograph, report, or other material of any
nature derived or prepared under this Delivery Order without
specific written permission of the USACERL Technical
Representative except as is specifically provided for in this
Scope of Work.



104 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Table 12. Sample output file from STP program as in Table 8, applied to archaeological data.

NOTE: Output reflects 100 shovel probes (measuring 40 x 40 cm) arrayed with “staggered grid” sampling geometry.

Site parameters have been modified to cover a broader range of site sizes (20 - 140 m in diameter) and higher

intrasite artifact densities (10 - 140 artifacts per sq m) than is the case in Table 8.

File Site Artifact Density No. Sites Intersected Sites Detected

No. Diam Fn Mean k Sites Number Pct Hits Number Pct Hits
1 20 s 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2974 978 97.8 1657
1 20 s 20.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2377 1000 100.0 2002
1 20 s 40.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2956 1000 100.0 2209
1 20 Ss 60.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3006 1000 100.0 2397
1 20 Ss 80.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2949 1000 100.0 2388
1 20 Ss 100.0 0.000 1000. 1000 100.0 2993 1000 100.0 2471
1 20 Ss 120.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2955 1000 100.0 2495
1 20 s 140.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2968 1000 100.0 2492
1 20 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2987 910 91.0 1717
1 20 N 20.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2963 969 96.9 2163
1 20 N 40.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2980 991 99.1 2510
1 20 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3062 995 99.5 2748
1 20 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2992 996 99.6 2748
1 20 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3024 998 99.8 2795
1 20 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2934 999 99.9 2750
L 20 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1009 100.0 2976 999 99.9 2841
1 40 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10619 1000 100.0 6255
1 40 Ss 20.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10670 1000 100.0 7375
1 40 Ss 40.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10571 1000 100.0 8214
1 40 $s 60.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10645 1000 100.0 8677
1 40 $s 80.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10580 1000 100.0 8795
1 40 S$ 100.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10646 1000 100.0 9061
1 40 S$ 120.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10690 1000 100.0 9180
1 40 S$ 140.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 10681 1000 100.0 9227
1 40 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10560 1000 100.0 6390
1 40 oN 20.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10821 1000 100.0 8139
1 40 N 40.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10636 1000 100.0 9053
1 40 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10431 1000 100.0 9407
1 40 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10676 1000 100.0 9819
1 40 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10668 1000 100.0 9976
1 40 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10540 1000 100.0 10025
1 40 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 10530 1000 100.0 10040
1 60 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21769 1000 100.0 12998
1 60 Ss 20.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21738 1000 100.0 15490
1 60 Ss 40.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21100 1000 100.0 16734
1 60 Ss 60.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21771 1000 100.0 18008
1 60 Ss 80.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21325 1000 100.0 18016
1 60 Ss 100.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21394 1000 100.0 18416
1 60 S$ 120.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21559 1000 100.0 18904
1 60 s 140.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 21323 1000 100.0 18801
1 60 oN 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21741 1000 100.0 13303
1 60 N 20.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21426 1000 100.0 16243
1 60 N 40.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21469 1000 100.0 18436
1 60 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21623 1000 100.0 19519
1 60 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21541 1000 100.0 19910
1 60 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21560 1000 100.0 20235
1 60 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21581 1000 100.0 20401
1 60 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 21721 1000 100.0 20734
1 80 s 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 33827 1000 100.0 20928
1 80 Ss 20.0 0.000, 1000 1000 100.0 34344 1000 100.0 24899
1 80 s 40.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 35064 1000 100.0 28175
1 80 s 60.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 34824 1000 100.0 29201
1 go 6S 80.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 34305 1000 100.0 29532



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 167

Ortiz, A., vol ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9: Southwest, W. C. Sturtevant, general
editor (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1979).

Pauketat, T., The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America
(University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, 1994).

Peebles, C., Prehistoric Agricultural Communities in West Central Alabama, Volume III: Basic Data and
Data Processing in the Lubbub Creek Archaeological Locality, report prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Mobile District under Contract Nos. (C5861(79) and C5970(79) (Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1983).

Pettigrew, R. M., “Survey Strategy and Predictive Modeling in the Context of Site Discovery Constraints ”
in Archaeological Inventory and Predictive Modelling in the Pacific Northwest, R. F. Darsie, J. D.
Keyser, and S.Hackenberger, eds., Studies in Cultural Resource Management No. 6 (USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR, 1985), pp 21-25.

Plog, F., ed., An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resource Management: The Little Colorado Planning
Unit, Anthropological Research Paper No. 13 (Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 1978).

Plog, F., and J. Hill, “Explaining Variability in the Distribution of Sites,” in The Distribution of
Prehistoric Population Aggregates, G. J. Gumerman, ed., Anthropological Papers, 8 (Prescott
College, Prescott, AZ, 1971), pp 7-36.

Plog, S., F. Plog, and W. Wait, “Decision Making in Modern Surveys,” in Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Volume 1, M. B. Schiffer, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1978), pp. 383-421.

Quinn, A. G., B. J. Gundy, and J. Glenn, Phase III Data Recovery in the I-70 Project Study Area, Emery
and Sevier Counties, Utah, report prepared by the Cultural Resource Management Program,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, for the Utah Department of Transportation (Salt Lake
City, UT, 1990).

Raab, L. M., ed., Settlement of the Prairie Margin: Archaeology of the Richland Creek Reservoir, Navarro
and Freestone Counties, Texas, 1980-1981: A Research Synopsis. Archaeology Research Program,
Archaeological Monographs, 1 (Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 1982).

Ramirez, C. W., “The Legacy Program: A Model for Federal Agencies,” Historic Preservation Forum, vol
7, no. 5 (1993), pp 62-71.

Rankin, A. G., “Methods and Procedures,” in A Class III Archaeological Survey of the Phase B Corridor,
Tucson Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, C. Downum, A. Rankin, and J. Czaplicki, eds.,
Archaeological Series, 168 (Arizona State Museum, 1986), pp 29-33.

Read, D. W., “Regional Sampling,” in Sampling in Archaeology, J. W. Mueller, ed. (University of Arizona,
Tucson, 1975), pp 45-60.



126

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Table 13. Estimated level-of-effort required (in person-days per unit area) for
different crew interval spacings in pedestrian survey, based on algorithm
developed by Schiffer and Wells (1982).

l Estimated Level-of-Effort Required
Crew Interval .
Spacing (m) (p-d/sq.mi.) | (p-d/sq.km.)} (p-d/ha.) | (p-d/acre)
if
5 80.4 31.04 | 031 | 012
10 | 40.2 15.52 0.15 0.06
15 26.8 10.35 1 0.04
20 20.1 7.76 | 0.08 0.03
25 16.08 6.21 0.06 0.02
30 13.4 5.17 0.05 0.02
35 [11.49 4.44 0.04 0.02
40 10.05 3:88 0.04 0.02
45 8.93 3.45 0.03 0.01
50 8.04 3.1 0.03 0.01

Suppose that an installation requires that a 22 sq km training area be completely
surveyed as part of a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) compliance process, and
that a 15-m crew spacing has been established as the desired survey intensity based
on known properties of the local archaeological record. Using Table 18, we can see
that the survey tract would require a level-of-effort of approximately 10.35 person-days
per square kilometer or a total effort of 227.7 person-days. Again, this assumes
average survey conditions, reasonably good surface visibility, and a fairly low density
of archaeological sites so that accessibility is largely unhindered and recording time
is minimal. Should these conditions not prevail, then the estimate must be adjusted
upward accordingly.

Previous knowledge of local landscape conditions and the regional and local archaeo-
logical record are thus indispensable in making accurate cost-estimates. As an
example, on-going inventory survey at Fort Hood, TX, has provided installation
archaeologists with a firm basis for estimating inventory costs in that region of the
southern Great Plains. As Jackson et al. (1993:49) observe:

On the average, the six-person field crew can walk a square km (247 acres) spaced
30 m apart in one working day. They can also record two archaeological sites in the
process, by splitting into two recording teams at the end of the day. When the land
is open and clear, the work will go much faster; on open prairie with good surface
visibility the same crew could cover a 50 percent greater area, all things being
equal. Because there are nearly always problems, vegetation, and more than two
sites, the six person-days per square kilometer, or 25 person-days per 1000 acres
is a good planning figure. If site density proves to be greater than 2 sites per


USACERL SR 96/40, Vo! 1

45

In their view, a site is best defined as “a discrete and potentially interpretable locus
of material ...with...boundaries marked by at least relative changes in artifact density”
(Plog, Plog, and Wait 1978:389; see also Dunnell and Dancey 1983). This kind of
definition, which takes into account regional differences in artifact density, represents
a sensitivity to the objectives of the nonsite approach described earlier, but without
rejecting the site concept entirely. As Gallant (1986:409) points out: “a step toward an
operational definition of a site would be to combine the concept of the spatial distribu-
tion of artifacts as a continuum on a regional scale and of high density scatters, or
sites, as only one end of that continuum.” A good example of this approach can be
found in the definitional criteria established by Chase, Montgomery, and Landreth
(1988 ) for surficial material cultural remains in southeast Louisiana. For purposes
of their research design, surficial remains are segregated into four categories, as
follows: .

Site. An area 15 m or greater in diameter that contains a minimum
of 11 artifacts or a feature.

Scatter. An area containing single artifacts distributed 25 to 50 m apart.

Cluster. An area 15 mor less in diameter containing between 2 and 10
artifacts.

Isolated Find. Single items located more than 50 m from another artifact.
(Chase, Montgomery, and Landreth 1988:Attachment 3, page 1;
emphasis original).

A fourth alternative to these three definitional approaches, also mentioned by Gallant
(1986), is the nonsite approach. As we have seen, in this case the site concept is
avoided entirely in favor of other terminology such as “archaeological resources,” “field
loci,” “cultural acreage,” or simply “artifact clusters.” Each cultural item takes on
primary analytical importance and all surface materials are recorded regardless of
their degree of clustering. Representative examples of this approach were discussed
in the preceding section.

Table 4 provides a summary chart showing how the 25 definitions listed in Appendix
A sort out in terms of the four categories described above. Six of the entries fall readily
into the “benign neglect” category either because no definition is provided (7, 17,22, 24)
even though certain properties of sites are mentioned (1), or an analytical distinction
is made between sites and isolated finds (18). On first glance, one might attribute such
neglect to more traditional approaches of older monographs, say from the early to mid-
1970s when the question of what constitutes a site was not a major epistemological
concern. Such is not the case, however, since all six entries post-date 1975. It
probably has more to do with the “provincial” nature of many survey monographs,
which have very restricted CRM objectives and are aimed at equally restricted local



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

87

In the Eastern Great Basin and Colorado Plateau areas of Utah, on the other hand,
few conscious attempts at delineating intrasite spatial structure have been made until
comparatively recently (e.g., Simms and Heath 1990; Metcalfe and Heath 1990; Quinn,
Gundy, and Glenn 1990). For example, Lohse (1980:49) has characterized past
excavation strategies at Fremont sites as follows:

[Domestic] structures are identified within test trenches and completely excavated,
but exploration is not continued out onto the associated occupation surface, effec-
tively curtailing any solid statements about intra-site plan...[As a result], we have
no real idea of Fremont settlement plan or correspondingly, social organization. A
good relative chronology has been built up, although the largest stumbling block
in any study focusing on settlement pattern is the general lack of radiocarbon dates
off identifiable living surfaces.

As the archaeological data compiled in Volume 3 demonstrate, many of these sites lack
a clear definition of site boundary, either from information on the surface distribution
of archaeological materials or on subsurface distribution through shovel testing or
postholing. Thus no information exists as to site size and shape in spite of the fact that
several structures and related features may have been completely excavated at a given
site. Cave sites have generally fared better in this regard probably because size and
shape are important constraints in site mapping and excavation in these sites. At
least one of these cave sites has also received detailed study of intrasite spatial
structure (Jennings, Schroedl, and Holmer 1980).

The implications of this rapidly drawn comparison of two archaeological regions of the
United States are reasonably clear. If regional patterning exists in the archaeological
record itself, as one would expect, this discussion also demonstrates that regional
trends exist in the way archaeological field work is conducted in these regions. Not
only are fundamental site discovery procedures different, but in some cases the
background archaeological data that one needs to determine the effectiveness of partic-
ular discovery procedures are not readily available. The costs of such background
research are not dealt with in this document, but they must be factored into the
budgetary planning of any intensive archaeological survey (see recommendations in
Chapter 4). The net effect of these regional differences is a general lack of comparabil-
ity in the research results obtained in archaeological surveys and/or excavations.
While the local archaeologist operating in one or another of these regions may not be
too concerned with this noncomparability of results, or even with the effectiveness of
the site discovery procedures commonly used, this is not the case with a large land-
holding agency such as the DoD whose stewardship over cultural resources extends
across the continental United States. For this reason, specific methods are needed for
the evaluation of survey effectiveness and sampling bias. This topic is treated in the
next chapter.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

NAGPRA. The Legacy Resource Management Program is an attempt to enhance the
stewardship of cultural and natural resources on the DoD lands so that their con-
servation can be better integrated with the dynamic requirements of military missions
and with the public interest (United States Department of Defense 1991). This project
was conceived as one component of that endeavor by focusing on the narrow yet
important topics of archaeological survey intensity, site definition, and effective site
discovery methods and techniques. The policy recommendations developed in this
document are intended as baseline standards that will allow DoD archaeologists and
cultural resource managers to achieve proactive management of archaeological
resources through routine quality control of survey results.

This document is also intended for cultural resource management contractors who
conduct archaeological surveys and site-testing operations for the DoD. They need to
fully understand the reasons for establishing survey standards within the DoD and the
specific nature of those standards (i.e., what aspects of archaeological survey are
standardized and what aspects are not affected). They also need to understand the
implications of these standards for the contracting process as well as the performance
and reporting of survey work. Often as a consequence of “lowest bid” contracting
procedures, loosely worded and poorly researched Scopes-of-Work, and little or no
agency monitoring of project performance, archaeological surveys result in deficient
field research and reporting. Little advancement is made in archaeological knowledge
of installation resources and the installation manager has no means of properly
evaluating the survey results because methodological procedures and level-of-effort
calculations are insufficiently documented. Very often, successive surveys by different
contractors on the same installation will yield noncomparable results, not because
different methodological procedures were used, but rather because the procedures that
were used were not described in sufficient detail to permit meaningful comparisons
between projects. Many of the policy recommendations proposed in this document are
aimed at rectifying this problem through greater attentiveness on the part of DoD
archaeologists and installation cultural resource managers in the contracting and
monitoring of archaeological inventory surveys.

The third audience for which this document is intended is comprised of Federal
archaeologists from other large landholding agencies, especially the National Park
Service (Department of the Interior), the Bureau of Land Management (Department
of the Interior), and the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture). As is the case
with the DoD and its branch services, these agencies exhibit a certain amount of
idiosyncracy in their approach to many of the topics discussed in this document.
Inevitably, any attempt to establish standards and guidelines for archaeological
inventory survey in the DoD will have repercussions for these other Federal agencies
as well. Likewise, the development of standards in one agency should not occur in a


REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Oar ie roye 0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information Is estimated to average 1 hour per response, Including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this|
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson}
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE. 3, REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
December 1995 Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Archaeological Inventory Survey Standards and Cost-estimation Guidelines for the Legacy Demonstration
Department of Defense Project #302
6, AUTHOR(S)

James A. Zeidler

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL)
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005

8, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER

SR 96/40, Vol 1

9, SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Environmental Programs Directorate
ATTN: DAIM-ED-N
600 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0600

10, SPONSORING / MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

12a. DISTRIBUTION 7 AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

— 19960722 0

Current historic preservation legislation requires that Federal agencies inspect their landholdings to identify historic and
prehistoric archaeological resources, evaluate these resources to determine their significance, and protect important
archaeological resources. To minimize the effects of variable regional conditions and certain methodological biases,
Department of Defense (DoD) land managers need some measure of standardization and comparability in the inventory survey
procedures and data collection techniques so the degree of survey coverage on different installations can be objectively
assessed,

In light of this challenge, the purposes of this study are to (1) establish standard definitions and procedures for conducting
intensive inventory survey of archaeological sites, and (2) recommend contracting and cost-estimation guidelines to be used for
proposing, budgeting, and scheduling archaeological inventory surveys. The overall goal is to provide quantifiable and
statistically defensible methods for conducting inventory surveys on DoD lands by focusing greater attention on the issues of
site definition, survey intensity, and the use of appropriate site discovery procedures for given land surface conditions and for
given kinds of archaeological resources. Finally, the related issues of contracting and cost estimation are explored as a means of
facilitating the planning and execution of archaeological inventory surveys.

14, SUBJECT TERMS
archaeological research

75. NUMBER OF PAGES
historic archaeology 216

cost estimating 16. PRICE CODE
Department of Defense
17, SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified SAR

ISN 7540-01 -280-5500

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18
298-102



150

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

References

Abbott, D. R., “Unbiased Estimates of Feature Frequencies with Computer Simulation,” American
Archaeology, vol 5, no. 1 (1985), pp 4-11.

Abbott, L. R., and C. A. Neidig, “Archaeological Postholing: A Proposed Subsurface Survey and Site-
Testing Methodology,” in “Highways to the Past: Essays on Illinois Archaeology in Honor of
Charles J. Bareis,” edited by T. E. Emerson, A. C. Fortier, and D. L. McElrath, Illinois Archaeology,
vol 5, no. 1 & 2 (1993), pp 38-45.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation
Law: Participant’s Desk Reference, a Section 106 Training Publication (Washington, DC, 1993).

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Defense Department Compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act: Section 202(a)(6) Evaluation Report (Legacy Resource Management Program,
Washington, DC, 1994).

Aikens, C. M., “The Far West,” in Ancient North Americans, J. D. Jennings, ed. (W. H. Freeman and Co.,
New York, 1983), pp. 149-201.

Aikens, C. M., and D. B. Madsen, “Prehistory of the Eastern Area,” in Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin, W. L. D'Azevado, ed. (Smithsonian University Press,
Washington, DC, 1986), pp 149-160.

Alexander, R. K., J. D. Hartley, and T. F. Babcock, A Settlement Survey of the Fort Carson Military
Reservation, Report 7900 (Grand River Consultants, Grand Junction, CO, 1982).

Allen, K. M., S. W. Green, and E. B. Zubrow, eds., Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology (Taylor and
Francis, London, 1990).

Altschul, J. H., “Models and the Modeling Process,” in Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past:
Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, W. J. Judge and L.
Sebastian, eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Service Center,
Denver, CO, 1988), pp 61-96.

Altschul, J. H., and C. L."Nagle, “Collecting New Data for the Purpose of Model Development,” in
Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeologi-
cal Predictive Modeling, W. J. Judge and L. Sebastian, eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO, 1988), pp 257-299.



USACERL SR 96/40,

Vol 1

evidence of human behavior, into a site? As Tainter (1983:131) has observed,
“archeological institutions usually maintain files of things called ‘sites.’ If certain
archeological manifestations are called something other than ‘site,’ no formal record
may be kept, even though such manifestations are of research importance.” Further-
more, the use of other terms such as “cultural properties,” “scatters,” and “localities”
is problematic for purposes of historic preservation and cultural resource management
in that they “are not among the manifestations recognized by the National Register of
Historic Places” (ibid.) as defined in 36 CFR 60.3. For purposes of NRHP nomination,
a site is defined as “the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupa-
tion or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished,
where the location itself maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the
value of any existing structure” (36 CFR 60.3[1]). The National Park Service (1985:2;
emphasis original) has clearly stated this managerial problem in the following terms:

26,

Site boundaries often are arbitrary distinctions that may not always reflect the
spatial concepts implicit in certain theoretical perspectives, notably those of “non-
site” or “off-site” archeology. However, in all cases for public administration
purposes boundary determinations require a clear notion of which physical features
and their mutual relationships are being recognized as a “site.” Usually this
requires the archeologist to decide, in terms of the concept of “site” being used, the
degree of fall-off in cultural material density that is no longer acceptable in order
to be considered part of the “site.”

Even if one questions the ontological reality of the archaeological site, as do Ebert and
Dunnell, might the concept still be a useful heuristic device, a “disciplinary construct”
in Fotiadis’ (1992:137) terminology, for partitioning the archaeological record into
manageable units?

In spite of the growing disenchantment with the concept in some academic circles, and
its myopic tendency to skew analytical attention towards high-density clusters of
archaeological materials, the site is still a useful tool for collecting and analyzing
archaeological data over a regional landscape and for organizing and managing
archaeological resources in CRM contexts, as long as its definition is not overly
restrictive. Here we agree with the perspective of Nance (1983:331, emphasis original)
which is quoted at length below:

Archaeologists have long employed the concept of site as a fundamental analytic
entity. The existence of this entity in the archaeologist’s vocabulary relates, of
course, to the valid observation that artifacts occur in clusters, representing nodes
of depositional intensity within what was probably a diffuse network of activity
over the landscape of the past. Thus, while there are often real problems in
operationalizing the concept, the idea of the sife has served archaeologists well, and


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 161

Kayser, D. W., and C. H. Carroll, San Augustine Coal Area, Archaeological Ir Investigations in West-Central
New Mexico, Volume 3: Report of the Final Field Season, Cultural Resources Series No. 5 (Bureau
of Land Management, Santa Fe, NM, 1988).

Keller, J. E., “Lithic Scatters and Longleaf Pine: Limited Activity Areas in Pyrogenic Environments,”
Southeastern Archaeology, vol 1 no. 1 (1982), pp 40-51.

Kendall, M. G., and P. A. Moran, Geometrical Probability (Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 1963).

Kerber, J. E., ‘Conducting “Siteless Survey": Results from Coastal New England, North American
Archaeologist, vol 14, no. 1 (1993), pp 25-42.

King, T. F., The Archeological Survey: Methods and Uses (United States Department of the Interior,
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Sevice, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC, 1978).

King, T. F., Lecture materials distributed in workshop entitled "U.S. Army Projects and Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act: An Introduction" (USACERL ,Champaign, IL, June 28-30,
1993).

King, T. F., and W. P. Cole, “Appendix D: Automated Management of Data and Research Results on
Archeological Surveys,” in The Archeological Survey: Methods and Uses (United States Department
of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Sevice, Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Washington, DC, 1978), pp 131-132.

King, T. F., and M. Drucker, Principles of Cultural Resource Management Planning in the Department
of Defense (Draft), U.S. Department of Defense, Legacy Resource Management Program
(Washington, DC, 1993).

Kintigh, K. W., “The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach,” American Antiquity,
vol 53, no. 4 (1988a), pp 686-707.

Kintigh, K. W., The Archaeologist’s Analytical Toolkit, commercially distributed manual and software
available from author (Tempe, AZ, 1988b).

Klinger, T. C., “The Problem of Site Definition in Cultural Resource Management,” Arkansas Academy
of Science, Proceedings (1976), pp 54-56.

Koch, G. S., Jr., and R. F. Link, Statistical Analysis of Geological Data, Volume II John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1971).

Koch, J. K., and C. S. Mueller-Wille, Archaeological Survey at Fort Hood, Texas, Fiscal Year 1985: The
Southwestern Training Area, Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research Report No.
17 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth, TX, 1989a).

Koch J. K. and C. S. Mueller-Wille, Archaeological Survey at Fort Hood, Texas, Fiscal Year 1985: The
Northern Training Area, Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research Report No. 18
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth, TX, 1989b).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

73

Site Density (sites/sq. mi.)

1

0 + + + + +
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Level-of-Effort (p-d/sq. mi.)

A= Carlson et al. (1986) D = Koch and Mueller-Wille (1989a)
B = Mueller-Wille and Carlson (1990) € = Carlson et al. (1988)
C =Carlson et al. (1987) F = Koch and Mueller-Wille (1989b)

Figure 4. Scatterplot of six archaeological surveys conducted in different survey tracts of the Fort Hood military
installation, showing positive correlation between level-of-effort and site density.

compared with the data compiled in the present report (Table 5). Schiffer and Wells
(1982: Table 9) compiled a list of 12 archaeological surveys in the Southwest that gives
values for Survey Effort, Crew Spacing, and Site Density. The publication dates of
these surveys range from 1974 to 1980 with a mean publication date of 1977 (Schiffer
and Wells 1982). By calculating mean values for their three data categories, we obtain
a mean crew spacing of 25.3 meters (sd = 15.02), a mean survey effort of 27.6 p-d/sq mi
(sd = 33.44), and a fairly low mean site density of only 4.29 sites/sq mi (sd = 2.44).

A comparison of these values with those given in Table 5 is revealing. In Table 5, the
Southwestern survey projects range in publication date from 1976 to 1990, with a
mean publication date of 1982. The list overlaps in time with that of Schiffer and
Wells, but has a mean publication date 5 years later that the mean of 1977. It thus
illustrates significant differences took place between the 1970s and 1980s in
Southwestern archaeological survey design. Table 6 shows the mean values for the
corresponding data categories tabulated in this study. Mean crew spacing decreases



reer e errr rece een

82 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

been characterized by one Eastern Great Basin archaeologist (Lohse 1980:49) in the
following terms:

As yet there have been no serious studies concerning prehistoric economy and
settlement pattern within the Fremont cultural area. The meager information that
has been available is not sufficient for any in-depth treatment. Further, no in-field
investigation involving either subsistence or settlement pattern has even been
attempted. Most of the excavated sites have been the product of salvage work with
narrow research goals or the result of field schools with the primary objective
centering on chronology. Sites have been considered as cultural phenomena
isolated from their exterior world.

Substantial biases exist in prior investigations of Fremont culture. First, sites have
been treated as if they were developed in isolation from the surrounding cultural
system. Second, a self-fulfilling prophecy has been established, wherein we know
what a Fremont site is, so that is what we dig. Excavation has, with few excep-
tions, involved only “village sites.” Other sites, i.e., open campsites, rock-shelters,

etc., certainly elements of the Fremont cultural system, have not been touched
upon. The result is our present [as of 1980], distorted view of Fremont.

Although these statements were published some 15 years ago, little progress has been
made on this problem during the ensuing years. The point of excerpting the above
statements of Bettinger and Lohse is not to denigrate the scientific value of the
archaeological data acquired in these excavations, but rather to draw attention to
probable sampling bias in the existing archaeological record of Eastern Great Basin
prehistory and the systematic exclusion of other kinds of archaeological sites that may
have made up part of the settlement-subsistence systems of the prominent sites that
have been selected for excavation.

Another aspect of regional archaeological surveys in the Great Basin that is worthy of
mention has to do with the definition of survey tracts or study areas that was alluded
to in the earlier discussion of Tables 5 and 6. There is a tendency in some Great Basin
(and Plains) surveys to define inordinately large survey study areas (in the millions
of acres) which then require, due to financial and logistical constraints, the selection
of probabilistic samples so small (e.g., 1-10 percent) that their survey results may not
be truly representative of the total population of sites (e.g., Hauck 1979a, 1979b; Tipps
1988). These situations are largely the fault of the contracting agency (in this case the
Bureau of Land Management) and are the unfortunate result of well-intentioned yet
overly ambitious or inappropriate Scopes-of-Work and the contracted survey designs
that they foster (Berry 1984; see also Fowler 1986). This problem will be treated in
greater detail in Chapter 5.



US Army Corps

of Engineers
Construction Engineering USACERL Special Report 96/40, Vol 1
Research Laboratories December 1995

GPO,

US eovennien gn for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Archaeological Inventory Survey Standards

and Cost-estimation Guidelines for the

Department of Defense

Volume 1: Main Text

by
James A. Zeidler

Current historic preservation legislation requires
that Federal agencies inspect their landholdings to
identify historic and prehistoric archaeological
resources, evaluate these resources to determine
their significance, and protect important archaeo-
logical resources. To minimize the effects of
variable regional conditions and certain methodo-
logical biases, Department of Defense (DoD) land
managers need some measure of standardization
and comparability in the inventory survey proce-
dures and data collection techniques so the degree
of survey coverage on different installations can be
objectively assessed.

In light of this challenge, the purposes of this study
are to (1) establish standard definitions and proce-
dures for conducting intensive inventory survey of
archaeological sites, and (2) recommend contract-
ing and cost-estimation guidelines to be used for
proposing, budgeting, and scheduling archaeo-
logical inventory surveys. The overall goal is to
provide quantifiable and statistically defensible
methods for conducting inventory surveys on DoD
lands by focusing greater attention on the issues of
site definition, survey intensity, and the use of
appropriate site discovery procedures for given land
surface conditions and for given kinds of archaeo-
logical resources. Finally, the related issues of
contracting and cost estimation are explored as a
means of facilitating the planning and execution of
archaeological inventory surveys.

KEY
'* Positive Posthoie Test
2 Negative Posthole Test
+ Area of Scatter

23Pu2t2 (cairn

G

Rock Shelters

This document is a Legacy Program work product and does not suggest or reflect the policy, programs,
or doctrine of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or United States Government.



CS .........__._.._ eee

108 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

missed through the implementation of a given survey design and level of survey
intensity. By specifying and justifying these archaeological resource targets (and their
associated discovery probabilities), objective bias assessment of the ensuing survey
results becomes possible.

This background information on anticipated resource targets should be combined with
assessments of regional landscape conditions to permit the development of predictive
models of where such targeted resource will likely be located in the landscape. Thus,
for different kinds of resources (e.g., sites of a particular cultural component, of a
particular functional category, etc.), low, medium, and high locational “probability
surfaces” (Kvamme 1988b) and subsurface “sensitivity areas” (Chase, Montgomery,
and Landreth 1988) can be delimited for testing by a given survey design. The low-to-
high grading would correspond, respectively, to areas of the landscape where (a) no
relevant archaeological resources can be anticipated, “(b) where there are only weak
or contradictory expectations, and (c) where expectations have some degree of con-
fidence” (Dincauze et al. 1980:179). Both the targeted archaeological resources and the
probability/sensitivity areas should be clearly specified in both the RFP and the
contractual Scope-of-Work (SOW) for a particular survey tract or project study area.
For those cultural resource managers not familiar with the issue of predictive
locational modeling in archaeology, excellent overviews and applications can be found
in Kohler and Parker (1986), Judge and Sebastian (1988), and Allen, Green, and
Zubrow (1990).

In many cases, the background archaeological data necessary for developing predictive
models simply may not exist. In these situations, compliance surveys as well as proba-
bilistically based sample surveys should be designed to ensure the collection of reliable
and representative archaeological data that could be used for predictive modeling at
a future time (Altschul and Nagle 1988). According to Altschul and Nagle (1988:260),
three objectives should be kept in mind for these initial surveys:

In order to create a predictive model, a survey design must be developed that will
provide sufficient data to calculate estimates on various aspects of sites and site
locations, allow the identification of all or of a high proportion of magnet sites, and
allow us to assess the effects of depositional and postdepositional processes. By
nature, such a design must be multifaceted since each of these objectives can best.
be met through a different survey strategy. For example, parameter estimates rely
on some type of probabilistic sampling foundation, while discovery of magnet sites
or paleo land surfaces is best done by purposely selecting areas for examination.

These kinds of initial surveys should also provide useful preliminary data on site size
variability and surface/subsurface artifact densities that can then be used to determine



I
fl

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 183

number of trips, location and duration.

_ 9. Identify inspection criteria, if applicable.

10. Define the point of Inspection and acceptance.

11. Define packaging and shipping requirements, if applicable.

12. Identify the place of performance, if not at. the
contractor’s facility.

13. Identify the period of performance.

14. Ensure the delivery schedule is realistic.

15. Ensure consistency between deliverables, travel
requirements, meetings, and specific tasks.

16. Ensure that the SOW for the basic contract defines all
anticipated work tasks which may be required under the individual
delivery order.

17. Ensure that the scope of the effort is clearly defined.

18. Ensure that the SOW does not specify inherent Government
functions, i.e. program/personnel management decisions; inspection
and acceptance, financial management; supervision of Government
employees.

19. Ensure the SOW is prepared independently by the
Government.

20. Ensure the tasks will not direct or supervise a
contractor.

21. Review the SOW for clarity, consistency, and connection to
the overall requirements.

22. Ensure no conflict of interest concerns exist.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 131

1-m depth.” Posthole diameter was 15 cm, yielding an estimated sediment volume of
17,600 cu cm. They suggest a completion time of 40 to 60 minutes, which roughly
translates to 8 to 12 postholes per person-day (excluding grid set-up time, movement
time between probes, etc.) or a median value of 10 probes/p-d (Table 14). This esti-
mated completion rate is based on extensive field experience in the Midwest and
includes screening of all fill in 10- cm levels as well as detailed soil/deposit descriptions
(Abbott and Neidig 1993). It thus lies at the lower end of McManamon’s suggested
range for shovel-testing on Cape Cod (8 to 40 shovel-probes/p-d).

Even lower estimates of 4.9 and 4.0 postholes per person-day have been published by
Wood (1976) and Nicholson (1983), respectively (see Table 14 for Nicholson’s data).
Wood’s (1976:41) value of 4.9 postholes/person-day was derived from a subsurface
testing program carried out in Georgia in which 354 postholes were executed in 72
person-days, although information on probe depths is incompletely reported. Although
not explicitly stated, this lower figure may be due to the fact that some postholes were
excavated to a depth of 150 cm (Wood 1976:39), rather than 100 cm as in Abbott and
Neidig’s study. In Nicholson’s case, the postholes were excavated to 100 cm, but had
a slightly larger diameter of 20 cm and thus yielded a larger volume of sediment
(31,415 cu cm). In addition, all sediments were screened through one-quarter inch
mesh “and a 11 [1 liter] sample was collected for water-screening from the screened
soil” (Nicholson 1983:276) for the recovery of microremains (especially lithic debitage)
(Table 14). Thus the added time required to excavate a slightly large volume of sedi-
ment, coupled with the time required to water-screen, would account for the lower
completion rate in Nicholson’s study.

Using the cost-estimation algorithm presented above, we can calculate the Level of
SST Survey Effort used in Wood’s subsurface sampling survey. According to Wood
(1976), a total of 354 postholes was excavated within a 22-hectare study area and it
took an average of 4.9 person-days to complete each posthole (including travel time
and recording). Thus, 354/4.9 = 72.24 person-days. Dividing this value by the total
area surveyed, we obtain: 72.24/22 = 3.28 person-days per hectare or 850.5 p-d/sq mi.
This is a much lower level of effort than that reported by Lightfoot (1986) in his
Shelter Island SST survey, but as expected, it is still considerably higher than the
level-of-effort figures typically calculated for pedestrian surveys (e.g., Plog, Plog, and
Wait 1978; Schiffer and Wells 1982). By substituting Abbott and Neidig’s (1993)
higher completion rate of 10 probes/p-d, we obtain a level-of-effort of 1.61 p-d/ha, or
416.75 p-d/sq mi for the same survey area.

Finally, the person-day costs for shallow coring and augering surveys can also be
estimated using the above algorithm. Turning once again to McManamon’s (1984a:266
and Table 4.11) Cape Cod data, shallow augering and coring (to depths of about 50 cm)



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 159

Hartmann, G. D., ed., A Cultural Resources Overview and Sampling Survey of the Commercial Timber
Lands of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Oregon, Reports in Archaeology and History,
100-43 (Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA, 1985).

Hasenstab, R. J., “Windows on the World Beneath: Shovel Test Pits and Site Assessment in the
Northeast,” unpublished manuscript, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst (1986).

Hasenstab, R. J., and B. Resnick, “GIS in Historical Predictive Modelling: The Fort Drum Project,” in
Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, eds.
(Taylor and Francis Ltd, London, 1990), pp 284-306.

Hauck, F. R., Cultural Resource Evaluation in South Central Utah, 1977-1978, Cultural Resource Series
No. 4 (Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, 1979a).

Hauck, F. R., Cultural Resource Evaluation in Central Utah, 1977, Cultural Resource Series No. 3
(Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, 1979b).

Hayden, B., and A. Cannon, “Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands,” Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology, vol 2 (1983), pp 117-163.

Hayes, A. C., D. M. Brugge, and W. J. Judge, Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Chaco
Canyon Studies, Publications in Archeology 18-A (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Washington, DC, 1981).

Hoffman, C., “Close-interval Core Sampling: Tests of a Method for Predicting Internal Site Structure,”
Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 20 (1993), pp 461-473.

House, J. H., “Survey Data and Regional Models in Historical Archeology,” in Research Strategies in
Historical Archeology, S. South, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1977), pp 241-260.

House, J. H., and D. L, Ballenger, An Archeological Survey of the Interstate 77 Route in the South
Carolina Piedmont, Research Manuscript Series, No. 104 (University of South Carolina, Institute
of Archeology and Anthropology, Columbia, SC, 1976).

Howell, T. L., “Evaluating the Utility of Auger Testing as a Predictor of Subsurface Artifact Density,”
Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 20 (1993), pp 475-484.

Hudson, C., The Southeastern Indians (University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 1976).

Hurlbett, R. E., Environmental Constraint and Settlement Predictability, Northwestern Colorado,
Cultural Resource Series No. 3 (Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO, 1976).

Illinois State Historic Preservation Office, “Guidelines for Archaeological Reconnaissance Sur-
veys/Reports,” manuscript (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, IL, 1990).



i. General Comments. (Indicate what you think should be changed to make this report and future reports
of this type more responsive to your needs, more usable, improve readability, etc.)

5. If you would like to be contacted by the personnel who prepared this report to raise specific questions or
discuss the topic, please fill in the following information.

Name:

Telephone Number:

Organization Address:

6. Please mail the completed form to:

Department of the Army

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORIES
ATTN: CECER-TR-I

P.O. Box 9005

Champaign, IL 61826-9005



192

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

predictive model developed from existing archaeological
data. These zones should include areas of high, and low
probability of site discovery. The predictive model
should also specify the anticipated archaeological
resource targets that the inventory survey is intended
to find. Such targets would typically include sites of
a minimum size (e.g., 10, 20, or 30 m. in diameter),
but could also include sites of a given size which also
exhibit surface or subsurface artifact densities of a
specified magnitude (e.g., 0.1, 1, 5, 10, or 50
artifacts per sq. m.). In short, the archaeologist
shall make a good faith effort to specify the minimal
kinds of archaeological resources that the survey is
likely to find at a given level of survey intensity and
observational acuity. Conversely, known archaeological
resources that are likely to be missed by a given set
of survey procedures should also be specified.

Site Discovery Techniques: Site discovery technique(s)
to be employed in the survey should be determined on
the basis of prior geomorphological research and
landscape analysis in order to assess the relative
degree of surface visibility within the study area and
the likelihood of buried archaeological sites. Where
surface visibility is at least 25% and where buried
sites are not expected to exist, standard pedestrian
survey techniques should be employed. In general a no-
collection strategy should be maintained for this phase
of the research and surface materials should be left in
situ. However, enough diagnostic material should be
collected for chronological placement of the site and
the limits of the artifact distributions should be
xecorded on a detailed map of the site.

Where surface visibility is less than 25% due to dense
vegetation cover, or where pedogenic/geomorphic
processes may have buried site surfaces at relatively
shallow depths, some form of shallow subsurface testing
(SST) procedure (i.e., < 3.0 m.b.s.) should be
employed, preferably shovel-testing, postholing, or
bucket augering. These specific instrument to be used
should be determined by the depth of the probe required
to locate the targeted archaeological resources (i.e.,
0.50, 1.0, or 3.0 m.b.s.). Shovel tests are suitable to
a depth of about 0.50 m.b.s. and provide stratigraphic
sections and a larger volume of fill for visual
inspection. Shovel tests can be square or circular in
shape and should measure 40 cm across in either case.
Standard size and shape should be maintained throughout
the duration of the survey so that fill volume remains
constant. Postholing is suitable to depths of up to 1.0
m.b.s., but provides less fill for visual inspection.
Sidewalls are not visible for detailed recording, but
careful inspection of the fill at varying depths will



212

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Chief of Engineers.
ATTN: CEHEC-IM-LH (2)
ATTN: CEHEC-IM-LP (2)
ATTN: CECG

ATIN: CECC-P
ATTN: CECC-R
ATTN: CECW

ATIN: CECW.O.
ATTN: CECW-PO (2)
ATTN: CECW-PR
ATTN: CEMP

ATTN: CEMP-E
ATTN: CEMP-C
ATTN: CEMP-M
ATTN: CEMP-R
ATTN: CERD-C
ATTN: CERD-ZA
ATTN: CERD-L
ATTN: CERD-M
ATTN: CERM

ATTN: DAEN-ZC
ATTN: DAIM-FDP.
ATTN: DAIM-ED-N
ATTN: DAIM-ED-R (5)

CECPW 22310-3862
ATTN: CECPW-E
ATTN: CECPW-FT
ATTN: CECPW-ZC

US Army Engr District
ATTN: Library (40)

US Army Engr Division
ATTN: Library (11)

US Army Europe
ATTN: AEAEN-EH 09014
ATTN: AEAEN-ODCS 09014

28th Area Support Group
ATTN: AEUSG-K-E 09054

100th Area Support Group
ATIN: AETT-SG-DPW 09114

222d BSB Unit #23746
‘ATTN: AETV-BHR-E 09034

235th BSB Unit #28614
ATTN: AETV-WG-AM 09177

293d BSB Unit #29901
ATTN: AEUSG-MA-E 09086

409th Support Battalion (Base)
ATTN: AETTG-DPW 09114

‘442th Baso Support Battalion 09630
ATTN: Unit 31401

22st Base Support Battalion
‘ATTN: Unit 29623 09096

CMTC Hohenfels 09173
ATTN: AETTH-SB-DPW

Mainz Germany 09185
ATTN: AETV-MNZ-E

2tst Support Command
ATTN: DPW (9)

SETAF
ATTN: AESE-EN-D 09613
ATTN: AESE-EN 09630

‘Supreme Allied Command
ATTN: ACSGEB 09703
ATIN: SHIHB/ENGR 09705

INSCOM
ATTN: IALOG-1 22060
ATTN: IAV-DPW 22186

USA TACOM 48397-5000
ATTN: AMSTA-XE

Defense Distribution Region East
ATTN: ASCE-WI 17070-5001

This publication was reproduced on recycled paper.

USACERL DISTRIBUTION

Defense Distribution Region West
ATTN: ASCW-WG 95296-0100

HA XVIII Airborne Corps 28307
ATTN: AFZA-DPW-EE

4th Infantry Div (MECH) 80913-5000
ATIN: AFZC-FE

US Army Materiel Command (AMC)
‘Alexandria, VA 22333-0001
ATTN: AMCEN-F

Installations: (20)

FORSCOM

Forts Gillem & McPherson 30330
ATTN: FCEN
Installations: (20)

6th Infantry Division (Light)
ATTN: APVR-DE 99505
ATTN: APVR-WF-DE 99703

TRADOC
Fort Monroe 23651
ATTN: ATBO-G
Installations: (20)

Fort Belvoir 22060
ATTN: CETEC-IM-T

ATTN: CETEC-ES 22315-3803
ATTN: Water Resources Support Ctr

USA Natick RD&E Conter 01760
ATTN: STRNC-DT
ATTN: AMSSC-S-IMI

US Army Materials Tech Lab
‘ATTN: SLCMT-DPW 02172

USARPAC 96858
‘ATIN: DPW
ATTN: APEN-A

SHAPE 09705
ATTN: Infrastructure Branch LANDA

‘Area Engineer, AEDC-Area Office
Arold Air Force Station, TN 37389

HQ USEUCOM 09128
ATTN: ECJ4-LIE

AMMRC 02172
ATTN: DRXMR-AF
ATTN: DRXMA-WE

CEWES 39180
ATTN: Library

CECRL 03755
ATTN: Library

USA AMCOM
ATTN: Faciities Engr 21719
ATTN: AMSMC-EH 61299
ATTN: Facilities Engr (3) 85613,

USAARMC 40121
ATTN: ATZIC-EHA

Military Tratfic Mgmt Command
ATTN: MTEA-GB-EHP 07002
ATTN: MT-LOF 20315
ATIN: MTE-SU-FE 26461
ATTN: MTWE 94626

Fort Leonard Wood 65473
ATTN: ATSE-DAC-LB (3)
ATTN: ATZT

ATTN: ATSE-CFLO

ATTN: ATSE-DAC-FL

ATTN: Australian Liaison Office

Miltary Dist of WASH
Fort McNair
ATTN: ANEN 20319

USA Engr Activity, Capital Area
ATTN: Library 22211

US Army ARDEC 07806-5000
‘ATTN: AMSTA-AR-IMC

Engr Societies Library
‘ATTN: Acquisitions 10017

Defense Nuclear Agency
ATTN: NADS 20305

Defense Logistics Agency
ATTN: MMDIS 22060-6221

National Guard Bureau 20310
ATTN: NGB-ARI

Us Military Academy 10996
‘ATTN: MAEN-A
ATIN: Facilities Engineer
ATTN: Geography & Envr Engrg

Naval Facilties Engr Command
ATTN: Facilities Engr Command (8)
ATTN: Division Offices (11)
ATTN: Public Works Center (8)
ATTN: Naval Constr Battalion Ctr 93043
ATTN: Naval Facilities Engr Service Center ©3043-4328

8th US Army Korea
ATTN: DPW (11)

USA Japan (USARJ)

ATTN: APAJEN-ES 96343
ATTN: HONSHU 96343
ATTN: DPW-Okinawa 96376

416th Engineer Command 60623
ATTN: Gibson USAR Ctr

US Army MEDCOM

ATTN: MCFA 78234-6000

Fitzsimons Army Medical Center 80045-5000
ATTN: MCHG-PW

Fort Detrick 21702-5000
ATTN: MCHS-IS

Fort Sam Houston 78234-5000
ATTN: MCFA-PW.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center 20007-5001
ATTN: MCHL-PW.

Tyndall AFB 32403
ATTN: HQAFCESA/CES
ATTN: Engrg & Srvc Lab

USA TSARCOM 63120
ATTN: STSAS-F

‘American Public Works Assoc. 64104-1806

US Army CHPPM
ATTN: MCHB-DE 21010

US Gov't Printing Office 20401
ATTN: Rec SeciDeposit Sec (2)



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

109

targeted archaeological resources in future surveys and to calculate discovery
probabilities (see below).

3. Routine Calculation of Discovery Probabilities through Monte Carlo Simulation
by the Installation Manager

Installation managers should make greater use of the quantitative methods and
techniques available in the discipline of archaeology for estimating the site discovery
probabilities of given survey designs. These kinds of simulation experiments should
be routinely carried out in all stages of planning and monitoring archaeological inven-
tory surveys, from the evaluation of previous surveys, to the development of Requests-
for-Proposals and Scopes-of-Work (RFPs and SOWs) for future surveys, to the moni-
toring of surveys in progress and the evaluation of final survey results. It is recom-
mended that IBM-compatible software for carrying out these calculations, such as
Kintigh’s PLACESTP and STP programs (1988b), be made available to installation
managers through a site licensing agreement. Hardware requirements for this soft-
ware are very minimal (IBM personal computer or compatible machine with at least
256K of memory and a math co-processor). Alternatively, similar programs could be
developed for implementation on either DOS-based or UNIX-based platforms. Monte
Carlo simulation software will allow installation managers to explore the full range
of variables involved in calculating site discovery probabilities based on prior knowl-
edge of the local archaeological record culled from regional overviews, past archaeologi-
cal surveys, ethnographic and historical data, informant interviews, and/or specifically
contracted background studies. Eventually this should be a cumulative effort where
the calculation of discovery probabilities is progressively improved as more and more
archaeological data become available and installation managers become more knowl-
edgeable about what kinds of archaeological resources to anticipate. Adequate use of
such software may require the development of specialized training workshops so that
installation managers have a full understanding of the archaeological problem and the
somewhat complicated mathematical underpinnings of discovery probability. Such
workshops could also aid installation managers in tailoring the simulation experi-
ments to the specific needs of their installation.

4. Specification of Sampling Design, Site Discovery Procedures, and Pertinent
Logistical “Metadata” by the Archaeological Contractor

To maintain quality control over the planning and execution of inventory surveys and
at the same time permit the evaluation of survey results, overall survey effectiveness,
and sampling bias, it is imperative that the principal investigator(s) of the archaeologi-
cal contractor provide detailed records of the sampling design and all aspects of the
specific site discovery procedures used. What King and Cole (1978:132) were arguing



30 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

completion of contractual obligations. Chapter 5 treats this issue along with a brief
discussion of the contracting process in the Federal government.

Approach

To examine these problems at a national level and justify the implementation of new
standards for inventory survey, an extensive literature review was carried out on
various aspects of regional archaeological distributions and survey methodologies
throughout the United States. The purpose was to determine whether regional trends
could be identified both in the archaeological distributions and in the research agendas
and discovery procedures of different archaeologists and institutions, and permit the
development of regionally and temporally sensitive models of regional site densities,
site size, depth, and diversity, as well as intra-site feature and artifact densities and
density-distributions. These trends provide baseline data for the development of confi-
dence thresholds for the recovery rate of archaeological sites of a designated size and
complexity, and permit the establishment of standards governing survey intensity and
specific site discovery procedures appropriate for given land surface conditions (e.g.,
pedestrian survey by sampling units, shovel test-pit sub-sampling, deep coring or
auger testing, etc.). A number of statistical measures exist in the archaeological litera-
ture for accurately predicting the minimal site size and associated artifact densities
that a survey design will recover for a given level of confidence (see Chapter 4). One
of these will be explored with hypothetical archaeological data as a means of illustra-
ting (a) the need for standards in the specification of confidence thresholds of site
discovery probability, and (b) the relative ease with which the calculations of site
discovery probability can be carried out in a user-friendly, interactive, DOS-compatible
format.

The literature review concentrated on the so-called “gray literature” (conference
presentations and unpublished reports and manuscripts) of archaeology dealing with
intensive regional surveys. These are generally represented by research monographs
and reports having limited distribution and a largely regional readership.

The literature review also involved extensive reading in the academic archaeological
literature on research design and field procedures for regional survey and site-testing
programs as well as several SHPO guidelines for conducting intensive archaeological
surveys at the state level. With regard to the gray literature, two separate studies are
involved. The first is a general, broad-based review of intensive archaeological surveys
throughout the United States for purposes of extracting regional data on research
design, survey methodology, and sampling schemes, as well as specific data (where
available) regarding site size/depth, regional site density, and measures of artifact and


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

89

Nicholson 1983; Wobst 1983; McManamon 1984a; Shott 1985; Nance and Ball 1986;
Lightfoot 1986; and Hasenstab 1986). In their search for relevant analogues in related
disciplines, a number of archaeologists began to explore geological literature on pat-
tern drilling exploration and geometrical probability theory for subsurface search
strategies that would be applicable to archaeological prospecting. Pertinent geological
references on this topic include works by Savinskii (1965), Drew (1967, 1979), Koch
and Link (1971:187-228), Singer (1975), and McCammon (1977). Davis (1986:289-295)
provides a more recent general treatment of geometrical probability and subsurface
geological testing largely based on the work of McCammon (1977). For a mathematical
discussion of geometrical probability theory, see Kendall and Moran (1963).

One of the most thorough discussions of the geometrical properties of subsurface
archaeological sampling designs is provided by Krakker, Shott, and Welch (1983; see
also Nance 1983, McManamon 1984a, and Shott 1985). They explored the way in
which test-pit size, spacing, and layout affect discovery probabilities for sites of a given
size and artifact density. Both grid pattern surveys and transect surveys are treated.
They demonstrate that substantial gains in effectiveness can be achieved by using
optimal or staggered spacing of test units in a quadrat or transect sampling unit
rather than even spacing in a square-grid pattern. In this case, effectiveness refers to
the minimal site size likely to be discovered by a given sampling design (i.e., inter-
section probability). Specifically, they show that the probability of intersecting a site
of specified size is directly related to the interval spacing between shovel-probes. Thus
regardless of probe layout, “the radius of the largest site that cannot escape...
[intersection] is defined by:
r=i/v2
where r = the radius of the site and i = interval spacing” (Lightfoot 1986:492-493). In
other words, “to be certain of finding a site of radius r..., the sampling interval i is
calculated as... i < r/2" (Krakker, Shott, and Welch 1983:471). As a practical rule-of-
thumb for gauging intersection probability, they note that “there is a .78 probability
of finding [i.e., intersecting] a site with a diameter equal to the grid interval” (Krakker,
Shott, and Welch 1983:472). Thus if we wish to know with greater certainty that we
will be able to intersect sites measuring 30 m in diameter or greater, then we should
space the probes at least 21.2 m apart. Likewise, if we decide to use a 10-m spacing
interval, then we are highly likely to intersect all sites measuring 14 m in diameter or
greater. These relationships permit the calculation of intersection probabilities for
sites of any specified size. According to Krakker, Shott, and Welch (1983:472), that
probability can be calculated as follows:
p=(nr’ i?

where r = the radius of the site and i = the interval spacing between probes. In terms
of number of shovel probes executed, they demonstrate that substantial gains can be
made by a relatively modest increase in the number of test units when placed for



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

as closely as possible the format for reports in the
American Antiquity style guide. The report shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the following
sections:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Report Documentation Page, DD Form 1473.
Complete all but sections 2 and 3.

Title Page. The study type, location (project
name and counties), report date, name of
Contractor, author/ Principal Investigator, and
Corps of Engineers contract number.

Abstract. A brief synopsis of the work conducted,
number and types of cultural resources identified,
overall significance, and an overview of the
management recommendations, which shall not exceed
150 words.

Introduction. Identify the Sponsor and
Contractor, the purpose for the investigation,
discuss the type of investigation performed, the
location, indicate the disposition of the
artifacts, and original records or other data.
Discuss the report organization.

OVERVIEW which may be divided into logical
subsections including, but not limited to the
following:

Baseline data and the historic context of the
Poinsette Air Force Range. The OVERVIEW shall
include a detailed description of the survey area
including physical features and terrain, past and
present vegetation and fauna, field conditions and
past and present land uses.

A detailed discussion of previous work including
an enumeration and description of all previous
cultural resources investigations conducted
within the reconnaissance area, names of principal
investigators, dates of the studies, study
results, and an assessment of the general adequacy
and deficiencies of the past work. This
discussion shall include the historic and
prehistoric context statements from which the
research questions addressed in the phase 1 survey
design were developed.This archeological context
will also serve as a tool for the significance
evaluation of archeological sites discovered in
the survey.

Geomorphology/Geology data utilizing published



84

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

In remote settings subject to intensive sedimentation, the detection of small sites
is difficult at best. Problems are exacerbated at still smaller sites where discrete
cultural stains are absent. Compared to complex village sites along the Missis-
sippi—where activity areas often are offset by rich organic middens, dense
anthropogenic refuse, and subsistence remains that impart a singular, readily
recognized texture to the matrix—the identifications of small, western sites
becomes a prodigious challenge (Schuldenrein 1991:134).

Sites [in the arid west] are generally small, short term, and contain minimal, often
diffuse artifacts that may have been reworked locally by the winnowing action of
stream flow. To identify sites it is necessary to recover as much sediment and
cultural residue as possible. The subtle, often diffuse, articulations between the
natural sediment and cultural residues at such sites are missed easily by standard
[i.e., pedestrian] survey techniques... (Schuldenrein 1991:135).

In these situations Schuldenrein recommends the use of shallow subsurface testing
procedures, particularly augering with a large diameter (4 in.) bucket auger
(Schuldenrein 1991).

Other archaeologists have commented on the need for subsurface testing in certain
areas of the western United States where either dense vegetation exists or where post-
depositional processes have resulted in buried archaeological sites (e.g., Lightfoot
1989). In practice, however, it seems that once a pedestrian survey design is put into
effect, no consideration is given to altering that procedure and applying subsurface
testing when obscuring surface conditions are encountered. The obscured surface is
simply walked and inspected under less than adequate conditions, or worse yet, it is
effectively ignored as an “inaccessible” area within the survey tract. As Lightfoot
(1989:415; emphasis original) has observed,

..{M]ost large-scale survey projects in the American Southwest crosscut a diverse
range of plant communities, soil types, topographic features, and drainage systems.
Ground visibility and the potential for buried remains vary accordingly. Yet south-
western archaeologists rarely consider the probability that material remains will
be buried, or that these probabilities will vary across different habitats. In truth,
parameter estimates for surface surveys need to take into account the probability
of not discovering buried remains. Otherwise surface surveys risk the problem of
discovery bias, in which the most visible surface cultural remains are over-
represented at the expense of buried ones.

There are also many habitats in the Eastern Great Basin where surface visibility is
probably less than adequate for conducting pedestrian survey due to dense ground
cover. These include wetland areas, riverine and lacustrine margins, well-watered
slopes and canyons, alpine meadows, etc. For example, one archaeologist with



12

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Foreword

This study was conducted for Headquarters, Department of the Army, Environmental
Programs Directorate under the Legacy Resource Management Program as part of
Legacy Demonstration Project #302, titled “Archaeological Inventory Survey Stan-
dards and Cost-estimating System for the Department of Defense.” At the beginning
of this research the technical monitor was Dr. Constance Ramirez, U.S. Army Historic
Preservation Officer; the current technical monitor is Mimi Woods, Environmental
Programs Directorate, DAIM-ED-N.

The work was performed for the Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center,
Planning and Mission Impact Division (LL-P) of the Land Management Laboratory
(LL), U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL). The
USACERL principal investigator, Dr. James A. Zeidler is also a Research Associate in
the Department of Anthropology of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(UIUC). Dr. John Isaacson is Director of the Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research,
Center. Robert M. Lacey is Acting Chief, CECER-LL-P; Dr. William D. Severinghaus
is Operations Chief, CECER-LL; and William D. Goran is Chief, CECER-LL. The
USACERL technical editor was Gloria J. Wienke, Technical Resources Center.

COL James T. Scott is Commander and Acting Director, and Dr. Michael J. O’Connor
is Technical Director of USACERL.

The cover illustration represents an intensive posthole-testing program carried out as
part of a Phase I cultural resources inventory survey at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,
by the Public Service Archaeology Program (PSAP) of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. It is reporduced from Figure 35 in Phase I Cultural Resource
Inventory of Selected Tracts at Fort Leonard Wood, Pulaski County, Missouri by Steven
R. Ahler and Jacqueline M. McDowell (1993), University of Illinois, Public Service
Archaeology Program, Research Report No. 9 Urbana.

The author wishes to thank the following individuals for critically reading and
commenting on earlier versions of this document: .

David Babson,* Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center, USACERL
Marie Bourassa, formerly Department of the Army, Washington, DC


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

specified on each individual delivery order. Typical activities
may include, but are not limited to, work in Historic
Preservation Compliance, Historic Preservation Planning,
Technical Transfer, Archeological and Architectural Survey and
Evaluation, and Predictive Modeling. Examples of work to be
requested may include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Archeological Services:

(1) Perform background research of courthouse records,
historical and archival literature, professional journals; and
production of overview studies, bibliographies, synopses, and
National Register Nomination forms. These shall be in support of
work conducted to provide contexts for the evaluation of
archeological sites in terms of the National Register of Historic
Places Criteria and preparation of National Register Nominations
as identified in Paragraph 3.

(2) Perform archeologically oriented geomorphology and
environmental reconstruction as it applies to the.location and
interpretation of prehistoric archeological sites, including but
not limited to: soils pedology, sedimentology, fluvial
geomorphology, palynology and archeobotany.

(3) Perform archeological reconnaissance and testing
surveys to include but not be limited to: Archeological
inventory, preparation of archeological survey research designs,
pedestrian archeological survey and sampling survey including
subsurface (shovel probe) testing, large equipment excavation,
and archeological test excavations.

b. Architectural Services:

(1) Perform background research of courthouse records,
historical and archival literature, professional journals; and
production of overview studies, bibliographies, synopses, and
National Register Nomination forms. These shall be in support of
work. conducted to provide contexts for the evaluation of historic
architectural sites in terms of the National Register of Historic
Places Criteria for Evaluation and preparation of National
Register Nominations as identified in Paragraph 3.

(2) Architectural Survey and Assessment of Historic
Military Buildings and Engineering Structures to the
standards of the Historic American Building Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) as identified in
Paragraph 3.

3. STANDARDS: Delivery orders may require a combination of the
above skills or tasks. All work completed under this contract
shall satisfy current scientific standards for data collection,
analysis, and reporting, as well as the requirements of each
specific Statement of Work. All work shall be performed within
the context of an approved, detailed research design which pairs



54

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

be seen that very few of the site definitions discussed in the preceding sections exhibit
all, or even most of these properties.

As a corrective measure, then, Tainter defines an archaeological site as “any location
where human behavior has resulted in the deposition of at least two different artifacts
in close proximity, or other evidence of purposive behavior” (1983:132; emphasis
original), such as cultural features, architectural remains, etc. Contextual integrity
is also a crucial criterion as implied by the term “deposition...in close proximity.”
Isolated finds are thus defined as occurrences of a single artifact only or two artifacts
of a similar nature. In light of the preceding discussion of variability in site defini-
tions, Tainter’s approach is highly attractive because his theoretical rationale is clearly
stated, as follows:

Two different objects is the minimal archeological manifestation which will
consistently reflect purposive behavior, the type of human behavior which is of
anthropological interest. No larger number will be able to consistently identify all
significant behavior; the next lower number cannot differentiate accidental loss.
Thus, the definition proposed here is one that will allow the most consistent
possible recognition of past foraging behavior, a topic of deep concern in the field
today. Thus, while derived as a tool for management, this definition is grounded
in the most basic concerns of contemporary archeological theory. It is, therefore,
also proposed as a tool for research (Tainter 1983; emphasis original).

As a corollary to this basic definition, Tainter has recently implemented the following
site concept, along with a series of related definitions and clarifications, for field
research in the Cibola National Forest of New Mexico.

A site is a location where one can reasonably infer from the physical remains that
a purposeful activity took place. The term purposeful activity differentiates the
remains of sites from remains that one can reasonably infer were lost, discarded,
broken, and/or abandoned. The latter are considered isolated finds, and are loca-
tions where no demonstrable activity took place. In practice, isolated finds will be
single items that do not clearly reflect an activity (such as single lithic items,
including projectile points), or broken pieces of what had once been a single item
(such as sherds from a single pottery vessel). Sites will be indicated by the
presence of two or more different items, or different classes of items, in close
proximity (Dr. Joseph Tairiter, Archaeologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Albuquerque, NM, professional communication, 1994; emphasis original).

As a tool for cultural resource management, these definitions will ensure that “...when
an area is investigated for archeological remains, all evidence of intentional past
behavior...[is] inventoried” (Tainter, 1983) in a good faith effort, so that appropriate
assessment can be made with regard to protection and future management. Obviously


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 171

Talmadge, V., O. Chesler, and the staff of the Interagency Archeological Services, The Importance of
Small, Surface, and Disturbed Sites as Sources of Significant Archaeological Data, Cultural
Resource Management Series, NTIS PB-270939 (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Washington, DC, 1977).

Taylor, R. L. and M. F. Smith, The Report of the Intensive Survey of the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake,
Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series, 142 (University of
South Carolina, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, SC, 1978).

Thomas, D. H., “Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek Without a Site?” in Sampling in
Archaeology, J.W. Mueller, ed. (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1975), pp 61-81.

Thomas, P. A., “Discerning Some Spatial Characteristics of Small, Short-Term, Single Occupation Sites:
Implications for New England Archaeology,” Man in the Northease, vol 31 (1986), pp 99-121.

Thomas, P. M., dr., L. J. Campbell, M. T. Swanson, J. H. Altschul, and C. S. Weed, An Intensive Survey
of a 2,200 Acre Tract Within a Proposed Manewver Area at the Fort Benning Military Reservation,
Chattahoochee County, Georgia, report submitted to Archaeological Services Branch, Division of
National Register Programs, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Contract
No. CX5000-2-0087, Report of Investigations, 71 (New World Research, Pollack, LA, 1983).

Thompson, R. A., A Stratified Random Sample of the Cultural Resources in the Canyonlands Section of
the Moab District, Cultural Resource Series No. 1 (Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City,
UT, 1979).

Thoms, A. V., “Survey Error: A Result of Intensive Archaeological Surveys,” in Scholars as Contractors:
Report of a Workshop on the Contract Archeology Process, W.J. Mayer-Oakes and A.W. Portnoy,
eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Cultural Resource Management Studies, Washington, DC,
1979), pp 95-105.

Thorbahn, P., “Sampling Bias and Regional Settlement Systems: A Case Study from Southern New
England,” manuscript on file (Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Providence, RI, undated).

Tipps, B., The Tar Sands Project: An Inventory and Predictive Model for Central and Southern Utah,
Cultural Resource Series No. 22 (Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, UT, 1988).

Toepel, K. A, and S. D. Beckman, Survey and Testing of Cultural Resources Along the Proposed
Bonneville Power Administration’s Buckley-Sumner Lake Transmission Corridor, Central Oregon,
Reports in Archaeology and History, ©100-5 (Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA, 1981).

‘Trigger, B. G., vol ed., Handbook of ‘North American Indians, Vol 15: Northeast, W.C. Sturtevant, general
ed. (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1978).

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Requisitioner’s Guide (U.S. Army Construction.
Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL], 1994).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

clusters (see Kintigh 1988a:693; see also McManamon 1984a) and thus would escape
detection in more cases. As is intuitively obvious, the larger the site size, the greater
is the probability that it will be intersected (e.g., 100 percent probability for sites
measuring 70 m and 100 m in diameter) and detected. Note, however, that even a site
measuring 100 m in diameter only has a 5 percent chance of detection if the associated
artifact density is only 0.1 artifacts per square meter (column 11), regardless of the
density function. Thus light lithic scatters do not stand a very good chance of detection
with the present sampling design of 8 shovel-probes in a 1-hectare sampling unit, even
if they encompass a relatively large site area. Small sites (i.e., 30 m in diameter and
below) do not fare well at this low-intensity sampling design. The highest detection
probability achieved even for a 30-m-diameter site was 32 percent (column 11), which
was associated with the highest artifact density (10 artifacts/sq m).

When looked at from the perspective of a desired confidence threshold, say 80 percent
confidence that sites of a certain size and nature will be intersected , we see that sites
with diameters of 50 m, 70 m, and 100 m all have a high chance of being intersected
by at least one probe (96.6 to 100 percent in column 8), but that for sites 30 m in
diameter and smaller, the chances are exceedingly small that they would even be
intersected (5.5 to 52.1 percent in column 8). It is important to note here the
distinction between intersection and detection, however, because ultimately both are
necessary to successfully locate a site. If we want to have a confidence threshold of 80
percent or higher that sites of a certain size and nature will be both intersected and
detected, we can see that the simulated results in Table 7 are not encouraging. Only
the archaeological parameters shown in the boxed rows would have an 80 percent or
greater chance of being detected. This group includes only sites of 70 or 100 meters
in diameter, and within those two relatively large size categories, it includes only those
with the highest density artifact distributions (5.0 and 10.0 artifacts per square
meter).

In contrast to this low-intensity simulation, it is interesting to note the changes in
discovery probabilities when SST intensity is increased dramatically; for example, by
increasing the number of probes executed per hectare by 12.5 times. This would result
in the execution of 100 shovel probes in a 1-ha sampling unit, with an approximate
spacing of 10.2 m between each probe. Table 8 shows the sample output file from the
STP program using the same archaeological parameters as in Table 7 for site size,
artifact density, and density-distribution, although in this case a staggered grid
sampling geometry is used (as it is generally easier to lay out in the field than a grid
with optimal spacing). According to the PLACESTP output for this sampling geom-
etry, the minimal site size intersected was 12.68 m in diameter. Again the boxed rows
indicate those archaeological parameters for which an 80 percent or greater confidence
threshold was attained for site detection. Several aspects of this output file merit


186 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

STATEMENT OF WORK PREPARATION
HELPFUL HINTS

1. TITLE PAGE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS: For lengthy, complicated
SOWs, a title page should be provided. It should identify the SOW
by title, date, and organizational affiliation. A table of
contents should be used following the title page when a SOW exceeds
five pages.

2. LANGUAGE: The language of a SOW must be exact and concise.
Every effort should be made to use the simplest words, phrases, and
sentences possible, so that anyone who reads it will understand its

meaning.

3. AMBIGUITY: Perhaps the most frequent cause of disagreement in
a SOW between the Government and the Contractor is the use of
indefinite, ambiguous terms and words with double meaning. If
ambiguity is present, the court generally holds the party that drew
up the contract responsible.

4. USE OF "SHALL" AND "WILL": The term "shall" is used to specify
that a provision is binding. Throughout the SOW when describing an
action the Contractor is to perform, the word "shall" is always

used. For example, "The contractor shall analyze the
results..... ", When describing an action the Government is to
perform, the word "will" is always used. For example, "The

Government will evaluate the preliminary submittal and return it
within....".

5. USE ACTIVE RATHER THAN PASSIVE VOICE: For example, write "The
Contractor shall establish a program...," rather than "A program
shall be established...". Choose verbs that identify work effort

and task performance.

6. DO NOT USE "ANY", "EITHER", "AND/OR": These words imply a
choice that the Contractor may make. It is better to avoid them
unless a choice is to be made.

7. DO NOT USE "ASSIST" OR PARTICIPATE": "Assist" or "participate"
suggests personal services. It implies working side-by-side and
being subject to supervision. The words are totally undefined as
to the type, range, and depth of the work to be performed by the

Contractor.

8. DO NOT USE "AS REQUIRED", "AS APPLICABLE", "AS NECESSARY":
These words constitute a work condition undefined. If the
Government does not know what is required, necessary, or
applicable, it must not leave the unsettled issue to the
Contractor. Because these words do not express the Government’s
minimum needs, their use could lead to a debatable condition as to
whether the Contractor has complied with the contract. A SOW
should clearly state the Government's requirements with Contractor

compliance.



170 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

South, S., and R. Widmer, “A Subsurface Sampling Strategy for Archeological Reconnaissance,” in
Research Strategies in Historic Archeology, S. South, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1977), pp 119-150.

Southwestern Archaeology Research Group, “SARG: A Co-operative Approach Towards Understanding
the Locations of Human Settlement,” World Archaeology, vol 6 (1974), pp 107-116.

Spurling, B. E., “Site Discovery and Assessment Techniques for Mixed-Cover Survey Regimes,”
Saskatchewan Archaeology, vol 1, no. 1 (1980), pp 25-56.

Stein, J. K., “Coring Archaeological Sites,” American Antiquity, vol 51, no. 3 (1986), pp 505-527.

Stein, J. K., “Coring in CRM and Archaeology: A Reminder,” American Antiquity, vol 56, no. 1 (1991), pp
138-142.

Stevenson, M. G., “Beyond the Formation of Hearth-Associated Artifact Assemblages,” in The
Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, eds. (Plenum Press,
New York, 1991), pp 269-299,

Stone, G. D., “On Artifact Density and Shovel Probes,” Current Anthropology, vol 22 (1981a), pp 182-183.
Stone, G. D., “The Interpretation of Negative Evidence in Archaeology,” Adlatl, vol 2 (1981b), pp 41-53.

Sturtevant, W. C., general editor, Handbook of North American Indians, various volumes and editors
(Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC, various dates).

Sullivan, A. P., III, “Current Issues in Regional Archaeology,” in Tools to Manage the Past: Research
Priorities for Cultural Resources Management in the Southwest, J. A. Tainter and R. H. Hamre,
eds. (USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, 1988), pp 81-89.

Sullivan, A. P., III, “Investigating the Archaeological Consequences of Short-Duration Occupations,”
American Antiquity, vol 57, no. 1 (1992), pp 99-115.

Sundstrom, L., “A Simple Mathematical Procedure for Estimating the Adequacy of Site Survey
Strategies,” Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 20 (1993), pp 91-96.

Sussenbach, T., and R. B. Lewis, Archaeological Investigations in Carlisle, Hickman, and Fulton Counties,
Kentucky: Survey and Excavations. Western Kentucky Project Report, 4 (University of Ilinois,
Department of Anthropology, Urbana, IL, 1987).

Suttles, W., vol. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, W. C. Sturtevant,
general editor (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1990).

Swannack, J. D., “Mission-oriented Agencies: Means and Ends of Historic Sites Archaeology,” Historical
Archaeology, vol 9 (1975), pp 81-82.

Tainter, J. A., ‘Settlement Behavior and the Archaeological Record: Concepts for the Definition of
“Archaeological Site,” Contract Abstracts and CRM Archaeology, vol 3, no. 2 (1983), pp 130-133.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

McManamon (1984a: p 229) notes that data on the relative frequency of occurrence
artifacts, features, and anthropic soil horizons, is often difficult to find in excavation
reports, although this situation has improved considerably in the ensuing decade.
Where such data do exist, they support a “general impression of many archaeologists
about the relative intrasite abundance and spatial distribution of these three site
constituents” (McManamon 1984a:232-233). Artifacts, defined as “the portable prod-
ucts and byproducts of human activities” (McManamon 1984a:228), are almost always
the most widespread and abundant of site constituents. Within this broad category,
formal tools are important to distinguish from other kinds of artifacts since they gen-
erally carry a greater interpretive weight as consciously manufactured items having
specifiable functions, stylistic information, and/or activity associations. They are
considerably less abundant than the generic category of “artifact.” Cultural features,
defined as “sharply delimited concentration[s] of organic matter, structural remains,
soil discoloration, or a mixture of these and artifacts” (McManamon 1984a:229),
generally fall far behind artifacts in abundance but are nevertheless detectable by
subsurface testing procedures (but cf. Hasenstab 1986). Anthropic soil horizons, in
contrast, are defined as “extensive deposit[s] that might be sharply or diffusely
delimited...[that] result from deposition of large amounts of organic remains in a
roughly delimited, relatively large (compared to features) area” (McManamon
1984a:229). These phenomena are less well reported in the literature. More often
than not their presence is simply noted and analytical attention is restricted to the
artifacts or features contained within them; (see Carr [1982] for an important
exception). In any case, like features, they “do not commonly approach the extended
spatial distribution of artifacts and in some cases might not even exist in a site area
or large portions of it” (McManamon 1984a:233).

In support of these relationships, McManamon cites three case studies from the
eastern United States that employ different excavation techniques: horizontal strip-
ping of large areas to expose site structure (Illinois); deep trenching in search of buried
archaeological sites (Tennessee); and subsurface testing by shovel probes and small
test pits (Massachusetts). At the Hatchery West site in Illinois (Binford et al. 1970),
for example, 96 6 x 6m surface collection units were placed within the site area before
horizontal stripping of the plow zone with mechanical equipment. McManamon
(1984a:230) notes that for ceramic artifacts, “90% of the [surface-collected] area was
covered by a surface distribution of 1 to 5 ceramic sherds per 6 x 6 m collection unit,”
or a density of 0.03 to 0.14 sherds/sq m. For chert chippage, 59 percent of the surface-
collected area was covered by a surface distribution “of 10 or more per 36 m”
(McManamon 19841:230), or a density of at least 0.28 lithic pieces/sq m. Ceramic
sherds were thus more extensively dispersed over the site surface, but at lighter den-
sities than the chert chippage. McManamon (1984a) argues that the frequencies per
unit of both artifact categories “would have been higher and their spatial spread wider



36

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

from...the mean of all sample means we would obtain, if we were to repeat, independ-
ently, the same sampling procedure a large number of times...” (Cowgill 1975:264;
emphasis original). This definition is closely related, then, to the common definition
of reliability, which “refers to the agreement between, or among, two or more
measurements made on the same phenomenon” (Wandsnider and Camilli 1992:170);
ie., the consistency and replicability of results. Following Carmines and Zeller
(1979:11), it “concerns the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring
procedure yields the same results on repeated trials,” and thus relates to random
measurement error.

Accuracy “relates to the deviation between actual and measured. An accurate measur-
ing device produces measurements with a small deviation, i.e., with little bias or
systematic error, given the stipulated level of precision” (Wandsnider and Camilli
1992:171). In statistical terms, accuracy refers to “a measure of the extent to which
the individual sample means are spread out around...the true population mean”
(Cowgill 1975:264).

Validity assessment is somewhat more complicated (see Nance [1987:279-289] and
Bernard [1988:48-54] for detailed discussions), but in this case it involves survey
effectiveness and systematic measurement error. How well do our survey designs and
discovery techniques actually function in the discovery of archaeological sites? How
well do these designs and techniques address the variability inherent in the archaeo-
logical record? Are there ways to improve upon the validity of a given survey design
by adjusting aspects of its site discovery techniques and data collection procedures?

Bias can be defined as “the average deviation from reality by an inferential procedure”
(Read 1975:48). In sampling terms, “the bias of an estimation procedure...” is mea-
sured by “the difference between the average inferred value that would be obtained if
the procedure were used repeatedly to estimate a particular quantity, and the true
value of that quantity” (Read 1975:48). Bias is thus conceptually related to accuracy
in that the introduction of statistical bias, from a variety of sources, substantially
reduces accuracy.

Finally, brief discussion should be given to the special sense in which the term
confidence is used in this report so as to avoid any confusion regarding its formal
statistical use in parameter estimation, such as the calculation of confidence coeffi-
cients, confidence levels, confidence limits, or confidence intervals. Throughout this
report, the terms confidence estimate and confidence threshold are used in a general
sense for evaluating the results of site discovery probability calculations. As such, they
are consistent with the intent and purpose of discovery model (DM) sampling (as
defined by Nance [1981, 1983, 1990]) in cases where modeling uses the binomial


182 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

STATEMENT OF WORK
CHECKLIST

There is no mandatory format for a Statement of Work (SOW); however
the following provides guidance in developing the SOW and provides
a standard format for use at USACERL.

The Statement of Work should be recognized as not only the
technical document it is, but, perhaps as importantly, as the sole
contractual communication between the Government and the
Contractor. As such, it must be understood by all with as little
interpretation as possible, since the greater the degree of
interpretation, the greater the likelihood of misunderstanding and
undesirable performance. With this caution in mind, the SOW must
have the following characteristics:

(1) It must be complete and legally sufficient.

(2) It must be compatible with the procedures and capabilities
of contract administration.

(3) It must be organized to allow for cost estimating.

(4) It must contain a method for measuring, reporting, and
correcting performance.

The following checklist should be used to review all Statements of
Work prior to submission:

1. Ensure background information is adequate to provide a
clear understanding of the requirement.

2. Use definitive work statements which precisely identify
work to be done, in clear and understandable terms. Use words such

as analyze, install, develop, remove, update, review. Avoid the

use of words such as assist, as required, as necessary, or as
directed. Ensure that the SOW defines a product or non-personal
service.

3. Use a Uniform format and ensure that grammar and sencence
structure are correct. Ensure that all acronyms and abbreviations
are defined.

4. Ensure that the SOW defines the Government’s minimum ‘needs.

5. Define Government Furnished Property (information,
materials, etc) and identify timeframe when it will be supplied to
the contractor.

6. Identify the use of facilities.
7. (Identify all applicable documents.

8. Define all estimated travel requirements, to include the



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore (1987:41-48) distinguish between isolated finds, low
density scatters, and high density scatters on the basis of a combination of factors such
as the spatial dimensions of contiguous positive shovel probes from initial systematic
survey, the percentage of positive shovel probes after secondary testing, and mean
subsurface artifact density from all positive shovel probes. Thus landscape conditions
which require subsurface testing programs also require different, and more complex,
procedures or guidelines for site definition than those normally stipulated in the
“formal” approaches. In a sense, the procedure outlined by Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore
(1987) is more akin to the “distributional” approach advocated by Ebert (1992), at least
at the methodological level. However, Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore do not reject the
“site” concept entirely. Rather, they assign site designations after analysis of all
shovel probe data has been completed (see Seaman, Doleman, and Chapman 1988 for
a similar approach to site definition in a surface pedestrian survey).

Finally, “nonsite approaches” are sparsely represented in our sample, comprising only
three of our 25 definitions. One of these was developed in the Southwest (2) and
rejects the concept of “site” in favor of “cultural acreage” or area of land surface

- occupied by cultural materials (Marmaduke and Conway 1984). The impetus for this
procedure stems from the difficulty of using the number of sites to calculate average
site density in probabilistic sampling schemes, since the individual sampling unit that
cuts across the edge of a larger site or several larger sites may contribute to the over-
estimation of regional site densities. Theoretically, a sampling unit should only report
the sites that are fully encompassed by its arbitrary boundaries. In archaeological
survey, however, it is frequently observed that a sample quadrat or transect actually
locates many more sites (and greater site areas) than the unit could actually encom-
pass, a phenomenon known as the “edge effect” (Nance 1983) or “hypothetical cover-
age” (Plog, Plog, and Wait 1978). The nonsite approach taken by Marmaduke and
Conway (1984), then, was focused on recording all surface archaeological manifestation
as either isolated finds or larger artifact clusters depicted by 3 density classes (light,
moderate, and high) based on a measure of number of artifacts per 9 square meters
with sample quadrats measuring 40 acres in area. They argue as follows:

Conceptual difficulties made the ‘site’ an imprecise unit of measurement in proba-
bility sampling...In particular, the ‘site’ has an ambiguous meaning for manage-
ment estimates of potential preservation costs. Therefore,...[we] measured acres
of land which bear archaeological remains. An added benefit in gauging resources
by acreage is the elimination of troublesome edge effects encountered when ‘sites’
are enumerated in sample surveys (Marmaduke and Conway 1984:92; emphasis

original).

The remaining two nonsite approaches, both from the Southeast (9, 25), follow Glassow
(1977) in equating “sites” with the generic term “archaeological resources,” defined as


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 117

cloth, then contractors cannot be expected to perform these tasks on a routine basis or
with the rigor that an agency archaeologist or cultural resource specialist may desire.
In many SOWs, there is also a misconception that inventory surveys need only locate
surface sites or those sites that fall within the proposed project impact. Many
archaeologists, however, take a more comprehensive approach to survey work and view
intensive archaeological inventory surveys as a mandate to locate all sites within a
given study area, regardless of depth below surface. This view is shared by agency
archaeologists and contractors alike (Jameson, Ehrenhard, and Husted 1990:4, 6;
McGowan, personal communication, 1994). Here extensive background research on
local geomorphological conditions, as well as some geoarchaeological fieldwork, may
be required to determine the feasibility of locating buried archaeological sites. While
it is sometimes difficult to make this an immediate goal of a given survey project, it is
nonetheless a reasonable long-term objective for a comprehensive Historic Preserva-
tion Plan (HPP). In the terminology adopted by the Legacy Resource Management
Program, such a view implies the notion of stewardship (U.S. Department of Defense
1991, 1992; Neumann, Warren-Findley, and King 1991) and an installation HPP
should foster the long-term stewardship of all archaeological resources on DoD lands,
not just the readily visible ones. While “management involves control over resources
and in the case of cultural resources includes identification, evaluation, preservation
and use[,]...stewardship adds an ethical dimension to the process of management...”
(Neumann, Warren-Findley, and King 1991:9).

Scopes-of-work, then, need to be written from the perspective of this comprehensive
approach to the archaeological record and the Section 106/Section 110 compliance
process. Archaeological input and expertise should be sought only from archaeologists
whose academic background and cultural resource management experience at least
satisfy the minimal qualifications required of the contractor’s Principal Investigator.
This will hopefully ensure that the SOW reflects a thorough knowledge of (a) the
regional archaeological record under consideration, (b) the necessary discovery proce-
dures for locating archaeological sites under local landscape conditions, (c) the proce-
dures necessary for evaluating site significance (whether during initial survey work
or during a later phase of site testing) and making nominations to the National
Register of Historic Places, and (d) the current Federal legislation governing historic
preservation and the treatment of archaeological resources. The SOW should “state
clearly and simply how recommendations about NRHP eligibility are to be developed
and justified in terms of research potential such that those recommendations may be
judged against an offeror’s research design” (Jameson, Ehrenhard, and Husted
1990:7). The SOW should also stipulate that the contractor be required to report all
pertinent metadata regarding level-of-effort expended in the execution of field work.
These points will be taken up later.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

material we mean artifacts, ecofacts, and features (Plog, Plog, and Wait, 1978:389;
emphasis original).

In contrast, a nonsite area “is a potentially interpretable but not spatially discrete
locus of cultural materials. The materials either (a) are so limited in quantity or (b)
cover so broad an area, or both, that meaningful boundaries cannot be defined by
normal survey procedures” (Plog, Plog, and Wait 1978).

While these definitions are well conceived and useful, three fundamental problems
arise with regard to inventory survey, field recording, and subsequent resource man-
agement. First, they do not establish a standardized, quantifiable, cut-off point for
distinguishing between a site and a nonsite. Thus the notion of “relative changes in
artifact densities” in their definition of “site,” while preferable to strict adherence to
overly high artifact densities (e.g., 5 artifacts per sq m), must be specified on an ad hoc
basis for a given region or study area (e.g., Chase, Montgomery, and Landreth 1988),
thereby reducing comparability of survey results. Secondly, the discussion of “nonsite”
areas provides no guidelines as to how they should be recorded, if at all, in the field.
Thirdly, there is no theoretical guidance as to how and why a definition should be
operationalized. As Lyman (1985:35; emphasis original) has observed:

To be sure, the concept of site provides us with a useful bookkeeping device, just as
the concept of feature does. I will not dispute the fact that sites are real empirical
phenomena. I emphasize, however, that as empirical phenomena, sites must be
defined with empirical criteria in order that they may be recognized. the definitive
criteria should be theoretically grounded.

Recommendations

As a means of addressing these issues, a concrete recommendation for a standardized
site definition is presented here for future implementation in archaeological survey
designs on DoD lands. It derives from suggestions made by U.S. Forest Service
personnel (Tainter 1983; see also Sullivan 1988) for purposes of resource management,
on federal lands under their jurisdiction. Tainter’s (1983) stated goal was to develop
a site definition that would serve the ends of both research and management, but that
did not become a de facto significance evaluation. More specifically, he argues that any
definition should have the following five essential properties: “1) be easily operation-
alized; 2) have administrative feasibility; 3) provide results which are comparable; 4)
be sensitive to the recognition of low density remains; and 5) focus attention on past
behavior which was purposive and patterned, rather than on behavior which was
accidental or idiosyncratic” (Tainter 1983:132). Using these criteria as a guide, it can



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 205

Indefinite Delivery Contract
for Cultural Resource Investigations

1. GENERAL:

a. Purpose: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction
Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) Tri-Services Cultural
Resources Research Center seeks proposals under the terms of a
one-year indefinite delivery contract, with an option to extend
for one additional year, to conduct a broad range of cultural
resource investigations within the United States and Trust
Territories. Topic areas shall include but shall not be limited
to: Historic Preservation Compliance, Historic Preservation
Planning, Technical Transfer, Archeological and Architectural
Survey and Evaluation, and Predictive Modeling. Services shall
be provided on a delivery order basis, and each delivery order
shall contain its own specific Statement of Work, budget, and
time schedule.

b. Personnel: The contractor shall provide all the
necessary personnel at the rates specified in Schedule B to
perform and document assigned studies as identified on each
individual delivery order. Only personnel acceptable to the
USACERL Contracting Officer shall be utilized in providing
services under this contract, including senior staff, technical
consultants, hourly assistants, and all supporting staff. Any
staff members, other than support staff and hourly assistants,
replaced by the Contractor under any delivery order issued, may
do so only upon the expressed approval of the Contracting
Officer.

c. Travel expenses: For each delivery order, USACERL will
at its option, either (1) provide U.S. Government Travel orders
and direct reimbursment to Contractor employees required to
travel under this contract or (2) will provide funds as other
direct costs to the Contractor as negotiated under each specific
delivery order. Travel costs provided to the Contractor will be
at the current rates set forth in the U.S. Government Joint
Travel Regulations (JTR) at the time of the execution of the
delivery order or at rates approved by the Contracting Officer.
U.S. Government travel orders provided under this contract shall
be used exclusively for the tasks, services, and requirements
specified in each individual Statement of Work.

d. Materials and other expenses: For each delivery order,
USACERL will provide at its option, either, (1) required
supplies, reference materials, communications equipment,
printing, etc., or (2) funds for these items as other direct
costs specified and negotiated under each individual delivery
order.

2. STATEMENT OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform services as



138

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

In this case, the lower coring rate, when compared to the vibracorer, is largely due to
differences in the consolidation and texture of the sampled sediments.

Finally, in a systematic intrasite coring operation at a large archaeological site in
coastal Ecuador, Zeidler (1994) contracted for the extraction of 15 3.5-cm-diameter
cores on a grid pattern across the site, using a Soiltest split-spoon percussion sampler.
This unit uses a 6-m aluminum tripod with a central hammer assembly powered by
a5 horsepower Briggs and Stratton motor mounted on one leg of the tripod (Alvarez
undated). The 15 cores were uniformly extended to a depth of 6 m through archaeolog-
ical matrix and natural sediments consisting largely of silts, fine sands, and volcanic
ash, although some gravelly sediments were also encountered. The extraction of these
15 cores required approximately 2.5 8-hour working days for three people, including
transport time between cores (at about 100-m interval spacing) and set-up and
dismantling time. This would give a completion rate of two 6-m cores per person-day
or a coring rate of 12 linear meters per person-day (Table 15). This latter figure is
remarkably close to the coring rate reported by Johnson and Alexander (1975), sug-
gesting that 12 to 14 linear meters of core per person-day is a reasonable approxima-
tion of the coring rate for terrigenous sediments. This is only an approximation, how-
ever, and other variables should also be factored in, such as allowances for the
difficulty of penetrating certain kinds of sediments, the properties of the core sampling
device used, the extra travel time needed for larger core interval spacings, and the
difficulty of transport within the survey tract due to remoteness, difficult terrain,
dense vegetation, etc.

Another mechanized technique for deep subsurface testing (DST) is deep backhoe
trenching. While it has been used for decades as a technique for deep intrasite investi-
gation, backhoe trenching has become increasingly popular as a regional sampling
technique for geomorphological investigations conducted in tandem with archaeologi-
cal surveys (see, for example, Muto and Gunn 1981; Anschuetz 1990; Blair, Clark, and
Wells 1990; and Bettis [1993]). As Anschuetz (1990) notes with regard to his off-site
backhoe testing program in the southern Tularosa Basin, New Mexico, it is not an
especially effective site discovery technique since its ability to systematically retrieve
archaeological artifacts is very limited. This is even more problematic in places such
as the Tularosa Basin where sites are typically represented by low-density lithic
scatters. Off-site backhoe trenching can, however, be an effective search technique for
locating buried soil horizons likely to contain archaeological site surfaces, especially
when it is carried out in conjunction with pedestrian survey. His reasoning is as
follows:

Although the off-site archeological testing program represents a sizable work effort,
we found that the use of backhoes was inappropriate as a “blind” search strategy


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

49

items, deposits, and/or surfaces exhibiting discrete spatial clustering. Five properties
of these resources are also discussed: variety, quantity, clarity, integrity, and environ-
mental context. Sites are then defined on the basis of these field data in terms of
specific research problems of the project in question. The nonsite approach is followed.
here only at the methodological level of data collection in the field, the ultimate pur-
pose being the definition of archaeological sites after laboratory analysis has been
completed. No explicit minimal criteria are given, however, as to what constitutes a
site. Thus the procedure does not fall into the “formal” approach discussed above, nor
does it follow the strict “nonsite” or “antisite” approach of Ebert (1992).

This cursory and preliminary examination of a few site definitions commonly used in
the United States demonstrates, above all, the wide variety of meanings or uses
implied by the concept. Even within the same broadly defined culture area (e.g.,
Southeast and Southwest), approaches to site definition appear to be quite diverse
(Table 4).

Secondly, some of the definitions common to the “formal” approach tend to be overly
exclusionary in that they automatically eliminate from serious study a range of
smaller, more ephemeral archaeological manifestations such as light density lithic
scatters or isolated finds.

If the high diversity of site definitions is notable at a national level, it is even more
striking when documented for a series of ten archaeological contracting institutions
who conduct cultural resource management projects on lands within the Southwestern
Region of the U.S. Forest Service (i.e., Arizona, New Mexico, and the Texas-Oklahoma
Panhandle area; Tainter 1983). Of the ten institutions surveyed, Tainter (1983:131)
was able to discern no fewer than “six categories of archaeological site definition,” with
a seventh category volunteered after the initial inquiry was conducted. These include
the following (Tainter 1983; emphasis original):

1. Behavioral definitions...[which are] defined as any locus intentionally used by human
populations.

2. Arbitrary definitions [which] specify that a site is any manifestation displaying a
certain debris density (for example, five artifacts per square meter)...

3. Inclusive definitions [which] record as a site any archaeological manifestation,
including isolated items...

4. Research potential definitions...which limit archaeological sites to manifestations
which contain information that cannot be exhausted at the time of discovery.

5. Research objectives definitions [which] argue that the definition of an archaeological
site varies with the research goals of individual projects. [Thus] phenomena which
are not of interest for specific research questions are not recorded as sites.



210 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

previously recorded sites, the Contractor shall submit two (2)
copies of an updated State site form to the COR with the draft
report. The updated site form shall correct all previous
observations about =he extent and results of the work completed
under this contract.

1. Accident Prevention Plan (APP): The offeror shall
submit two (2) copies of a draft APP (LMV Forms 358-R and 359-R)
for each delivery order as requested which is specific to the
requirements of that delivery order. The reference for
preparation of the APP is EM 385-1-1, April 1981 as updated.
Specific Safety requirements shall include the following as
appropriate:

(1) Each field crew must contain at least two persons
with current cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and Basic
First Aid training,

(2) any person performing fieldwork alone in remote
areas must be certified in CPR and Basic First Aid,

(3) local hospital and ambulance arrangements are
required’ for all fieldwork, and

(4) all APP’s are required to address the
organization’s policies and procedures for the prevention of
alcohol/drug abuse.

j. Disposal of Records and Artifacts. All records,
photographs, artifacts and other material data recovered under
the terms of each delivery order shall be recorded and-catalogue
in a manner compatible with those systems utilized by the Army
and by State and Federal agencies which store archeological data.

They shall be held and maintained by the Contractor until
completion of the delivery order. Final disposition of the
artifacts and records shall be in accordance with applicable
Federal laws. The Contractor shall be responsible for delivery
of the analyzed archeological materials to the repository
designated by the Government following acceptance of the final
report. The Contractor shall inform the Government in writing
when the transfer of data has been completed and shall forward a
catalog of items entered into curation. The location of any
notes, photographs or artifacts which are separated from the main
collections shall be documented in the catalog. All artifacts to
be permanently curated shall be cleaned, stabilized, labeled,
catalogued, and placed in sturdy bags and boxes labeled with
site, excavation unit or survey collection unit provenience.

5. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR: The Contractor shall
provide a safe working environment for key consultants and all
persons in his employ as prescribed by Engineering Manual (EM)
385-1-1, "General Safety Requirements". The Contractor shall be
responsible for all damages to persons and property which occur



78

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

that for those sites the proportion of the site area (ALS) actually occupied by cultural
debris ranged from 19.0 to 47.6 percent. As Thomas (1986:119) notes, such discontinu-
ity in the spatial patterning of artifacts on small single occupation sites has the
advantage of facilitating the analytical isolation of discrete activity areas. However,
a major disadvantage of “spatial discontinuity, and particularly the fact that greater
than 50% of the [site] area...within many short-term sites may be devoid of archaeolog-
ical remains,...[is] that such sites are difficult to locate” (Thomas 1986:119) through
SST procedures. To quote Thomas further on this point:

Where our models indicate that small sites are to be expected in a specific study
area, our sampling strategy must be designed to insure a high probability of finding
those 20-50 m’ nuclear activity areas where artifact density is reasonably high,
even though the absolute limits of the site (ALS) might encompass 200-1000 m’.
We must find the sites in spite of the holes within them (Thomas 1986:119; emphasis
added).

The implications of this phenomenon for site discovery through SST procedures are
stated as follows:

...Where subsurface sampling using small test pits is the only means available for
finding buried sites, the use of sample intervals greater than 8-10 m. virtually
insures that most single occupations will remain undiscovered unless such
occupations overlap one another...Furthermore, given the tight clustering of lithic
debris which appears to be characteristic of single occupation sites, the recovery of
only one or two flakes in a preliminary test pit should not be discounted as
insignificant until a more intensive exploration of the adjacent area can be carried
out (Thomas 1986:119).

It is clear from these statements that site size and sampling geometry (intersection
probability) alone are inadequate indicators for determining the presence or absence
of an archaeological site (cf. Sundstrom 1993). Discovery probability must also account
for artifact detection probability and the statistical properties of the archaeological
remains themselves (i.e., intrasite artifact density and density-distribution). It should
also be noted that “empty spaces” in the spatial dispersion of artifacts and features are
by no means limited in their occurrence to small, short-term occupation sites such as
those described by Thomas (1986) for the Northeast United States. They can also be
clearly observed in the artifact density mapping of larger “homesteads” or seasonally
occupied campsites, such as the Orbit Inn site (Utah) studied by Simms and Heath
(1990:Figures 3-6), and at larger village configurations of sedentary agriculturalists,
such as those of the “Fort Ancient” Mayo site (Kentucky) studied by Dunnell
(1983:Figures 6-13) and the “Mississippian” Bridges site (Illinois) studied by Oetelaar
(1993:Figures 4-6). What merits further study is the degree to which the “50% or


88 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

4 Survey Effectiveness and Bias Assessment

Background

As mentioned previously, discovery probability is the product of two independent
probabilities (site intersection and test-pit productivity), and both of these are affected
by (a) properties of the sampling design and (b) properties of the archaeological record
(Figure 2). While discussion is aimed primarily at SST survey methods here, it applies
equally well to pedestrian surveys. Early applications of SST in the 1970s were
primarily concerned with finding sites under conditions of low surface visibility but not
with estimating the probability of site discovery under given conditions and sampling
designs. Thus little or no concern was shown for objectively evaluating the effective-
ness, accuracy, reliability, and validity of shovel-probes. If sites were found, then SST
must be effective.

By today’s standards, many early SST surveys were constrained by a variety of factors.
For example, some failed to make full use of prior knowledge of the archaeological
record and the nature of local archaeological sites. In some cases that knowledge was
still being developed for many areas so that SST surveys had to be conducted in an
exploratory fashion. Others failed to optimize their sampling designs in order to find
archaeological remains of a certain minimal size. In other cases, SST surveys were of
very low intensity due to financial limitations or a mind-set that regarded SST tech-
niques as a minor and often ineffectual supplement to traditional pedestrian survey
coverage. While sites were definitely discovered, there was no explicit bias assessment
to determine what kinds of archaeological resources might have been missed in the
study area or sampling unit. In short, no confidence estimates could be placed on the
survey results. Since few scopes-of-work or SHPO guidelines recommended the inclu-
sion of quality control mechanisms and bias assessment, it is not surprising that
survey reports avoided discussion of such topics. If it is not an explicit contractual
requirement, the admission of survey bias and missed archaeological resources could
potentially result in the rejection of the deliverable product.

In the early to mid-1980s, archaeologists began to examine the statistical and geomet-
rical properties of shovel-test sampling and its relation to the discovery of archaeologi-
cal sites of varying size, artifact density, and matrix composition (see, for example,
Dincauze et al. 1980; Lynch 1980; Stone 1981a; Krakker Shott, and Welch 1983;



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

43

it will, no doubt, continue to do so. The important point is to remain flexible about
the kinds of analytic entities we employ when required by specific research
objectives...

For purposes of the present report and the overall objectives of the Legacy Resource
Management Program, it is strongly recommended that the site concept be retained
for archaeological surveys on DoD lands, but that a standardized definition with
explicit “minimal criteria” be imposed which is flexible enough to accommodate some
of the objections raised by proponents of the nonsite approach, yet practical enough to
permit adequate resource management. Such definitions have already been offered
in the literature and will be reviewed below. In a similar vain, more analytical atten-
tion must be given to “isolated occurrences,” or those remains which fall below the
minimal definition of a “site.” As Klinger (1976:54) observes: “the crucial question...is
what configuration of variables must be present for a cultural resource to be
recognized.”

Regional Trends in Site Definition

. Having reviewed the underlying reasons for recent disillusionment with the site

concept, it is instructive to examine regional trends in site definition as gleaned from
CRM research reports throughout the continental United States. The regional CRM
literature has been focused upon here because it is in these research contexts that
operational definitions are more likely to be found, as opposed to college-level archae-
ology textbooks for example. The definitions extracted from these reports will serve
to illustrate two general points. First, as a whole, site definitions are highly variable.
And second, as suggested earlier with regard to unobtrusive, low-density material
remains, many site definitions are exclusionary in nature. Both of these have dramat-
ic implications for survey and site comparability within and between archaeological
regions.

As an example of the regional variability in site definition throughout the continental
United States, Appendix A provides a list of 25 CRM survey projects that were con-
sulted to extract information on site definition. Close to 100 reports were consulted,
but in the interest of brevity, only 25 are presented here. In Appendix A, the 25
entries are listed in no particular order. They simply list the author(s) and year of
publication, the relevant geographical reference for the work, including one of the eight
broadly defined “culture areas” and one or more “archaeological regions” within these
eight areas, and the site definition or a summary of whatever relevant information
may have been provided. The number preceding each entry is its record number



129

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

deep wo 0S} - 0} Se usAib eBue, ym ydep eBelene = ,,
Pausal0s-Ja]EM 19M SJUSWIPAS = ,
depodai jou Byep = 4/u

(E661) UDWYJOH ou Wo no ZG 4/u p-d/seqoid 20%} wid 9% min i GL] o100/186ND
(0661) USIOUM, ou WO Nd 0S9Z Oe S102 | P-d/seqoid cz | ,.WId 09 [WoIp Wd ¢°Z|_e109/1eBND
(Dpgsl) UOWIDUDWIOW sok WO ND Q06E ZZ O1pe | p-d/seqoid 9p | WOOS | WHIP WO OL @lOo/1eBND |
(EB6L) UOSJOUDIN sok WONDGLIPLE j/u p-d/seqoid y | WOOO! | WHIP WO OZ ejoujsod
(661) BIPIEN PUD HOgaqy SOK wd AD OOPZI ZL org | p-d/seqoid oi | WOOO! [WoIP WO SL | s1oussod
(EBL) UOS|OUSIN ou wo Nd 00008 4/u p-d/seqoid 7 wo Op [wpIp wogg] 4se};eAocus
(Z861) 10 48 JOOHYEN soa Wd NO 0O0ZZ-00S2z2 | OF OF0z | P-/seqoud Gz [WO 08-Sz|_ WO OEXOE | 182}19ACUS
(Ppgsl) UOWUDUD\OW soA wo no go0¢9 Op Og | P-d/seqoid 91 | Wo 9g | WbIp WO Op | 4se}-}eAous
(0861) Bujnds SOA guia ns o9G00S | Fore | P-d/seqoid $°Z | eto OG | WO COLXOOL qid-ysoy
(€86L) UOS|OUSIN SoA wo ND 00000Z a/u p-d/seqoid ¢'| | wo 0% |W OOLXOOL 40-4so4
[_ a0unos _ | éqaNaaaos | 3NM10A | AONVA | ala | Hida 3ZIS AdAL ASS
AN3WIGas NOIAIdWOD C

-yydep pue azis uani6 e jo
sasnpesoid (1 SS) Bunse; eoeyinsqns MojjeYys jo sadAy sno} 40} payoesjXa JUSIIPAS JO BUINJOA payelUuysa pue Aep-uosiad sad ayes uonajdwoo payewsy ‘pl aqeL



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 113

a major rethinking of funding requirements for inventory surveys and this, in turn,
will require greater fiscal responsibility, greater planning, and more accurate cost
estimation on the part of cultural resource managers. Regarding the use of SST
procedures, difficult decisions must be made as to when they should be used and at
what level of intensity, given finite financial resources. As Krakker, Shott, and Welch
(1983:479-480) observe:

At some point shovel-test survey becomes excessively labor intensive in comparison
to the research goals, and in each survey the decision whether or not to use shovel-
test sampling should probably rely at least in part on archaeological judgement.
We emphasize, however, that rigorous sampling procedures permit the exact
calculation of probabilities of site discovery and thus make evaluating the results
of surveys possible. Furthermore, rigorous sampling is essential for comparison
between the results of different surveys.

In order to mitigate, at least partially, the high cost of intensive SST survey:
procedures on DoD lands, it is important that installation managers carefully evaluate
local landscape conditions to assure themselves that the necessary conditions exist for
subsurface testing. By also evaluating prior information on the local archaeological
record, they can develop “probability surfaces” and “sensitivity areas” for the differen-
tial likelihood of locating archaeological resources of a given type. SST intensity could
then vary within these areas, with the lower probability areas receiving slightly lower
SST intensity. In no case, however, should low probability areas be completely ignored
or “written off” as insignificant. Rather, their low probability status should be explicit-
ly tested with appropriate site discovery procedures, but with lower confidence esti-
mates regarding the anticipated target resources. As an example, a 30-m staggered
grid could be used instead of a more intensive 10-m grid. Should that result in higher-
than-expected site discovery, then the “sensitivity” model would have to be revised and
more intensive procedures implemented. In both cases, however, calculation of dis-
covery probabilities and objective bias assessment are possible through Monte Carlo
simulation, thus permitting comparability of survey results.

The complete exclusion from analytical attention of any zones within the project study
area should be acceptable only where modern landscape alteration and military
impacts have effectively removed, covered over, or totally destroyed large tracts of the
natural land surface (e.g., by modern construction, road-building, intensive training
exercises, etc.). On many DoD installations, such impacts will tend to reduce the
projected costs of labor-intensive SST procedures by eliminating large tracts of land
from the project study area. For example, in a predictive modeling study carried out
on the Fort Drum, NY, military reservation, Hasenstab and Resnick (1990) included
in their analysis a thorough field inspection of “ground disturbance areas” (GDAs).
This resulted in the exemption from archaeological survey of 13 percent of the



122

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

discussed by Butler (1978, 1979). A lengthy description of the IDIQ format is
warranted in this regard: .

This type of contract provides for the furnishing of an indefinite quantity, within
stated limits, of specified supplies or services, during the contract period, with the
deliveries to be scheduled by the placement of [task] orders to the contractor. The
contract provides that the government will order a stated minimum quantity of the
supplies or services and that the contractor will furnish the minimum and any
additional quantities not exceeding a stated maximum...An indefinite quantity
contract may be used where it is impossible to determine in advance the precise
quantities of the supplies or services that will be needed by the agency during a
definite period of time and it is not advisable for the agency to commit itself for
more than a minimum quantity. Advantages of this type of contract are: [a] flexi-
bility with respect to both quantities [of services] and delivery scheduling; [b] sup-
plies or services need to be ordered only after actual needs have materialized; and
{c] the obligation of the agency is limited (Management Concepts Incorporated
1993:4.28-4.29).

Under these contracts, then, contractors submit competitive proposals “citing their
experience and qualifications, as well as their rates. The agency then selects a
contractor, generally for a 1-year period, with annual renewal options for 2 to 5 years.
All subsequent work orders are simply negotiated between the agency contracting
officer’s representative and the contractor” (Minor 1992:22). The importance of this
latter provision cannot be overemphasized. By using successive “task order” contracts
once an IDIQ contract has been awarded to a given contractor, the COTR (i.e., the
agency archaeologist or cultural resource specialist serving as the COTR) may be
delegated the authority to issue individual task orders, subject to review by the
contracting officer to ensure adequacy. This procedure permits the agency archaeolo-
gist to have maximal input into the planning, implementation, and monitoring of a
project and ensures a multi-stage or phased work plan by making each phase a
separate task order. By definition, it also ensures the incremental dispersal of funds
by project phase. The procedure for executing a task order is fairly simple:

Task orders may be initiated after receipt of a contractor’s proposal for task
accomplishment. The contractor’s proposal must indicate the level of effort and
skill levels to be employed, and the estimated cost of performance, in terms of
either dollars or labor-hours. The COTR authorized to issue task orders must
determine that the proposal is acceptable. Task orders should be issued in writing
and before commencement of work. They should include, but not be limited to, the
following information: [a] date of order; [b] contract and order number; [c] descrip-
tion of the task to be performed; [d] description of the end item (as appropriate);
[e] DD Form 254 and 1423; [f] exact point of pickup and delivery; [g] inspection and
acceptance codes; [h] period of time in which the services are to be performed; [I]


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 211

in connection with the work and service under this contract,
without recourse against the Government. The Contractor shall
provide maximum protection, take every reasonable means, and
exercise care to prevent unnecessary damage to existing historic
structures, contemporary structures, landscape plantings, natural
features, roads, utilities, an other public or private
facilities. Special attention shall be given to historic
structures, natural and landscape features of the areas to
protect these elements and their surroundings.

6. PUBLICITY: Except with prior approval from the Contracting
Officer, neitner the Contractor or any of his. employees or
consultants shall release for publication or any other use
(including student thesis or professional journals) any sketch,
photograph, report, or other material of any nature pertaining to
any matters for which services are performed under the terms of
this contract. The provisions of this paragraph shall extend
also to the release of any such material to any person, including
the public media and the professional community without the
expressed written approval of the Contracting Officer.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

127

square kilometer, you may have to allow for an additional 8 to 10 person-hours per
site. Site density will vary even within a region.

Using Jackson et al.’s estimates, it is interesting to compare their person-day per
square mile figure with that obtained with the Schiffer and Wells (1982) formula
presented earlier. According to their formula, a pedestrian survey carried out under
normal conditions (reasonably good visibility, high accessibility, and low site density)
at 30 meter crew spacing would yield an estimated level-of-effort of 13.4 p-d/sq mi (ie.,
402/30 = 13.4; see Table 13). On the other hand, Jackson et al.’s “planning figure” of
25 person-days per 1000 acres translates to an estimate of 16 p-d/sq mi, slightly higher
than that of Schiffer and Wells. The comparison is useful for it demonstrates that the
Schiffer/Wells formula should be considered a low-end or conservative cost-estimation
guideline for pedestrian survey. Installation managers must always plan for these
extenuating field circumstances, for in archaeological cost estimation, all things are
rarely equal.

For purposes of evaluating the intensity of past surveys, the figures in Table 13 can
also serve as a rough guide. As Schiffer (1987:348) has observed, “most modern, highly
intensive surveys require between 10 and 100 person-days of effort per mi’...Thus, if
the reported level of effort falls below 10 person-days per mi’, one is probably dealing
with a survey of reduced intensity. Many early surveys, for example, had levels of
effort of around .01 to .1 {person-days per mi’].” Thus a crew spacing of 40 to 45
meters should probably be regarded as the maximum allowable interval size in
contemporary archaeological surveys.

Cost Estimation for Shallow Subsurface Testing (SST) Survey

When surface visibility is greatly hindered due to dense vegetation or where geo-
morphic processes suggest that buried sites may exist, pedestrian survey must give
way to some form of subsurface site discovery procedures, either shallow testing
(usually between 25 and 100 cm in depth) or deep testing (greater that 100 cm in
depth). McManamon (1984a) provides the most detailed discussion of cost estimation
for shallow subsurface probes, including valuable comparative data derived from sub-
surface probing surveys conducted in the northeastern United States and elsewhere.
His discussion centers on shovel test-pits but also includes data on other techniques
such as shallow coring, and augering (see also Nicholson 1983; Stein 1986, 1991;
Schuldenrein 1991; and Hoffman 1993). As mentioned in Chapter 3, shovel-tests can
vary considerably in unit size, shape, depth, inspection time, and recording time,
depending on the purposes of the investigation and/or the preferences and judgement



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 151

Alvarez, B., Informe de Perforaciones Estratigraficas del Proyecto Arqueoldgico Rio Jama, [Report on
Stratigraphic Coring for the Jama River Archaeological Project], Technical Report prepared by
Alvarez y Asociados, Quito, Ecuador (August, 1988).

Anderson, D., “Space Use and Site Structure,” Haliksa’i: University of New Mexico Contributions to
Anthropology, vol 1 (Albuquerque, NM, 1982), pp 120-141.

Anderson, D. G., “The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern
United States,” in Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, K. B. Tankersley and
B. L. Isaac, eds., Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5 (JAIL Press, Greenwich, CT,
1990), pp 163-216.

Anderson, D. G., and J. R. Wilson, Fort Polk Historic Preservation Plan, vols. I - IV, Contract No. CX5000-
7-0007, Final Report (National Park Service, Interagency Archeological Services Division, Atlanta,
GA, 1978).

Anderson, D. G., L. J. Campbell, J. E. Cobb, J. E. Erhenhard, and P. M. Thomas, Jr., Historic Preservation
Planning on Military Bases: An Example from Fort Polk, Louisiana. Interaction, Special
Publication Number 3, Interagency Archeological Services Division (National Park Service,
Atlanta, GA, 1989).

Anderson, K., “Contract Standards for Archaeological Studies,” in Proceedings of the 1974 Cultural
Resource Management Conference, W. D. Lipe and A. J. Lindsay, Jr., eds., Museum of Northern
Arizona, Technical Series 14 (1974), pp 113-124.

Anschuetz, K. F., “Off-Site Archeological Testing Program Results and Evaluation,” in Landscape
Archeology in the Southern Tularosa Basin, Volume 1: Small Site Distributions and Geomorphol-
ogy, K. F. Anschuetz, W. H. Doleman, and R. C. Chapman, eds., Report No. 185-324D (University
of New Mexico, Office of Contract Archaeology, Albuquerque, NM, 1990), pp 149-166.

Anschuetz, K. F., W. H. Doleman, and R. C. Chapman, eds., Landscape Archeology in the Southern
Tularosa Basin, Volume 1: Small Site Distributions and Geomorphology, Report No. 185-324D
(University of New Mexico, Office of Contract Archaeology, Albuquerque, NM, 1990).

Artz, J. A., “A Soil-Geomorphic Approach to Locating Buried Late Archaic Sites in Northeast Oklahoma,”
American Archaeology, vol 5, no. 22 (1985), pp 142-150.

Baker, K. L., “An Evaluation of the Results of Testing Methodological Approaches at the East Aberdeen
Site,” Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22 (1980), pp 95-100.

Barber, M. B., “The Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources in Heavily Vegetated Areas: A U.S.
Forest Service Approach,” Archaeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin, vol 39, no. 2
(1984), pp 104-112.

Bareis, C. J., and J. W. Porter, eds., American Bottom Archaeology (University of Illinois Press, Urbana,
1984a).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

155

Carpenter, J. I, “Archaeological Contractual Agreements,” in Proceedings of the 1974 Cultural Resource
Management Conference, W. D. Lipe and A. J. Lindsay, Jr., eds., Technical Series 14 (Museum of
Northern Arizona, 1974), pp 39-43.

Carr, C., Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying: Interpretation of Data from Earthen Archeological Sites
(Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston, 1982).

Carr, C., “Left in the Dust: Contextual Information in Model-Focused Archaeology,” in The Interpretation
of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, eds. (Plenum Press, New York,
1991), pp 221-256.

Chapman, J., The Bacon Bend and Iddins Sites: The Late Archaic Period in the Lower Little Tennessee
River Valley, Report of Investigations No. 31 (University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropol-
ogy, Knoxville, TN, 1981).

Chapman, J., and L. R. Kimball, Tellico Archaeological Survey, 1977: An Overall Assessment of the
Archaeological Resources of Tellico Reservoir, Report of Investigations No. 40 (University of
Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville, TN, 1985).

Chartkoff, J. L., and K. K. Chartkoff, The Discovery of Archaeological Sites: A Review of Methods and
Techniques, report prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, PSW Grant No. 35 (Pacific Southwest.
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, 1980).

Chase, J. E., J. L. Montgomery, and K. Landreth, Southeast Louisiana Cultural Resource Management
Plan, Volume I, Cultural Resources Series, Report No. COELMN/PD-87/02 (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New Orleans District, New Orleans, LA, 1988).

Chatters, J. C., Dimensions of Site Structure: The Archaeological Record from Two Sites in Okanogan
County Washington (Central Washington University, Central Washington Archaeological Survey,
Ellensburg, 1984).

Cheatham, R. D., Late Archaic Settlement Pattern in the Long Tom Sub-Basin, Upper Willamette Valley,
Oregon, University of Oregon Anthropological Papers, 39 (Eugene, OR, 1989).

Cook, J. R., and S. G. Fulmer, eds., The Archaeology of the McCain Valley Study Area in Eastern San
Diego County, California: A Scientific Class IT Cultural Resource Inventory (Bureau of Land
Management, California Desert District, Cultural Resource Publications, Riverside, CA, 1981).

Coombs, G. B., The Archaeology of the Northeast Mojave Desert, report prepared for the U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Archaeological Research, Contract No.
YA-512-CT7-236 (Bureau of Land Management, 1979).

Cowgill, G. L., “A Selection of Samplers: Comments of Archaeo-statistics,” in Sampling in Archaeology,
J. W. Mueller, ed. (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1975), pp 258-274.

Cowgill, G. L., “Archaeological Applications of Mathematical and Formal Methods,” in American
Archaeology Past and Future, D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, eds. (Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1985), pp 369-393.



USER EVALUATION OF REPORT

REFERENCE: USACERL Special Report 96/40, Vol 1, Archaeological Inventory Survey Standards and
Cost-estimation Guidelines for the Department of Defense

Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below, tear out this sheet, and return it to USACERL. As user
of this report, your customer comments will provide USACERL with information essential for improving future
reports.

1. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, or other area of interest for which
report will be used.)

2. How, specifically, is the report being used? (Information source, design data or procedure, management
procedure, source of ideas, etc.)

3. Has the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as far as manhours/contract dollars saved,
operating costs avoided, efficiencies achieved, etc.? If so, please elaborate.

4, What is your evaluation of this report in the following areas?

a. Presentation:

b. Completeness:

c. Easy to Understand:

d. Easy to Implement:

e. Adequate Reference Material:

f. Relates to Area of Interest:

g. Did the report meet your expectations?

h. Does the report raise unanswered questions?

DTIC QUaLIry TWarvorng 3



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 145

planning; others are misinterpreted by poorly trained staff or are forgotten during
staff rotations. Still others are not implemented for lack of funding.

Successful archaeological inventory surveys on DoD installations can only be effi-
ciently planned, contracted, and executed within the larger framework of a well-
conceived and proactive CRMP. Intensive archaeological surveys, like other kinds of
cultural resource studies and surveys (Derry et al. 1985), should be planned and
budgeted from the perspective of an installation “master plan.” In this way the specific
projects can be correctly carried out in an orderly multi-stage manner in accordance
with the long-term monitoring and quality control aspects of the typical HPP or CRMP
(Figure 1). As King and Drucker (1993:5) note with respect to cultural resources
generally, “...it is not necessary to identify all cultural resources at an installation
before preparing a CRMP. The plan itself may provide for ongoing identification. It
should define appropriate approaches to developing information on resources and
specify how to select among different approaches.” In this regard, the present
document has attempted to define “appropriate approaches” to the identification of
archaeological resources.

General guidance on the development of CRMPs within the DoD can be found ina
recent document of the Legacy Resource Management Program entitled Principles of
Cultural Resource Management Planning in the Department of Defense (draft) by King
and Drucker (1993). It contains helpful discussions on the purpose, scope, content, and
implementation process of an installation CRMP. For the Department of the Army,
a detailed “how-to” treatment on the implementation of installation CRMPs can be
found in Jackson et al. (1993:27-71). This discussion is particularly useful in that it
covers a wide range of issues normally encompassed by an installation CRMP such as
the various players and their roles, basic elements of the CRMP, its integration into
installation decisionmaking and master planning, funding, staffing, and training
requirements, contracting, integration of the CRMP with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, etc.

Several case studies of successful CRMPs or HPPs are also available for consultation,
only a few of which can be mentioned here. Zier et al. (1987) provide a comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan for the Fort Carson Military Reservation, Colorado, which
is currently being used as a model for HPPs at other DoD installations (e.g., Kirtland
Air Force Base, NM). Anderson and Wilson (1987) developed a comprehensive four-
volume Historic Preservation Plan for Fort Polk, Louisiana, and a useful overview of
this plan can be found in Anderson et al. (1989). Finally, Jackson et al. (1993:
Volume 3) provide an instructive example of a highly effective Cultural Resource
Management Plan for Fort Hood, Texas, corresponding to the years 1990-1994.
Together, the three HPPs provide interesting contrasts in terms of physiographic



106 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

evaluate the results that are achieved by a testing program or, perhaps even more
usefully, it can be used to examine ‘what if’ scenarios in order to better plan a testing
program” (Kintigh 1988a:689; emphasis original). In either case, the method permits
objective assessment of survey effectiveness (i.e., discovery probability) as well as
sampling bias. As such, it should become an integral part of the archaeologist’s
methodological repertoire in the planning and execution of regional archaeological
surveys and intrasite testing programs. Neither CRM-based inventory surveys nor
research-oriented probabilistic surveys can escape the need for bias assessment and
the explicit definition of survey intensity and both of these items should be explicitly
discussed in contractual scopes-of-work and in research proposals and survey designs.

Recommendations

The five policy recommendations presented below are designed to ensure that installa-
tion managers pay greater attention to survey effectiveness and bias assessment in the
inventory surveys conducted under their purview. It is likely that many cultural
resource managers on these installations are already cognizant of these issues and
routinely consider them in the planning and monitoring of surveys. It is clear,
however, that the degree of oversight on these issues is highly variable from installa-
tion to installation; thus the development of clear guidelines is desirable. The recom-
mendations are offered as an initial step in developing clear guidelines and are aimed
at both the DoD installation manager and the archaeological contractor.

1. Assessment of Regional Landscape Conditions by the Installation Manager

To develop a comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan on installation lands in which
archaeological inventory surveys are contemplated, a thorough assessment must be
made of the regional landscape conditions that affect both the sedimentary contexts
of the archaeological resources and the survey methodologies and site discovery pro-
cedures used to discover those resources. While this may seem intuitively obvious, in
practice it is not often carried out as a prerequisite step to inventory survey planning
and execution. Thus, installation managers need to carry out (or contract out) a com-
prehensive geomorphological and environmental study of the regional landscape before
designing and initiating an inventory survey in order to ascertain surface and sub-
surface landscape conditions pertinent to different kinds of archaeological occupations.
Appropriate site discovery procedures can then be developed depending on the nature
of these landscape conditions. For instance, if it is known beforehand that buried sites
may exist in aggrading alluvial environments that will be affected by military training
activities, then deep coring programs can be planned accordingly, in addition to con-
ventional pedestrian survey of the land surface. It is also imperative that objective


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Table 5. Selected archaeological survey projects in eight culture areas of the United
States showing various aspects of methodology and results.

Area | gracing | Levelot | Discovery| Meansite | 5...
Reference state | Surveyed | SFE | ttort Rate Density | semen
{sq mi) (p-disq.mi, | (sitesip-d) | (sites/sq.mi.)
Northeast
joBrien etal (1383) M0 ua 20 BOF oF 73 | PEOSST,
[Canouts (1564) i 13 1a? 847 T BAT ‘SST
fMeManamon (1984) MA 18 B 24 Os WT =
Lightfoot eta (1987) NY 02 io 72002 14 176 y
Webb et al (1963) iL i wir 7 ‘ 383 =
Southeast T
[Schufer & House (1575) [ORR 138 2) or oF 6 PED
[House & Ballenger (1976) Sc 0.8 15 25 476 a7 SST
FFayior & Smith (1978) GSE] 17.4 30. 38 ic] 25,5 | PEOSST|
Rodeffer etal (1979) SC 73 5 64 08 ‘a7 PED
Kahler etal (1380) GaaL_[ 162 30 32 oA 32 =
[Waselkov (1980) AL 70 20 Poa ra 4 =
Butter et ai (1981) Ky a5 5 wr 1s 19 =
Lafferty etal (1981) AR 86 B EE} ‘007 4a 7
Early & Limp (1982) TAR 73] St050 | 256 085 4 ¥
Sarvello (1983) tA 166 5 a 03 21 | PEDSST
FThiomas etal (583) GAAL_[ 34 30 Be nip 64 ‘SST
[Chapman & Kimball (1985) TN 47 wr 192 14 214 PED
[Sussenbach & Lewis (1887) xy 4 7Oto70 | 268" 033" 35 =
woffa etal (1985) MO 38 [201030 | 16 oF 7 [PECISST|
i
Plains
[Scot etal (7982) 1% 35 ed Be OF TPES]
[Alexander otal (1582) O 338 | 50-75 168 or 18 BED
day etal (1982) (20 38 25 36.1 oz v3 7
[Raab etal (1982) x 784 10 125 5 37 =
[Carison etal (1586) 1K 375 20 356 0.9 67
[Carison etal (1987) TK 162 20 72 ‘O15 41
[Carison etal (1888) ix 324 30 25 O15 34
Koch & Mueler-Wilfe (1589a)_| 1X 148 Ea 229 ‘O07 47 *
iKoch-& Mueller Wille (19880) | 1X 23 30 189 02 3.08 7
[Lebo & Brown (1980), 7K 24 30 13.4 oF 32 PEOSST.
Mueller Wille & Carson (S90]_| 1X 65 30 319 aE a5 FED
(Great Sazin
[Coombs (1975) cory 5 Ea BT oat i PED
Hauck (197) ur 745 [ St07 [128 Oa 3 =
Fauck (19730) UF | Sto20 [224 0.36 a3 r
FThempson (1979) ur 165 1 147 09 129 =
Reed & Nickens (1380) Ur 2B 7 128 0.005 a9 =
jarralde & Chandler (1987) ur V7.1 15 173 Ot 13 =
Toepel & Beckham (1961) OR 22 [Sto [387 ‘OE a y
Black & Metcalf (1968), ur 139 15 26° 036 36 a
Bradley etal (1986) Ur 06 15 32 053 144 a
{Larraice & Nickens (1568) ur 2 15 154 0.083 13 =
[Gallegos etal (1988) TA 2 30 728 O3t 38 a
FFipps (1968) ur BOE 5 16 012 33 7
Southwest
urlbet (1976) CO 5 5 Ba 08 z
Rodgers (1976) AZ 207 aie 46 2 oT
Fuller etal. (1876) AZ 45 [7510375] 32 a8 192
ener (1977) a $5 [ 320040 | 148 03 43
Biella & Chapman (1577) NM 142 [Ww ts | 195 03 186
Plog (1978) AL 28 n Tha 02 721
Hayes et al (1987) tt
Transect 758 w TT oF ce 7
inventory 32 | Ste] 344 1S 328
Eidenbach (1382) a 161 B 359 03 36 =
[Wait & Nelson (1583) NM 728 | tots | 208 Oz 48 7
Marmaduke & Conway (1683) | AZ 22 15 359 a ala =
Kane et a, (7986) (a0) 37 [602 | 842 02 165 =
[Kayser & Carrol (1388) Nw 38 [2005 | 179" i BB =
[Seaman et ai (1968) NM Ex] Eck] 2128 +6 MOS =
fAnschuetz etal (1950) NM @ 2 5025 708 528 a
Pisteaus
fatmann (1585) OR 5a OE oF 38 FED
Gerting (1989), OR irs 30 5347 Lik 255
Northwest Coast
Jones etal (1978) WA oT see | 8s oa Ws PED,
[Cheatham (1988) OR 123 30 13.4" 5° 65 =
Gaiifornia
Betinger (1977) ony 33 ED ae oz 185 PED,
[Cook & Fulmer (1351) CA we 50 20.4 09 189 =



52

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Establishing Minimal Criteria for Site Definition

As stated previously, this report strongly endorses retention of the “site” concept for
purposes of intensive archaeological survey on DoD lands. In spite of past ambiguities
and misuses of the concept, it still serves as a useful tool both for cultural resource
management purposes and for academic research purposes, providing of course that
the definition is not overly restrictive in terms of the kinds or quantities of material
remains which make up the minimal criteria for site attribution. It is argued here that
even where the site/nonsite distinction is explicitly made, the distinguishing criteria
are either not specified or the nonsite category encompasses too many different kinds
of archaeological occurrences to be analytically useful.

Examples of these problems abound in the archaeological literature (Lyman 1985).
The establishment of a clear quantitative cut-off point between what one considers a
site and what one considers merely “background noise” on the archaeological landscape
is the subject of often acrimonious debate. The exchange between MacCord (1988) and
May (1988) on where to “draw the line” is instructive in this regard and highlights the
regional differences in the archaeological record that underlie the decisionmaking
process. Citing cost-effectiveness as his principal criterion, MacCord (1988) places a
rather high threshold on his minimal criteria for defining an archaeological site in
Virginia. In MacCord’s (1988:14) “Cultural Resource Continuum,” in order to merit
the designation of site, an archaeological manifestation must minimally exhibit
“{projectile] points, debitage, & FCR [fire-cracked rocks] @ 1 per 10 foot square or 400
per acre.” In this scheme, any manifestation having lower densities and less diverse
archaeological materials is considered “background noise” and would not even be
recorded, much less surface-collected for future analysis. Clearly, the kinds and
amounts of archaeological resources excluded in this procedure are probably too
excessive for most practicing archaeologists in the United States. Indeed, in May’s
(1988) response to MacCord’s scheme, it becomes clear that such an approach to site
definition would effectively eliminate from analytical attention much of the Late
Pleistocene archaeological record in areas such as China Lake in the Mojave Desert
of California (Davis 1975, 1978).

Plog, Plog, and Wait (1978:389) provide a more reasoned approach to definitions of the
“site” and “non-site”. According to them:

A site is a discrete and potentially interpretable locus of cultural materials. By
discrete we mean spatially bounded with those boundaries marked by at least
relative changes in artifact densities. By interpretable we mean that materials of
sufficiently great quality and quantity are present for at least attempting and
usually sustaining inferences about the behavior occurring at the locus. By cultural


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

173

Wildesen, L. E., “The Study of Impacts on Archaeological Sites,” in Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory, Volume 5, M. B. Schiffer, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1982), pp 51-96.

Winter, M. C., “The Archaeological Household Cluster in the Valley of Oaxaca,” in The Early
Mesoamerican Village, K. V. Flannery, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1976), pp 25-30.

Wobst, H. M., “We Can’t See the Forest for the Trees: Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological
Distributions,” inArchaeological Hammers and Theories, J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene, eds.
(Academic Press, New York, 1983), pp 37-85.

Wood, W. D., “A Sampling Scheme for Subsurface Archaeological Survey,” Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin, vol 19 (1976), pp 39-42.

Wood, W. R. and D. L. Johnson, “A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological Site Formation,
in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 1, M.B. Schiffer, ed. (Academic Press,
New York, 1978), pp 315-381.

Yellen, J. E., Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past (Academic
Press, New York, 1977).

Zeidler, J. A., Social Space in Valdivia Society: Community Patterning and Domestic Structure at Real
Alto, 3000-2000 B.C., doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL (University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI 1984).

Zeidler, J. A., “Archaeological Testing in the Middle Jama Valley,” in Regional Archaeology in Northern
Manabi, Ecuador, Volume 1: Environment, Cultural Chronology, and Prehistoric Subsistence in
the Jama River Valley, J. A. Zeidler and D. M. Pearsall, eds., University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in
Latin American Archaeology No. 8 (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1994), pp 71-98.

Weir, C. J., J. H. Altschul, M. K. Kelly, M. R. Rose, K. P. Schweigert, and K. R. Weber, Historic Preserva-
tion Plan for Fort Carson Military Reservation, Colorado, report submitted to the National Park
Service, Interagency Archaeological Services, Denver, Contract No. CX-1200-6-A006 (Centennial
Archaeology, Inc., Fort Collins, CO, 1987).

Zubrow, E. B. W., “Small-Scale Surveys: A Problem of Quality Control,” American Archaeology, vol 4,
no. 1 (1984), pp 16-26.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

101

Table 11. Sample output file from STP program as in Table 7, applied to archaeological data.

(10 - 140 artifacts per sq m) than is the case in Table 7.

File Site Artifact Density No. Sites
No. Diam Fn Mean k Sites Number
1 20 s 10.0 0.000 1000 233
1 20 Ss 20.0 0.000 1000 236
1 20 Ss 40.0 0.000 1000 238
1 20 Ss 60.0 0.000 1000 231
1 20 s 80.0 0.000 1000 240
1 20 $ 100.0 0.000 1000 251
1 20 s 120.0 0.000 1000 233
1 20 Ss 140.0 0.000 1000 253
1 20 N 10.0 1.000 1000 234
1 20 N 20.0 1.000 1000 250
1 20 N 40.0 1.000 1000 248
1 20 N 60.0 1.000 1000 282
1 20 N 80.0 1.000 1000 228
1 20 N 100.0 1.000 1000 260
1 20 N 120.0 1.000 1000 252
1 20 N 140.0 1.000 1000 244
1 40 $s 10.0 0,000 1000 730
1 40 Ss 20.0 0.000 1000 798
1 40 s 40.0 0.000 1000 786
1 40 s 60.0 0.000 1000 796
1 40 Ss 80.0 0.000 1000 7196
1 40 Ss 100.0 0.000 1000 794
1 40 Ss 120.0 9.000 1000 790
1 40 § 140.0 0.000 1000 789
1 40 oN 10.0 1.000 1000 796
1 40 N 20.0 1.000 1000 771
1 40 N 40.0 1.000 1000 815
1 40 N 60.0 1.000 1000 794
1 40 N 80.0 1.000 1000 808
1 40 N 100.0 1.000 1000 788
1 40 N 120.0 1.000 1000 785
1 40 N 140.0 1.000 1000 795
1 60 s 10.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 Ss 20.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 s 40.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 Ss 60.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 Ss 80.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 s 190.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 s 120.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 Ss 140.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 60 ON 10.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 60 oN 20.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 60 oN 40.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 60 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 60 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 60 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 60 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 60 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1000
1 80 s 10.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 80 s 20.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 80 Ss 40.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 80 Ss 60.0 0.000 1000 1000
1 so 6s 80.0 0.000 1000 1000

Intersected
Pct Hits
23.3 233
23.6 236
23.8 238
23.1 231
24.0 240
25.1 251
23.3 233
25.3 253
23.4 234
25.0 250
24.8 248
28.2 282
22.8 228
26.0 260
25.2 252
24.4 244
79.0 790
79.8 798
78.6 786
79.6 796
79.6 796
79.4 794
79.0 790
78.9 789
79.6 796
T7641 7721
81.5 815
79.4 794
80.8 808
78.8 788
78.5 785
79.5 795
100.0 1566
100.0 1526
100.0 i551
100.0 1546
100.0 1557
100.0 1559
100.0 1504
100.0 1545
100.0 1587
100.0 1560
100.0 1528
100.0 1525
100.0 1581
100.0 1527
100.0 1515
100.0 1545
100.0 2478
100.0 2452
100.0 2465
100.0 2474
100.0 2427

NOTE: Output reflects 8 shovel probes (measuring 40 x 40 cm) arrayed with “optimal spacing” sampling geometry.
Site parameters have been modified to cover a broader rage of site sizes (20 - 140 m in diameter) and higher intrasite

Sites Detected

Number
125
169
184
190
195
211
189
216
141
190
216
245
206
239
237
230
481
588
628
662
659
686
635
683
469
579
718
727
733
736
744
757
886
953
983
991
994
995
996
995
760
856
926
941
968
965
964
977
981
1000
1000
1000
1000

Pet
12.5
16.9
18.4
19.0
19.5
21.1
18.9
21.6
14.1
19.0
21.6
24.5
20.6
23.9
23.7
23.0
48.1
58.8
62.8
66.2
65.9
68.6
69.5
68.3
46.9
57.9
71.8
72.7
73.3
73.6
74.4
75.7
88.6
95.3
98.3
99.1
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.5
76.0
85.6
92.6
94.1
96.8
96.5
96.4
97.7
$8.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Hits
125
169
184
190
195
2u1
189
216
141
190
216
245
206
239
237
230
4g1
588
628
662
659
686
695
683
469
579
718
727
733
736
744
787
939

1105

1206

1287

1309

1344

1333

1364

1008

1195

1326

1358

1462

1431

1424

1469

1525

1796

1960

2081

2102



26

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

accurately assess the record of the human past we must be aware that there is
differential representation of past landscapes on the modern landscape, and some-
how sample parts of past landscapes that are now in the subsurface. (pp 2-3)

Armed with this geomorphological information and a well-defined three-dimensional
project volume, the archaeologist can then develop a predictive model of archaeological
site location on the modern land surface as well as a sensitivity analysis of probable
site locations in subsurface contexts within the project volume. While the term loca-
tional sensitivity is not widely used in archaeological and geoarchaeological parlance,
it is employed here te refer to “a determination of how deeply buried a site may be at
any given location” (Chase, Montgomery, and Landreth 1988:169) or whether there is
any site location potential, given the geomorphological context under consideration.
To quote Chase and associates (1988) on this important point:

Cultural resource management decisions concerning inventory to identify sites are
guided by geomorphic variables. Decisions on where to survey for prehistoric sites
are tied to pertinent landforms. But the concerns about the probability or sensitiv-
ity of sites...are founded on where certain sites may be found and how deeply they
are buried...Briefly stated, a certain site may have a high or low probability of
occurrence at a specific location depending primarily on the geologic history of the
location.

A similar concern is voiced by Bettis (1993:8; see also Artz 1985) with regard to valley
landscapes in the following terms:

It behooves us to have an understanding of the three-dimensional distribution of
a valley’s deposits prior to undertaking an archaeological survey so that discovery
methods can be tailored to the depositional and chronologic patterns of the project
area. Without the aid of prior geological studies high probability buried situations
may go unrecognized and efforts may be wasted on areas with little or no potential
to contain intact archaeological deposits.

The dual problems of dense vegetation which obscures archaeological sites on the
modern land surface and depositional processes, which have left other sites deeply
buried, can be encountered in a wide variety of field situations. Survey designs and
site discovery techniques must be tailored to these landscape conditions if accurate and
reliable site data are to be obtained. For example, in most areas east of the Mississippi
River, the surface visibility necessary for observing surface archaeological materials
is very low, thus requiring the use of subsurface testing strategies for locating and
assessing archaeological sites. In riverine floodplains, where active alluviation has left


nen——a—a—a———————————_—___ ww  _ wee

22

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

At this juncture a definition of the term standard may be useful. The operational
definition used in this document is as follows: “...a prescribed set of rules, conditions,
or requirements concerned with the definition of terms; classification of components;
delineation of procedures; specification of materials, performance, design, or opera-
tions; or measurement of quality and quantity in describing materials, products,
systems, services, or practices” (Management Concepts Incorporated 1993:3.8). This
definition is purposefully general for application to a broad range of managerial
contexts and issues. However, it is highly suited to the purpose of this document and
the issue of quality control in archaeological inventory survey. As applied here,
emphasis is placed on a set of recommendations, which include rules, conditions,
and/or requirements, concerned with (a) defining the terms (especially the concept of
archaeological site), (b) delineating appropriate procedures for site discovery under a
series of variable landscape conditions, (c) specifying of survey design, performance,
specific field operations, and reporting requirements, and (d) measuring or evaluating
quality in describing the final survey results, be they materials (i.e., analyses of
archaeological artifacts, ecofacts, sediments, and related field specimens), services (i.e.,
survey logistics and level-of-effort estimates), or practices (i.e., the actual field methods
and site discovery and recording procedures used).

The importance of survey standards for historic preservation planning and cultural
resource stewardship cannot be overemphasized, regardless of the kinds of cultural
resource surveys required. As part of the permanent monitoring and quality control
component of the typical Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) (Figure 1), survey stan-
dards provide a crucial link between evaluations resulting from past surveys and on-
going identification tasks, on the one hand, and the periodic implementation and eval-
uation of specific projects or undertakings requiring Section 106 compliance, on the
other. For the specific case of archaeological surveys, consistent information about the
locations, spatial structure, and artifact content of sites are needed to establish a base-
line of existing knowledge regarding archaeological resources. This background
enables well-informed decisionmaking to be carried out regarding the Area of Potential
Effects (APE) of a given project, defined by Federal regulation as “the geographical
area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use
of historic properties, if any such properties exist” (36 CFR 800.2). Under these
circumstances, survey standards should determine both the discovery procedure(s)
appropriate for examining a given APE and the level(s) of survey intensity deemed
necessary given existing information on archaeological resources that are likely to be
present in the APE, or different areas within it. They should permit objective
measures for data screening and on-going evaluation of survey results to ensure that
they meet minimal standards of thoroughness and accuracy (Neumann, Warren-
Findley, and King 1991).


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

105

PPP PBB PEPE PPE PPP PP PEP PRP PEE PP PPP PP PP PP RP Re

1

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140

s
s
s
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ss
Ss
Ss
s
s
s
s
Ss
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ss
Ss
s
Ss
Ss
s
s
s
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Ss
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

Execution Time

100.0
120.0
140.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80:0
100.0
120.0
140.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0

0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
21.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

5.4 Minutes

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
200.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

34518
34300
34196
34315
34548
34621
34931
34555
34648
34171
33788
48081
47724
47968
48933
48878
48088
48330
48569
48847
48079
49043
48317
47515
47838
47903
47792
61600
62222
61715
62237
61971
62568
61174
61932
61924
62200
60983
63235
61882
62116
62293
61766
76030
74872
74864
74189
74427
73744
74337
74407
74749
73842
74479
74869
74391
74529
75330
73715

1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
21000
1000
1000

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

30127
30321
30513
21026
26298
29911
31546
31988
32502
32382
32242
30630
35457
39335
41614
42624
42448
43173
43723
29849
36491
42226
43677
43977
44973
45468
45725
40662
47503
51376
53816
54570
56037
55184
56313
37774
47339
$2626
57036
57422
58317
59108
59019
$2093
58831
63771
65178
66752
66960
67878
68618
45929
56172
64164
67820
68853
70043
71546
70576



162

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Kohler, T. A., T. P. Desjeans, C. Feiss, and D. E. Thompson, An Archaeological Survey of Selected Areas
of the Fort Benning Military Reservation, Alabama and Georgia, report submitted to the U.S.
National Park Service, Heritage, Conservation, and Recreation Service, Interagency Archaeological
Services, Atlanta. Contract No. C-5716(78), (Remote Sensing Analysts, Tucker, GA, 1980).

Kohler, T. A., and S. C. Parker, “Predictive Models for Archaeological Resource Location,” in Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 9, M. B. Schiffer, ed. (Academic Press, New York.
1986), pp 397-452.

Krakker, J. J., M. J. Shott, and P. D. Welch, “Design and Evaluation of Shovel-test Sampling in Regional
Archaeological Survey,” Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 10 (1983), pp 469-480.

Kvamme, Kenneth L., “Using Existing Archaeological Survey Data for Model Building,” in Quantifying
the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive
Modeling, W. J. Judge and L. Sebastian, eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management Service Center, Denver, CO, 1988a), pp 301-323.

Kvamme, Kenneth L., “Development and Testing of Quantitative Models,” in Quantifying the Present and
Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, W.
J. Judge and L. Sebastian , eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
Service Center, Denver, CO, 1988b), pp 325-428.

Lacey, D. M., and R. J. Hasenstab, The Development of Least Effort Strategies in CRM: Competition for
Scarce Resources in Massachusetts, Research Reports, vol 23 (University of Massachusetts,
Department of Anthropology, 1983), pp 31-50.

Lafferty, R. H. I, J. L. Otinger, S. C. Scholtz, W. F. Limp, B. Watkins, and R. D. Jones, Settlement
Predictions in Sparta: A Location Analysis and Cultural Resource Assessment in the Uplands of
Calhoun County, Arkansas, Research Series No. 14 (Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville,
AR, 1981).

Larralde, S. L., and S. M. Chandler, Archaeological Inventory in the Seep Ridge Cultural Study Tract,
Uintah County, Northeastern Utah, with a Regional Predictive Model for Site Location,Cultural
Resource Series No. 11 (Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, UT, 1981).

Larralde, S. L., and P. R. Nickens, “Archaeological Inventory in the Red Wash Cultural Study Tract,
Uintah County, Utah,” in Sample Inventories of Oil and Gas Fields in Eastern Utah, 1978-1979,
P. R. Nickens, ed. Cultural Resource Series No. 5 (Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City,
UT, 1980).

Lebo, S. A., and K. L. Brown, Archaeological Survey of the Lewisville Lake Shoreline, Denton County,
Texas, report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Contract No.
DACW63-86-C-0098, (University of North Texas, Institute of Applied Sciences, Denton, TX, 1990).

Lightfoot, K. G., “Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States,” American Antiquity, vol 51, no. 3
(1986), pp 484-504.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

165

Mayer-Oakes, W. J., “Contracting for Archeology,” in Scholars as Contractors: Report of a Workshop on
the Contract Archeology Process, W. J. Mayer-Oakes and A. W. Portnoy, eds. (U.S. Department of
the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Interagency Archeological Services
Division, Washington, DC, 1979), pp 15-22.

Metcalfe, D., and K. M. Heath, “Microrefuse and Site Structure: The Hearths and Floors of the
Heartbreak Hotel,” American Antiquity, vol 55, no. 4 (1990), pp 781-796.

Milner, G. R., “American Bottom Mississippian Culture: Internal Developments and External Relations,”
in New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, J.B. Stoltman, ed. (Prehistory Press,
Madison, WI, 1991), pp 29-47.

Minor, R., “Federal Contracting in Cultural Resources Management: A Contractor's Perspective,” CRM,
vol 15, no. 3 (1992), pp 22-23.

Moffat, C. R., M. R. McCorvie, and M. J. McNerney, Phase I Archaeological Survey of Selected Areas at
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri: Final Report, report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Kansas City District. Contract no. DACA41-86-D-0064 (American Resources Group, Ltd.,
Carbondale, IL, 1989).

Monger, H. C., Soil-Geomorphic and Paleoclimatie Characteristics of the Fort Bliss Maneuver Areas,
Southern New Mexico and Western Texas, United States Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort
Bliss, Texas, Directorate of Environment, Cultural Resources Management Program, Historic and
Natural Resources Report No. 10 (1993).

Moratto, M. J., California Archaeology (Academic Press, New York, 1984).

Moseley, M., and C. Mackey, “Peruvian Settlement Pattern Studies and Small Site Methodology,”
American Antiquity, vol 37 (1972), pp 67-81.

Mueller-Wille, C. S., and D. L. Carlson, Archaeological Survey at Fort Hood, Texas, Fiscal Year 1986: The
Shoal Creek Watershed, Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research Report No. 20
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TX, 1990).

Muto, G. R., and J. Gunn, A Study of Late-Quaternary Environments and Early Man Along the Tombigbee
River, Alabama and Mississippi, Phase I--Final Report, vols. I - IV, report prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic District, Mobile, AL, under Contract No. CO-9002(79),
(Benham Blair & Affiliates, Inc., 1981).

Nance, J. D., “Statistical Fact and Archaeological Faith: Two Models in Small Sites Sampling,” Journal
of Field Archaeology, vol 8 (1981), pp 151-165.

Nance, J. D., “Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective,” in Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 6, M. B. Schiffer, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1983),
pp 289-356.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

169

Schiffer, M. B., and G. J. Gumerman, eds., Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource
Management Studies (Academic Press, New York, 1977).

Schiffer, M. B., A. P. Sullivan, and T. C. Klinger, “The Design of Archaeological Surveys,” World
Archaeology, vol 10, no. I (1978) pp 1-28.

Schiffer, M. B., and S. J. Wells, “Archaeological Surveys: Past and Future,” in Hohokam and Patayan:
Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, R. H. McGuire and M. B. Schiffer, eds. (Academic Press, New
York, 1982), pp 345-383.

Schuldenrein, J., “Coring and the Identity of Cultural-Resource Environments: A Comment on Stein,”
American Antiquity, vol 56, no. 1 (1991), pp 131-137.

Scott, T. R., M. McCarthy, and M. A. Grady, Archaeological Survey in Cherokee, Smith, and Rusk
Counties, Texas: A Lesson in Survey Methods (Southern Methodist University, Department of
Anthropology, Archaeology Research Program, Dallas, TX, 1978).

Seaman, T. J., W. H. Doleman, and R. C. Chapman, eds., The Border Star 85 Survey: Toward an
Archaeology of Landscapes (University of New Mexico, Office of Contract Archaeology,
Albuquerque, NM, 1988).

Servello, Frank H., University of Southwestern Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources
Management Program, Volume 1: Main Report and Appendices LIV (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Fort Worth, TX, 1983).

Shott, M. J., “Shovel-Test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique: A Case Study from Michigan,”
Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 12 (1985), pp 458-469.

Shott, M. J., “Feature Discovery and the Sampling Requirements of. ‘Archaeological Evaluations,” Journal
of Field Archaeology, vol 14 (1987), pp 359-371.

Shott, M. J., “Shovel-Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey: Comments on Nance and Ball, and
Lightfoot,” American Antiquity, vol 54, no. 2 (1989), pp 396-404.

Simms, S. R., “The Archaeological Structure of a Bedouin Camp,” Journal of Archaeological Science, vol
15 (1988), pp 197-211.

Simms, S. R., and K. M. Heath, “Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Application of Ethnoarchaeology,”
American Antiquity, vol 55, no. 4 (1990), pp 797-813.

Singer, D. A., “Relative Efficiencies of Square and Triangular Grids in the Search for Elliptically Shaped
Resource Targets,” U.S. Geological Survey, Journal of Research, vol 3, no. 2 (1975), pp 163-167.

Smith, D. G., “Vibracoring Fluvial and Deltaic Sediments: Tips on Improving Penetration and Recovery,”
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol 54 (1984), pp 660-663.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

(861) oneoW

3se09 wxoq}nOs--
upeaan euatg--
worseoyou-

ysvoo yyou--

Avg oostouery ues
ysB09 yesquad--
foltea penuso--
rsuorgar ¢

VINSOSTIVO,

(0661) somns

ysvo9 Uoda1Q--
uyseg ONOUTETTEM, pUE

AoTTeA eIqUIN{OD JoNO|-~

punog y08ng—

uoySuryse a,

JO ysk09 Ue200--

ssuorsar y

isvo>
ASHMHLYON

(9861) oponozy.

wrojsomuynos--
wiostatjynos--
wsoysto~

FARE
uowyes/ayeug s0ddp)--
wsaypiou-—
wdisom—
:suoidar 9

NISVE
Lvao

(e861) suaxry

sured O4EpI-
sureunoyy oYepy~
neared 1oseII—

JOAN BIquINjOD
soddn/ayeug somol--
J2any FIquInjoD e1ppHu—
csuordax ¢

AWELV 1d

(€861) 19PoeA,

Aroydurod wroyseoupuou—

wrojsamupyiou-—
:suolan ¢

SNIV1d

(6461) 2140

Yespuy wroysom—
YresEUry w9}Sva--
var Exe H--
WwrI0,O-
ureyoyor—
uoTodoyy--
ssuordaz 9

ASHALLNOS

(9461) vospnt

spueqysiy
eaEYDENQ-HUZO-~
neayed of JOL9UI—
spuejysiy uemyoereddy—
quoutpard-—

wed peiseoo-~

YPHOLL yinos-~

AsvaILLAOS

(8261) 2988uL

Aone,

soy] 10D

spur[mo] souaieey IS-~
Teiseoo--

ssuoldos ¢

ALSVHHLUON

TONAL

SNOIDaYW
‘TIWOIDO1OAVHOUV

vauv

munis

SONTUAIA

SNOIDaN
‘TVOIDOIOUVEHDNV

vaIniv
poe tens tele)

“yoda siy} ul peuyap se ,,suoIGai jeo|Hojoaeyoue,, py 194) PU SA}EIS PaYUN [e}USU]}UOS By UUM SBede O4N}{Nd g JO ISI] “2 B1GeL



176 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

SURVDATA: site definitons, page 1

1
Reyname; Raab 1982
Sort Key: Plains (southern region)
Site Definition: To kinds of archagological resources or sanifestations are discussed: "sites’ and ‘localities’. The
latter are defined "as isolated finds, streaabank faunal deposits, or saall scatters of artifacts’ (p.27). "Sites' are
not explicitly defined bat had several properties of interest including ‘depth, horizontal disensions, and artifact
content" and "potentially coatained features, assenblages of artifacts, and other significant data’ (9.27).

1
Reynane: Marmaduke and Conway 1984
Sort Key: Southwest (Hohokam region}
Site Definition: The ‘site’ concept is rejected in this monograph, and the concept of "cultural acreage’ is utilized
instead as a neans of docuaeating archaeological manifestations within given spatial sampling anits (quadrats). The
authors state that: "In keepiag with the basic project goal of characterising the acreage rather than identifying site
boundaries, there was no ainiaoa density for defining a site or for recordation. when densities extended beyong unit
boundaries, no attempt was aade to deteraine their extent. Isolated artifacts were plotted on the unit aaps. The surface
densities of artifacts in ranges of light (1-9/9 sq a), moderate (10-30/9 sq a), and high (30/9 sq.m}, were recorded
with hatchuring’ (p.99}. However, shaded areas on quadrat maps indicating artifact densities greater than one ites per 9
sq a coald be used as a rough proxy for an archaeological ‘site’. & thorough discussion of the justification for
eaploying the ‘cultural acres' concept is provided in pp. 6-11.

3
Keynaae: Lightfoot et al 1987
Sort K jortheast (coastal region)
Site Definition: 'Sites’ were defined largely throngh subsurface sapling (shovel-probe testing). The term
‘tarchaeological manifestations’ is used generically to refer to a) isolated finds, b) low density scatters, and c) high
density scatters. Only the latter two sees to qualify as "sites' in the conventioanl sense of the tera. All three are
defined in terns of three criteria: (1) spatial dimensions; (2) percentage of positive shovel probes; and (3) artifact
density. See pp.41-42 for quantitative liaits separating the three types.

4
Reynase: Waselxov 1980
Sort Key: Southeast (coastal plain region, piedmont region, and Appalachian highlands regioa)
Site Definition: "For this survey and interpretation, the concept of 'site’ is defined as '2 location of artifacts.’
Artifacts gay in turn be defined as ‘any material or object modified in fora or context by past huaan activity.’ Thus a
site is potentially inforzative about past cultural behavior and organization’ (p.136).

5
Reynane: Tipps 1988
Sort Key: Great Basin (eastern region) and Southvest (western Anasazi region)
Site Definition: Sites and isolated finds were termed ‘cultural resources’ and ‘were defined as ideatifiable loci of
historic and prehistoric huaan activity. When a cultural resource ¥as found, the crew chief deterained whether it should
be recorded as a site or an isolated find. If features, rock art, or at least five artifacts in a 10- by 10m area were
present, the locus was recorded as a site, Othervise, the aaterials vere recorded as an isolated find’ (pp.35-36).

6
Reynane: Kane et al 1986
Sort Key: Sonthwest (western Anasazi region)
Site Definition: Explicit site definition criteria are given only for one probabililistic survey tract of the larger
stady area, which is treated in Chapter 9 (pp.379-433). The authors (Schlanger and Harden) note that site definition
criteria changed slightly between tvo field seasons (1979/1980), "Ia 1979, sites were defined by the presence of
artifact clusters or by areas of huaan alteration of the terrain that had enough spatial discreteness and integrity to
he easily defined. Yo arbitrary liaits were iaposed on artifact presence or deasity whea defiaing what was or ¥2s not a
site (although density rules were used to deteraine site limits}' (p.386). "In 1980, sites were defioed as aay locus of
past huaan activity that had at least 20 artifacts (flakes, sherds, tools) withia ao area of approriaately 30 by Ha,
or which had surficial evidence of stractares, cists, or other sach features...Site liaits were deterained by absolute



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

115

5 Contracting and Cost-estimation Procedures

The Contracting Process

Before considering the problem of cost estimation for the various site discovery tech-
niques mentioned in previous chapters of this report and the corresponding cost of
post-field analysis and report-generation, it may be worthwhile to review briefly the
related issue of contract specifications as they affect the planning and execution of
inventory surveys and Section 106/Section 110 compliance on DoD lands. The cultural
resource management literature of the mid- to late 1970s produced a flurry of articles
treating the issue of contract specifications and scopes-of-work, perhaps because the
contractual relationship between agencies and archaeologists was in an exploratory
phase; (see, for example, Anderson 1974; Carpenter 1974; Schiffer 1975; Cunningham
1976; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977; Butler 1978, 1979; Carbone 1979; Flynn 1979;
Mayer-Oakes 1979; and Rogge 1979). A major complaint at that time was that scopes-
of-work were commonly written by agency personnel having little or no expertise in the
field of archaeology (Schiffer 1975; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977; Butler 1979). Thus
the terms of the research design and the logistical parameters of the field work were
often dictated by the sponsoring agency «_ without benefit of any archaeological input”
(Schiffer and Gumerman 1977:85). This situation has changed somewhat in the
intervening years, as more and more government agencies and private corporations
have added archaeologists to their staff. As a result, the contracting personnel ulti-
mately responsible for preparing RFPs and contractual SOWs at many Federal agen-
cies now routinely depend on the active input of experienced archaeologists who have
a clearer idea of how archaeological fieldwork should proceed in a logistical sense.
While this trend is not as widespread as it should be, it has permitted many large-
scale CRM projects to be rightly subdivided into “manageable stages, with earlier ones
feeding information into subsequent stages” (Schiffer 1975:2). A multi-stage approach
provides greater decisionmaking flexibility for the contractor undertaking the research
and also gives the contracting agency a greater ability to monitor the progress and
evaluate the results of each stage of the research as it proceeds.

In spite of this overall increase in archaeological input, however, problems still exist
in the contracting process. Even in the 1990s, the task of preparing RFPs and SOWs
specifically for archaeological surveys or for significance evaluations of known archaeo-
logical sites sometimes falls on agency personnel with little or no training in



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 195

determination of eligibility to the National Register
of Historic Places and why the initial field survey
methods were judged inadequate to provide this data.

The following are detailed steps required to complete Tasks 1
and 2:

A. Notification of the SHPO of intent to undertake the Phase 1
archeological survey.

B. Prepare map to document the extent, depth, and nature of
ground disturbances at Poinsette Air Force Range and account for
those areas contaminated to the extent that they are unsafe for
archeological survey. Information regarding contaminated areas
on Poinsette Air Force Range should be available at Shaw Air
Force Base.

Cc. Consult with Dr. Lucy Whalley, the USACERL Native American
Consultation Coordinator and obtain information on sensitive
areas that may contain properties of cultural and/or religious
significance in accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the
Archeological Resources Protection Act and Air Force Regulation
126-7, Historic Preservation and the Air Force Guidelines for
Consultation with Native Americans in the Context of Program
Planning and Impact Assessment.

D. Prepare maps specifying the locations of all known

archeologically significant sites and Native American traditional

cultural properties. . These shall include documentation which
describes the rationale for including a site or traditional
property.

E. Prepare an archeological sensitivity map based upon landform
type and collected knowledge of archeological settlement patterns
in the region.

F. Prepare a map of the potential depths of cultural deposits
pased upon existing soils, geomorphological and geological
information.

G. Submit a complete draft OVERVIEW and RESEARCH DESIGN in
loose leaf binders for approval by the AFB POC, ACC, and the
USACERL before initiation of Tasks 3 through 6. The Contractor
must address the comments submitted by the AFB POC, Acc, and
USACERL before the phase will be complete.

TASKS 3 through 6:

A. After the approval of the draft OVERVIEW and RESEARCH DESIGN
and with the approval of the AFBPOC, the Contractor shall



136

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Schuldenrein advocates the use of a large diameter (4-inch or 102-mm) bucket auger
for this purpose (cf. Stein 1991) as it is highly portable and inexpensive. Unfortunately
he provides no data on time or labor requirements, so no comparisons can be made
with Stein’s or Nicholson’s completion rates for intrasite coring.

Turning to mechanical devices, a diverse array of instruments has been used for site
discovery purposes, usually in conjunction with off-site geomorphological investiga-
tions. Larger truck-mounted or trailer-pulled devices with wide-diameter coring tubes,
such as the Giddens soil sampling machine (see Stein 1986), are not treated here as
they are of limited utility for systematic areally extensive coring in survey tracts where
roads do not exist. They are also prohibitively expensive to operate except perhaps in
intrasite subsurface exploration and assessment where accessibility is not a problem.
Three examples of more portable mechanical coring devices are briefly discussed below
along with relevant cost-estimation data.

In their geoarchaeological study of the Terrebonne Marsh, Louisiana, Britsch and
Smith (1989) report the successful use of a “vibracore sampler” for extracting 29
undisturbed cores with a standard diameter of 7.8 cm and an average length of 6.5 m.
Vibracoring differs from other mechanical deep coring techniques, such as percussion
samplers, hydraulic samplers, or rotary augers, etc., in that it uses the principle of
liquefaction, rather than mechanical force, for penetration (Smith 1984). It was devel-
oped specifically for use in fluvial and deltaic sediments, and Britsch and Smith (1989)
used it exclusively in unconsolidated, saturated deltaic sediments. Although they
provide no data on time or labor requirements for the coring carried out in their study,
Smith (1984:66) suggests that under the right conditions, “three persons can recover
up to 100 m of core in one 8-hour day.” This figure translates to approximately 33.3
linear meters per person-day. Thus if Britsch and Smith (1989) were extracting 6.5
m cores at approximately the same rate, then their completion rate would be on the
order of 5 cores/person-day (Table 15). However, this estimate does not include
transport time by boat to each coring location nor the time necessary to set-up and
dismantle the equipment.

Another mechanical coring device is the Soiltest Hydraulic Porta-Sampler described
by Johnson and Alexander (1975). While initially designed for augering, the authors
modified the device for use as a tube sampler for core extraction at diameters ranging
from 3.2 to 11.5 cm. They report extracting “a 3.7-m core in three undisturbed
segments” in a total of 1.5 hours, including set-up and dismantling time (Johnson and
Anderson 1975:135-186). In an 8-hour day, then, up to 27.75 linear meters of sediment
could be extracted. Assuming a crew of two people, this results in a coring rate of
13.87 linear meters per person-day or 5 cores (3.7 m each) per person-day (Table 15).


178 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1
SURVDATA: site definitons, page 3

13

Keynaae: Lebo & Brown 1990

Sort Key: Plains (southera region)

Site Definition: A site is defined as the locus of past hoaan activities that can be delineated by the presence of
cultural features (e.g., houses, storage oits, hearths, ditches, aounds,etc.), and/or cultural artifacts (¢.g., stone
tools, chipping debris, pottery, etc.}' (p.18).

i

Keyname: Rodeffer & Gala 1985

Sort Key: California (north coast ranges tegion)}

Site Definition: ‘four categories of aaterial resains were recorded during the survey: isolated finds, scatters,
clusters, and sites. Isolated finds’ were defined as portable artifacts not associated with other artifacts or
featares. Quantitatively, single itess discovered gore than 50 a froa another artifact were identified as isolated
finds. A ‘scatter’ was defined as an area containing single artifacts distributed approximately 25 to 50 a apart. The
category ‘claster’ was characterized by an area aore or less 15 a in diameter which contained between two to 10
artifacts. The criteria ased to define an archaeological claster, that is, the area and auaber of artifacts, was
established arbitrarily and eaployed as a distinguishing characteristic for site designation. A 'site' was defined as an
area 15 min dianeter wbich contained a ainiaua of 11 artifacts or a featare. A 'featore’ was defined as a phenoaenoa
reflecting past activities through the fortuitous accumulation of aaterials and/or the production or construction of a
faciltiy (e.g., hearth, tals pit, hoatiag blind, cairn)* (p.48).

15

Reynaze: fartaan 1985

Sort Key: Platean (aiddle Coluabia River region)

Site Definition: "Pour categories of prehistoric cultural saterials were recogaozed ia the course of the field
investigations: isolated finds, low density scatters, high density scatters, aad isolated features. Low deasity scatters
vere defined as fever than five artifacts per 100 square meters and were recorded as isolated finds. Scatters with high
densities of artifacts vere recorded as sites, as were any isolated features. Features were defined as recognizable
groups of objects, such as cairns, hearths, or other discrete associations, resulting from cultural activity* (p.58).

16

Reyname: Larralde & Chandler 1981

Sort Key: Great Basin (eastern region)

Site Definition: *A site vas defined as a locas of features or artifacts eesulting from sone definable hunan activity
that took place at least 50 years ago. Sites were distinguished from isolated finds on the basis of artifact density and
discernible site function, [2 all prehistoric locales, this distinction vas clear cat and all isolated finds consist of
fewer than four artifacts’ (9.41).

Wy

Feyname: Sussenbach & Levis 1987 .

Sort Key: Southeast (interior low plateau region)
Site Definition: None given.

18

Reynane: Butler et al 1981

Sort Key: Southeast (interior low plateau region)

Site Definition: Yone gives. Isolated finds are defined as "the loci of single or, in some cases, aultiple iteas of
archaeological aaterial for which it is not possible or appropriate to define a bouaded area or speak of an occupation
in any aenaingfal sense’ (p.23}.

19

Keyaame: Biella & Chapaaa 1977

Sort Key: Southwest (eastera Anasazi region)

Site Definition: ‘Sites are generally defined as relatively high density clusters of architectural and/or artifactual
remains occarriag withia definable spatial liaits, which are presvaed to represeat loci of high intensity or long


58

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

recovery necessary to make a significance determination for this class of sites is carried
out during the initial field work. In his words,

..[T]he data potential to satisfy the no-adverse effect determination ...[is]
recoverable by provenience plotting, collection, and analysis. When this occurs
during the initial field work, the archaeologist’s recommendation often could be
“yes, the site is important under criterion d) because..., but the surface mapping
and collection effectively has mitigated the adverse effects to the site”...[since]...all
that could be learned from the site was accomplished during initial recording and
collection (Butler 1987:825).

The process thus implies a “de facto mitigation” (Butler 1987:825) that is (a) only
applicable to small, ephemeral, surficial scatters, and (b) is carried out only under the
aegis of a PMOA for a specified project area. To quote Butler (1987:825) again: “...de
facto mitigation is a recognition of the NRHP significant potential in such sites but
offers a mechanism for efficiently addressing that potential within the confines of the
cultural resource legislation and procedures.” This is a far better solution to the “lithic
scatter” problem than pretending that they don’t exist or that they don’t merit the
research effort necessary for field recording and laboratory analysis. Butler’s solution
would also eliminate the high cost in time and resources associated with the relocation
of such sites if subsequent visits are necessary for purposes of significance evaluation.

Obviously recording procedures and, to a certain extent the logistics of field recording,
will vary from region to region depending on the nature and complexity of the archaeo-
logical record and the site discovery procedures required by given land surface condi-
tions. However, some form of intensive surface recording or “total inventory approach”
should be used following the guidelines suggested by McAnany et al. (1984), Sullivan
(1988), Altschul and Nagle (1988), Ebert and Kohler (1988) and Ebert (1992). Sullivan
(1988:84) has described this procedure in the following terms, citing representative
examples for the Southwestern literature:

Sometimes, the artifact content of all but the largest and densest clusters of
artifacts can be exhaustively enumerated (e.g., Downum and Sullivan 1988). For
large and dense artifact clusters , a form of intensive transect or grid recording may
be especially useful (e.g., Rankin 1986:31-36; also Cowgill 1985:384). Thus, in
contrast to... [traditional] site characterization procedures..., the inventory method
actually counts the number of artifacts of different types that are present on the
ground’s surface (e.g.,Wilcox et al. 1981).

McAnany et al. (1984) provide a detailed account of their “intensive surface recording”
procedures developed during field work in New Mexico, including a list of necessary
equipment. Useful comparative data are also presented on the results obtained by


112 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

3. the degree of confidence (probabilistically derived) that can be assigned to the
site discovery probabilities of a given sampling geometry for the nature of archa-
eological remains defined in (1) and (2).

In short, there should be an explicit discussion of anticipated resource targets required
by the contractual agreement and a statement of the probabilities of intersection and
detection of these resources (Dincauze et al. 1980; Hasenstab 1986; Nance and Ball
1986). Obviously survey intensity will have to be defined differentially depending on
whether the intended site discovery procedure is pedestrian surface survey, intensive
subsurface testing survey, or a combination of the two. But regardless of the proce-
dure(s) used, if smaller, relatively unobtrusive archaeological occurrences are expected
to be missed by following a particular survey procedure and level of intensity, then
that shortcoming should be objectively evaluated and explicitly stated. As a general
policy recommendation, it is suggested that survey intensity be increased over those
levels normally used in inventory survey and that greater use be made of SST survey
techniques wherever the ground surface is obscured by vegetation cover, and DST
survey techniques wherever archaeological sites are thought to be deeply buried by
particular geomorphic conditions. This is essential if archaeologists and cultural
resource managers seek information on ail site occurrences in the regional archaeologi-
cal record, not just the immediately visible and easily discovered portion. As a
somewhat arbitrarily chosen minimal figure, it is recommended here that an 80
percent confidence threshold be required as a preferred “detection” probability for a
given set of targeted archaeological resources. The importance of selecting a specific
cut-off point or confidence threshold cannot be overemphasized. As Sundstrom
(1993:93) observes, actual discovery probabilities derived from field survey “can then
be compared to a standard, whether 100 percent or lower, in order to judge the
adequacy of the survey strategy. This method may be especially useful in determining
whether an area should be considered for CRM purposes to have been surveyed.”
However, the use of “intersection” probabilities alone as a standard confidence thresh-
old should be avoided (cf. Sundstrom 1993) since, as we have seen earlier, relatively
high intersection probabilities (i.e., greater than 80 percent) often can be attained even
in cases where associated detection probabilities are extremely low due to low intrasite
artifact densities (see, for example, Tables 7 and 8).

Management Implications

The principal management implication of the foregoing policy recommendations is the
increase in labor-intensity and data recording required by progressively more intensive
survey coverage in pedestrian surveys and the increased use of SST procedures where
surface landscape conditions warrant it. The increase in labor-intensity will require


76

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

if the entire plowzone had been excavated and screened rather than only the surface
artifacts collected.” In contrast to these site constituents, feature density at Hatchery
West was much lower, covering “only about 15% of the subplowzone surface of the
stripped area” (McManamon 1984a). Similar relationships are pointed out for two
Archaic sites in Tennessee excavated by Chapman (1981), where the excavated
distribution of the most frequent artifact type was compared with that for cultural
features (McManamon 1984a). At one site (Big Bacon), general cultural debitage
occurred in 94 percent of the 5 x 5 ft excavation units and had a mean density of 61
artifacts per 25 sq ft, or 0.28 artifacts/sq m. Features, on the other hand, occur in 61
percent of the excavation units and exhibit a mean density of 1.1 features per 25 sq ft,
or 0.004 features/sq m. Likewise, at the other site (Iddins), bifacial thinning flakes
were shown to occur in 94 percent of the excavation units at a (converted) density of
0.54 artifacts/sq m. Features, on the other hand, occurred in 67 of the excavation units
at a (converted) density of only 0.005 features/sq m. As these values demonstrate, the
two sites are quite comparable in their overall artifact and feature densities. Anthrop-
ic soil horizons, while widespread at both sites, are shown to be less extensive than
was the spread of artifacts (Chapman 1981; McManamon 1984a).

These relationships between the relative frequencies of different site constituents,
while certainly not new in the archaeological literature, are emphasized here because
they have important implications for site discovery probability. Because artifacts are
the most abundant site constituent, they are also the most potentially discoverable by
initial SST procedures during intensive inventory survey. They are therefore more
likely to reveal the presence of an archaeological site with a lesser amount of search
intensity than are the other site constituents. This point has been explored in some
detail by Hasenstab (1986), who suggests that feature detection (as well as tool
detection) are better left for subsequent site assessment procedures after the site has
been located, since shovel-probe surveys may not be the most adequate search tech-
nique for this task. The importance of features as a site constituent with a high “infor-
mation load” cannot be overestimated, however, and several archaeologists have
concerned themselves with the sampling requirements of intrasite feature discovery
in Phase II (site assessment) -and Phase III (comprehensive data recovery)
archaeological investigations; (see, for example Abbott 1985, Drennan 1987, Shott
1987, Whalen 1990, Hoffman 1993, and Howell 1993).

The spatial distribution of these site constituents, together with the combinations and
recurrent associations of these different classes of data, permit the inference of site
structure (Binford 1978, 1983, 1987; Anderson 1982) or more precisely, intrasite spatial
structure. Site structure can be defined as the spatial patterning of artifacts, features,
and anthropogenic soil anomalies, as well as recurrent associations between any of
these site constituents. Models of intrasite spatial structure can be derived from


28

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Sundstrom (1993:92) has recently noted: “survey reports often contain a statement
that 100 percent coverage was attained by the survey, when, in fact, the probability
that the survey was adequate to find all sites present in the area was much lower. The
phrase ‘100 percent coverage’ too frequently is merely the opinion of the field director
of the adequacy of the survey, rather than an actual quantitative measure.” As a
result, one installation may only claim a 50 percent confidence threshold in locating
sites measuring 30 meters (m) in diameter, while another may have a 90 percent
confidence threshold in locating sites of the same size. Therefore, the two hypothetical
installations in this example must use a different “calculus” in making cultural
resource management decisions regarding surveyed lands. These problems become
even more acute in areas where dense vegetation cover or geomorphic processes
require some form of subsurface testing to even permit site discovery. In many cases,
presentation of survey results includes no evaluation of what kinds of archaeological
resources may have been missed and what confidence thresholds can be placed on the
resources that were discovered. Likewise, no clear statements are made as to how
thoroughly a given land surface was searched when surface visibility was constrained
by dense ground cover, nor how constraining the ground cover must be before sub-
surface testing procedures are implemented. In short, there is no explicit bias assess-
ment of site discovery procedures.

To.ensure the comparability of survey results and to permit installation managers to
objectively evaluate those results for management purposes, it is imperative that
standards be implemented to guide the planning and execution of a survey project.
These standards include the following three aspects of decisionmaking for archaeologi-
cal surveys :

(a) that the level of survey intensity (surveyor/shovel-test/core interval spacing)
selected for a given project or survey tract be fully and explicitly justified in
terms of the goals or requirements of the survey, the specific landforms and
sedimentary sequences involved, and the nature and complexity of the regional
archaeological record under study;

(b) that, for a given level of survey intensity, a specific minimal confidence
threshold be established for the probability of discovering archaeological sites of
a given size and composition known to exist in a given region;

(c) that the site discovery procedures and all other relevant metadata used in
inventory surveys be explicitly and thoroughly described.


94

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

c .
Sinusoidal

American Antiquity, vol 53, no. 4, 1988.

(Source: Reproduced by permission of the author and the Society for American Archaeology from

Figure 6. Four examples of artifact distributions with different density functions.

This results in an equilateral spacing between probes of 43.3 m. Several archaeologi-
cal parameters are included in this exercise and in each case 1000 simulation trials
were run in order to calculate the intersection and detection probabilities (Table 7,
column 6). Five site sizes (measured in diameter) were explored: 10 m, 30 m, 50 m,
70 m, and 100 m (column 2). For each site size, 10 simulations were run for each
combination of artifact density and density function. Thus for each site size, two
density functions were tested: sinusoidal (labeled S in column 3) and negative binomial
(labeled N in column 8) with clustering parameter k = 1.0 (column 5). For each of
these density functions, then, 5 different artifact densities were tested: 0.1, 0.5, 1.0,
5.0, and 10.0 artifacts per square meter (column 4). The resulting output file produced
50 different Monte Carlo simulations each consisting of 1000 trials. The results for the



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

vacuum, but should draw on the collective expertise of other Federal archaeologists
who must confront the issues of site definition, survey intensity, and effective site
discovery for the diverse landholdings under their jurisdiction. It is clear that close
collaboration and communication on these issues is beneficial to all. In this regard the
researcher is pleased to have had the advice of Dr. Francis P. McManamon, Depart-
mental Consulting Archeologist and Chief of. Archeological Assistance for the National
Park Service and Dr. Joseph A. Tainter, archaeologist for the Forest Service.

The scientific/academic community constitutes the final intended audience of this
document. As a “mission-oriented” agency (Swannack 1975), the DoD is required to
conduct all of its cultural resource management activities, including intensive archaeo-
logical survey and site management, in a way that is compatible with the military
mission and its varied impacts on the landscape. Among the diverse military activities
that can affect cultural resources are: core facilities management, combat training
support activities, and routine land management (Advisory Council on Historic Preser-
vation 1994). Such mission-specific considerations do not normally affect the objec-
tives and goals of academic research.

Still, the DoD recognizes that the Cultural Resources Management (CRM) and
academic communities are not mutually exclusive entities but in fact overlap to a
considerable degree, especially in their desire to contribute to archaeological
knowledge. They share similar research problems and methodological concerns, and
each can benefit from the other’s experience. The DoD seeks to strengthen the alliance
between these communities through formal partnerships in the Legacy Resource
Management Program. The DoD also recognizes that the dual goals of legal compli-
ance and proactive long-term stewardship must be carried out in accordance with
methodological and technical norms and strictures of contemporary archaeology as an
academic and scholarly discipline. The issues of survey intensity and site definition
are particularly relevant here as they are still hotly debated topics in current
archaeological literature. Both the CRM and academic communities recognize the
need to conduct more thorough inspections of surface and subsurface landscapes in the
search for prehistoric and historic sites and to make objective bias assessments of past
surveys. Likewise, both communities recognize a need to devise meaningful spatial
units of analysis that permit efficient management and preservation of archaeological
resources in discrete “packages” (i.e., the archaeological site).

A final area of common interest between the CRM and academic communities has to
do with the need to record and disseminate “metadata” on the way in which
archaeological surveys are carried out, the way in which relevant data categories are
defined, and the way in which these data are collected. The prefix meta- indicates
“that a term is being used to refer to itself” (Rosenberg 1986:117), but at a higher level



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

7

ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and ethnoarchaeological research, or they can be empiri-
cally determined from spatial analysis of archaeological data. This type of background
research on the local or regional archaeological record should be conducted in the
planning stages of an intensive survey. The results should form an integral part of the
survey research design as a means of defining the targeted archaeological resources
that the survey is designed to locate and identify. Archaeological literature on this
topic is quite extensive and a comprehensive treatment is well beyond the scope of this
document. A few examples will be mentioned here for their pertinence to questions of
site discovery probability and the Illinois and Utah case studies discussed in the
following section (see also Volumes 2 and 3).

Perhaps the most common spatial pattern observed in the physical layout of archaeo-
logical sites as well as ethnoarchaeologically documented settlements of prestate and
preindustrial societies is based on a concentric annular model of multiple activity
spaces and differential deposition of cultural debris and residues. The most notable
aspect of this differential deposition has to do with the size-sorting of cultural residues
and the locational discreetness of primary “micro-refuse” versus secondary “macro-
refuse” (Binford 1978, 1983; Hayden and Cannon 1983; O’Connell 1987; Simms 1988;
Simms and Heath 1990; Stevenson 1991). This basic “ring model” has been applied
to archaeological sites of varying size and internal complexity in societies with funda-
mentally different subsistence bases, settlement systems, and levels of social and
political complexity. These include nuclear family or multifamily hunter-gatherer
camp sites (Binford 1983; Chatters 1984; Carr 1991), sedentary or semi-sedentary
homestead sites characterized by a “household cluster” (Winter 1976; Benn 1990;
Simms and Heath 1990), and entire villages or “plaza communities” of sedentary
agriculturalists (Dunnell 1983; Zeidler 1984; Oetelaar 1993).

One of the most interesting properties of this annular model from the perspective of
site discovery procedures and probability estimation has to do with the relative
proportion of “empty space” within the site boundary, or in Yellen’s (1977:103) term,
the absolute limit of scatter (ALS). That is, the spatial dispersion of artifacts and
cultural debris across a site is often discontinuous, regardless of the overall artifact
density. In areas where subsurface testing procedures are required either due to dense
ground cover or deeply buried sites, this phenomenon takes on special importance.
Thomas (1986) provides empirical evidence for “empty spaces” in small, short-term,
single occupation sites in the Northeast United States and on the basis of ethno-
archaeological analogies, concludes that the typical hunter-gatherer camp, occupied.
by two to seven nuclear families, consists of a “nuclear area” of 5 to 7 meters in
diameter, surrounded by a peripheral activity zone, 20 m in diameter, which is 50
percent empty space (Thomas 1986). Indeed, in his tabular summary of the Kung
Bushman campsites studied by Yellen (1977), Thomas (1986: Table 1) demonstrates



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

83

Perhaps the greatest single difference in site discovery procedures between the
Eastern Woodlands and the Desert West has to do with basic inspection method; that
is, pedestrian survey versus shallow subsurface testing survey. While the former is
limited to a two dimensional visual inspection of the exposed land surface only, the
latter permits a three dimensional visual inspection of the surface and immediate
subsurface, but in an extremely small “inspection window” (Wobst 1983) resulting from
test-pits, shovel probes, portholes, or core/auger holes. The two methods are thus
fundamentally distinct in their observational capacities and yield results that are not
entirely comparable; (e.g., artifact densities measured in square meters versus cubic
meters). Both methods permit the discovery of archaeological sites under different
land surface conditions, and both permit the delineation of site boundaries. In
practice, many surveys in the Eastern Woodlands use SST procedures combined with
conventional pedestrian methods, the former being applied only in those survey tracts
where reasonably good surface visibility does not exist or where sites are thought to
be buried by geomorphic processes. In the Desert West, however, SST procedures
seem not to be routinely employed in the occasional situations where the same
obscuring conditions might exist.

Apart from the obvious situations where dense vegetation may obscure the ground
surface and impede thorough visual inspection by pedestrian methods, a more compel-
ling reason for the increased need for SST procedures in the Desert West has to do
with natural landscape alteration and the effects of geomorphological processes on the
archaeological record of small, ephemeral occupations having relatively low artifact
densities. Schuldenrein (1991) has provided the most forceful and convincing argu-
ment in this regard, as follows:

..{S]ite and settlement profiles in the [arid] west are often (but by no means
exclusively) characterized by short-term, single-component occupations with mini-
mal cultural inventories. Even special-activity sites with features may represent
ephemeral occupations. Typically their extensive, unprotected surfaces are exposed
to the erosional ravages of an expansive terrain (e.g., colluviation, sheetwash,
deflation, and gullying). Erosional events are generally episodic and catastrophic
(e.g., flash floods, dust storms, landslides), resulting in large-scale and rapid site
destruction followed by burial beneath tens of meters of alluvium or redeposited
sediment. The limited artifact configurations may be secondary, reflecting trans-
formation by these post-depositional processes... Very often, the only site indicators
are fortuitous artifact clusters in erosional pockets or at topographic breaks
(Schuldenrein 1991:134).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vo! 1

the ability to predict accurately the cost of inventory survey will allow installation
managers to budget these costs into long-term fiscal planning of the installation’s
Historic Preservation Plan.

This document is the result of Demonstration Project #302 of the Legacy Resource
Management Program, whose purpose is two-fold:

1. To establish DoD-wide standards for archaeological inventory surveys, specifi-
cally so that a greater degree of quality control can be imposed over field tech-
niques for site discovery and data collection across the diverse DoD landholdings;
and

2. To develop cost-estimation procedures for different site discovery techniques so
installation archaeologists and land managers have at their disposal reliable
baseline information for fiseal planning related to historic preservation, Section
106 and Section 110 compliance, and long-term resource stewardship.

Since DoD landholdings are scattered widely throughout the United States, archaeo-
logical surveys on these lands have suffered from the same general problem found in
much of the archaeological literature of North America: uncertainty regarding the
effectiveness and reliability of the survey methods used, both in the identification and
evaluation of archaeological resources. As a result, the DoD, as a large, corporate
landholding body, has no systematic way of evaluating the thoroughness of past survey
work in order to assess the current state of archaeological knowledge and to plan
effectively for future inventory surveys and long-term resource management. A
related problem is the noncomparability of survey results throughout the DoD and, in
many cases, on the same installation.

The treatment and disposition of cultural resources on military installations are
regulated by a series of Federal laws, as well as several DoD-specific regulations and
guidance documents. The term “cultural resources” encompasses four basic categories:
historic real property, historic personal property, historic records, and community
resources/lifeways. Archaeological sites, whether prehistoric or historic, are con-
sidered real property, while prehistoric and historic artifacts fall under the category
of personal property. The principal Federal laws affecting the treatment of these
resources include Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966 (as amended), Executive Order No. 11593 of 1971 (as amended), the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, and the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (see Blumenthal and Bevitt
[1993] for a complete compendium of Federal historic preservation laws and Carnett



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

1

subsurface testing but only those areas exhibiting dense vegetation cover would
receive test units while the open areas would be covered by pedestrian inspection.
“This testing procedure is designed to capture the mosaic appearance of field condi-
tions while maximizing the use of available [visibility] conditions” (McGowan,
professional discussion 1994).

Finally, a reasonable estimate of person-days expended per unit area surveyed is an
absolute necessity for evaluating survey effectiveness and relative intensity. These
estimates should also include specification of the discovery procedures used in different
portions of the study area or different phases of the project. This information is
essential for calculation of the Level of Survey Effort (person-days per square mile)
and Site Discovery Rate (number of sites discovered per person-day) discussed by
Schiffer and Wells (1982), yet it is rarely included in archaeological survey mono-
graphs.

As a general guideline for the different categories of metadata that should routinely
be reported at the end of an intensive archaeological survey, see Table 1, which is a
sample database record resulting from the literature review of survey monographs
conducted for this report. The key items from this list are as follows: Survey Type,
Study Area Size, Sampling Fraction (if applicable), Sampling Unit Size (if applicable),
Sampling Unit Shape (if applicable), Survey Intensity (see below), Accessibility,
Obtrusiveness, Surface Visibility, Total Area Surveyed, No. of Sites Found, Site Area
Found (total), No. of Non-Sites Found, Total Person-Days Expended, Mean Site
Density, Site Recording Time, Mean Non-Site Density, Non-Site Recording Time,
Level-of-Effort (person-days/ha), and Discovery Rate (# sites/# non-sites per p-d). All
site discovery techniques used in the survey should also be clearly described.

5. Specification of Survey Intensity by the Archaeological Contractor

As stated previously, many archaeologists commonly associate survey intensity with
crew spacing or shovel-probe interval. While spacing is definitely relevant, in practice
the situation is more complex, as we have seen in the preceding two sections. Apart
from crew spacing and shovel-probe interval, decisions as to level of survey intensity
carried out by an archaeological contractor should minimally include discussions of the
following three points, both in the initial proposal and in the resulting survey report:

1. the minimal size and complexity of archaeological “sites” (i.e., expected artifact/
feature densities and density-distributions) in a given study area, as stipulated
in the SOW;

2. the degree of “obtrusiveness” and “visibility”of these archaeological remains; and



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

81

Illinois archaeological record (e.g., Bareis and Porter 1984a). In the Eastern Great
Basin, on the other hand, a considerable amount of archaeological knowledge is based
on intensive excavations over the years at several cave sites and rockshelters where
preservation of organic remains has been optimal. These sites are scattered through-
out the state of Utah and occur in a variety of physiographic provinces and habitats
(see Volume 3). Aikens and Madsen (1986:150) have defended this concentrated
analytical attention at cave sites in the following manner:

The greatest amount of data is derived from lake-margin cave sites around the
Great Salt Lake. The larger number of excavations at these dry cave sites appears,
superficially, to bias the record, but survey data suggest that the earliest and most
persistent focus of human occupation was around lake margins. The larger amount
of data from these areas probably represents a reality, not merely sampling bias.

Still, these sites are typically discovered either through purposive archaeological
survey or, perhaps more often, on the basis of local informant interviewing. While
such survey techniques are useful and certainly have their place in CRM research
(Derry et al. 1985), they do not provide, nor are they a substitute for, systematic
regional coverage. And while the Great Salt Lake cave sites have received proportion-
ally more archaeological attention in terms of their regional or subregional context, the
same is not true for the numerous excavated cave sites elsewhere in the state. In the
absence of systematic regional survey data, the larger archaeological context of most
of these sites is not well known. In a recent review of Great Basin archaeology,
Bettinger (1993) comments on the lack of systematic regional archaeological survey in
this area as follows:

[A]lthough regional subsistence-settlement patterns remain a major focus of

interest at the conceptual level..., the probabilistic regional survey—the archaeolog-
ical means most appropriate to the study of such phenomena—is today not
generally employed...As a result, Great Basin archaeology increasingly lacks an
empirical basis for implementing its regional theory. The strategy continues to be
used subregionally, especially in cultural resource management and academic
programs that target communities or landforms (e.g., dry lakebeds, marshes, alpine
steppes) too large to be studied in toto...It is important to do this kind of work, just
as it is important to excavate single sites. The problem emerges when we obtain
a local record and have no reliable basis for deciding how it fits in a larger regional
system (Bettinger 1993:52-53).

The same can be said for many of the large, open-air, Fremont village sites. Virtually
none of these were discovered through systematic regional survey, nor have any been
studied after the fact from the perspective of a subsequent archaeological survey of the
encompassing region. This sampling bias in the Fremont archaeological record has



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 189

(ACHP) or State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) only upon
the direction of the AFB POC and authorized representatives of
the ACC and USACERL. The USACERL Technical Representative, Dr.
John Isaacson, is the only contact for direction on technical
matters and the USACERL Contracting Officer (CO) or Authorized
Representative of the Contracting Officer (COR) are the only
responsible parties for contractual matters. Consequently, the
Contractor shall not take any action relating to this contract at
the direction of any other party. Persons working under this
contract are considered to be carrying out official agency
duties under the Federal land manager’s direction, associated
with the management of archeological resources. No permit is
issued under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA).
However, the Contractor shall meet all requirements necessary to
carry out archeological investigations under ARPA. These
requirements include: professional qualifications, research
design, research strategy, recording standards, reporting, and
curation.

4. OBJECTIVES. There are two objectives of the work to be
performed under this delivery order:

A. The development of an archeological OVERVIEW and RESEARCH
DESIGN for the Phase 1 archeological survey of 7,500 acres
of Poinsette Range, South Carolina.

B. The Phase 1 archeological survey of 7,500 acres of Poinsette
Range, South Carolina. A Phase 1 survey is a systematic
field inspection done by or under the supervision of
professional archaeologists, and/or other appropriate
specialists. The purpose of an intensive archeological
survey is to locate, identify, define, and evaluate the NRHP
potential of all prehistoric/historic archeological
resources within a given area.

c. All archeological materials and features encountered during
the course of the fieldwork shall be recorded. The focus of
the work is on historic and prehistoric archeological
materials.

Activities conducted under this task shall follow the
standards and guidelines outlined in the Secretary of the
Interiors Standards and Guidelines for Archeological
Investigations (1983). Documentation of archeological sites
shall be provided on the appropriate South Carolina
archeological site inventory form. All sites encountered
shall be recorded in duplicate 35mm black and white
photographs, and color Slides. These shall be indexed,
bound in loose leaf binders and provided to USACERL after
acceptance of the draft final report. The photographic
recording form shall include information on the site number,
survey quadrat, photograph orientation, a brief caption,
date and film number.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 107

assessments of vegetation ground cover and degree of surface visibility be carried out
before survey design planning so that proper consideration can be given to the surface
area requiring some form of SST survey in lieu of pedestrian inspection methods. In
many cases, seasonal considerations may be important in assessing the degree of vege-
tation cover, in which case surveying can be scheduled for the time of the year when
surface visibility is optimal. If these decisions are made on an ad hoc basis as survey
proceeds, a practice quite common in archaeological survey, survey scheduling and
execution may be seriously compromised by the increased labor-input demanded by
an unforeseen and hence unplanned SST survey. The repercussions of this situation
for budgetary planning are obvious.

2. Specification of Anticipated Archaeological Resource Targets and Predictive
Models of Archaeological Site Location across the Landscape by the Installation
Manager

Installation cultural resource managers need to use regional archaeological overviews
and previous background research on installation resources to determine the minimal
kinds of archaeological resources they hope to find through inventory survey proce-
dures. Background research should include a wide variety of sources such as past
archaeological survey and excavation reports for projects conducted on installation
lands and adjacent areas, ethnographic and historical data, information obtained
through Native American consultations, interviews with artifact collectors and
amateur archaeologists, etc. Based on these diverse data sets, installation managers
need to specify in their Request for Proposals (RFPs) the anticipated archaeological
resource targets (Dincauze et al. 1980) that they want an archaeological inventory
survey to find, whether they are prehistoric or historic. Such targets would typically
specify sites of a minimal size (e.g., 10, 20, or 30 m in diameter), but they could also
include sites of a given size that also exhibit artifact densities of a specified magnitude
(e.g., 0.1, 1, 5, 10, or 50 artifacts per sq m) and density-distribution (e.g., uniform,
lightly clustered, strongly clustered, etc.). Information on these kinds of properties of
the local archaeological record can sometimes be gleaned from regional overview litera-
ture or survey and excavation reports from previous archaeological projects in the area
(see, for example, Volume 2). This type of background research and report evaluation
should become a routine and on-going task so that the installation manager is able to
make the informed “cyclical estimates of site size/shape distributions and artifact
density/aggregation distributions” recommended by Nance and Ball (1986; see Figure 2
herein). A number of helpful guidelines and suggestions exist in the archaeological
literature for evaluating past survey and excavation reports for these and other pur-
poses (see, for example, Dincauze et al. 1980; Schiffer 1987:339-364; and Kvamme
1988a). If an installation manager knows what to expect.in the local archaeological
record, he or she is in a better position to decide which resources are likely to be



92

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

The basic model of discovery probability presented by Krakker, Shott, and Welch
(1983) is comprehensive and its application to real archaeological data by Shott (1985)
provides a useful cautionary note on the limitations of SST surveys in certain archaeo-
logical situations. As a practical matter, however, the calculation of discovery
probability suggested by Krakker, Shott, and Welch (1983) is somewhat cumbersome
and limited in the range of conditions or sampling scenarios it explores. As Kintigh
(1988a:689) has observed, “the complexity of the mathematical interactions [in the
model] makes it impossible to evaluate intuitively many of their practical implica-
tions.”

A more useful method for calculating site discovery probabilities would be not only
comprehensive, but would also be capable of examining a range of sampling scenarios
and site characteristics. Ideally it would also be operationalized in a user-friendly,
DOS-based format for the personal computer. As a response to these challenges,
Kintigh (1988a, 1988b) implemented a Monte Carlo approach that examines the inter-
actions of the multiple probabilistic factors “by operationalizing the random processes
with a computer simulation. The averaged interaction of the random processes can be
‘observed’ in repeated runs of the simulation” (Kintigh 1988a:689; emphasis original).
Thus, sampling accuracy, precision, and reliability can all be evaluated by this method.
Perhaps more importantly for practical purposes, Kintigh’s approach also allows the
evaluation of subsurface testing programs over a broad range of hypothetical condi-
tions, such as varying site size, artifact density, density-distribution function, as well
as a host of sampling design parameters involving test-pit spacing and layout within
a given sampling unit. Basically the method addresses a single fundamental question:
“What is the likelihood that a site of a given size and distribution of artifact densities
would be missed by a testing program if it exists in the survey area?” (Kintigh
1988a:689). Kintigh’s Monte Carlo simulation program (1988b: pp 79-88) permits a
thorough examination of this problem with hypothetical site and artifact density data
that can be derived from real archaeological case studies or from prior archaeological
knowledge of a study area.

The method involves two separate but related components. First the user defines a
sampling design in the Program PLACESTP. This includes: (a) specification of the
size and shape of the sampling unit or study area, (b) the selection of one of three test
unit configurations (hexagonal, staggered, and grid patterns), (c) the spacing interval
between test units (optimal or user-specified), (d) the number of lengthwise transects
of test units within the sampling unit, and (e) test unit size (in diameter or area).
Figure 5, reproduced from Kintigh (1988a:689) , shows an example of a hypothetical
sampling unit resulting from this program. In this case a 100 x 300 m survey area is
filled with a hexagonal grid made up of 40 test units arrayed in four longitudinal
transects. Each test unit measures 40 cm in diameter, a fairly standard size for many


FI

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 181

Appendix B: Statement-of-Work Guidelines

| ¢ — Statement-of-Work Checklist

*  Statement-oi-Work Format

. Helpful Hints for Statement-of-Work Preparation
. Sample Scope-of-Works

Preparation of Historic and Prehistoric Archeological
Survey of Poinsette Range, South Carolina

Indefinite Delivery Contract for Cultural Resource
Investigations



184 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1
STATEMENT OF WORK
FORMAT

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND :
a. Introduction of the effort.
b. Reasons why effort is required now.
c. Summary of prior research conducted in this area.

2. OBJECTIVE:
a. Brief description of the overall objectives of the work
being contracted.
b. Concise statement of what is to be achieved and a clear
description of expected product.

3. MAJOR REQUIREMENTS:
a. Starting Paragraph: In order for the Contractor to
accomplish the work under this delivery order, it shall be
necessary for the Contractor to complete the following tasks:"
b. Provide further breakdown of work into definable tasks,
each beginning with an active verb.

4. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION OR MATERIAL:
a. List information, materials, facilities, etc. to be
provided to the contractor by the Government.
b. Identify disposition of those materials, etc., after
completion of the contract.
c. State when items will be available to contractor if not on
the date of award.

5. REPORTS/DELIVERABLES:
a. List specific reports/deliverables required of the

Contractor either in satisfaction of the task definition or to
enable the Principal Investigator to manage the contract.

b. Include types, frequency or timetable, contents of reports
and other data, and quantities.

c. Monthly progress reports must be included as a deliverable
in order to properly monitor the contract or delivery order.



60

USACERL SR 96/40, Vo! 1

3

Regional Archaeological Survey and Site
Discovery Procedures

Survey Intensity and Site Discovery Probabilities

One of the most problematic issues in the execution of regional archaeological surveys,
whether for inventory or research purposes, is the nature of survey intensity; that is,
the crew-member spacing by which the surface of a sampling unit or study area is
visually inspected for evidence of archaeological manifestations, or the probe spacing
in the case of subsurface inspections. An additional aspect of intensity that is directly
related to the spacing question is the thoroughness with which the inspection is
performed (i.e., its observational adequacy). In the case of pedestrian techniques, this
involves the rate or speed with which the surface is walked and the observational
capabilities of the individual crew members for a given level of artifact obtrusiveness
and surface visibility. As Schiffer (1988:475) notes, the likelihood of site discovery in
pedestrian surface survey “varies directly with...[artifact/feature] obtrusiveness and
visibility and inversely with the crew-spacing interval.” In the case of subsurface
testing techniques, such as shovel-probes, thoroughness revolves around the issue of
recovery methods (i.e., visual inspection versus screening of probe fill, and the mesh
size used for screening). Again, the different observational capabilities of field person-
nel form a relevant variable for given levels of artifact obtrusiveness and for the
recognition of anthropic soil horizons.

Survey intensity has been extensively treated in the archaeological literature dealing
with pedestrian as well as subsurface inspection techniques, and its implications for
site discovery are intuitively obvious. As Plog, Plog, and Wait (1978:390) noted some
years ago, “...unless the intensity of a survey is high many sites will be missed—not
simply atypical or very small sites, but typical and relatively large sites. That is, the
higher the intensity of the survey, the larger will be the number of sites that will be
found.” Likewise, in comparing the results of two surveys of the same area in southern
Texas that were executed with different survey intensities, Thoms (1979:103) noted
«..a direct correlation between a higher intensity survey and a higher density of sites.
In other words, as the time spent examining the surface increased, so did the number
of sites located and recorded.”


56

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

terms: “The problem...is to find a way to fill out site records for [state and federal]
agencies using one definition, while retaining the capability to manipulate the data
according to any number of other definitions.” The operationalization of Tainter’s
definition, however, would permit the retention of a site concept that is theoretically
grounded, yet still compatible with the inventory approaches advocated by Sullivan.
(1988) and Altschul and Nagle (1988), or with Ebert’s (1992) “distributional approach.”

It should also be noted that Tainter’s definition of archaeological site is compatible
with the more complicated process of site definition in shallow subsurface testing pro-
grams surveys which employ shovel test-pits, portholes, cores, or augers (see defini-
tions in Chapter 3). For example, in Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore’s (1987:41-43) dis-
cussion of archaeological manifestations recovered in shovel test-pit survey on Shelter
Island, New York, careful analytical attention is given to the segregation of isolated
finds, low density scatters, and high density scatters, largely on the basis of the
percentage and spatial dispersion of positive shovel probes and associated artifact den-
sities. Site status is conferred only after the depositional environment of an archaeo-
logical manifestation and its spatial distribution have been assessed and purposive
behavior can be documented. Thus isolated finds are recorded as such in cases where
further testing reveals no contiguous positive shovel probes. Both low and high
density artifact scatters become sites only where concrete “behavioral interpretation”
is possible (Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore 1987:43). The importance of utilizing a non-
restrictive site definition that encompasses the special situation of subsurface testing
programs cannot be overstated, since the area surveyed in these cases is dramatically
smaller than that covered by pedestrian inspection techniques. Hence the artifact
densities routinely dealt with in shovel-testing, postholing, coring, and augering
procedures are usually much smaller than those found in surface manifestations. Site
detection and boundary definition is much more problematic under these conditions
(Shott 1989:399) and a considerable amount of negative evidence is necessary before
the presence of a “site” can be conclusively ruled out (Stone 1981b; Hasenstab 1986;
also see discussion in Chapter 3).

Management Implications

The most obvious management implication of this less restrictive definition of what
constitutes an “archaeological site” is the considerable increase in field recording of the
more ephemeral archaeological manifestations that were formerly excluded from such
analytical attention. This, in turn, will produce corresponding burdens on analysis
costs and data storage and management requirements. As a means of making this
increased data retrieval mission more efficient and cost-effective, it is recommended
that as many of these site recording tasks as possible be automated through the


18

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

Sample output file from STP program (Kintigh 1988b) showing
probabilities of site intersection and artifact detection with 8 shovel
probes arrayed with “optimal spacing” sampling geometry ..........

Sample output file from STP program (Kintigh 1988b) showing
probabilities of site intersection and artifact detection with 100
shovel probes arrayed with “staggered grid” sampling geometry ......

Site size and intrasite artifact density data for 19 archaeological
sites in central Michigan «0.1.6... cece eee eee eee

Site size and intrasite artifact density data for 13 archaeological
sites in southeastern Massachusetts ...........-----eee eee eee

Sample output file from STP program as in Table 7, applied to
archaeological data... 0... eee eee eee eee

Sample output file from STP program as in Table 8, applied to
archaeological data 2.6... eee tenes

Estimated level-of-effort required (in person-days per unit area) for
different crew interval spacings in pedestrian survey, based on
algorithm developed by Schiffer and Wells (1982) ..........---+-

Estimated completion rate per person-day and estimated volume
of sediment extracted for four types of shallow subsurface testing
(SST) procedures of a given size and depth .............----05

Estimated completion rate for five different type of deep subsurface
testing (DST) procedures of a given size and depth..............


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

47

there is considerable variability in the precise level of artifact density used to define
asite. For instance, in the Southwestern United States, Fuller, Rogge, and Gregonis
(1977: 68) selected the rather high figure of 5 artifacts per square meter as their cut-off
point, while Schlanger and Harden (in Kane et al. 1986:386) use a figure of “at least
20 artifacts (flakes, sherds, tools) within an area of approximately 30 by 30 m,” which
translates to a density of 0.02 artifacts per square meter. This difference in artifact
density measures has dramatic implications for which archaeological resources are
included in the “site” category and which are excluded. Obviously, the Schlanger/
Harden approach is much more inclusionary in nature than that of Fuller, Rogge, and
Gregonis (1977), since their lower artifact density would cover light density lithic
scatters and other diffuse surface remains. The “5 artifacts/sq m” criterion used by
several archaeologists in the Southwest effectively excludes a broad range of archaeo-
logical manifestations. Moreover, such surface artifact densities are actually a rare
phenomenon in many study areas. According to Plog, Plog, and Wait (1978:387), for
typical puebloan sites in the Black Mesa area and Chevelon drainage of the Southwest,
95 percent of the sites located “had artifact densities lower than 5 per square meter.”
The Schlanger/Harden definition is also noteworthy in that all surface remains which
fall below their 0.02 artifacts/sq m cut-off point are formally treated as “isolated finds”
and are duly recorded as such. Thus no archaeological materials are excluded from
analytical consideration, regardless of what the critical artifact density is for distin-
guishing between sites and isolated finds. Of the ten “formal” definitions included in
this sample, five of them (3, 5, 6, 14, 15) use the “isolated find” or “low-density scatter”
concept as a residual nonsite category (cf. Brooks 1979).

The problem with the “formal approach,” of course, is that critical artifact densities are
somewhat arbitrarily selected and are usually tailored for the archaeological record
of a given region or even a specific study area. While four definitions range between
0.02 to 0.06 artifacts per sq m (5, 6, 14, 15), others range widely from 5 artifacts per
0.65 sq km (the size of a sampling quadrat) (O’Brien, Warren, and Lewarch 1982:339-
440) to “a double hand-full of cultural material” within an area of unspecified size
(Schiffer and House 1975:48). Consequently, in spite of the greater analytical acuity
of the “formal approach,” there is little comparability of results from region to region,
or even between different survey projects within the same region (see below). Basic
measures such as average site density, or the ratio of sites to isolated finds, would not
be based on uniform criteria of what is and what is not a site. Moreover, surveys based
exclusively on the results of shovel test-pit subsampling cannot even use surface
artifact density as a criterion for site definition; rather sites are usually defined on the
basis of volumetric measures such as number of artifacts per cubic meter (or per
quarter cubic meter), or simply as the number of artifacts per shovel probe where
probe size is uniform (see Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore 1987; McManamon 1984a,
1984b). In these situations, site definition can be quite complex. For instance,



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

51

Village Creek Transect 107, Klinger documented a site density of 30.7 sites per square
mile, as opposed to the 11.3 sites per square mile reported by Schiffer and House. As
Klinger (1976:55) notes:

[Dlifferential use of the two basins both prehistorically and historically may
account for some of the observed variability. Differences in approach to site defini-
tion, however, probably account for most of it...By recording the small sites and
isolated items,...one builds a valuable body of regionally derived data from which
potentially significant patterns may emerge. This far-reaching problem affects
both the archeological community and those governmental agencies responsible for
the protection of cultural resources.

Asimilar case study has been noted in the Southwest. Plog, Plog, and Wait (1978:386)
observe that “perception[s] of what a site should actually look like on the ground is too
often influenced by the larger, more visible, but less frequent sites present in an area.”
They use two archaeological surveys in the Chaco Canyon area of New Mexico (Judge,
Ebert, and Hitchcock 1975; Wait 1983) to illustrate the point that in areas of large
multiroom pueblo sites with standing architectural remains and dense artifact concen-
trations, pre-ceramic sites with light density lithic scatters are simply not very obtru-
sive, and hence, are much less likely to be discovered through pedestrian survey. A
regional archaeological survey of 52 sq km (20 sq mi) of the Chaco National Monument
area recovered a total of 1130 sites. Of these, 1.3 percent (about 15 sites) were
assigned a “pre-ceramic” affiliation (Judge, Ebert, and Hitchcock 1975:96-97). In
contrast to these results, a regional survey carried out by Wait (1983) in the nearby
Star Lake area, where large complex puebloan sites are largely absent, some 109 pre-
ceramic sites were located within a study area of 60 sq km (23 sq mi). The question
posed by Plog, Plog, and Wait (1978:386; emphasis added) reveals a fundamental
problem for archaeological site definition: “Is the difference in the density of pre-
ceramic sites between the two areas a real difference in the utilization of the two areas
prior to about 500 A.D., or is it the result of the difficulty of perceiving sparse lithic
scatters as sites when one is working in an area such as Chaco Canyon,” where
extremely obtrusive archaeological remains are readily observable? In this case, the
analytical perception of the archaeologist is of crucial importance. Even though Judge,
Ebert, and Hitchcock (1975) very likely included light density lithic scatters in their
definition of what constituted a site, such sites may not have been recognized and
recorded in quantities that are truly representative of their occurrence in the regional
population of sites.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

excavation reports and the difficulties involved in extracting the desired information
on site constituents and intrasite spatial structure for all time periods throughout a
specified region.

The “Illinois” archaeological region and the “Eastern Great Basin” archaeological
region show a number of interesting contrasts. In fact, it is hard to imagine two
archaeological regions more different for purposes of examining site discovery prob-
abilities. Beyond the rather obvious physiographic differences in land surface condi-
tions lie the relative complexity of their respective archaeological sequences, as well
as the intensity and volume of archaeological research and reporting. Zubrow (1984)
provides a similar contrast in a review of contract survey reports from the states of
New York and Colorado published between the mid-1960s to 1982.

Whereas the Illinois sequence is conventionally subdivided into nine well-defined
periods spanning from about 12000 Before Present (BP) to the present century
(Paleoindian; Early, Middle, and Late Archaic; Early, Middle, and Late Woodland;
Late Period/Mississippian; and Historic), the comparable time span in the Eastern
Great Basin is comprised of only four major periods (Paleoindian, Desert Archaic,
Formative, and Historic). Internal phasing of these periods is likewise variable in
spatial complexity and temporal resolution. Whereas the former experiences a great
deal of temporal instability and rapid evolutionary jumps, culminating in the develop-
ment of perhaps the most complex hierarchical social formation in North America (i.e.,
the Cahokia-area sociopolitical system [Bareis and Porter 1984a; Fowler 1989; Milner
1991; Pauketat 1994]), the latter exhibits relative stability over time in basic
subsistence adaptations and level of sociopolitical complexity. These differences are
reflected quite noticeably in the archaeological record with respect to regional site
densities, site diversity, site size/depth variability, the range and complexity of site
constituents, and most especially, in the nature of intrasite spatial structure. In
addition, different levels of research intensity and project volume probably affect the
number of recorded archaeological sites in the two regions. For example, for the state
of Illinois alone, there are over 30,000 recorded sites in the files of the Illinois
Archaeological Survey as of 1993 (see Volume 2).

Concomitant with all of these distinctions, an even more striking difference can be
found in the nature and design of archaeological surveys and in the specific site
discovery procedures used in those surveys. With regard to the Illinois archaeological
region, either probabilistic sample surveys or systematic inventory surveys have been
the norm for locating archaeological sites for at least two decades (see Volume 2).
Predictive models of regional archaeological site distribution have also been developed
for the entire state, at least in preliminary fashion (Brown 1981). In particular, large,
multi-year, CRM right-of-way surveys have resulted in significant contributions to the



142

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

This kind of project design, if implemented with detailed scopes-of-work for each phase
of the research, will ensure that a “good faith” effort will be made to locate and identify
all archaeological sites according to both the letter and intent of historic preservation
law. DoD contracting officers and installation cultural resource managers should
explore ways to implement these comprehensive multi-phase projects either within the
context of a modified Firm Fixed Price contracting format, or more appropriately,
through the Cost Reimbursement contracting format, as it is within the Interagency
Archeological Service of the Department of the Interior (Butler 1978, 1979). Alterna-
tively, the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracting format should be used
where possible so that separate RFP/Contract cycles can be established for each phase
of the project within a larger contractual arrangement with a single archaeological
contractor. This format permits a greater amount of flexibility for the agency archae-
ologist in scheduling individual project tasks as well as for rapidly responding to
unforeseen “emergencies” requiring timely field visits and managerial decisionmaking.
It also permits a closer working relationship between the two contracting parties that
is mutually beneficial (Minor 1992).

2. Incremental Dispersal of Funds by Project Phase or Task

The multi-phase contracting mechanism should also include a provision to allow for
incremental dispersal of research funds to the contractor at the successful completion
of each phase of the research. Separate dispersal of funds should also be considered
for ancillary studies related to archaeological survey and site-testing phases, such as
separate or subcontracted geomorphological studies, radiocarbon analyses, pollen/
phytolith analyses, etc. as stipulated in the scope-of-work. This will prevent fiscal
“bottlenecks” in the progress of the overall research endeavor. As a common example,
archaeological surveys are very often completed well in advance of a radiocarbon
analysis on charcoal samples recovered in the survey. Yet because the two research
tasks are bound together in the same FFP contract, the archaeological survey cannot
be considered completed (and the contractor cannot be paid for his or her services)
until the radiocarbon results are also completed. Since the radiocarbon laboratory is
a separate entity with its own research priorities and scheduling problems, the
contractor has no control over the timely completion of laboratory results, yet in a
sense is held accountable for this delay. This is largely a scheduling problem that
could be effectively addressed through the separate “tasking” of these ancillary
research activities and the incremental dispersal of funds to pay for them within the
FFP, CR, or ID/IQ contracting formats.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 135

operations, however, so caution must be used in extending these rates to other
situations. Stein’s caveats are instructive in this regard:

The time necessary to core a site depends on the depth of the deposit, the size of the
site, the ease with which the site matrix is cored (a function of the concentration
of obstructions such as impenetrable bones, rocks, or sherds, and the dryness and
composition of the fine-grained matrix), the type of [soil] sampler used, and the
precision desired by the researcher...When calculating the time needed to core a
site, one must allow a sufficiently long period to adjust this technique to individual
site conditions (Stein 1986:521).

Presumably the systematic coring of off-site areas would yield slightly higher comple-
tion rates due to the lesser amount of archaeologically relevant information that would
be produced, as suggested by McManamon (1984a) with respect to shovel-testing on
Cape Cod.

In Nicholson’s (1983) comparative study, a hand auger was also used to collect core
samples to a depth of 200 cm, yielding a completion rate of 1.8 probes per person-day
or 3.6 linear meters per person-day (Table 15). These figures are remarkably close to
those attained by Stein (1986) for the same depth and with comparable equipment.
In Nicholson’s case, completion rate was slowed considerably by sediment extraction
and bagging in 10-cm increments, after which all bags were water-screened through
graduated sieves of 2 mm, 1 mm, and 0.5 mm. “The fractions recovered from these
screens were then examined for evidence of [lithic] microdebitage” (Nicholson
1994:277). Although more time consuming than the SST techniques he used in his
comparative study, this technique proved to be the most successful at finding cultural
material (45 successes out of 140 units), in spite of the smaller inspection window it
provides (Nicholson 1994: p 277).

Schuldenrein (1991) has emphasized the particular utility of deep coring through
manual devices as an aid in site discovery in CRM research. He argues as follows:

In conjunction with systematic subsurface testing..., deep coring emerges as an
efficient technique for site discovery, subsurface evaluation, and short- and long-
term planning. Coring for site-discovery purposes is most useful as a supplement
to systematic shovel testing, which provides a broader context of archaeological
productivity (through intersection with artifact concentrations). In the discovery
and evaluation stages, the key benefits of coring include recovery of artifacts and
anthrosols and the relatively facile recognition of the thickness, extent, and compo-
sition of the archaeological strata (Schuldenrein 1991:133).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 13

James E. Chase, Bureau of Land Management, Cody, Wyoming

David Crampton, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Savannah District,
Georgia

John Dendy,* Department of the Army, Fort Riley, Kansas

Richard Edging,* Department of the Army, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Thomas Emerson,* Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Archaeological
Research Program, UIUC

Paul Green,* Department of the Air Force, Langley AFB, Virginia

John Isaacson,* Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center, USACERL

Jack Jackson, Department of the Army, Fort Hood, Texas

Thomas King, CEHP Incorporated, Washington, DC

Marc Kodack, USACE, St. Louis District, Missouri

Keith Landreth, Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas

Neil Lopinot, USACE, St. Louis District, Missouri

Kevin McGowan,* Public Service Archaeology Program, UIUC

Francis McManamon,* National Park Service, Washington, DC

John Montgomery,* Dept. of Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico University

Jack Nance, Department of Anthropology, Simon Fraser University

Charles Niquette,* Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky

Constance Ramirez,* Department of the Army, Washington, DC

Thomas Riley,* Department of Anthropology, UIUC

Ernest Seckinger Jr., USACE, Mobile District, Alabama

Kimball Smith,* Department of the Army, Fort Hood, Texas

Joseph Tainter,* U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Albuquerque,
New Mexico

Special thanks are due to the above mentioned individuals whose names are also
marked by an asterisk, for their active participation in a three-day “roundtable confer-
ence” held at USACERL in late June of 1994 to discuss and debate the issues raised in
a draft version of the present document. Their insightful commentaries and suggestions,
both written and verbal, have greatly contributed to the final product contained in this
document, although none of them should be held responsible for its shortcomings.

Finally, I would like to thank Gregory Walz and James Ostlund, graduate students in
the Department of Anthropology of the University of Illinois, for their diligent efforts
in compiling the data included in Volumes 2 and 3. James Ostlund should be singled
out for having served as a graduate research assistant (USACERL SFRC employee)
for the duration of this project during which he ably carried out a wide variety of data-
gathering and report preparation tasks.



137

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Cpu) ‘j0 48 ZaIDAIy ZL Z wo9 wog’¢ Ja|duins uoissnoied uoods-pids

Ze) JOPUDXSIy PUD UOSULYOT] SEL S$ wre |Wwosll-ce Ja|dwips-b-pod SyADIPAY

G96L) UWS PUD USsIIg eee Ss Ww g'9 Wd 9° J8|AWDs a1O9DIqIA

861) UOSIOUSIN| "HE ca wo? iu ve6nb puoy

| (861) UISIS| Ie ot woe | wot eqoid [jos UOods-jics|
(p-d/wiinauly | (p-d/seqoid #)_ 7

a0unos Alva alva H1ldad 3ZIs adAL isa ~

NOIATdNOD NOILAIdNWOD

“ujdep pue azis uanlb e jo sainpesoid (1sa) Bunsey aoensqns daap jo adAy yuaseyy1p Al} 10} 9724 uonajdwios payewnysy “St a1qeL



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

some of the smallest sites identified using this definition will escape detection in many
systematic site discovery procedures, such as pedestrian transects with 25-m crew
interval spacing or intensive shovel-testing surveys on a grid of 25-m intervals. In
these cases, confidence estimates can be placed only the discovery of sites measuring
25 m or larger in diameter. Smaller ephemeral sites (such as those represented by
only two artifacts) would still be located and recorded, but with less desirable degrees
of confidence (see discussion in Chapter 4). The important point is that such sites are
not eliminated from analytical consideration by the definition itself.

Some archaeologists have taken exception to Tainter’s definition on the grounds that
it contains ambiguities which are at odds with its potential use as a standard. Its
operationalization in the field is thought to be compromised by the use of “concepts
that are subject to interpretation” (McGowan, professional communication, 1994).
Tainter (1983), while acknowledging this fact, still argues for its clear rationale and
operational utility:

By and large, this definition is easily operationalized, for there can be no confusion
concerning two artifacts. Some ambiguity does remain in certain portions of the
definition (such as “different artifacts,” “close proximity,” and “other evidence of
purposive behavior”), but there seems to be no choice except to leave these to the
judgement of the investigator. I use the term “artifact” loosely to mean any object
made or modified by human action. This could range from substantial structural
remains down to isolated faunal elements resulting from butchering (Tainter
1983:132; emphasis original).

One source of skepticism hinges on use of the term “close proximity,” since many
archaeologists would feel more comfortable placing measurable distance limits on this
proximity so as to clearly distinguish a minimal site from two isolated finds. In this
case, however, a more useful guide may simply be the determination of “deposition...in
close proximity” in which the two artifacts are situated within the same geomor-
phic/sedimentary context.

At a methodological level, Tainter’s definition could be combined with the “inventory
approach” to field recording outlined by Sullivan (1988) or the “four-level hierarchical
design” proposed by Altschul and Nagle (1988:284-286), wherein all archaeological
surface materials are recorded, sites and isolated finds alike. While these approaches
are aimed at circumventing site definitions that are highly restrictive and exclusionary
in nature, they still provide no guidance as to how a site should be defined even if it
is used merely for bookkeeping purposes. The site is defined in a deliberately arbitrary
fashion to satisfy managerial concerns, yet the archaeological resources are recorded
in their entirety (i.e., at the artifact level) for later aggregation into meaningful
analytical groupings. Altschul and Nagle (1988:284) phrase the issue in the following



2 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Legacy Program

The Legacy Resource Management Program was established by the Congress of the United
States in 1991 to provide the Department of Defense (DoD) with an opportunity to enhance the
management of stewardship resources on over 25 million acres of land under DoD jurisdiction.

Legacy allows DoD to determine how to better integrate the conservation of irreplaceable
biological, cultural, and geophysical resources with the dynamic requirements of military
missions. To achieve this goal, DoD gives high priority to inventorying, protecting, and restoring
biological, cultural, and geophysical resources in a comprehensive, cost-effective manner, in
partnership with Federal, State, and local agencies, and private groups.

Legacy activities help to ensure that DoD personnel better understand the need for
protection and conservation of natural and cultural resources, and that the management of these
resources will be fully integrated with, and support, DoD mission activities and the public
interest. Through the combined efforts of the DoD components, Legacy seeks to achieve its
legislative purposes with cooperation, industry, and creativity, to make the DoD the Federal
environmental leader.

Document Preparation

In partnership with the
Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005

Prepared by
James A. Zeidler, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801

Special Thanks to
John Isaacson, Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center, USACERL
Constance W. Ramirez, Department of the Army, Washington, DC
Francis P. McManamon, National Park Service, Washington, DC
Thomas F. King, CEHP Incorporated, Washington, DC

Further Information

Concerning the Legacy Program and this document
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ECN (Legacy Program)
Building E4435
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401


aT — —<—

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

175

Appendix A: Site Definitions from Regional
Archaeological Literature in the Continental
United States



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 199

Representative determines that the work is not being conducted in
accordance with these specifications, the USACERL Technical
Representative reserves the right to require that the work be
corrected of deficiencies or to be redone if corrections cannot
be made acceptable. Time spent making corrections or redoing the
work will be absorbed by the Contractor with no additional
expense to the U.S. Government. All work related records will be
available at all times for examination by the USACERL Technical
Representative.

13. REPORTS/DELIVERABLES

The Contractor shall provide to the USACERL and to the. Poinsette
Air Force Range POC monthly progress reports documenting the
phase(s) upon which the Contractor is working, the percentage of
the phase and component completed, the expected completion time
of the phase and the component, any discoveries worthy of note,
and any problems. With regard to archeological sites, the
Contractor shall prepare reports to meet relevant professional
Standards in addition to the applicable contractual requirements.
All reports and drafts are to be delivered in the quantities
specified in this Scope of Work and submitted to the USACERL at:
USA Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, ECC, ATTN:
Dr. John Isaacson, P.O.Box 9005, Champaign, IL 61826-9005.

The Contractor shall submit the following reports/deliverables to
the government: :

A. A Monthly Report. Two (2) copies of a progress report
every thirty (30) calendar days for the duration of the
delivery order. These reports shall document the
progress of the work and any anticipated problems or
delays which may impact deliverables.

B. Five (5) copies of the draft OVERVIEW and RESEARCH
DESIGN One calendar months (thirty days) after award
of the contract for review and comment prior to the
initiation of the archeological fieldwork.

Cc. A Manager’s Report. Two (2) copies of a Manager’s
Report summarizing the results of the field survey
shall be submitted within one (1) month of completion
of fieldwork. This interim report will allow the
project managers to continue the Section 106
process prior to the submission of the final report.

D. A Final Report. Five (5) copies of the final report
detailing field methods employed, provenience data,
descriptions of recovered Materials, and maps
indicating the location of all archeological sites and
isolated artifacts recovered in the survey shall be
submitted within sixty (60) calendar days of the
completion of the fieldwork. The report should be
professional in appearance and style and should follow



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

163

Lightfoot, K. G., “A Defense of Shovel-Test Sampling: A Reply to Shott,” American Antiquity, vol 54, no.
2 (1989), pp 413-416.

Lightfoot, K. G., R. Kalin, and J. Moore, Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers of Shelter Island, New York: An
Archaeological Study of the Mashomack Preserve, Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility, 46 (Berkeley, CA, 1987).

Lohse, E. S., “Fremont Settlement Pattern and Architectural Variation,” in Fremont Perspectives, D. B.
Madsen, ed., Selected Papers No. 16 (Utah State Historical Society, Antiquities Section, Salt Lake
City, UT, 1980), pp 41-54.

Lounsbury, J. F., and F. T. Aldrich, Introduction to Geographic Field Methods and Techniques, Second
Edition (Charles. E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, OH, 1986).

Lyman, R. L., ‘On the Concepts of “Significance” and “Site”: Implications for Inventorying Archaeological
Resources,’ in Archaeological Inventory and Predictive Modelling in the Pacific Northwest, R. F.
Darsie, J. D. Keyser, and S.Hackenberger, eds. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,
Studies in Cultural Resource Management No. 6. (USDA, Portland, OR, 1985), pp 31-46.

Lynch, B. M, “Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes,” Current Anthropology, vol
21 (1980), pp 516-517.

McAnany, P. A., J. A. Schutt, W. Doleman, and C. L. Wase, “Survey Data Retrieval Methods: Intensive
Surface Recording Versus Sampling,” Haliksa’i: UNM Contributions to Anthropology, vol 3 (1984),
pp 105-122.

McCammon, R. B., “Target Intersection Probabilities for Parallel-Line and Continuous-Grid Types of
Search,” Mathematical Geology, vol 9, no. 4 (1977), pp 369-382.

McManamon, F. P., “Probability Sampling and Archaeological Survey in the Northeast: An Estimation
Approach,” in Foundations of Northeast Archaeology, D. R. Snow, ed. (Academic Press, New York,
1981), pp 195-227.

McManamon, F. P., “Prehistoric Land Use on Outer Cape Cod,” Journal of Field Archaeology vol 9, no 1
(1982), pp 1-20.

McManamon, F. P., “Discovering Sites Unseen,” in Advances In Archaeological Method and Theory,
Volume 7, M. B. Schiffer, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1984a), pp 223-292.

McManamon, F. P., “Methods and Techniques for Survey and Site Examination,” in Results of the Cape
Cod National Seashore Archaeological Survey, 1979-1981, Volume 1: Background, Stratigraphy,
and Chronology. In Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape Cod, I, F. P. McManamon, ed. (U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Division of
Cutlural Resources, Boston, Massachusetts, 1984b), pp 25-44.



72

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

The rather low values for mean site density in the Plains and Great Basin (Table 6)
are possibly due to genuinely lower frequencies of sites in the archaeological record.
However, given the tendency to survey larger tracts of land (27.8 sq mi and 28.1 sq mi,
respectively), at generally lower levels-of-effort (24.5 p-d/sq mi and 20.1 p-d/sq mi), the
low values may also be partially due to the design of the archaeological surveys
themselves. The relatively low mean site density obtained for the Southeastern
surveys (18.6 sites/sq mi) is somewhat unexpected (Table 6). However, it may be
partially due to the inclusion in the sample of several exclusively pedestrian surveys
(n = 9; see Table 5) where low surface visibility may have affected the ability of the
archaeologists to locate all sites, or to the use of more exclusionary site definitions.
Curiously, the figure of 18.6 sites/sq mi is remarkably close to the figures of 18.7
sites/sq mi obtained for California and 17.0 sites/sq mi obtained for the Northwest
Coast (Table 6), both based on extremely small samples.

A related data set from Table 5 that is useful to examine in light of the preceding
discussion is the six survey projects carried out on the Fort Hood military installation
in the Plains culture area (Carlson et al. 1986, 1987, 1988; Koch and Mueller-Wille
1989a, 1989b; and Mueller-Wille and Carlson 1990). These projects represent different
“survey tracts” that received total pedestrian coverage rather than probabilistic
sampling coverage. It is instructive because in this case the pedestrian survey
methodology and surface inspection procedures were held constant due to strict adher-
ence to standard operating procedures (Briuer and Thomas 1986). Survey spacing was
uniformly set at 30 m , although the size of the survey tracts varied (Table 5). While
the sample is once again extremely small (n = 6), there appears to be a clear positive
correlation between level of survey effort and mean site density. This relationship is
depicted graphically in Figure 4. In only one case (survey D) is level of effort not
positively correlated with site density. It is very likely that such slight differences in
mean site density (ranging from 1.7 to 6.7 sites/sq mi) are due to real differences in the
archaeological record across these six survey tracts. There is also a possibility,
however, that the differences relate to the levels of survey effort expended in the
different tracts, thus introducing an element of systematic error. Such bias can
potentially be identified by carefully monitoring survey effort across different survey
tracts. Regardless of the hypothetical presence or absence of systematic survey error
in this case study, the intention of this discussion is not to criticize or otherwise
impugn the solid efforts of the archaeologists who designed and carried out these
surveys. On the contrary, it is only because they have provided such detailed meta-
data on survey logistics and labor costs that these questions can even be posed.

Another useful data set, this time from the Southwest, provides interesting temporal
information on the increased levels of survey effort and corresponding increases in the
mean site densities recovered by archaeological surveys in recent years, when


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

archaeological sites deeply buried, extensive deep coring and selective backhoe trench-
ing may be necessary to locate older prehistoric occupations. Both approaches are
routinely employed for purposes of intensive archaeological survey, but contract
specifications and funding limitations often restrict the thoroughness with which they
can or should be carried out. In many areas of the arid Southwest and Great Basin,
pedestrian surface survey has been shown to be successful without resorting to sub-
surface testing as a site discovery technique. But even in these arid regions, modern
or historic aeolian deposition can deeply bury archaeological sites (see, for example,
Blair et al. 1990, Schuldenrein 1991, Monger 1993). Higher elevations and wetter
environments, such as the Pacific Northwest, may exhibit dense ground cover that can
obscure surface indications of archaeological sites (Pettigrew 1985). While the
problems of buried sites and poor surface visibility have traditionally been attributed
exclusively to the “forested eastern U.S.” (e.g., Goodyear et al. 1978:166), the western
United States is hardly devoid of forested vegetation, dense ground cover, and deposi-
tional sedimentary environments, all of which can obscure archaeological sites. Thus
in all regions of the United States, questions of survey intensity (or “level-of-effort”)
must be addressed, as well as the appropriate discovery procedures for given landscape
conditions and geomorphic environments. While it is true that many SHPOs provide
useful guidelines that establish minimal standards for survey intensity within a given
state, these guidelines vary considerably from state to state. For archaeological
surveys conducted on DoD lands, then, consideration must be given to establishing
national standards for conducting and reporting intensive archeological surveys.

The central issue is how close to place crew members during surface inspection, or
shovel probes and cores during subsurface testing, to recover sites or other cultural
remains of a specified size and complexity, under given field conditions and survey
designs. Related issues include inspection techniques (e.g., screening versus trowel-
sorting of shovel probe fill, the speed with which the ground surface is searched in
pedestrian surveys), the geometry of subsurface probe placement (e.g., staggered ver-
sus regular grids), and the visibility or obtrusiveness of archaeological artifacts on the
current land surface. Presently two installations that purportedly claim to have 100
percent survey coverage may actually have very different levels of confidence in terms
of the thoroughness with which the surveys were conducted, and the likelihood that
certain kinds of sites were missed. Such differences in the probability of discovering
archaeological sites are best termed confidence thresholds (Doleman 1988) to distin-
guish them from the formal statistical concept of confidence limits (see final section of
this chapter and Chapter 4 for further discussion of this point). Confidence Thresholds
very often result from the fact that the surveys were conducted at different intensities
or levels of effort, normally computed as the number or person-days expended per unit
area surveyed (square miles or square kilometers) (Plog, Plog, and Wait 1978;
Schiffer, Sullivan, and Klinger 1978; Judge 1981; Schiffer and Wells 1982). As



70

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

techniques are used, little or no metadata are provided on their size, depth, spacing,
and the total number of tests executed, so separate estimates of SST labor time cannot
be computed. Where SST techniques are used exclusively, and the necessary metadata
are provided on labor time, the level-of-effort is high (e.g., 225 p-d/sq mi, as reported
by House and Ballenger 1976).

For the Northeast, the sample is extremely small and highly variable, but the average
level-of-effort for four projects is 356.9 p-d/sq mi. The actual average should be
considerably higher, however, due to an artificially low value for one of the projects.
The survey by O’Brien, Warren, and Lewarch (1982) in the Prairie Peninsula area of
Missouri covered a large area (44.4 sq mi) relative to the other Northeast projects
examined, and used a combination of both pedestrian and subsurface testing survey
procedures. Unfortunately no person-day per unit area figures are provided for labor
expenditure. Thus the use of Schiffer/Wells algorithm for estimating pedestrian
survey effort is dramatically underestimating real labor expenditure in this case
because it is not accounting for time spent in shovel testing. The latter figure cannot
be estimated since no metadata were provided regarding total number of probes
executed, although information is available on shovel-probe volume (8000 cu cm),
interval spacing (20 m), and sampling geometry (systematic grid). Given the relatively
large area actually surveyed in this project and the fact that shovel probes were used
in unspecified portions of the study, the real level-of-effort must be considerably higher
than the value of 20.1 p-d/sq mi, which is derived from Schiffer/Well’s formula.

In contrast to this, one of the Northeast SST figures is exceedingly higher than the
rest. Lightfoot, Kalin and Moore’s (1983; see also Lightfoot 1986) shovel-probe survey
in Long Island had a level of effort of 1300 p-d/sq mi, indicating a rather extraordinary
intensity of site discovery and site assessment procedures within a fairly limited study
area (0.2 sq mi). This outlier value is probably much higher than that expended in
most SST surveys conducted in the Eastern woodlands and it is obviously affecting the
high mean value obtained for these projects. Even so, the average value of 356.9 p-d/sq
mi may not be that far out of line, especially in cases where surveys must rely
exclusively on SST procedures to locate sites. One Midwestern archaeologist with
ample experience at SST survey has suggested that “costs increase approximately ten-
fold [when] moving from straight pedestrian reconnaissance to systematic subsurface
testing...techniques” (Dr. Kevin McGowan, Archaeologist, Coordinator for the Public
Service Archaeology Program, University of Illinois, professional discussion, 1993).
Thus, if pedestrian survey intensity were on the order of 36 p-d/sq mi, a figure in line
with the levels-of-effort given in Table 5 for pedestrian surveys in the Southeast, then
a ten-fold increase in level-of-effort would approximate the mean for SST surveys in
the Northeast. In general, then, it appears that survey tracts in the Northeast and
Southeast tend to be smaller than their counterparts in the Plains, Great Basin, and



146

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

environment and landscape conditions, relative complexity of the archaeological
record, amount of previous archaeological survey, and differences in their military
mission and impacts on the landscape. Installation cultural resource managers
contemplating their own multi-year CRMP would do well to consult the Fort Carson,
Fort Polk, and Fort Hood documents. Such foresight and planning will avoid the
problem of piecemeal and haphazard contracting for archaeological surveys, or any
other cultural resource surveys. It will also avoid the problem of unnecessarily short
“turn-around” times between contract awards and the completion of field work, which
inevitably result in hasty, least-effort research. In the context of an effective CRMP,
multi-phase contracting mechanisms and the incremental dispersal of funds would
provide the installation manager with greater flexibility in contract specification and
a greater degree of control in project monitoring and evaluation.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

63

r

KNOWLEDGE OF < Previous researcn in
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD similar areas:

CONVENTIONAL
PEDESTRIAN SURVEY TEST PIT SAMPLING
Surveyor interval TP interval and pattern TP inspection method
Estimate site size/ Estimate site size/ >
shape distributions shape distributions Estimate (1)
Estimate P(O)

Estimate artifact density/ Estimate artifact density/
aggregation distributions aggregation distributions. > Estimate p(P)

(Source: Reproduced by permission of the author and the Society for American Archaeology from American
Antiquity, vol 51, no. 3, 1986.)

Figure 3. The role of TPS in archaeological survey.

as a “ditch-witch” (Odell 1992). These will not be dealt with here, however, as they are
primarily used as intrasite exploration techniques and only rarely in areally extensive
site discovery operations, which are the focus of this report.

Increased use of these subsurface inspection techniques in archaeological survey has
led to a more formal statistical treatment of site discovery and the calculation of
discovery probability. Nance (1983:291-292) defines the latter as “the likelihood that
cultural remains of interest will be detected within a sampling domain or sampling
unit using a specified sampling procedure, given a certain level of sampling effort.”
This definition applies equally to pedestrian and subsurface survey techniques. In the
case of subsurface testing surveys, discovery probability, p(D), can be viewed as the
product of two independent probabilities: intersection probability, p(1), and productivity
probability, p(P) (Shott 1985; Nance and Ball 1986:459; see Figure 2). The former
refers to the probability that “a test pit intersects a site,” while the latter, also termed
detection probability by Krakker, Shott, and Welch (1983) and Shott (1985, 1989),
refers to the probability that “a test pit yields artifacts, given that it has intersected
a site surface” (Nance and Ball 1986:459). The important point is that these two



20

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

strategy. Since the evaluator lacks independent measures of survey strategy effec-
tiveness, the evaluation that results is often meaningless (Sundstrom 1993:91).

Consistency in survey techniques directly affects our perception of the archeological
record. With a consistent and accurate picture of the prehistoric use of a region —
the sort of pictures acquired through numerous complementary surveys — we
should be able to begin to synthesize and analyze many data sets to produce an
understanding of past systemic organization. Yet sampling and survey methods
vary from project to project to meet each “unique” archeological situation — thus
assuring incomparability among surveys (Wandsnider and Ebert 1988:2).

A related problem lies in vastly different degrees of thoroughness and attention to
detail in preparing survey reports, particularly with respect to the inclusion of per-
tinent “metadata” on field conditions, site discovery and data collection procedures,
and labor expenditures (see Zubrow [1984] for an enlightening example).

The recognition of such inconsistency and incomparability of survey results has led to
repeated, if infrequent, calls for national-level, or at least state-level, standard survey
procedures (e.g., Dancey 1988; Roberson 1981) as well as the national-level reporting
of survey results in a standard format (e.g., King and Cole 1978). Some 15 years ago,
King and Cole (1978) proposed the establishment of a national database which would
store “data on the level and quality of archeological surveys in particular areas, and
on the locations of information sources.” Their argument that standard reporting
would be of immeasurable help in historic preservation planning and cultural resource
evaluation was both forceful and timely:

Regarding archeological resources..., we believe the most useful interim planning
tool that could be developed would be a body of consistent, comprehensible, updat-
able information on the quality of survey work that has been done in each part of
the country, and on the disposition and availability of survey data and other useful
information...This would permit an agency planning a project in a given location
not only to find out what known archeological properties exist in the vicinity, but
also to find out the level and intensity of archeological surveys that have been
conducted in the vicinity; what areas in the vicinity have actually been subjected
to survey; bibliographic citations to and locations of all reports of archeological
fieldwork conducted in the vicinity; and locations of all collection of primary archeo-
logical data, artifacts, etc., from surveys and excavations in the vicinity. Using
such a system would enable State Historic Preservation Officers and federal agen-
cies to clearly determine the need for archeological surveys prior to particular
projects, and to mobilize the necessary data to guide, supplement, or take the place
of field surveys (King and Cole 1978:132; emphasis added).


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

37

probability distribution (Johnson and Kotz 1969:50-86; Blalock 1979:151). Since the
binomial distribution is a discrete distribution, it is generally “not possible to construct
a confidence interval for p with an exactly specified confidence coefficient” (Johnson
and Kotz 1969:58), although approximate confidence intervals are possible to obtain
(Johnson and Kotz 1969:58-61). As used here, however, confidence is meant to imply
simply the degree of certainty expressed by the site discovery probabilities themselves,
which are given as percentages of sites intersected and/or detected for given site sizes,
artifact densities, density-distributions, probe sizes, and sampling geometries (Kintigh
1988). To quote Nance and Ball (1989:411) on this point, we wish “to produce approx-
imate estimates of the confidence we would have in our data, that is, to calculate
discovery probabilities for sites of given spatial extent, surface artifact density, etc.”

Phrased somewhat differently, these percentages can also be used to express the
likelihood of discovering all sites of a minimal size or larger; for example, that a given
survey design has an 80 percent chance of discovering all sites measuring 50 m in
diameter or larger. In this sense, the 80 percent serves as a rough estimate of the
confidence we may place on the adequacy or effectiveness of the survey design
(Sundstrom 1993) for sites of a specified size and composition. If we choose to make
this 80 percent level a minimal cut-off point for decisions about survey adequacy, then
we can refer to it as a confidence threshold below which site discovery probabilities
should not fall (see Doleman [1988] for a related use of this term).

In terms of the present study, we are interested in reducing bias in the range of
archaeological resources normally identified by traditional survey procedures by
pointing out the methodological inadequacy of existing levels of precision or “resolu-
tion” used; i.e., their survey intensity. By increasing that intensity, smaller and more
ephemeral archaeological occurrences will be identified, thus providing a more accu-
rate, reliable, and representative picture of the total population of archaeological
occurrences in a given regional landscape. Greater accuracy and representation are
common goals of both research-oriented archaeological surveys and CRM-related
inventory surveys. For purposes of quality control and bias assessment, the calcula-
tion of site discovery probabilities and the specification of minimal confidence thresh-
olds provide installation archaeologists and project technical monitors with the tools
to make objective evaluations of survey effectiveness and adequacy. While many of the
ideas expressed in this report have been commonplace in the archaeological literature
from the mid-1970s to the present, there is still a considerable lag in their incorpora-
tion into institutional research programs as formal policy. The purpose of this docu-
ment, then, is to present a series of recommendations for incorporating these refined
survey procedures into DoD policies governing cultural resource management and
archaeological inventory surveys carried out on military installations.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 157

Drew, L. J., “Pattern Drilling Exploration: Optimal Pattern Types and Hole Spacings When Searching
for Elliptical Shaped Targets,” Mathematical Geology, vol 11, no. 2 (1979), pp 223-254.

Dunnell, R. C., “Aspects of Spatial Structure of the Mayo Site (15-JO-14), Johnson County, Kentucky,”
in Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, R. C. Dunnell and D. K.
Grayson, eds., Anthropological Papers 72 (University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann
Arbor, MI, 1983), pp 109-165.

Dunnell, R. C., “The Notion Site,” in Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, J. Rossignol and L.
Wandsnider eds. (Plenum Press, New York, 1992), pp 21-41.

Dunnell, R. C., and W. S. Dancey, “The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Survey,” in
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 6, M. B. Schiffer ed. (Academic Press, New
York, 1983), pp 267-287.

Early, A. M., and W. F. Limp, Fancy Hill: Archaeological Studies in the Southern Ouachita Mountains,
Research Series, 16 (Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, 1982).

Ebert, J. I., and T. A. Kohler, “The Theoretical Basis of Archaeological Predictive Modeling and a
Consideration of Appropriate Data-collection Methods,” in Quantifying the Present and Predicting
the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, W. J. Judge, and
L. Sebastian, eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center,
Denver, 1988), pp 97-171.

Ebert, J. I., Distributional Archaeology (University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, 1992).

Eddy, F. W., P. D. Friedman, R. E. Oberlin, T. R. Farmer, D. L. Dahms, J. J. Reining, B. Leichtman, V.
T. Holliday, and J. Van Couvering, A Cultural Resources Inventory of the John Martin Reservoir,
Colorado (Science Applications, Inc. Golden, CO, 1982).

Eidenbach, P. L., ed., Inventory Survey of the Lower Hidden Mountain Floodpool, Lower Rio Puerco
Drainage, Central New Mexico (Human Systems Research, Inc., Tularosa, NM, 1982).

Ellis, G. L., C. Lintz, W. N. Trierweiler, and J. M. Jackson, Significance Standards for Prehistoric
Cultural Resources: A Case Study from Fort Hood, Texas, USACERL Technical Report CRC-
94/04/ADA288702 (U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories [USACERL],
Champaign, IL, 1994).

Farley, J. A., W. F. Limp, and V. Canouts, NADB-Reports Online System (Beta Version): User’s Manual
(U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Archeological Assistance Program,
Washington, DC, 1991).

Feige, E., and T. Strauss, U.S. Army Environmental Research & Development Requirements: Final Report
(Andrulis Research Corporation, Arlington, VA, 1994).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

57

routine use of hand-held data recorders and pen-based computer hardware, together
with routine field provenience plotting using electronic distance measuring (EDM)
theodolites. Commercial software, now widely available, permits the development of
standardized “pop-up” recording forms for use on hand-held pen-based computers.
Geographical Information System/Global Positioning System (GIS/GPS) capabilities
and database storage are also becoming standard features of these software packages.
Regardless of whether the local conditions permit pedestrian inspection methods or
whether some form of subsurface testing is necessary, fieldwork should be carried out
in three stages, as follows:

1. Survey tract or sample unit inspection for purposes of site/feature/artifact
discovery;

2. Field mapping of site characteristics artifact/feature occurrence, surface/sub-
surface artifact densities, etc.;

3. Field collecting and/or artifact attribute recording.

Efficient site characterization and attribute recording of artifacts and features require
considerable prior knowledge of the local and regional archaeological record; thus all
field work should be designed only after the necessary background research and pre-
field work planning has been carried out so that standard recording forms can be
designed for sites, isolated finds, and artifact attributes pertinent to a given region or
locality.

Another problem related to the increased analytical attention given to surficial lithic
scatters and other ephemeral sites has to do with their potential treatment in
accordance with Federal legislation (especially Sections 106 and 110 of the National
Historic Preservation Act) and their evaluation for NRHP significance. Butler (1987),
for example, has noted a general reluctance on the part of archaeologists to defend a
recommendation of significance for small ephemeral sites such as lithic scatters, even
though such a recommendation may be justifiable in certain cases. Rather than enter
into the protracted negotiations required by cultural resource law, many archaeolo-
gists in such situations would simply declare that this class of site is not eligible for
nomination to the National Register due to their ephemeral nature. Not surprisingly,
then, this mind set could easily translate into a general lack of analytical interest in
any of these sites. Butler (1987), on the other hand, recommends that such sites might
best be handled through the mechanism of a Programmatic Memorandum of Agree-
ment (PMOA) between an agency (e.g., the DoD), the SHPO and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) before initiation of field work such that the data



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

General Administration

Public Infomation and
Participation Systems

Recordkeeping

Monitoring, Quality
Control

Project Review Procedures
Project Definition

Categorical
Exclusions

Maintenance Only?
lentification
Procedures APE Definition _| |
Has APE been surveyed? ly
Review of cS [aod Survey
Maintenance Yi Standards
Identification
and Evaluation «4

Procedures
Historical P aie Monitoring
istorical Properties and Discovery
ie) Gad Procedures
Standard
Standard Treatment? Treatments
Review
Procedures
Review Procedures: Standard Non-Standard
Treatments Treatments

(Source: after King n.d.)

Figure 1. Components of a typical historic preservation plan (HHP) showing role of archaeological
survey standards in preservation process.

Objectives

The general purpose of this research was to examine the problems of quality control
and bias assessment as they affect regional archaeological surveys carried out on
Department of Defense landholdings throughout the continental United States,
whether these are primarily inventory surveys for cultural resource management and



144 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

ample research experience in a given locality or region. However, for other archaeolo-
gists and land managers charged with RFP and SOW development, contract moni-
toring, budgetary decisions, etc., these guidelines will hopefully provide a useful point
of reference.

Management Implications

The principal management implication of the preceding policy recommendations has
to do with the long-term planning and scheduling of archaeological inventory surveys.
Installation managers should, first and foremost, develop effective, long-range Historic
Preservation Plans or more precisely, Cultural Resource Management Plans (CRMPs)
as required within the Department of Defense. Each service branch has regulations
in place that govern the implementation of CRMPs.

For the Department of the Army, HPP’s are mandated by Army Regulation (AR) 420-
40, Historic Preservation (April, 1984). This regulation will soon be superseded by AR
200-4, which is still under development. In the meantime, interim guidance for the
preparation of Cultural Resource Management Plans is provided by the Headquarters,
Department of the Army (HQDA) Memorandum (dated 7 April 1994) entitled
Responsibilities and Staffing Procedures for Cultural Resources Compliance Actions
(M. Woods, personal communication, 1994). For the Department of the Navy and the
United States Marine Corps, NAVFACINST 11010.70A, Guidance for Preparing
Historic & Archeological Resources Protection Plans at United States Navy Installa-
tions (June, 1990), serves this function, while for the Department of the Air Force, it
is Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management (June 1994),
especially Attachment 3 entitled “Preparing Cultural Resources Management Plans.”
More broadly, the DoD’s Legacy Resource Management Program also contains recom-
mendations for the development of comprehensive CRMPs at the installation level.
Under the first legislative purpose of the Legacy Resource Management Program, the
DoD is specifically directed “to establish a strategy, plan, and priority list for identi-
fying and managing significant biological, geophysical, cultural, and historical
resources existing on, or involving, all Secretary of Defense lands, facilities, and
property (U.S. Department of Defense 1991:2; emphasis added). The extent to which
this task has been carried out in the DoD is highly variable, however. As Neumann,
Warren-Findley, and King (1991:10; see also King and Drucker 1993) have observed:

A number of installations have “historic preservation plans” or “cultural resources
management plans”...but there are serious questions about their effectiveness.
Some apparently languish on shelves, unattended to; others do not work because
they are not effectively integrated with environmental or installation master



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

optimal and/or staggered grid spacing. As we shall see below, a 10-m interval spacing
laid out on a staggered grid should theoretically intersect sites measuring 12.7 m in
diameter, rather than 14 m, as indicated above.

Finally, Krakker, Shott, and Welch (1983) considered the influence of inspection
methods, such as probe size and screening, on site discovery for different artifact
densities (i.e., detection probability). Artifact density-distributions are modeled on the
Poisson distribution (random dispersion) although the negative binomial density
function (clustered dispersion) is mentioned as a fruitful avenue of research on intra-
site artifact dispersion (Krakker, Shott, and Welch 1983:477). Indeed, clustered
dispersions of artifacts seem to be the norm in most sites studied through spatial
analytical techniques to date. On the basis of these theoretical relationships between
site sizes, shapes, and internal artifact densities, on the one hand, and the optimizing
strategies for test unit spacing and layout on the other, they are able to show how
discovery probabilities can be calculated in hypothetical archaeological examples per-
mitting the establishment of confidence estimates for the probability of finding sites
of a minimal size and specified artifact density. Thus they “provide a quantitative

basis for adjusting shovel-test survey procedures to research goals and labor con-
straints” (Krakker, Shott, and Welch 1983:480).

Reliable and accurate estimates of discovery probabilities are essential to guarantee
the effectiveness of SST survey. When included in a probabilistically based regional
sample design, these techniques permit reliable estimation of the actual number of
sites present in a survey area. Perhaps more importantly, they permit estimation of
the minimal site size and associated artifact density likely to have been missed by a
given sampling design. This constitutes an important source of bias in many archaeo-
logical surveys and is intimately related to the notion of “intensity” and to the concept
of “precision” discussed briefly in the introduction. While many archaeologists super-
ficially associate the term “intensity” with the spacing between crew members in
pedestrian survey or the interval between test-pits in subsurface surveys, in reality the
term should be expanded to include person-day expenditures per unit area surveyed
as well as explicit bias assessment of the kinds of archaeological resources likely to
have been missed by implementation of a given sampling design, whether the latter
is based on surface or subsurface inspection techniques.

Calculating Discovery Probabilities

Several procedures exist in the archaeological literature for the calculation of site
discovery probabilities, including both hypothetical scenarios and specific case studies
using real archaeological data. Many have distinct limitations, however, in terms of


172

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

United States Department of Defense, Legacy Resource Management Program, Report to Congress,
September 1991 (Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for the Environment,
Washington, DC, 1991).

United States Department of Defense, Legacy Resource Management Program, Report to Congress,
Spetember 1992 (Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Environment,
Washington, DC, 1992).

Wait, W. K., “Alternate Approaches to the Analysis of Low-Density Artifact Scatters,” in The Star Lake
Archaeological Project: Anthropology of a Headwaters Area of Chaco Wash, New Mexico, W.K. Wait
and B.A. Nelson, eds. (Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1983).

Wait, W. K. and B. A. Nelson, The Star Lake Archaeological Project: Anthroplogy of a Headwaters Area
of Chaco Wash, New Mexico (Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1983).

Wandsnider, L. and E. L. Camilli, “The Character of Surface Archaeological Deposits and Its Influence
on Survey Accuracy,” Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 19 (1992), pp 169-188.

Wandsnider, L. And J. I. Ebert, “Issues in Archaeological Surface Survey: Meshing Method and Theory,”
American Archaeology, vol 7, no. 1 (1988), p 2.

Ward, A. E., ed., Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: A Collection of Conference Papers, Contribution
to Anthropological Studies, 1 (Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque, NM, 1978).

Waselkov, G. A., Coosa River Valley Archaeology: Results of a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance,
Volume I, report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Contract No.
DACW01-79-C-0149 (Auburn University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Auburn, AL,
1980).

Webb, P. A., M. L. Hargrave, and D. B. Blanton, Archaeological Investigations in the Thebes Gap Vicinity,
Alexander County, Illinois, Research Paper, 55 (Southern Illinois University, Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, IL, 1989).

Wedel, W., “The Prehistoric Plains,” in Ancient North Americans, J.D. Jennings, ed. (W.H. Freeman and
Co., New York, 1983), pp 203-241.

Wertz, C. J., The DATA Dictionary: Concepts and Uses, Second Edition (QED Information Sciences, Inc.,
Wellesley, MA, 1989).

Wesler, K. W., “Posthole Testing and Pattern Recognition at Whitehaven, 15McN65,” Tennessee
Anthropoligist, vol 9 (1984), pp 32-47.

Whalen, M. E., “Defining Buried Features Before Excavation: A Case from the American Southwest,”
Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 17 (1990), pp 323-331.

Wilcox, D. R., T. R. McGuire, and C. Sternberg, Snaketown Revisited, Archaeological Series, 155 (Arizona
State Museum, Tempe, AZ, 1981).


44

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

within the database file. Although all eight areas are represented by at least one
entry, the coverage is far from even across all eight areas.

In a study dealing with survey methodology and the issue of site definition, Gallant
(1986) presents a useful typology of past site definitions commonly cited in the archae-
ological literature. Gallant’s three groupings fall under the headings of (1) benign
neglect, (2) correct but vague, and (3) the formalized approach (Gallant 1986:408). In
the case of benign neglect, “it is assumed that sites are sites and are recognizable as
such...” (Gallant 1986:408). In these cases, the site concept is simply left undefined
because the archaeological audience to whom the report is addressed is assumed to
agree on the definition of such a fundamental archaeological entity.

In the case of correct but vague, the definitions are “technically correct but of little
operational value in the field, especially in areas where there is a near continuous
distribution of material across the region” (Gallant 1986:408). Thus no explicit criteria
are provided as to how a “site” is to be distinguished from light artifact scatters not
treated as a site even though the “isolated find” category is often recognized. A typical
example of such definition is given by the Southwestern Archaeology Research Group
(SARG 1974:110) as follows: “A site is defined here as any location characterized by the
deposition of the remains of human activity...” Likewise, Judge, Ebert, and Hitchcock
(1975:83) state that “archaeological sites represent the activity loci of cultural
systems...” College-level archaeology textbook definitions commonly fall into this
category where sites are characterized as “...horizontally extensive, well stratified and
vertically extensive dense concentrations of artifacts, ecofacts, and features” (Lyman
1985:31). Lyman (1985:Table 1) presents a compilation of 10 “textbook” definitions
published between 1965 and 1979 that exemplify this category.

The formalized approach is different in that “definitions establish rigid criteria for
recognizing sites” (Gallant 1986:408). In this case, specific artifact densities are
established as minimal criteria for site definition. In the Southwest, many definitions
published during the 1970s seized upon the figure of “at least five artifacts per sq m”
(Plog and Hill 1971:8; see also Fuller, Rogge, and Gregoins 1976:68 and Doelle
1977:202) as a cut-off point for inclusion into the site category. While the explicitness
of these criteria is to be lauded, such definitions are too exclusionary in that their cut-
off point for artifact density is much too high even for the Southwest United States, not
to mention other parts of the country. As a result, large numbers of significant archae-
ological manifestations would go unrecorded unless the artifacts were found in associa-
tion with cultural features exposed on the ground surface. As Plog, Plog, and Wait
(1978:387) have argued: “rigid application of density-based definitions may... result in
the systematic exclusion from analysis of systematic components of the archaeological
record.”


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 _

85

experience in the Great Basin has observed that, “although surface visibility of arid
portions of the western United States is generally excellent in the lower elevations,
surface visibility in the mountainous higher elevations can be as poor as surface
conditions in the eastern Woodlands” (M. Kodack, personal communication, 1993;
emphasis original). In spite of these land surface conditions, virtually no systematic
SST procedures have been carried out here. This point is clearly emphasized in
Zubrow’s (1984) comparative study of survey reports from the states of New York and
Colorado published between the mid-1960s and 1982. “In New York, 56% of the
contractors used shovel tests, a virtually unknown technique in Colorado (i.e., less
than 2%)... Of the contracts which actually report the number of shovel tests, the
average number is 142 for New York and 4 for Colorado” (Zubrow 1984:22).

This is not to say that routine use of SST procedures will always find low density,
short-term occupation sites that are either obscured by modern vegetation or by post-
depositional geomorphic processes. As mentioned earlier, artifact density and density-
distribution are important factors in subsurface site discovery. In the eastern
Woodlands, where SST procedures are routinely used, this has been especially true for
the Paleoindian period. In a discussion of the relatively low number of recorded.
Paleoindian sites in the eastern Woodlands, Anderson (1990) has observed that this
may be more a problem of sampling bias rather than an archaeological reality. He
argues as follows:

[The]...dearth of intensive fieldwork [directed to Paleoindian components] appears
to be primarily because the kinds of assemblages (i.e., extensive or well-stratified)
necessary to justify the great expense of areally extensive excavation blocks have
only rarely been found during CRM-funded survey and testing efforts. It is ques-
tionable, in fact, whether most CRM efforts undertaken in the Eastern Woodlands
are adequate even to locate the deposits dating to this period, particularly if they
are low in density or deeply buried..(Anderson 1990:178; emphasis added).

For the Illinois archaeological region, however, the situation is not nearly as bleak.
Several intact, open-air Paleoindian sites have been located through systematic survey
and subsurface testing, permitting subsequent surface collection and areal exposure
of occupation surfaces (see Volume 2).

A final aspect of archaeological field methods that impinges on the calculation and
evaluation of site discovery probability has to do with areal exposure and the routine
reporting of site constituents and intrasite spatial structure. The delineation of site
boundaries for estimates of site size and shape, the horizontal exposure of occupation
surfaces to reveal the density and spatial patterning of various site constituents
(artifacts, features, anthropogenic soil anomalies, etc.), and the identification of
patterned associations between site constituents are all crucial elements of the



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 177

SURVDATA: site definitons, page 2

distribution of artifacts. That is, site boundaries were extended to include any artifact that could reasonably be
thought to have at one tine been affiliated with the general site occupation’ (p.386). "Isolated finds’ were recorded
for both field seasons and ‘consist of the following: (1) any tool or "finished" artifact (presuaably used) such as a
biface, sano, or core; (2) any diagnostic artifact (for cultural/tenporal assignnent purposes) such as certain ceranic
sherds; or (3) a saall collection of flakes or sherds or other such items. The latter criterion was sade nore specific
in 1980 and defined an isolated find as a collection of between 10 and 20 flakes or sherds or other such items contained
in an area of less than 30 by 30 a." (p.386}.

7
Reyndme: Lafferty et al 1981
Sort Key: Southeast (zark-Ouachita bighlands tegion)
Site Definition: None given

8
Reynaae: O'Brien et al 1962
Sort Key: Northeast (Illinois region)
Site Definition: A ‘probabilistic site’ (i.e., a site found in probabilistic survey) *...is defined as any isolable
aggregate of five or gore surface artifacts having a spatial midpoint that occars inside a sample quadrat’ (pp.339-340
in Chapter 16: Prehistoric Settleaeat Patterns by Robert E, Warrea)

9
Keynane: Taylor & Saith 1978
Sort Key: Southeast (piedaont region)
Site Definition: ¥one given, but authors follow Glassow (1977) in use of the tera ‘archaeological resource’ instead if
‘site’, He defines three categories of archaeological resources: iteas, deposits, and surfaces. Beyond these three
categories, resources are also described in teras of five ‘properties’, as follows: variety, quantity, clarity,
integrity, and environaental context. (See discussion pp. 155-157}. No miainal criteria are given for site definition,
however. ‘

10

Reynane: MacKananon 19642, 1984b

Sort Rey: Northeast (coastal region)

Site Definition: ''Site’ was used in this study to refer to a bounded area within which artifacts occur. The discovery
of a single artifact as well as the discovery of thousands indicated the existence of a site. Site boundaries were set
along cqatour lines of artifact density, interpolated froa shovel test and excavation unit data, beyond which artifacts
were not expected to occur, i.e., the zero isopleth. In the context of this stady, then, sites were contiguous areas
that contained a veneer of deposits with a density of at least one artifact per shovel test" (pp.43-50).

iL

Reynane: Fuller et al 1976

Sort Rey: Southwest (Hohokam region)

Site Definition: In general, the three criteria of the Arizona State Moseua Site Survey Xanual (AZM 1974:3) were
utilized in the definition of any site : *(1) it must exhibit definable liaits in tize and space; (2) it aust contain
nore than one definable locus of past huaan activity; and (3) it should have an artifact density of aore than five per
square aeter’ (p.68}. In this project, however, only the first two criteria were strictly eaployed and it was "suggested
that artifact density criteria...be field tested at the earliest stage of any project to see if itis, indeed,
functional. If so, an estination of density threshold should be determined on the basis of locally specific cultaral
nanifestations’ (p.68).

2

Keynane: Coombs 1973

Sort Rey: Great Basia (southwestern region)

Site Definition: Followiag the BLM Site Classification Systea gives in Appendix I (p.141}, ‘aa archaeological site is
defined as a locus of prehistoric activities which can be delineated specifically by the caltural reaaias present and
can be separated by distance and/or observable geonorphic featares froa other loci of prehistoric activities. The
caltural aaterials that constitute a site are basically artifacts and/or cultural featartes.'



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

213

Nat! Institute of Standards & Tech
ATTN: Library 20899

Defense General Supply Center
ATTN: DGSC-WI 23297-5000

Defense Construction Supply Center
ATTN: DCSC-WI 43216-5000

U.S. Army Environmental Center 21010-5401
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ECN

USS. Forest Service 20090-6090
ATIN: Chiot
ATTN: Preservation Officer

Soil Conservation Service 20013-2890
ATTN: Ci

USS. Air Force Environment, Safety and
‘Occupational Health 20330-1260
ATTN: Deputy Assistant Secretary
ATTN: Cultural and Natural Resource Management
Program

Environmental Protection Agency 20460
‘ATTN: Office of Federal Activities

National Park Service 20013-7127
ATTN: Associate Director for Cultural Resources
ATTN: Archaeology Assistance Division (10)
ATTN: Interagency Resources Division
ATTN: Nationat Register for Historic Places

General Services Administration 20405
‘ATTN: Arts and Historic Preservation

USS. Department of Agriculture 20013
‘ATTN: Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service

U.S. Marine Corps/U.S. Navy Installations and Facilities
ATTN: OASN (IE) 20360-5000

U.S. Department of interior 20240
ATTN: Bureau of Indian Affairs
ATTN: Bureau of Land Management (2)
ATTN: Fish and Wildlife Service
ATTN: Minerals Management Service

U.S, Deparment of Transportation 20590
‘ATTN: Office of Environment, Energy and Safety
ATTN: Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 20420
ATTN: Historic Preservation Office

‘Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 20004 (2)

‘Smithsonian Institution 20560
ATTN: Department of Anthropology

Tennessee Valley Authority 37628
ATTN: Cultural Resources Program

Defense Tech Info Center 22060-6218
ATTN: DTIC-O (2)

319
196

This publication was reproduced on recycled paper.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 203

also make a recommendation of materials to be curated
in accordance with the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act. The Contractor
shall prepare the materials so they meet the
requirements of the AFB, USACERL and ACC. In the event
that the AFB chooses to curate their own Materials, the
Contractor shall only charge the USACERL for
preparation of the materials. All artifacts retained
shall be carefully washed, cataloged, recorded, and
stored during the field investigation.

F. All field notes, photographs, photographic logs, and
negatives, maps and drawings will be labeled
appropriately and delivered to USACERL at the time of
final report submission.

Final reports shall be accompanied by a camera-ready-original,
one copy Wordperfect 5.1 (or comparable) MS-DOS compatible 5.5
and 3.5 inch diskettes and a National Technical Information
Services (NTIS) factsheet. .

The OVERVIEW and RESEARCH DESIGN shall be reported in draft and
then in final form after receipt of the USACERL/ACC/AFB POC
technical comments. These documents will conform to the standard
requirements of the profession and the draft documents will be
double-spaced, contain all relevant maps, charts, figures, and
references as required. The final documents will be of letter
quality, single-spaced, pound and on 8.5 by 11 inch paper. Each
copy of the final documents shall include, as the first page, DD
Form 1473, the Report Documentation Page (provided by the
USACERL) .

Two copies of site forms will be provided to the USACERL
Technical Representative with the draft documents.

14. SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

1. Draft OVERVIEW and RESEARCH DESIGN for review thirty (30
days after award of contract.

2. Revised draft of OVERVIEW and RESEARCH DESIGN fifteen
(15) days after receipt of comments.

3. Completed Fieldwork One hundred twenty (120) days after
submission of revised drafts of the OVERVIEW and RESEARCH
DESIGN. ‘

4. MANAGER’S REPORT thirty (30) days after completion of
fieldwork. :

5. Draft FINAL REPORT sixty (60) days. after completion of
fieldwork.



62

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

2. postholing (Fry 1972; Wood 1976; South and Widmer 1977; Nicholson 1983;
Wesler 1984; Abbott and Neidig 1993);

3. shallow coring (McManamon 1984a; Stein 1986, 1991; Schuldenrein 1991;
Hoffman 1993); and

4.  augering (Baker 1980; Deagan 1981; Nicholson 1983; McManamon 1984a; Stein
1986, 1991; Whalen 1990; Schuldenrein 1991; Howell 1993).

Clear distinctions must also be made as to what type of shovel-testing is implied.
Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1980), for example, distinguish between “shovel-scraping”
(involving a simple scraping of the land surface to clear away vegetation and other
debris in search of cultural material), “shovel-divoting” (involving the rapid over-
turning of soil to the depth of the shovel blade in search of cultural material), and
“shovel-probing” (involving the formal, if rapid, excavation of small test units, usually
on a systematic grid placed over the survey area). Most archaeologists use the terms
shovel test-pit (STP) or shovel-testing to refer to the latter. Nance and Ball (1986) use
the term test-pit sampling (TPS) in referring to shovel-testing (see Figures 2 and 3
herein). Such test units can vary considerably in size, from as large as 1 mx 1 m (e.g.,
Spurling 1980) to 40 cm x 40 cm (e.g., McManamon 1984a), with depths ranging from
10 to 15 cm to 75 cm. Some prefer to execute neatly squared probes to reveal profiled
sidewalls, while others prefer a more rapidly executed circular shape. Other variables
include the degree to which the fill is inspected for cultural material; i.e., whether it
is screened with hardware cloth, trowel-sorted, or only visually inspected as excavation
proceeds. Finally, archaeologists vary in the nature of the data that they routinely
record on each probe, such as sediment descriptions, rapid profile sketches, in-field
tallying and description of cultural materials encountered, etc.

To this array of SST techniques we can also add mechanized techniques for shallow
small-scale trenching operations, either with a backhoe or a pipe-trenching device such

PROBABILITY PROPERTIES OF PROPERTIES OF
COMPONENT SAMPLING DESIGN ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS
Intersection Geometry Configuration
pti) Test, pit interval Size
Test pit pattern Shape
Productivity Inspection method Statistica! properties
p(P) Size of test pits Artifact density
Recovery method Spatial clustering
l
(Source, Reproduced by permission of the author and the Society for American Archaeology from American
Anuquity, vol 51, no. 3, 1986.)

Figure 2. A formal model of test pit sampling.


86

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

archaeological record that enter into evaluations of site discovery probability. As seen
in the previous section, knowledge of these categories of information within a given
region can help the archaeologist devise the most appropriate site discovery procedures
and sampling designs. For SST procedures, these data are necessary for estimating
the degree of “empty space” expectable within a site configuration and can help
determine the amount of negative evidence that would be required before concluding
that there are no significant archaeological resources in the survey tract (Stone 1981b;
Hasenstab 1986).

Here again, comparison of the archaeological data from the Illinois region and the
Eastern Great Basin region demonstrates considerable variation in this regard. As
Volume 2 shows, considerable attention has been given in the Illinois region to the
delineation of site size and intrasite spatial structure, while the same cannot be said
for the Eastern Great Basin until quite recently (see Volume 3). In Illinois, this has
been achieved repeatedly through mechanical stripping of the plowzone followed by the
excavation of large horizontal exposures. In so doing, valuable information on intra-
site spatial structure is obtained. Notable examples of this approach are the excava-
tions at the Hatchery West site (Binford et al. 1970) and, more recently, the FAI-270
highway mitigation project in the American Bottom of west-central Illinois (Bareis and
Porter 1984a). In these cases, a conscious attempt was made to delineate intrasite
spatial structure for various components of the archaeological sequence. For the FAI-
270 Project, Bareis and Porter (1984b:9) describe this approach as follows:

We acknowledged in our research design that the FAI-270 alignment represented
a sample of American Bottom archaeology, and that even total excavation at any
site would recover only a sample of the human activities once conducted there. We
believed, however, that it would be possible to excavate completely the entire
sample of that activity present at each site after the sample had been adequately
defined in a subsurface context. To achieve this goal, we employed paddlewheel
scrapers, backhoes, and bulldozers to remove the plowzone and other kinds of
overburden... Overall, the primary goal of the fieldwork was to define the
community plan at each site.

The positive results of this excavation strategy have been dramatically demonstrated
in the extensive series of excavation reports that have been published by the FAI-270
Project in the past decade. Archaeological site constituents are clearly delineated and
quantified over broad occupation surfaces, permitting reasoned inferences regarding
intrasite spatial structure and the degree of clustering of artifacts and features. Since
multiple archaeological components have been studied in this manner, temporal
models of archaeological site characteristics and intrasite spatial structure can be
postulated as a guide to future survey designs and site discovery procedures.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

121

research results (see, for example, Butler 1979; Lacey and Hasenstab 1983). Lacey
and Hasenstab (1983) provide a detailed analysis of this problem as it affected cultural
resource management, and particularly the quality of CRM reports, in the state of
Massachusetts during the 1970s. They observe that:

..[TJhe competition for “rewards” in contracting situations is seen to lead to an
emphasis on the satisfaction of bureaucratic and budgetary demands rather than
the integrity and utility of the archaeology per se, given that contract allocation
decisions may not rest with archaeologically informed personnel, or that those
personnel are subject to another tier of non-archaeological constraints (Lacey and
Hasenstab 1983:32).

With the increasing emphasis on competitive bidding procedures which had been
initiated at the federal level around 1975, the effective discrimination between
qualitatively different proposals was reduced to a more commercial, perhaps
“rational,”concern with cost. Our interpretation suggests that this funding struc-
ture had a negative impact on the quality of reports, especially during periods when
contracts were scarce. The increased potential of poorly conceived and insuffi-
ciently sensitive proposals to be awarded contracts on the basis of cost begins to be
realized at this point (Lacey and Hasenstab 1983:45).

This situation is a continuing danger of the FFP contract format and one that agency
archaeologists should constantly try to avoid. This can be accomplished by establish-
ing tightly worded, comprehensive, and thorough SOWs for each phase of a project.
The intent of the SOW, then, should be to ensure that all truly competitive proposals
would hypothetically accomplish the same research results with the same attention
to quality control, and that the only difference between them is their monetary value.

An alternative to the FFP and CR contract formats, and one that effectively resolves
many of the problems that they produce for the archaeologist, is the Indefinite
Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. As Minor (1992) has recently noted, a
number of Federal agencies have begun to hire CRM contractors under indefinite
services contracts since they provide a number of features mutually beneficial to the
contracting agency and the archaeological contractor. Generally, ID contracts are used
in cases “where the exact time of delivery is not known at the time of contracting”
(Management Concepts Incorporated 1993: p 4.27). For purposes of procuring the
services of an archaeological contractor, the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
(IDIQ) contract is ideal, especially when compared with the FFP contracting format



196 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

undertake an archeological field survey to locate prehistoric and
historic sites. Archaeological survey methods should follow the
guidelines and recommendations found in Archaeological Inventory
Survey Standards and Cost-Estimating System for the Department of
Defense: A Draft Final Report (Zeidler 1994) prepared in
cooperation with the Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research
Center at USACERL (Champaign, IL).

6. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED MATERIALS AND SUPPORT. The government
will furnish the following information and support:

A. A geographical information system (GIS) database
containing soils maps, hydrology, roads, installation
boundary, location of proposed targets, elevation,
known archeological sites.

B. Survey reports and associated maps from previous
archeological studies and Poinsette Range.

Cc. GIS support for the production of geomorphological,
archeological probability, and modern disturbance areas
data layers, based on the Contractors data.

D. Copies of the EIS and archeological survey reports from
previous investigations at Poinsette Range.

E. Draft copy of the historic overview of Poinsette Range
prepared by USACERL. This draft will require
augmentation for inclusion in the Task 1, OVERVIEW.

F. The necessary permission to enter and conduct the
survey at Poinsette Range, South Carolina.

G. USACERL Inhouse Standards for Submission of
Archeological Collections.

H. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health
Requirements Manual (EM 385-1-1 Revised Oct. 1987).

I. A copy of , Archaeological Inventory Survey Standards

and Cost-Estimating System for the Department of
Defense: A Draft Final Report (Zeidler 1994) prepared

in cooperation with the Tri-Services Cultural Resources
Research Center at USACERL (Champaign, IL).

6. MEETINGS

The Contractor and the USACERL/AFB/ACC shall meet as needed,
including a pre-field meeting and a post-field meeting for each
phase of the project. These meetings are designed to promote
understanding of the Poinsette Air Force Range needs and
requirements. The USACERL may arrange meetings with the



124

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

McManamon (1984a) provides a useful discussion of this issue with respect to sub-
surface probes, but his statement applies equally to other site discovery techniques:

Total project costs are not good measures for comparison because they vary
according to a variety of factors independent of discovery technique costs, such as
remoteness of the study area, amount of travel to and from portions of the area
being tested, the ease or difficulty of movement due to vegetation or topography,
and the ease or difficulty... [of] excavation due to soil conditions. The combinations
of these kinds of factors makes total project costs unique to the specific conditions
encountered and the manner with which they were dealt. Cost in dollars is not the
easiest way to compare techniques either. Dollar costs depend upon the cost of
labor, which can vary independently of the discovery technique used. Instead...
cost...{can be] figured indirectly in the time required to complete individual
{subsurface] tests or for test coverage of standard-sized areas (McManamon
1984a:262).

The estimates of person-days per unit area surveyed or tested, then, are essentially
measures of the “level-of-effort” expended for given levels of survey intensity, as
discussed in earlier sections of this report. As McManamon (1984a: p 262) points out,
these estimates “then can be used with the standard cost of labor for the project to
compute dollar costs if they are desired.” Other mitigating circumstances such as
travel time, difficulty of movement within the survey area, etc., can then be factored
into the estimation on the basis of local experience.

For pedestrian survey, the archaeological literature provides few specific algorithms
for calculating estimated costs. Perhaps the most useful and explicit is that offered by
Schiffer and Wells (1982) in their review of archaeological survey research in
southwestern Arizona. This was discussed briefly in Chapter 3. Using data derived
from a limited number of pedestrian surveys (12 projects), they demonstrate the close
relationship between crew spacing (intensity) and level-of-survey-effort, acknowledging
at the same time the importance of other variables on level-of-effort such as recording
time, accessibility, etc. In spite of these extraneous variables, however, “crew spacing
seems to account for a considerable portion of the variation in survey effort” (Schiffer
and Wells 1982:351). Their specific estimation of level-of-effort required per unit area
of survey tract is based on “the number of person-days needed to cover one square mile
at a given crew spacing, assuming that all work time is spent walking within the
sample units. The number of miles that must be walked is simply 1609.347 m/square
mile divided by crew spacing” (Schiffer and Wells 1982:351). If surveyors walk an
estimated 3 miles per hour, this gives a figure of 536.449 hours/crew spacing.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

31

feature diversity, intra-site densities, and density-distributions. For purposes of cost-
estimation calculations, specific data have also been extracted (where possible) on
“person-days expended,” “level of survey effort,” and “site discovery rate” for different
kinds of field procedures. As one might expect, the degree to which these kinds of
archaeological data and project metadata are routinely reported in survey monographs
is highly variable throughout the U.S. Where they exist, however, selected data sets
can be used for regional modeling of archaeological distributions and site discovery
probabilities through the application of Monte Carlo simulation (see Chapter 4). Other
data sets can be used to identify broad regional trends in survey methodology and site
discovery procedures for different kinds of landscapes (see Chapter 3). These kinds of
data permit the establishment of recommended levels of survey intensity under differ-
ent land surface conditions and allow for detailed assessments of survey effectiveness,
accuracy, and reliability. Table 1 provides a sample entry with a list of the categories
for which data was sought in our review of each survey monograph.

As mentioned in the Preface, the term metadata is used here simply to refer to “data
about survey data.” Most important here are statements of the total number of
person-days expended in different project tasks, the level-of-effort expended in field
survey (calculated as person-days per unit area surveyed), and the discovery rate for
sites (number of sites per person-day) and isolated occurrences (number of isolated
occurrences per person-day). These values are instrumental in determining the
adequacy or effectiveness of a given survey effort and for making objective comparisons
between different survey results (Schiffer and Wells 1982; Schiffer 1987). Other rele-
vant metadata include explicit descriptions of field survey conditions (such as accessi-
bility, surface visibility, or other potential impediments to surface inspection), proble-
matic aspects of the local archaeological record (such as low obtrusiveness of surface
artifacts or other remains, bias due to previous non-scientific artifact collecting, etc.),
and surveyor bias (such as inexperienced field personnel, inconsistencies in survey
procedures or data collection techniques, etc.).

It is important to point out that the gray literature was not sampled in a statistical
sense; about 100 monographs were selected according to the following three criteria: (1)
the reporting of regional survey results had to be sufficiently detailed to provide most
of the data categories we were seeking; (2) overall geographic coverage of the mono-
graphs examined had to be reasonably broad-based and representative of the
physiographic variability and cultural variability of the archaeological record in the
United States; and (3) monographs obtained for review had to be reasonably available
or obtainable through the University of Illinois Library System, the USACERL Library,
and/or inter-library loan programs of both institutions. National-level bibliographic
indexes consulted for this research included the National Archaeological Database
(NADB)—Reports and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Index. No



156

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Cunningham, B., “Risk Control in Archaeology,” Journal of Field Archaeology, vol 3 (1976), pp 230-233.

Davis, E. L., “The Exposed Archaeology of China Lake, California,” American Antiquity, vol 40, no. 1
(1975), pp 39-53.

Davis, E. L., ed., The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country, Science
Series, 29 (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 1978), pp 4-152.

Davis, J. C., Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, Second Edition (John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1986).

D’Azevedo, W. L., vol. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11: Great Basin, W. C. Sturtevant,
general editor (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1986).

Deagan, K., “Downtown Survey: The Discovery of Sixteenth-Century St. Augustine in an Urban Area,”
American Antiquity, vol 46, no. 3 (1981), pp 626-634.

Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 715-15, Service Contract Administration, (Headquarters,
Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1986).

Derry, A., H. W. Jandl, C. D. Shull, J. Thorman, and P. L. Parker, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis
for Preservation Planning, Revised edition, National Register Bulletin 24 (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC, 1985).

Dillehay, T., “Small Archaeological Site Investigations for Interpretation of Site Activities,” Texas
Archaeological Society Bulletin, vol 44 (1973), pp 169-177.

Dincauze, D. F., H. M. Wobst, R. Hasenstab, and D. M. Lacey, Retrospective Assessment of Archaeological
Survey Contracts in Massachusetts, 1970-1979, (Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston,
1980).

Doelle, W. H., “A Multiple Survey Strategy for Cultural Resource Management Studies,” in Conservation
Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies, M. B. Schiffer and G. J.
Gumerman, eds. (Academic Press, New York, 1977), pp 201-209.

Doleman, William H., “Calibration of Phase I Data: Effective Resolution,” in The Border Star 85 Survey:
Toward the Archeology of Landscapes, T. J. Seaman, W. H. Doleman, and R. C. Chapman, eds.
(University of New Mexico, Office of Contract Archeology, Albuquerque, 1988), pp 63-83.

Downun, C., and A. P. Sullivan, Wupatki Settlement Analysis (National Park Service, Santa Fe, NM,
1988).

Drennan, R. D., “Sampling to Estimate Whether Jn Situ Features are Present,” unpublished manuscript,
University of Pittsburgh, Cultural Resource Management Program (Pittsburgh, PA, 1987).

Drew, L. J., “Grid-Drilling Exploration and its Application to the Search for Petroleum,” Economic
Geology, vol 62 (1967), pp 698-710.



180 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

SURVDATA: site definitoas, page 5

Sort Key: Southeast (Applachian highlands region)

Site Definition: Sites are equated with ‘archaeological resources’, broadly defined. "As used in this analysis,
archaeological resources are itens, deposits, and surfaces which exhibit discrete spatial parazeters. [teas include
aanufactured (artifacts) aad anaodified objects (chert nodules, aniaal bone, etc.}. Deposits are buried strata,
aiddens, or the fill of features. Surfaces comprise features such as architecture, fish weirs, rock fire pits, etc...The
discrete spatial closteriag of these material elements define an archaeological resource or site’ (p.6). '...any nuaber
of artifacts could be used to define an archaeological resource...As it turned out, very few sites produced less than
ten iteas...” (p.8).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

greater quality control over reporting procedures are considered basic components of
this stewardship (Ramirez 1993).

The intended audience of this study is somewhat narrowly defined by its restricted
focus on intensive field survey for purposes of archaeological site discovery and identi-
fication. The following groups can benefit from this research:

* DoD archaeologists involved in predictive modeling, survey research design, and
archaeological resource management, as well as other DoD cultural resource
managers whose responsibilities include historic preservation planning and the
management of archaeological resources;

. Archaeological contractors who conduct intensive archaeological inventory
surveys and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) significance evaluations
on DoD installations;

. Federal archaeologists from other landholding agencies (such as the National
Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc.) who must con-
front the same or similar problems of effectiveness, reliability, and quality con-
trol in archaeological survey over extensive and diverse landscapes; and

. The scientific/academic community interested in issues of archaeological survey
methodology, predictive modeling, and site discovery procedures.

The substantive content of this document, as well as its policy recommendations and
management implications, are aimed primarily at DoD archaeologists and other
cultural resource managers working at the installation level. Many DoD archaeolo-

_ gists may already understand the issues discussed in this report and routinely apply

in their own contracting procedures many of the recommendations made herein. How-
ever, others may not have contemplated these issues fully. Since all cultural resource
managers need to have a fundamental understanding of archaeological inventory
survey, this document attempts to bring them “up to speed” with the problems
inherent in making decisions on archaeological surveys, designing them, and reporting
survey results. DoD archaeologists must be able to evaluate and use past survey
results for future management decisions. More importantly, as the Contracting
Officer’s technical representative (COTR), they must be able to help generate effective
Requests-for-Proposals and Scopes-of-Work for contracting archaeological surveys, and
serve as technical monitors for evaluating project results.

For the DoD archaeologist and installation manager, the way in which archaeological
inventory surveys are contracted, conducted, and evaluated is of crucial importance
in deciding how. the recovered archaeological resources will be managed, both for
NHPA Section 106 compliance process and for the long-term preservation and
stewardship of these resources, as required by the NHPA (Section 110fa}), ARPA, and



7

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 207

data collection techniques with specific research problems
relevant to the designated project area. All data shall be
analyzed, described, and integrated into scientific reports of
findings.

a. National Register of Historic Places Criteria: The
quality of significance in American history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity
of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association, and:

(1) That are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or

(2) That are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past; or

(3) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction, that represent the
work of a master, that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or

(4) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.

b. National Register Nomination Form: National Register
Nomination Form means (1) National Register Nomination Form NPS
10-900, with accompanying continuation sheets (where necessary)
Form NPS 10-900a, maps and photographs or (2) for Federal
nominations, Form No. 10-306, with continuation sheets (where
necessary), Form No. 10-300A, maps and photographs. Such
nomination forms shall be "adequately documented" and
"technically and professionally correct and sufficient." To meet
these requirements, the forms and accompanying maps and
photographs shall be completed in accordance with requirements
and guidance in the NPS publication, "How to Complete National
Register Forms" and other NPS technical publications on this
subject. Descriptions and statements of significance shall be
prepared in accordance with standards generally accepted by
academic historians, architectural historians and archaeologists.

The: nomination form is a legal document and reference for
historical, architectural, and archeological data upon which the
protections for listed and eligible properties are founded.

c.. HABS/HAER Levels of Documentation:

(1) Level I Documentation:

Drawings: A full set of measured drawings depicting
existing or historic conditions. Photocopies with large-



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

139

for finding low-density buried cultural deposits because of the poor archeological
visibility of artifacts and the high potential for sample error. On the other hand,
our experience indicates that heavy equipment can be used successfully to identify
the possible extent of buried cultural distributions in areas adjacent to surface site
scatters or within loose spatial aggregations of isolated occurrences. We therefore
believe that the selective use of backhoes in areas with relatively high probabilities
of subsurface remains has direct application to long-term managerial concerns
(Anschuetz 1990:166).

Again, for a given project or survey tract, the applicability of deep backhoe trenching
would depend to a great extent on accessibility.

Regarding cost-estimation figures for deep backhoe trenching, Anschuetz (1990: Table
9.2) provides detailed data from his Tularosa Basin survey. He reports a total of 661
backhoe trenches completed (of varying size) for a total of 3886 linear meters of
excavation and about 6206 cubic meters of fill. The labor time required for this
undertaking is reported as “167 person-days and 35 backhoe days (including operator
time)” (Anschuetz 1990:149). The person-day expenditures include cleaning and
recording the trench profiles as well as occasional screening of the trench fill. The
figure of 167 person-days should be reduced to 144 because 23 person-days were appar-
ently lost to work stoppages caused by military testing (Anschuetz 1990; p 140). Using
the 144 p-d figure, the deep trenching rate can be calculated variously as 6206 cu
m/144 p-d = 43.10 cubic meters of trench fill excavated per person-day, or as 3886
linear m/144 p-d = 26.99 linear meters of trench excavated per person-day. These
figures do not include the appreciable costs of backhoe rental, transport, and operation
time, however. They do provide a useful point of reference for estimating general
archaeological labor requirements. Two critical variables for making cost estimations
for this type of subsurface testing are: (1) the degree of thoroughness with which the
fill is to be sifted for systematic artifact retrieval; and (2) the degree of detail with
which stratigraphic information from the trench sidewalls is to be recorded. These
decisions, of course, depend on the specific objectives of the project as well as the
preferences of the principal investigator.

Cost Estimation for Post-Field Analysis and Report-Generation

Developing standard cost-estimation procedures for the post-field analysis and write-
up phases of an archaeological project is usually a difficult, if not impossible, task due
to the highly variable objectives, scope, and intensity of the undertakings. One way
to approach the issue of post-field cost estimation is by constructing “some more or
less standard ratio between field and non-field costs...” (Dr. Thomas F. King, CEHP
Incorporated, personal communication, 1993). This procedure is notoriously spurious,



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 147

6 Summary and Recommendations

Summary

The preceding chapters are intended as points of reference for evaluating the inter-
related problems of site definition, survey intensity, and cost estimation in archaeologi-
cal inventory surveys. It should be reiterated that the present study is a working
document for the establishment of official DoD policy regarding intensive archaeologi-
cal survey. The detailed treatment of these issues herein has attempted to point out
their implications for future inventory surveys on DoD lands and to establish a
tentative series of recommendations for discussion and evaluation among archaeolo-
gists, cultural resource specialists, installation managers, and other interested parties
within and outside of the Department of Defense.

The comprehensive treatment given to the issue of site definition was a by-product of
the initial investigation into survey intensity, and brings into sharp focus the justifi-
cation for a standardized definition of this central concept. Likewise the multi-
regional data gathered on archaeological survey designs and site discovery procedures
has provided quantifiable measures of regional trends in the survey methodologies and
site discovery procedures commonly employed by U.S. archaeologists. The effects on
these trends of different landscape conditions and temporal changes in cultural com-
plexity have also been examined through comparative study of the eastern region of
the Great Basin culture area and the Illinois region of the Northeast culture area.
These two contrastive regions serve as useful examples of the fundamental differences
in eastern United States and western United States archaeology, in terms of the
effects of variable surface visibility on site discovery probabilities, as well as different
disciplinary conventions for studying the archaeological record.

Specific methods for calculating site discovery probabilities were also explored as a
means of promoting greater attention toward bias assessment and quality control.
Finally, our extensive literature review of archaeological survey monographs has
provided a useful corpus of data relating to the issue of cost estimation, the third
component of the present project. The treatment of cost estimation has included
guidelines and specific algorithms for a range of survey methods and site discovery
techniques pertinent to different landscape conditions. These include conventional
pedestrian survey in areas of moderate-to-high surface visibility, subsurface test-pit,



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 153

Black, K. D., and M. D. Metcalf, The Castle Valley Archaeological Project: An Inventory and Predictive
Model of Selected Tracts, Cultural Resource Series 19 (Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake
City, UT, 1986).

Blair, T. C., J. S. Clark, and S. G. Wells, “Quaternary Stratigraphy and Landscape Evolution and Its
Application to Archeological Studies,” in Landscape Archeology in the Southern Tularosa Basin,
Volume 1: Small Site Distributions and Geomorphology, K. F. Anschuetz, W. H. Doleman, and R.
C. Chapman, eds., Report No. 185-324D (University of New Mexico, Office of Contract Archaeology,
Albuquerque, NM, 1990), pp 167-206.

Blalock, H. M., Jr., Social Statistics, 2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979).

Blumenthal, S. K., and E. A. Bevitt, Federal Historic Preservation Laws (U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Cultural Resources Program, Washington, DC, 1993).

Brace, P., and J. Klein, Archeological Resources and Land Development: A Guide to Assess Impact,
Landscape Architecture Technical Series 7 (Washington, DC, 1984).

Bradley, J. E., W. R. Killam, G. R. Burns, and M. A. Martorano, An Archaeological Survey and Predictive
Model of Selected Areas of Utah’s Cisco Desert, Cultural Resource Series No. 18 (Bureau of Land
Management, Salt Lake City, UT, 1986).

Britsch, L. D., and L. M. Smith, “Geomorphic Investigation of the Terrebonne Marsh, Louisiana:
Foundation for Cultural Resource Surveys,” Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, vol 4, no.
3 (1989), pp 229-250.

Briuer, F. L., and C. M. Niquette, “Military Impacts to Archaeological Sites,” in Proceedings of the
American Society for Conservation Archaeology (1983), pp 6-62.

Briver, F. L., and G. B. Thomas, Standard Operating Procedure for Field Surveys, United States Army,
Fort Hood, TX, Archaeolgical Resource Management Series, Research Report No. 13 (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, TX, 1986).

Brooks, R. L., "Prehistoric Spot Finds, Localities, and Archaeological Context: A Cautionary Note from
Kentucky,” Tennessee Anthropologist, vol 4 (1979), pp 167-174.

Brown, M. K., Predictive Models in Illinois Archaeology: Report Summaries (Illinois Department of
Conservation, Division of Historic Sites, Springfield, 1981).

Butler, B. M., J. M. Penny, and C. A. Robison, Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for the Shawnee 200
M.W. AFB.C. Plant, McCracken County, Kentucky, Research Paper No. 21 (Southern Illinois
University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, IL, 1981).

Butler, W. B., “Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process,” American Antiquity, vol 54, no.
4 (1987), pp 820-829.

Butler, W. B., “Some Comments on Contracting with the Federal Government: Types of Contracts,”
American Antiquity, vol 43, no. 4 (1978), pp 741-746.



46 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1
Table 4. Classification of 25 site definitions listed by culture area.
TYPE OF SITE DEFINITION
CULTURE
AREA . .
Benign Correct but The Formal | Nonsite
Neglect Vague Approach Approaches | TOTALS:
Northeast 3, 8, 10 3
Southeast 7,17, 18 4 20 9, 25 7
Plains 1 13 2
Great Basin 12, 16, 21 5 4
Southwest 24 19 6,11 2 5
Plateau 15 1
NW Coast 22 1
California 14, 23 2
TOTALS: 6 6 10 3 25

or regional audiences such as the CRM client, the local SHPO, and the local
archaeological community. There are probably no geographical tendencies in the
“benign neglect” approach, and it is likely that examples can be found in all eight

culture areas.

Another six definitions can be placed squarely in the “correct but vague” category.
Here sites are generically defined as “the locus of past human activities that can be
delineated by the presence of cultural features...and/or cultural artifacts” (Lebo and
Brown 1990:18). While essentially correct, such definitions do not specify minimal
criteria by which a site can be defined and recognized in the field. While some of these
definitions at least distinguish between the concepts of “site” and “isolated find” (16,
19), no explicit criteria are provided for making this distinction in a consistent and
replicable way.

Ten definitions fall into the “formal approach” category in that they all include specifi-
able quantitative criteria for minimally defining a “site” on the basis of surface artifact
density, and for distinguishing it from an “isolated find,” “light density lithic scatter,”
or other “nonsite” archaeological manifestation. This trend is clearly in the majority
within our extremely small sample of 25 definitions and represents a laudable advance
over the approaches of the previous two categories. However even within this category


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 209

specified in each individual delivery order.

c. Delivery Orders may be issued at any time during the
contract period. Multiple delivery orders may be in force at any
given time. Conversely, there may be periods when no delivery
orders are in force. No compensation will be provided to the
Contractor during such periods of non-work.

d. Performance of Delivery Order. The Contractor shall be
required to commence work on each approved Delivery Order within
ten (10) calendar days of the date of issuance. The Contractor
shall perform the necessary work on each assignment continuously
as working conditions permit. If it becomes necessary for the
Government to stop work on any assignment because of
unforeseeable circumstances which are beyond the control of the
Contractor, the Contractor Officer or his representative will
give the Contractor a minimum notice of five (5) calendar days.

e. To perform the required work, the Contractor shall
provide all professional staff, support staff, and specialists
necessary to plan, supervise, perform and report the required
work. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, plant,
transportation, fuel, equipment, and material necessary to
perform the services required by each delivery order. The
Contractor shall also provide adequate professional supervision
to assure the accuracy, quality, and completeness of all work
required under this contract.

f. Reports. All data collected under the auspices of this
contract shall be recorded, analyzed, and reported using
currently acceptable scientific methods. The Contractor shall
catalog all artifacts, samples, specimens, photographs, drawings,
etc. The Contractor shall integrate all observations and results
of data collection and analyses into a written, comprehensive,
and graphically illustrated report of investigation. The types
of reports, number of copies and delivery schedules for all
reports required shall be as specified in each delivery order.

g. Research Design. When a delivery order specifies
multiple phases of work, the Contractor may be required to
synthesize the results of previous investigations or initial
phases of work and integrate those results-into a research design
for subsequent phases. The research design shall be submitted to
the USACERL Contracting Officer or his representative for review
and approval before subsequent phases may commence.

h. State Site Forms. For any delivery order requiring
survey and inventory of cultural resources, the Contractor shall
complete the appropriate State inventory forms and submit them to
the State Historic Preservation Officer with a request for site
numbers prior to submitting the draft report of investigations
for review. State assigned site numbers shall be used in all
draft and final reports rather than field numbers. In cases
where delivery orders require the testing or excavation of



6 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

[1991] for extended discussion of legislation governing the protection of archaeological
resources).

In accordance with the legal obligations set forth in Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA
and Section 14 (a) and (b) of ARPA, installation land managers are required to make
a good-faith effort to “develop plans for surveying lands under their control to deter-
mine the nature and extent of archaeological resources on those lands” (16 U.S.C.
470mm) and to identify and evaluate the significance of all prehistoric and historic
cultural properties for possible nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
(16 U.S.C. 470h-2). At the same time, however, their efforts should also contribute to
the state of knowledge of the regional archaeological record. To achieve these goals,
archaeological field surveys must be carried out involving the physical search for and
recording of archaeological resources on the ground (Derry et al. 1985). After a certain
amount of planning, background research, and preliminary reconnaissance survey, an
intensive archaeological survey is usually required in which a careful inspection of the
study area is carried out “to identify precisely and completely” all archaeological
resources that may be present (Derry et al. 1985:12).

Where the ground surface is obscured by heavy vegetation or where archaeological
resources are thought to be buried by later deposition, systematic subsurface inspec-
tion of the landscape may be required. Intensive survey should result in an inventory
of archaeological resources in the study area, principally those judged to be significant
and potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
(Derry et al. 1985). However, the inventory should also include all other archaeologi-
cal resources located in the survey, such as smaller, more ephemeral sites and isolated
finds, which may be important for a fuller understanding of regional prehistory.

The term “archaeological inventory survey,” which is used throughout this document,
is meant to imply an intensive archaeological field survey that results in a comprehen-
sive inventory of historic and prehistoric sites and other archaeological resources in
a given study area. A critical but often overlooked component of such a survey is
quality control, which requires that the survey be designed, carried out, and reported
in such a way that confidence estimates can be assigned to the reliability of the survey
results. That is, there should be some mechanism for evaluating the thoroughness
with which an intensive inventory survey was carried out and for concluding with
reasonable certainty that all archaeological resources have been identified (or, alter-
natively, that some portion of the archaeological record was not searched at a given
level of thoroughness). A fundamental purpose of the Legacy Resource Management
Program is to instill a sense of stewardship over the natural and cultural resources
located on DoD lands that is compatible with DoD mission activities as well as the
public interest. Stronger standards governing archaeological survey methods and


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

information important to prehistory or history” (36 CFR 60.4). The importance or
significance of a site, according to Butler (1987), can only be assessed with respect to
“the theoretical and substantive knowledge of the discipline” (Butler 1978:821). Thus
the essentially ephemeral nature of such sites is not grounds, in and of itself, for
exclusion from eligibility. Rather, it is the archaeologists’ task, based on current theo-
retical and substantive knowledge of the archaeological record, to determine if the
archaeological content of the site warrants a determination of eligibility (DOE) and,
hence, preservation and management.

Interest in the study of “small” archaeological sites grew throughout the 1970s
(Moseley and Mackey 1972; Dillehay 1973; Talmadge et al. 1977; Ward 1978) as a
means of providing a more balanced view of the archaeological record, but little of this
early work was explicitly directed toward site discovery through systematic regional
survey, or toward the problems posed by highly ephemeral, low-density material
remains. Thomas (1975) was one of the first archaeologists to grapple with the
problem of treating low-density artifact scatters and isolated finds, which often fall
beyond the minimal criteria traditionally associated with the term “site.” He argued
for a “nonsite sampling” approach, which regards “the cultural item (the artifact,
feature, manuport, individual flake, or whatever) as the minimal unit, and ignore[s]
traditional sites altogether” (Thomas 1975:62; emphasis original). Other variations
on this strategy appeared in the 1980s under the rubrics of “off-site archaeology”
(Foley 1981a, 1981b), the “mini-site” approach (Isaac, Harris, and Marshal 1981),
“siteless survey” (Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Kerber 1993), the “artifact cluster”
approach (Wait 1983), and most recently, “distributional archaeology” (Ebert and
Hitchcock 1988; Ebert 1992). Regardless of their methodological differences, all of
these approaches agree on one fundamental matter:

A far more useful, less biased model of the archaeological record can be constructed
if the objective of data collection is broadly conceived as the recovery of artifacts as
opposed to the recovery of sites. Adopting this view, the archaeological record is
most usefully conceived as a more or less continuous distribution of artifacts over the
land surface with highly variable density characteristics. Sites in this context
represent only a part of the total record, explicitly defined by density characteristics
(Dunnell and Dancey 1983:272; emphasis original).

In the most recent and thorough treatment of this topic, Ebert (1992) has forcefully
argued for an explicitly “antisite” perspective on the archaeological record, as follows:

The greatest impediment to methodological consistency within site-based survey...
is the concept of the site itself. Consistency in the definition of a site can never be
reached, due to the very nature of the concept. Sites are never discovered during
survey; it is always artifacts, features, and other individual, physically real


120

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

archaeology for the government under the firm fixed price contracts” (Butler 1978:
743). According to Butler (1978:743):

..[M]ost [Federal] agencies continue to use the firm fixed price contracts, partly
because the agencies do not employ professional archaeologists in the contracting
procedures and/or because they do not understand the real problems of doing
archaeology. Also, the contracting officers for these agencies stick with the kind of
contract they know best—the firm fixed price—and try to make it applicable to
archaeology by attempting to specify all steps, procedures, and end products.

This is generally the case within the Department of Defense, where installation
contracting officers often find the FFP format more convenient for fiscal purposes and
because the burden for completing the project rests wholly with the contractor, and not
on the government (Butler 1978:743). While these are certainly legitimate concerns,
it is argued here that the FFP, if it is to be used for contracting archaeological
research, requires additional modification to permit (a) the establishment of a fixed
firm price for each phase of a multi-stage project and (b) the incremental dispersal of
funds in accordance with the successful completion of each phase stipulated in the
SOW. Such a procedure would allow the investigation to proceed in a well-planned
and orderly fashion with step-wise evaluation of the project results. By establishing
in the SOW discrete phases for the project, and permitting the incremental dispersal
of funds at the completion of each stage, the installation, as contracting agency, can
monitor to a greater degree the progress and quality of the project results in accor-
dance with the specifications of the SOW (as in the case of CR contracts). It would also
permit a greater degree of fiscal closure as the project proceeds, thereby eliminating
the often lengthy waiting period involved for a single large dispersal of funds at the
end of a multi-phase project. Cost overruns and deadline overruns are common
consequences of the uncertainty and unpredictability involved in cultural resource
management, and particularly in archaeological inventory surveys and site signifi-
cance testing. These can be handled more efficiently in an incremental fashion
through routine project monitoring, as in the case of the CR contract (Butler 1979).
Ideally such contracting should be contemplated within the larger framework of the
installation HPP so that planning and budgeting can be accomplished in a timely
fashion. As Jameson, Ehrenhard, and Husted (1990:p 6) observe, “...a phased program
of deliverables, tied to specific contractual milestones and a phased payment system,
is a good approach that allows for progress monitoring and quality control.” This issue
will be taken up again in the Recommendations section later in this chapter.

Another aspect of both FFP and CR contracts that merits discussion has to do with the
competitive bidding process. Several archaeologists have noted that awarding con-
tracts on the basis of the lowest monetary bid, while satisfying bureaucratic and
budgetary needs, does not always produce the best, or even adequate, archaeological


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

19

1

Introduction

Background

In recent years, the discipline of archaeology has made dramatic progress toward
refining automated data retrieval and data management techniques. Yet, in spite of
these technological breakthroughs, there has been comparatively less attention paid
to the questions of quality control and bias assessment in the data acquisition and
analysis process. Objective evaluations of the quality and consistency of field and
laboratory procedures and their ability to recover systematic and representative data
on the archaeology of a regional landscape are not common. At issue is the effective-
ness of “archaeologists as measuring instruments” (Plog, Plog, and Wait 1978:413) and
the degree of resolution that their field and laboratory procedures provide in
documenting the archaeological record. As Schiffer (1987:361) has noted, “the small
literature [on this topic] is very dispersed and not readily generalized,” but enough
studies now exist to indicate the nature and severity of the problems that need to be
addressed if archaeologists hope to make valid and meaningful statements about the
prehistoric and historic past.

One aspect of archaeological field research that has long been recognized for its lack
of consistency and comparability of results is the archaeological survey. Much of this
variability is due, of course, to the host of decisions that the archaeologist must make
in executing a survey under given financial, contractual, and/or temporal constraints
and within unique and highly variable landscape conditions and regional archaeologi-
cal records (see, for example, Judge, Ebert, and Hitchcock 1975; Read 1975; Plog, Plog,
and Wait 1978; Schiffer, Sullivan, and Klinger 1978; Schiffer and Wells 1982; Nance
1983; Zubrow 1984; Lightfoot 1986; Schiffer 1987:346-353). While a certain amount
of methodological idiosyncracy and design flexibility is to be expected, the fact remains
that archaeological survey results often are very difficult to evaluate and compare with
respect to their thoroughness and accuracy. A number of archaeologists have com-
mented on the implications of this problem. Two such statements are excerpted below:

Standard, directly comparable methods of surface survey are lacking in American
archaeology...In general, each project uses its own combination of sampling
methods and survey techniques, be they systematic or intuitive. This often forces
CRM personnel charged with evaluating projects to accept the principal investiga-
tor’s or project director’s own “guesstimate” of the effectiveness of a project



14

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

HISTORY

Tri-Services Cultural
Resources Research
Center

The Tri-Services Cultural Resources Research Center is a research and
technical support center that assists the U.S. military services in the
stewardship of cultural resources located within Department of Defense
(DOD) installations or facilities. The Center, located at USACERL, helps
installations manage their cultural resources and comply with Federal,
State, and DOD preservation mandates.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Executive Summary

Current historic preservation legislation requires that Federal agencies inspect their
landholdings to identify historic and prehistoric archaeological resources (among other
broadly defined “historic properties”), evaluate these resources to determine their
significance, and protect important archaeological resources so information about our
cultural patrimony is not degraded or wantonly destroyed. In accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation, the systematic identification and description of archaeological resources
is generally carried out through intensive field survey in which all archaeological
resources are inventoried within a predefined study area or a probabilistic sample of
that area. Because Department of Defense (DoD) installations and properties are
scattered throughout the continental United States, intensive inventory surveys on
these lands must be carried out in areas that vary considerably in terms of landscape
evolution, land surface conditions, and’ complexity of the regional archaeological
record. Previous surveys have not always paid attention to the biases inherent in their
field methods, especially regarding the issues of survey intensity and site definition.
To minimize the effects of variable regional conditions and certain methodological
biases, some measure of standardization and comparability must be included in the
inventory survey procedures and data collection techniques so the degree of survey
coverage on different installations can be objectively assessed.

Installation managers must be able to evaluate the level of survey intensity required
to find archaeological resources of a certain kind, given local landscape conditions (e.g.,
surface visibility, accessibility, etc.) and the nature of the regional archaeological
record (e.g., variation in site size, obtrusiveness of archaeological resources, site
density, site diversity, feature diversity, surface and subsurface artifact densities,
assemblage diversity, degree of inferred sociocultural complexity, etc.). In this way,
bias assessment can be carried out to determine the probability that certain kinds of
resources (e.g., archaeological sites of a certain minimal size, etc.) may be missed by
using certain survey procedures.

Finally, inventory survey projects must be explicit about the definition of what is or
is not an archaeological site. The archaeological survey literature exhibits consider-
able variation in the way this fundamental concept has been conceived and used in the
field. This situation leads to incomparable results within similar study areas, and it



132

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

were estimated to have an average completion rate of 46 probes per person-day, with
a substantial range of 24 to 72 (Table 14). Sediment volume from each probe would
be on the order of 3900 cu cm. Again, caution is warranted in using this average value
as anything more than an approximation. Still it is interesting to note that 46 probes/
p-d is some 2.5 times faster than the completion rate for a 40-cm-diameter shovel-test
in McManamon’s (1984a) study and over 4.5 times faster that the posthole completion
rate estimated by Abbott and Neidig (1993). By substituting 1-m-deep augers for the
354 postholes in Wood’s (1976) subsurface sampling scheme, we would obtain a level-
of-effort of 0.35 p-d/ha or 90.65 p-d/sq mi.

Intensive augering survey was used as an SST technique by Whalen (1990) for
purposes on intrasite feature discovery in the Hueco Bolson area of west Texas. He
recommends the use of a large diameter bucket auger, in this case measuring 7.5 cm
in diameter with a 400 cc bucket capacity. His application, then, is one of site assess-
ment rather than site discovery, but he does provide useful cost-estimation data on
probe completion rates. For purposes of intrasite feature discovery, he placed auger
holes systematically at 4-m intervals, with completed holes ranging from 10 to 150 cm.
deep and an average depth of only 60 cm (Whalen 1990). Augering was carried out in
10-cm levels (without screening) and field recording included notes on “soil color,
artifact types, and artifact densities for each 10 cm level” (Whalen 1990:326). Whalen.
estimates that “a practiced operator was able to complete 20 to 30 holes per day”
(Whalen 1990:326). In all, some 1480 auger holes were executed by a crew of three in
a 4-week time period. Assuming a 5-day work week, these figures translate to an
auger completion rate of 24.7 holes per person-day (including field recording) (Table
14). This is considerably lower than the augering rate reported by McManamon
(1984a), a fact that is probably due to the greater depths attained in some of Whalen’s
probes.

It is useful to compare the preceding completion rates with the rate obtained by
Hoffman (1993) for an intrasite “close-interval” core sampling program carried out in
central southern New England. In this case, a small-diameter coring device (1.6 cm)
was used to take for multiple cores at 1-m intervals for purposes of tracing soil dis-
colorations across a single archaeological site (i.e., presence/absence of red earth).
Thus there was no intention of locating cultural artifacts or features per se. Rather,
the working hypothesis of the study was “that soil coring at close intervals is an
accurate predictor of soil stain locations (and therefore of more intense concentrations
of cultural materials) at buried archaeological sites” (Hoffman 1993:463). Core pene-
tration was usually quite shallow; over 80 percent of the cores stopped at 26 cm below
surface (1 tube length) and the remainder (19.8 percent) were only extended an
additional tube length for a maximum depth of 52 cm (Hoffman 1993:464). Because
of the shallow depth, small coring diameter, and close interval spacing between these


110

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

more than 15 years ago is still true in many areas of the country; that survey reports
and inventory listings of historic properties often provide “no basis for considering the
reliability or availability of the data. Even more important, the lack of an identified
property in a given area does not necessarily mean that there is nothing there. The
inventory [by itself] provides no way of differentiating between areas that have been
closely surveyed and found wanting and areas that have simply never been surveyed.”

While many archaeologists are exemplary in this regard, there are two areas of
reporting that need explicit guidelines and perhaps standardization in reporting. The
first has to do with the clear description of “survey space” (i.e., the total area surveyed
within the larger study area, if these two are not isomorphic) together with its precise
placement on the study area map. While this task is routinely carried out for purposes
of report generation, the precise spatial information on “area surveyed” is very often
left out when site data are transformed into a GIS data base. Obviously knowledge
regarding where sites were not found is as important as knowing where they are found
when carrying out GIS-based spatial analyses.

Secondly, stricter guidelines should be implemented regarding including certain kinds
of logistical metadata associated with inventory surveys that are essential for evalu-
ating survey effectiveness and ultimately, intensity. These include such factors as
accessibility, obtrusiveness of archaeological remains, degree of surface visibility, the
nature of the site discovery procedures used, and most importantly, total number of
person-days expended. Standard DoD guidelines should be developed for describing
the percentage of surface visibility in a rapid and objective manner. For example,
geographers recommend that “the most effective estimations are made using categories
rather than continuous scales” (Lounsbury and Aldrich 1986:67). They suggest using
the following ranges for percentage estimations: 1 to 10 percent, 10 to 25 percent, 25
to 50 percent, 50 to 75 percent, and 75 to 100 percent. More specific percentage
estimations, say 46 percent surface visibility, are probably not possible anyway
(Lounsbury and Aldrich 1986;p 67) nor would they be very objective. More importantly
for present purposes, a specific cut-off should be selected and strictly adhered to
regarding the point at which surface visibility is so low that subsurface testing
becomes an absolute necessity. In the literature reviewed for this report, few archae-
ologists discuss this critical issue (see Scott, McCarthy, and Grady 1978 for an
important exception). Following the guidelines for subsurface testing issued by the
Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (1990:2), a surface visibility of 25 percent or
greater is recommended as a reasonable cut-off point for reliable site discovery by
surface inspection alone. Where surface visibility drops below the 25 percent thresh-
old, systematic subsurface testing procedures should be used (as stipulated in the
sample SOW for the Poinsette Range in Appendix B). In situations where the vegeta-
tion cover has a patchy character, a survey tract can be gridded completely for


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

69

times larger than their eastern counterparts. Note that these differences are not so
much a question of the total project study areas, but rather the proportion of that total
study area that the archaeologists believed they could reasonably cover given finite
amounts of time, money, logistical resources, and a specified level of survey intensity.
As a preliminary interpretation, it seems likely that the severe limitations on surface
visibility and accessibility in the eastern United States may be responsible for the
generally smaller project study areas. Thus, implementing more labor-intensive sub-
surface testing procedures (even if combined with traditional pedestrian procedures)
may substantially reduce either the sampling fraction selected for study in the case of
probabilistic surveys, or the size of the study area defined for total coverage surveys.
However, it must be pointed out that this interpretation is based on a very small
sample of projects from the different areas and may be invalidated by larger sample
sizes.

The most striking effect of the different labor intensities in surface and subsurface
surveys is found, not surprisingly, in the category of Level of Effort. A rapid com-
parison of the values for the Great Basin, Southwest, and Plains, on the one hand, and
the Northeast and Southeast data sets on the other, demonstrates notably higher
figures for the latter, in which SST methods were used (see Tables 5 and 6). The
Levels of Effort for the Great Basin projects and the Plains projects were comparable,
with mean values of 20.2 person-days/sq mi and 24.5 person-days/sq mi, respectively.
The mean value for the Southwest project was more than double those mean values,
at 49.1 person-days/sq mi. This relatively high mean is largely due to an outlier value
from an exceptionally intensive pedestrian survey carried out in the Tularosa Basin
of New Mexico in which nonsite data collection strategies were used and site definition
was carried out at a subsequent stage of analysis (Seaman, Doleman, and Chapman
1988). Level-of-effort for the Phase I survey was given as 212.8 person-days/sq mi (see
Table 5). Even by removing this outlier, however, the Southwest data exhibits notably
higher levels of survey effort than the Great Basin or Plains (about 87 p-d/sq mi). This
fact may be due to a greater concern on the part of Southwestern archaeologists for
attaining more intensive levels-of-effort, although the site recording time required for
mapping and describing surface architectural features may also be influencing this
higher mean value.

In contrast to the more arid areas west of the Mississippi River, the woodland areas
of the Northeast, especially, and Southeast show higher levels-of-effort. The mean
level-of-effort for the Southeast, where SST techniques are commonly incorporated into
pedestrian surveys, is 48.4 p-d/sq mi (Table 6). This figure may be artificially
depressed, however, due to the fact that in 6 of the 14 projects for which data was tab-
ulated, the Schiffer/Wells algorithm for estimating level-of-effort was used and thus
probably underestimated the true level-of-effort expended. Unfortunately, where SST



208

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

format negatives of select existing drawings or historic
views where available;

Photographs: Photographs with large-format negatives of
exterior and interior views;

Written Data: Extensive history and description.

(2) Level II Documentation:

Drawings: Select existing drawings, where available, shall
be photographed with large-format negatives or
photographically reproduced on Mylar;

Photographs: Photographs with large-format negatives of
exterior and interior views, or historic views where
available;

Written Data: Extensive history and description.

(3) Level III Documentation:

Drawings: Sketch plan;

Photographs: Photographs with large-format negatives or
exterior and interior views;

Written Data: Architectural data form (A one page HABS form
intended to provide identifying information for accompanying
HABS documentation).

(4) Level IV Documentation:

HABS/HAER Inventory Cards: A one-page form which includes
written data, a sketched site plan and a 35mm contact print
drymounted on the form. The negative with a separate
contact sheet and index shall be included with the inventory
card.

4. DELIVERY ORDER REQUIREMENTS:

a. To order services under this contract, a Request for
Quotation, SF 18, will be forwarded to the Contractor identifying
the specific requirements of the individual order. The
Contractor shall prepare and submit an itemized budget for the
work requested based on the fully burdened rates negotiated in
Schedule B of this contract and any direct materials, travel or
other significant costs applicable to the particular services
requested. Any variations to the negotiated labor rates will not
be accepted without the prior written approval of the Contracting
Officer. Following negotiation of each individual requirement,
the Contracting Officer shall issue a written delivery order for
supplies and services on a DD Form 1155. All delivery orders
shall be issued on a firm fixed-price basis.

b. For each delivery order, one (1) copy of all paper
deliverable items, including but not limited to, proposals,
reports of progress, draft and final reports, shall be delivered
to the USACERL Contracting Officer, P. O. Box 9005, Champaign,
Illinois 61826-9005. Additional deliverables shall be as



24

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

compliance purposes, academically inspired surveys with specified research goals, or
some combination of both. Primary concern is given to the overriding question of
survey intensity or the thoroughness of the landscape inspection procedures used.
Stephen Plog and associates (1978:389) have defined survey intensity as “the degree
of detail with which the ground surface of a given survey unit is inspected, whether
that survey unit is a large region or a small sample unit.” However, it is also
important to include here the intensiveness of subsurface inspection techniques in
areas where the ground surface is obscured by dense vegetation or where archaeo-
logical sites may be buried by later depositional processes. At issue is the need to
establish adequate levels of survey intensity and appropriate site discovery techniques
that address both the specific nature of given regional archaeological structures (Foley
1981a) and the three-dimensional variability of given landscape conditions. The latter
can have very significant effects on the visibility of archaeological resources at the local
and regional scales. The implementation of standards for evaluating surface and sub-
surface survey intensities has direct implications for the planning and executing of
archaeological inventory surveys on DoD lands, especially in developing Scopes-of-
Work and calculating appropriate cost estimations.

In accordance with the overall purpose of the Legacy Resource Management Program
to protect and conserve the natural and cultural resources on DoD lands “in a compre-
hensive, cost-effective, state-of-the-art manner” (United States Department of Defense
1991:3; see also United State Department of Defense 1992), this project has two
ultimate objectives: (1) to establish consistent and effective standards for archaeologi-
cal survey and site discovery that address techniques, methods, and intensity; and
(2) to develop cost-estimation guidelines that permit greater accuracy and efficiency
in the budgeting and scheduling of archaeological inventory surveys. In the course of
reviewing a number of issues and problems involved in establishing archaeological
survey standards, a series of policy recommendations and their management implica-
tions are presented for consideration by DoD archaeologists and cultural resource
managers. It is hoped that this document will lead to a productive exchange of ideas
and opinions regarding the implementation of archaeological survey standards and
appropriate levels of quality control for the evaluation of survey results.

It should be noted here that the archaeological issues and policy recommendations
discussed in this document are equally relevant for prehistoric and historic archaeol-
ogy. As South and Widmer (1977:120) have observed, “concepts and methods found
valid for recovery and analysis of [prehistoric]...lithics and pottery do not become
invalid with the addition of historic documentation.” Likewise, even though much
historical archaeology is carried out at the site scale and relies heavily on documentary
sources for site discovery and significance evaluation, this fact does not make the
regional archaeological survey an invalid or irrelevant method for understanding the


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 143

3. Specification of 80 Percent Confidence Threshold for Site Discovery Probability

Requests-for-Proposals as well as contractual Scopes-of-Work should stipulate that
confidence estimates of 80 percent or higher be attained for site discovery probability
at a given level-of-effort, a given crew/probe interval spacing, and a minimum targeted
site size. Each of these last three variables should be specified by the agency archaeol-
ogist or cultural resource specialist in the RFPs scope-of-work before awarding of the
contract. It is then the contractor’s obligation to comply with the 80 percent confidence
threshold and make “good faith” estimates of the kinds of archaeological resources that
may not have been recovered in the survey. Final survey reports should routinely
include a section on bias assessment where these confidence estimates are explicitly
treated. This will ensure a greater degree of comparability between different survey
results within an installation, within a given archaeological region, and within the
DoD generally.

4. Routine Use in Cost Estimation of Previous Survey Metadata Pertaining to Level-
of-Effort Expended

Requests-for-Proposals and contract specifications for archaeological surveys should
require a full recording of survey intensity and level-of-effort expended. These include,
respectively, the crew interval spacing or subsurface test spacing used, and the
number of person-days expended per unit area surveyed. Routine recording of this
metadata will greatly facilitate the evaluation of project effectiveness and permit a
greater level of comparability with other DoD projects for which similar data exist.

5. Separate Cost-Estimation Procedures in Accordance with Site Discovery
Techniques and Level-of-Effort Used

Reliable cost estimation for archaeological inventory surveys should be closely tied to
the site discovery techniques deemed appropriate for a given project and for specified
levels-of-effort. Labor costs cannot be calculated in the same way for pedestrian
surveys, shovel-test surveys, or deep coring surveys. If combinations of these tech-
niques must be used within the same project, cost estimation should be carried out for
each survey tract using a different technique. Some general guidelines for making
these cost-estimates have been presented above based on published archaeological
literature. They should not be used uncritically, however, and installation archaeolo-
gists and land managers are encouraged to consult local and regional archaeological
literature for comparable data on labor time requirements for different discovery
techniques so that appropriate adjustments can be made for local landscape conditions,
local archaeological resources, and labor and equipment costs. Much of this informa-
tion may seem trivial for some DoD archaeologists or cultural resource specialists with



10

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

of abstraction. The term metadata, then, can be defined simply as “data about data”
(Wertz 1989:69). For archaeological purposes, this involves recording detailed infor-
mation on such things as the definition of relevant site constituent variables, level of
effort expended per unit area in archaeological surveys, methodological and technical
procedures used in site discovery and identification, estimates on the reliability and
accuracy of survey results, etc. It constitutes information that goes beyond the
substantive archaeological results of the survey, but is essential for assessing its
effectiveness and its comparability with other survey efforts. In spite of the often
different goals of CRM and academic surveys (i.e., legal compliance and stewardship
versus pure research), comparability of survey results is always a desirable outcome.
For all of these reasons, then, partnerships between the CRM and academic
communities can, and should, work toward the benefit of both.

This Legacy document is intended to stimulate discussion and debate among DoD
archaeologists and cultural resource managers regarding the archaeological issues of
survey intensity, site definition, and the reliability and accuracy of survey results. It
also explores the related issues of the contracting process for archaeological surveys
and cost-estimation procedures for different site discovery techniques. The DoD has
enormous landholdings over the entire United States and its territories with millions
of employees. Its varied mission activities affect not only its own properties but other
lands and resources as well. Thus it has a considerable legal obligation to comply with
Federal laws governing historic preservation and cultural resource protection. It
spends millions of dollars on archaeological inventory surveys, but has inadequate
tools to evaluate cost/benefit ratios of survey results. The DoD should rightly be
concerned about the way in which Federal dollars are spent in the compliance process
and in the long-term stewardship of installation resources. Beyond the issues of
compliance and stewardship lies the fundamental question of whether the expendi-
tures for intensive archaeological surveys are resulting in real contributions to
archaeological knowledge. Are DoD archaeologists and contractors doing an adequate
and cost-effective job for either of these purposes? For the Department of the Army, this
issue has been clearly articulated in a recent evaluation of cultural resources
conservation requirements (Feige and Strauss 1994:A-81; emphasis added) in the
following terms:

Army undertakings are often delayed by the lack of archeological survey. Less than
10% of Army lands have been adequately surveyed and evaluated for archeological
sites. [The] development of faster and more cost-effective technologies for
archeological inventory that are standardized across broad regions will allow the
Army to be more proactive in this arena and prevent unnecessary delays...[The]
development of standard survey protocols and standard statements of work that
meet scientific standards will simplify cost estimates and contracting.


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 141

four different Army installations varied from $27 to $673 per acre” depending on the
amount of subsurface testing that was required and the corresponding field to non-
field cost ratios no doubt varied accordingly.

Recommendations

In light of the preceding discussions of the contracting process and the issue of cost
estimation for archaeological surveys, the following five policy recommendations are
proposed.

1. Development of Multi-Phase Contracting Mechanisms

The multi-stage nature and logistical complexities of archaeological field work and
analysis should be adequately reflected in DoD Requests-for-Proposals and in Scopes-
of-Work for specific contracts. These documents should be prepared with the active
input of an experienced archaeologist or cultural resource specialist acting in an
official capacity as the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative. If a given
installation does not have the personnel capable of fulfilling that role, then arrange-
ments should be made with other DoD agencies directly involved in cultural resource
management (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), so that appropriate contract-
ing procedures can be put into place.

The multi-stage project design should minimally include separate task items for the
following sequential activities:

1. an initial regional overview of previous historic and prehistoric baseline data
for the installation that includes all pertinent environmental (especially geo-
morphological) and cultural background research.

2. development of a comprehensive research design for intensive archaeological
survey based on data gathered though background research.

3. performance of the intensive archaeological survey and related data analysis
and data compilation.

4. final report of survey results, including all NRHP eligibility evaluations and
recommendations;

5. after appropriate report evaluation by agency archaeologists and other
interested parties (i.e., the corresponding SHPO), performance of additional
field work (continued survey and/or site testing) where necessary in order to
make additional NRHP eligibility determinations.



|
|

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 185

6.

7.

8.

10.

MEETINGS AND REVIEWS:

List required meetings/reviews, purpose, location and time
schedule.

TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS:

a. List number of trips, location, number of days per trip,
number of people the Government expects to travel.

b. State whether the Government will issue travel orders or
the Contractor is solely responsible for costs.

CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR) :

a. Identify the Government personnel and phone number who
will be the technical representative under the contract or
delivery order.

b. Include the following paragraph: "No Government
personnel, other than the Contracting Officer, have the
authority to change or alter these requirements. The COTR can
clarify technical points or supply relevant technical
information, but no requirements in this scope of work may be

altered as a sole result of such verbal clarification."

PERIOD OF SERVICE:
Specify a time by which all work to be performed under the

order will be completed. This can be stated as a date or in
terms of days or months from the date of award of the order.

CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS:

When appropriate, list the qualifications that are deemed to
be required in order to perform the services adequately.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

29

Thus the archaeological survey standards developed herein have less to do with survey
design per se and more to do with the precise definition of that design and its method-
ological and observational adequacy for recovering accurate archaeological data. As
Altschul (1988:86) has noted:

..{T]he selection of sampling technique, sampling fraction and sample size, and
sample unit size and shape are decisions that cannot be made in the abstract but
are dependent on the nature of the phenomenon of interest and the research
objectives...(C)onsistent results have less to do with the sampling design than with
issues of survey intensity, site visibility, and sample unit accessibility...

Likewise, the intent is not to impose strict and uniform levels of survey intensity on
DoD installations across the continental United States. Rather, the intent is to
recommend a specific level or threshold of confidence that a given survey intensity will
consistently retrieve certain categories of archaeological data. Chapters 3 and 4 of this
document will explore these issues and offer recommendations for improving archaeo-
logical site discovery procedures and inventory survey reporting procedures in DoD-
sponsored projects.

A related problem that must be addressed in any broad-based cultural resource
management program is the definition of archaeological “site.” As Klinger (1976:55)
has noted: “the problem of site definition has confronted many researchers in a variety
of cultural and ecological settings. Site definition as such is not unlike any other vari-
able, in that it is derived from and intimately associated with the overall theoretical
and methodological framework or research design.” Definition involves the specifica-
tion of minimal criteria by which sites can be recognized and formally defined in the
field. Even a cursory review of North American literature dealing with archaeological
survey and site discovery reveals a considerable range of variation both in site
definition and in site typologies. While site typologies obviously must respond to
differences in regional archaeological records as well as different research agendas,
such is not the case with the definition of minimal criteria for what constitutes a “site.”
There are many advantages to standardization of these criteria both for management
and for research purposes, but achieving an adequate balance between the cost-
effective needs of resource management and the broad data requirements of contempo-
rary archaeological research is still a problem. Accordingly, Chapter 2 will treat the
issue of site definition and offer a concrete recommendation for DoD standards based
on the prior research of other Federal agencies, notably the U.S. Forest Service.

Finally, since the recommendations mentioned above have direct implications for the
planning, contracting, and execution of archaeological inventory surveys, the question
of cost estimation related to various kinds of site discovery procedures takes on central
importance for ensuring budgetary efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and the timely



166

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Nance, J. D., “Reliability, Validity, and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology,” in Quantitative Research
in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, M. 8. Aldenderfer, ed. (Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
CA, 1987), pp 244-293.

Nance, J. D., “Statistical Sampling in Archaeology,” in Mathematics and Information Science in
Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, A. Voorrips, ed., Studies in Modern Archaeology, Volume 3,
(Holos, Bonn, 1990), pp.135-163.

Nance, J. D., and B. F. Ball, “No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling,” American
Antiquity, vol 51, no. 3 (1986), pp 457-483.

Nance, J. D., and B. F. Ball, “A Shot in the Dark: Shott’s Comments on Nance and Ball,” American
Antiquity, vol 54, no. 2 (1989), pp 405-412.

National Park Service, “Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties,”
National Register Bulletin, vol 12 (1985), pp 1-26.

Neumann, L., J. Warren-Findley, and T. F. King, Defending Our Heritage: Preliminary Working Report
to the Cultural Resources Program Development Task Area, report prepared for the Department
of Defense by the National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers in Partnership with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Defense Cultural Resources Council, and the
National Park Service (CEHP Incorporated, Washington, DC, 1991).

Nicholson, B. A., “A Comparative Evaluation of Four Sampling Techniques and of the Reliability of
Microdebitage as a Cultural Indicator in Regional Surveys,” Plains Anthropologist, vol 28, no. 102,
Pt.1 (1983), pp 273-281.

O’Brien, M. J., R. E. Warren, and D. Lewarch, eds., The Cannon Reservoir Human Ecology Project: An
Archaeological Study of Cultural Adaptations in the Southern Prairie Peninsula (Academic Press,
New York, 1982).

O'Connell, J. F., “Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications,” American Antiquity, vol
52, no. 1 (1987), pp 74-108.

Odell, G. H., “Bewitched by Mechanical Site-Testing Devices,” American Antiquity, vol 57, no. 4 (1992),
pp 692-703.

Oetelaar, G. A., “Identifying Site Structure in the Archaeological Record: An Illinois Mississippian
Example,” American Antiquity, vol 58, no. 4(1993), pp 662-687.

Oetting, A. C., Villages and Wetlands Adaptations in the Northern Great Basin: Chronology and Land
Use in the Lake Abert-Chewaucan Marsh Basin—Lake County, Oregon, Anthropological Papers,
41 (University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 1989).

Office of Federal Procurement Policy, A Guide for Writing and Administering Performance Statements
of Work for Service Contracts, Pamphlet No.4, Supplement #2 to Office of Management and Budget
Circular No. A-76 (Office of Federal Procurement Policy Washington, DC, 1980).


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 187

9. DO NOT USE "AS DIRECTED": These words also imply a personal
services situation. The Contractor will place itself under the
supervision of the work directions of the Government and
individuals may be prone to continue directing the work generally
without benefit of a task being written as part of the contract
requirements.

10. WHEN USING THE WORD "SUPPORT": Without an explicit statement
in a SOW of exactly what support is needed, the meaning is
ambiguous.

11. USE OF PRONOUNS: Pronouns should be avoided in a SOW. It is
better to repeat the noun and avoid misinterpretation.

12. CONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY: When referring to a particular item,
use the same word or phrase throughout the SOW. This is especially
true when referring to technical terms and items.

13. NUMERALS : When numerals are used on drawings and
illustrations, and the numerals are part of the discussion in the
SOW; rather than spell out the numbers keep them numerals.

14. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS: The first time an abbreviation or
acronym is used in the SOW, show it in parentheses immediately
after the spelled-out word or phrase.



98

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

note that the lightest artifact density of the simulations (0.1 artifacts/sq m) was
consistently associated with detection probabilities lower than our arbitrary 80 percent
cut-off point, even for the largest site sizes (70-100 m in diameter). Fourth, note that
even with a relatively intensive 10-m interval spacing, no 10-m diameter sites were
detected with a high degree of confidence (80 percent or greater).

The implications of these Monte Carlo simulation results are inescapable. If the goal
of a given SST survey is to find evidence for small sites and/or sites with low artifact

_ densities regardless of their size, then shovel-probe spacing and layout are critical

variables of sampling design that must addressed in a probabilistically informed
manner. Archaeologists must be sure that the sampling geometry and inspection
methods are adequate for the task of intersecting and detecting archaeological sites
of a minimal requisite size and composition. They must also make a clear distinction
between intersection and detection. As we have seen, the fact that a site of given size
is highly likely to be intersected does not guarantee that site will actually be detected.
The probability of detection must also include expectations of artifact density and
density-distribution. Archaeologists must consider both intersection and detection
probability and have the ability to assign confidence estimates to these probabilities
so that reliable assessments can be made of the kinds of archaeological resources that
are likely to have been missed by a given SST survey design.

To relate these preceding Monte Carlo exercises to empirical reality, it may be
enlightening to examine the simulation results against real archaeological data on site
size and intrasite artifact density for cases where these dimensions are relatively
reduced (see, for example, Carmichael 1977; Keller 1982; McManamon 1984a; Shott
1985; Thomas 1986; Thorbahn undated). Shott (1985) provides a particularly useful
“worst case” scenario in this regard. In a critique of shovel-test sampling as a site dis-
covery technique, Shott (1985:Table 1) presents a list of 46 archaeological sites in
which some 19 sites have area measurements (in sq m) and associated intrasite
artifact densities (artifacts/sq m). A list of these sites and their size/density data is
given in Table 9. Sites are listed in ascending order of size and the original site area
measurements have been converted to diameter measurements for ease of comparison
with the simulation experiments. When the site data are compiled in this fashion,
they demonstrate an interesting phenomenon; intrasite artifact densities, while gener-
ally low for all sites in the sample, tend to be higher for sites at the small end of the
size continuum. Thus for small sites ranging from only 1.5 m to 21.5 m in diameter,
artifact densities range from 0.071 artifacts/sq m to 0.739 artifacts/sq m. Larger sites,
on the other hand, ranging in size from 31.6 to 68.0 m in diameter, consistently exhibit
artifact densities much lower than 0.10 artifacts per sq m, ranging from a high of 0.084
to a low of 0.002 artifacts/sq m. The inverse nature of this relationship is not com-
pletely understood but it has dramatic consequences for site discovery probability.


140 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

however, for archaeological projects involving intensive site-specific excavations or
even systematic subsurface testing. While many archaeologists automatically assume
that the “field work” to “post-field analysis” cost ratio would be heavily skewed toward
the latter, such is not always the case. In fact, variability seems to be the more
common. For example, in the Lubbub Creek Project in west central Alabama, Peebles’
(1983:Table 19) cost estimation data for intensive excavation and field recording
(32,921 person-hours) and post-field laboratory analysis (10,142 person-hours) indicate
a 3.2:1 ratio in favor of the former. This ratio is far from standard. In a cost analysis
of archaeological excavations conducted at eight sites in the southeastern United
States (Carnes et al.1986), the ratio of person-hours dedicated to field and nonfield
activities varied widely from site to site. Three sites ranged from 1.4:1 to 1.6:1 in favor
of field activities, four sites ranged from 1:1.2 to 1:6.0 in favor of post-field analysis and
report preparation, while one site showed an even 1:1 ratio between both activities.

The degree to which this variability affects archaeological survey projects is difficult
to assess. For pedestrian survey, Jackson et al. (1993:50) suggest the following
field/nonfield cost estimation ratio for archaeological survey projects on the Fort Hood
military reservation:

A good rule of thumb is to allow about 2.5 to 4 person-days of analysis and write-up
time for every calendar-day of field time. There are economies of scale to be
realized. There is a minimum start-up cost for the smallest field-work project
which grows only slightly as the size of the project grows. The same applies to
reports covering ten sites or 200. Bigger projects will be closer to 2.5 person-days
and smaller projects may go to 3.5 or even 4.

This estimate does not account for the use of SST and DST techniques, however. It is
valid only for pedestrian surveys in which “the only excavation done is limited to a few
shovel probes to establish site boundaries and find a shallowly buried component...If
[intensive] shovel testing is included, costs can vary tremendously depending on the
type and amount of heavy equipment involved” (Jackson et al. 1993:50). It is likely,
then, that in cases where pedestrian inspection techniques give way to repetitive
subsurface testing and sediment screening, field costs begin to rise systematically
above laboratory analysis and report-generation costs, especially where large numbers
of probes do not encounter cultural materials or where labor-intensive field processing
techniques such as water-screening are used.

In summary, then, the rule of thumb suggested by Jackson et al. (1993) provides a
reasonable field/nonfield cost ratio for pedestrian survey under ideal landscape condi-
tions. However, where subsurface testing, test excavations, or specialized deep coring
or backhoe trenching studies are required, standard ratios of field to nonfield labor
costs become problematic. As Jackson et al. (1993;p 50) note, “recent [field] costs at


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

91

their comprehensiveness, their ease of implementation, or both. Sundstrom (1993), for
example, has recently presented a mathematical procedure for estimating the ade-
quacy of site survey strategies (using formulas derived from Davis 1986). Her discus-
sion is aimed primarily at the relationship of site size and crew/probe interval spacing
for evaluating site intersection probabilities, and doesn’t take into account the related
issue of artifact detection probability. Rather, it assumes “that intersection is equated
with detection,” an assumption which by her own admission is “troublesome”
(Sundstrom 1993:94). As we have seen, both kinds of probability must be considered
in any comprehensive treatment of site discovery probability (Krakker, Shott, and
Welch 1983; Shott 1985, 1989; Nance and Ball 1986). This omission seriously
compromises the overall utility of Sundstrom’s approach for evaluations of SST effec-
tiveness, although it is still helpful for the rapid assessment of pedestrian and SST
survey designs, but only as they affect site intersection probabilities.

In an earlier study assessing SST survey effectiveness in Massachusetts, Dincauze et
al. (1980:Tables 43 and 44) present site discovery probabilities in a useful tabular
format with separate tables constructed for “site encounter” (intersection) probabili-
ties and “artifact detection” probabilities. Site intersection calculations are based on
10 different site sizes ranging from 5 to 100 m in diameter and 20 different probe
intervals ranging from 5 to 100 m (in 5-meter increments), giving a total of 200
possible outcomes. Probabilities assume a systematic square grid sampling geometry.
Artifact detection calculations are based on 10 different test-pit sizes ranging from 20
to 100 cm in width and 19 different artifact densities ranging from 1 to 100 in uneven
increments, giving a total of 190 possible outcomes. Probabilities assume a uniform
random dispersion of artifacts within a 100 sq m area. Their tabular approach is
commendable in that their treatment of overall site discovery probabilities is compre-
hensive (ie., it includes both intersection and detection probabilities) and they include
a range of possible values for several parameters of the hypothetical survey design and
the archaeological record. Two limitations can be pointed out, however. First, the
calculated intersection probabilities do not provide for alternative sampling geometries
beyond the systematic square grid. Second, the calculated detection probabilities do
not provide for alternative artifact density-distributions beyond the assumed uniform
random dispersion. Any variation of these parameters would necessitate the
construction of new probability tables. Likewise, selection of other parameter values
that fall in between or beyond those provided in the two tables would necessitate
extrapolation to arrive at the corresponding probability. In fairness to the authors, it
should be pointed out that their intent was not to provide a thorough treatment of site
discovery probability that could account for all possible scenarios of survey design and
archaeological site size and composition. Rather, their intent was simply to illustrate
the weaknesses of previous survey designs in the state of Massachusetts (see also
Hasenstab 1986).



194

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

his final report of the Phase 1 archeological survey
information pertaining to the level of effort expended
in the field reconnaissance, calculated as person-days
per unit area surveyed. Other pertinent logistical
metadata to be discussed in the final report include
accessibility, obtrusiveness of archeological remains,
degree of surface visibility, etc.

Task 3. The Phase 1 archeological survey of 7500 acres
of Poinsette Range, South Carolina

Task 4. Record all encountered archeological sites and
features and collect a sample of temporally and
functionally diagnostic archeological materials with
proper provenience data, and define the spatial limits
of all archeological sites encountered in the survey.
Black and white photographs of all archeological sites
and features shall be taken. Photographic logs noting
the survey area, site, and photograph orientation will
be maintained. All diagnostic artifacts shall be
documented with good quality black and white
photographs which includes a size scale or technical
scaled line drawings.

Sites located in the field shall be delineated on USGS
1:24000 scale maps and professional quality site maps
shall be made for each site located under this
contract. All site maps shall be scaled drawings
utilizing adequate land surveying techniques. This
will minimally require use of a surveyors compass and
metric tape or preferably transit and metric stadia.
All survey datums shall be referenced to a permanent
survey marker where possible; otherwise, the datum
shall be referenced to some well-defined permanent
feature. Rough sketch maps not drawn to scale are not
acceptable.

Task 5. Compile all field information and descriptions
of artifacts and features into a final report detailing
the location of, and areal extent of all archeological
sites. Describe in detail all recovered artifacts and
when possible, interpret diagnostic materials as to
cultural affiliation and date. Provide an assessment
and written discussion of the applicability and
adequacy of the survey model and recommendations for
any necessary refinements.

Task 6. Provide National Register of Historic Places
evaluations and recommendations for all sites located
under this survey (36CFR800). If additional testing is
recommended the contractor shall specifically address
what additional information is required for a



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

changes in the way in which archaeological inventory surveys are planned, contracted,
executed, and reported within the DoD, on all installation lands throughout the United
States. In the long run, the establishment of archaeological survey standards will
represent a cost-saving effort to gain a more accurate and representative picture of all
archaeological resources on installation lands and identify less informative or redun-

The ultimate goal of this Legacy demonstration project is to foster concrete policy

dant kinds of resources. If carried out conscientiously, this effort will permit full
compliance with the NHPA Section 106 and Section 110 legal obligation and related
public legislation, as well as ensure the collection of baseline archaeological informa-
tion necessary for informed management decisions and long-term stewardship of these
resources.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

97

Table 8. Sample output file from STP program (Kintigh 1988b) showing probabilities of site intersection and
artifact detection with 100 shovel probes arrayed with “staggered grid” sampling geometry.

File Site Artifact Density Sites In ersected Sites Detected

No. Diam Fn Mean k Ba Mumia r = Hits Number = Pot s
1 10 s O.1 0.000 1000 813 81.3 825 9 0.9 9
1 10 Ss 0.5 0.000 1000 817 81.7 822 64 6.4 64
1 10 s 1.0 0.000 1000 827 82.7 836 1130 11.3 113
1 10 s 5.0 0.000 1000 806 80.6 816 347 34.7 347
1 10 s 10.0 0.000 1000 817 81.7 820 422 42.2 422
1 10 N 0.1 1.000 1000 817 81.7 825 9 0.9 9
1 10 N 0.5 1.000 1000 825 82.5 831 60 6.0 60
1 10 N 1.0 1.000 1000 835 83.5 841 95 9.5 95
1 10 N 5.0 1.000 1000 820 82.0 827 328 32.8 328
1 10 N 10.0 1.000 1000 824 82.4 833 477 47.7 478
1 30 Ss O.1 9.000 1000 1000 100.0 6348 lll 11.1 115
1 30 s 0.5 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 6397 395 39.5 475
1 30 Ss 1.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 6395 655__65.5 927
L 30 s 5.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 6375 995° 99.5 27435
1 30 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 6346 1000 100.0 3608
1 30 N 0.1 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 6379 85 8.5 83
1 30 N 0.5 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 6329 382 38.2 457
1 30 N 1.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 6348 -598_ 59.8 B49
1 30 N 5.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 6335 963 96.3 2752
1 30 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 6315 994 99.4 3815
T 50S 0-1 0.000 1000 1000 100.0. 15791 224 22.4 257
1 50 Ss 0.5 0.000 1000 1000_100.0 15802 760 76.0 1345
1 50 s 1.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 15856 925° 92.5 2306
1 50 s 5.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 15893 1000 100.0 7179
1 50. Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 15826 1000 100.0 9380
1 50 N 0.1 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 15575 193° 19.3 212
i 50 N 0.5 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 15747 703 70.3 1206
1 50 N 1.0 1.000 1000 1000 100-0 15894 907 90.7 2203
1 50 N 5.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 16019 999 99.9 7065
1 50 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 15716 1000 100.0 9549
1 70S 0.1 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 27941 378 37.8 a7e
1 0 Ss 0.5 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 27917 g0l 90.1 2223
1 70 8S 1.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 27637 983 98.3 4195
1 70 s 5.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 28049 1000 100.0 13061
1 70 s : 1000 1000 100.0° 28408 1000 100.0 17180
T 70__N 1000 1000 100.0 27823 309 30.9 394
1 70 N 1000 1000 100.0 28275 . 1985”
1 70 N 1000 1000 100.0 28018 0 3877
1 70 N 1000 1000 100.0 27879 1000 100.0 12475
1 79 N 1000 1000 100.0 27739 1000 100.0 17146
i 100 Ss TOOO TO00 100.0 48681 S61 56.1 EEE
i 100 S 1000 1000 100.0 48407 982 98. 417
1 100 s 1000 1000 100.0 48380 1000 100.0 T7791
1 100 s 1000 1000 100.0 48423 1000 100.0 23865
1 100 Ss 1000 1000 100.0 48668 1000 100.0 30826
T1100 1000 1000 100.0 47932 542 54.2 773
1 100 WN 1000 1000 100.0 47977 956 95.6 3473
1 100 WN 1000 1000 100.0 47839 993 99.3 6655
1 100 N 1000 1000 100.0 48897 1000 100.0 21471
1100 ON 1000 1000 100.0 .48545 1000 100.0 29716

Execution Time

discussion when compared to the 8-probe sampling design depicted in Table 7. First,
note that in all cases intersection probabilities were greater than 80 percent (column
8). Indeed; for all sites larger than 30 m in diameter, regardless of artifact density and.
density-distribution, intersection probabilities were 100 percent. Thus all hypothetical
sites were intersected by at least one shovel-probe. Second, with regard to detection
probabilities, note that the simulations resulted in considerable gains over the 8-probe
sampling design. As expected, a larger proportion of smaller sites and sites with
lighter artifact densities were detected with 80 percent or greater confidence. Third,



188 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1°

SCOPE OF WORK
PREPARATION OF HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
. POINSETTE RANGE
SOUTH CAROLINA

1. THE PROJECT:

The Air Combat Command has requested the assistance of Tri-
services Cultural Resources Research Center of the U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) in
conducting a Phase 1 archeological survey of Poinsette Air Force
Range, South Carolina. The completion of this survey will
provide the baseline inventory of historic and prehistoric
archeological sites. These sites will then be evaluated for
potential inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

2. AUTHORITIES:

Federal law (NHPA Sec. 106) requires that land managing agencies
take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic
properties on or eligible for National Register of Historic
Places, including archeological sites. To support these
efforts cultural resource management compliance processes have
been codified under such laws and regulations as the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Air Force
Regulation 126-7. Military land managers are the stewards of
millions of acres of land and the archeological resources on
them. In order to comply with the Archeological Resources
Protection Act and the NHPA Sec. 110, they must develop
installation-wide inventories of archeological sites.

The work outlined is to be conducted in accordance with and in
partial fulfillment of the U.S. Air Combat Command (ACC)
obligations under the National Historical Preservation Act of
1966, as amended (PL-96-515), the Archeological and Historical
Preservation Act of 1974, as amended (PL-93-291), the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL-90-190), Air Force
Regulation 126-7, and Executive Order #11593, "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment". Applicable Air Force
regulations replace Army regulations in the base contract.

3. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES:

The Contractor shall provide full cooperation with the Shaw Air
Force Base point of contact (AFB POC), Captain John Akers,
Deputy Environmental Flight Chief and other officials appointed
by the USACERL or the Air Force base. The Contractor shall
participate in interaction concerning the AFB with
representatives of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation



102 USACERL SR 96/40, Vo! 1

1 80 s 100.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2503 1000 100.0 2174
1 80 s 120.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2499 1000 100.0 2221
1 80 s 140.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2477 1000 100.0 2202
1 80 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2483 865 86.5 1533
1 80 N 20.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2479 955 95.5 1890
1 80 N 40.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2422 982 98.2 2124
1 80 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2469 989 98.9 2239
1 80 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2457 991 99.1 2256
1 80 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2478 993 99.3 2332
1 80 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2437 988 98.8 2302
1 80 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2476 991 99.1 2367
1 100 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3600 998 99.8 2240
1 100 Ss 20.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3593 1000 100.0 2595
1 100 Ss 40.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3565 1000 100.0 2839
1 100 s 60.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3579 1000 100.0 2996
1 100 Ss 80.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3566 1000 100.0 3064
1 100 Ss 100.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3583 1000 100.0 3132
1 100 Ss 120.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3593 1000 100.0 3160
1 100 Ss 140.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3518 1000 100.0 3119
1 100 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3568 946 94.6 2153
1 100 N 20.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3601 987 98.7 2737
1 100 N 40.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3586 997 99.7 3111
1 100 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3595 1000 100.0 3269
1 100 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3574 1000 100.0 3353
1 100 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3615 1000 100.0 3434
1 100 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3542 1000 100.0 3360
1 100 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3579 1000 100.0 3424
1 120 s 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4558 1000 100.0 2996
1 120 Ss 20.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4646 1000 100.0 3539
1 120 s 40.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4605 1000 100.0 3846
1 120 Ss 60.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4536 1000 100.0 3931
1 120 Ss 80.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4574 1000 100.0 4037
1 120 s 100.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4521 1000 100.0 4066
1 120 s 120.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4570 1000 100.0 4118
1 120 s 140.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 4507 1000 100.0 4118
1 120 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4582 980 98.0 2843
1 120 N 20.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4600 995 99.5 3514
1 120 N 40.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4488 999 99.9 3828
1 120 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4494 1000 100.0 4061
1 120 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4584 1000 100.0 4248
1 120 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4548 1000 100.0 4296
1 120 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4644 1000 100.0 4403
1 120 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 4583 1000 100.0 4382
1 140 s 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 5409 1000 100.0 3704
1 140 s 20.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 $431 1000 100.0 4245
1 140 s 40.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 5528 1000 100.0 4686
1 140 s 60.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 5433 1000 100.0 4740
1 140 s 80.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 5529 1000 100.0 4914
1 140 s 100.0 0.000 2000 1000 100.0 5478 1000 100.0 4974
1 140 s 120.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 5445 1000 100.0 4983
1 140 s 140.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 5457 1000 100.0 5020
1 140 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 5437 994 99.4 3336
1 140 N 20.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 $477 997 99.7 4164
1 140 N 40.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 5464 1000 100.0 4668
1 140 N 60.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 5455 1000 100.0 4933
1 140 N 80.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 5403 1000 100.0 soil
1 140 N 100.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 5500 1000 100.0 5189
1 140 N 120.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 5536 1000 100.0 5274
1 140 N 140.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 5447 1000 100.0 5178

Execution Time 0.4 Minutes



202 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

specific recommendations shall include, but shall
not be limited to, any recommendations for
testing for National Register eligibility, if
needed. The exact meaning of the recommended
testing shall be indicated; e.g., to determine a
site’s aerial extent or depth, to verify or
determine components present, to assess research
potential and/or to determine site integrity. The
recommendations section shall also include any
interim measures which should be taken to preserve
the resource until it can be tested for National
Register significance (stop cultivation, fence,
etc.).

(9) Study Area Recommendations. Synopses of the
recommendations offered for individual resources
within the study area.

(10) References. Use the American Antiquity format
for every publication, work, or interview cited
in the report.

(11) Appendices. State of South Carolina site forms
and field notes, maps, photographs, and a list of
all artifacts collected. All locational data
shall be restricted to state site forms which will
be bound separately.

USACERL personnel will review and provide comments on the draft
OVERVIEW and RESEARCH DESIGN within seven (7) calendar days after
receipt. Comments and revisions must be addressed within fifteen
(15) calendar days after receipt so that fieldwork can proceed
without long delays.

USACERL personnel will review and provide comments, if any,
within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the final draft
report. Two final reports and a camera ready copy will be
submitted, incorporating Government comments, if any, within (30)
calendar days after receipt of comments. A copy of the
manuscript will be submitted on electronic media in MSDOS and
Wordperfect 5.1 or higher word processing format.

D. All sites will be recorded on State of South Carolina
Archeological inventory forms. Two copies of each site
form will’ be delivered to USACERL at the time of final
report submission. The contractor will be responsible
for obtaining site numbers from the South Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office.

E. All artifacts recovered during the course of the field
survey are the property of the United States Government
per 36CFR79. The contractor shall recommend a curation
facility, in the event that one is necessary, through
USACERL for the AFB POC approval. The Contractor shall



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 193

provide useful stratigraphic information. Bucket
augering will attain depths of up to 3.0 m.b.s. but
provides even less fill for visual inspection. All
probe fill should be screened minimally through 1/4"
hardware cloth and all artifactual material should be
collected and catalogued for subsequent laboratory
analysis and description.

In areas where archaeological sites are thought to be
deeply buried (i.e., > 3 m.b.s.), based on prior
geomorphological and/or archaeological evidence, some
form of deep subsurface testing (DST) should be
employed, such as coring or, in limited situations,
backhoe testing. These procedures should only be
conducted in collaboration with a professional
geomorphologist and only in situations where proposed
impacts will affect these resources.

Based on the archaeological site characteristics
revealed in the overview phase of the project, the
research design of the archaeological field survey
should stipulate the level of survey intensity to be
carried out, so that confidence estimates can assigned
to the likelihood of finding targeted archaeological
sites of a minimum size and internal artifact density.
In no case, however, should crew spacing or shallow
subsurface probe (SST) interval exceed 40 m. For a
rapid assessment of survey adequacy, the reader is
referred to Sundstrom (1993). For subsurface testing
adequacy, see Krakker et al. (1983), Nance and Ball
(1986), and Kintigh (1988).

Site Definition: Site definition should follow the
minimal criteria outlined by Joseph Tainter (1983). An
archaeological site is defined as "any location where
human behavior has resulted in the deposition of at
least two different artifacts in close proximity, or
other evidence of purposive behavior" (ibid.:132), such
as cultural features, architectural remains, etc.
Contextual integrity is also a crucial criterion as
implied by the term "deposition...in close proximity."
Tsolated finds are thus defined as occurrences of a
single artifact only, or two artifacts of an identical
nature (e.g., two conjoinable pieces of pottery, etc.).
As a tool for cultural resource management, this

definition will ensure that "...when an area is
investigated for archaeological remains, all evidence
of intentional past behavior... [is] inventoried"

(ibid.). in a good faith effort, so that appropriate
assessment can be made with regard to significance
determination, potential National Register eligibility,
and future protection and management.

Metadata Reporting: The contractor shall include in



118

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Appendix B contains a series of documents to aid the installation archaeologist or
cultural resource specialist in preparing scopes-of-work or statements-of-work in the
capacity of a COTR. The first is a two-page checklist of information that should be
included in a SOW (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1994: pp 6.5-6.6). The
second is a two-page sample format for a SOW showing the order and content of each
item (USACE 1994:6.7-6.8);. The third is a two-page list of “helpful hints” to guide the
preparation of a SOW, especially with regard to the use of proper language (USACE
1994:6.9-6.10). These documents were prepared by the Contracts Office of the U.S.
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL), but follow gener-
al guidelines for the preparation of SOWs found throughout the Federal government.
These are followed by two sample scopes-of-work, prepared by the Tri-Services
Cultural Resources Research Center at USACERL, that exemplify the comprehensive
approach to archaeological inventory survey. The first SOW was developed for a
prehistoric and historic archaeological survey project at the Poinsette Air Force Range
in South Carolina and includes both the preparatory background research leading to
a comprehensive research design, and the actual implementation of the archaeological
survey in accordance with that design. It also incorporates many of the policy recom-
mendations presented in this document regarding site definition, survey intensity, bias
assessment, and metadata reporting. The second SOW was developed for an Indefinite
Delivery contract (see discussion below) for broadly conceived cultural resource
investigation involving archaeological services (background research, geomorphological
and environmental reconstruction, and archaeological reconnaissance and testing
surveys) as well as architectural services (background research and architectural
survey and assessment) (USACE 1994:10.21-10.27).

Additional examples of SOWs for cultural resource investigations on a DoD instal-
lation can be found in Jackson et al. (1993:Appendix E). These were prepared for
implementation at Fort Hood, TX, a large military installation with extensive archaeo-
logical resources. A helpful case study for developing significance standards at this
installation is provided by Ellis et al. (1994). Two very useful government documents
to help the installation cultural resource manager prepare SOWs are the Department
of the Army’s (1986) pamphlet entitled Service Contract Administration and the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy (1980) pamphlet entitled A Guide for Writing and
Administering Performance Statements of Work for Service Contracts. Finally, the
National Park Service’s document entitled “Federal Archeological Contracting:
Utilizing the Competitive Procurement Process” (Jameson, Ehrenhard, and Husted
1990) contains an excellent discussion of the competitive proposal process and the
preparation of detailed SOWs.

Beyond the RFPs and SOWs, however, lies a another stumbling block in the archaeo-
logical contracting process, especially with regard to Federal contracts. It has to do


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

unsystematic search techniques, or worse yet, total avoidance. To quote Nance and
Ball (1989:411) on this point:

What we recommend...is responsible and enlightened use of TPS [SST herein] in
conjunction with other search techniques. The usual responses to heavily vegetated
areas are either to avoid them if at all possible, or-to search only those parts of the
area with surface exposures (or to sit around waiting for the heavy equipment to
create surface exposures). We feel that a more reasoned, systematic, and aggres-
sive approach is desirable. Hence, we would search surface exposures and examine
a survey area, both exposed and obscured parts, using shovel tests (and screens) as
well, in an effort to discover as many sites as possible...In short, we recommend
imaginative, inventive, and wise use of TPS to help in compensating for the limita-
tions of any single technique in situations that may be physically and intellectually
challenging, and therefore demand extraordinary resourcefulness.

Regional Trends in Archaeological Survey Design

With these considerations in mind, it is useful to examine data on archaeological
survey design and execution from different regions throughout the United States to
illustrate some of the issues surrounding survey intensity and the inherent differences
in pedestrian versus subsurface survey methods. Table 5 provides a listing of selected
data and results from 62 archaeological survey projects from eight culture areas of the
United States, as follows: the Northeast (5 surveys); the Southeast (14 surveys); the
Plains (11 surveys); the Great Basin (12 surveys); the Southwest (14 surveys);
California (2 surveys); Plateau (2 surveys); and the Northwest Coast (2 surveys).
Publication dates span a 15-year period, ranging from 1975 to 1990. Data categories
include the Total Area Surveyed (in square miles), the Spacing ( in meters) between
crew members or subsurface tests (depending on the survey method), the Level of
Survey Effort (calculated as number of person-days expended per square mile, after
Schiffer and Wells 1983), the Site Discovery Rate (calculated as number of prehistoric
archaeological sites discovered per person-day, after Schiffer and Wells 1983), the
Mean Site Density (calculated as the average number of prehistoric archaeological
sites per square mile), and finally the Survey Method (whether pedestrian survey or
some form of shallow subsurface testing survey). Historic archaeological sites were not
included in calculations of Site Discovery Rate and Mean Site Density due to the fact
that several of the monographs consulted were not clear on whether the historic sites
were later components of prehistoric sites or whether they were exclusively of historic
origin. This lack of consistency in defining and reporting historic period sites and
artifacts has also been noted by Zubrow (1984) in a comparative study of CRM contract
reports in New York and Colorado. Historic sites were thus eliminated from the site
tallies for this report so as not to artificially inflate the number of sites discovered. In



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

71

Southwest. At the same time, levels-of-effort expended in Eastern woodland surveys
tend to be higher due to the use of subsurface testing procedures either exclusively, or
in combination with pedestrian survey. However, fairly high levels-of-effort are also
reported for pedestrian surveys in the Southwest.

Another interesting difference between these areas has to do with Mean Site Density
(Table 6). In this case, the Northeast and Southwest data sets display generally higher
site densities than their counterparts in the Southeast, Great Basin, and Plains. The
mean site density for the Northeast is 81.3 sites/sq mi (sd = 67.6; n = 5), while for the
Southwest surveys, the figure is 41.4 sites/sq mi (sd = 87.7; n = 14). In contrast, the
mean site density in the Southeast is only 18.6 sites/sq mi, and drops to 7.8 sites/sq mi
for the Great Basin and to 4.5 sites/sq mi for the Plains (Table 6). Once again, due to
small sample sizes, caution is warranted in using these data for interpretation, but the
relationships are still noteworthy. Given these dramatic differences in mean site den-
sity, the question arises as to what factors, or combination of factors, are responsible
for this variability. While some of the differences may reasonably be attributed to real
differences in the archaeological records of the five areas, some of it may also be due
to systematic biases in the way archaeologists conduct their surveys and record the
results.

One problem is the way in which archaeologists define the concept of site, as discussed
in Chapter 2, while another has to do with the search procedures used to find archaeo-
logical remains. If more inclusive definitions are used for determining what a site is,
such that very small lithic scatters come to be included in that category, then clearly
overall site density will increase dramatically. In the northeastern SST surveys, such
definitions are common (see, for example, Lightfoot, Kalin, and Moore 1987). They
appear to be increasingly common in Southwestern pedestrian surveys, as well (e.g.,
Anschuetz, Doleman, and Chapman 1990). Related to the issue of more inclusive site
definitions is the nature of the SST method as a site discovery technique. As Lightfoot
(1986) has argued, SST site density estimates will normally be of a much larger magni-
tude than those found by pedestrian techniques, say, in the Southwest. His average
site density estimate for the Shelter Island shovel-testing survey in Long Island was
25 times greater than his estimate for an intensive pedestrian survey in the Pinedale
locality of the Southwest. According to him, this discrepancy may be due to a tendency
to record fewer and larger sites through pedestrian techniques, while SST surveys tend
to locate numerous small sites (Lightfoot 1986). This fact argues strongly for the
greater use of site area as an estimator of site density, rather than the number of sites.
While Lightfoot’s argument is much more detailed than the brief summary presented
here, it is important to bear these differences in mind when comparing survey results
from different regions where markedly different site discovery techniques were used.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 201

(6)

(7)

(8)

maps, published studies and field observations
which. briefly characterize the various categories
of deposits at the installation, and arrive at
relevant conclusions in reference to the location
of archeological sites, their depth below the
present soil surface, and their potential state
of preservation. Areas of erosion and deposition
should be identified and the potential for the
presence of archeological sites should be
evaluated. The OVERVIEW shall address in
particular the question of prehistoric
archeological site distributions in relationship
to the Carolina Bay formations. The age of these
formations and their stability shall be discussed
and integrated into the research design. The
OVERVIEW shall include a set of trial conclusions
based on this information.

Research Orientation. Develop and present
theoretical and/or substantive goals and the
methodology used in achieving them. Address
problems and testable hypotheses as iterated in
the probability model.

Methodology. Present the field procedures used to
accomplish the research design. Discuss how the
field work was organized, scheduled, and
undertaken with data on the level of effort
(person-days/area surveyed) synopsized in tabular
form . Detail the laboratory procedures and the
methods used to analyze artifacts and other data
recovered from the field.

Inventory. Address all cultural resources or
potential cultural resources identified by the
field investigation. The information provided in
this section for cultural resources located during
the course of the field investigation shall
include, but shall not be limited to: site name
(if any); site number; County; State; site type
(lithic scatter, farmstead, mound, etc.);
component (s) or probable component (s); elevation;
description of the topographic position of the
site size (or presumed size); strata and depth
(if known); present vegetation; ground vegetation
and surface visibility at time of field
investigation (in percent, 10-20%, 20-30%, etc.);
nearest water (name and distance and elevation) ;
condition (address current, projected, or past
known impacts); if collections were made, by whom
and when; a review of artifacts collected; a
description of any previous investigations at the
site, location, and artifacts collected; and site
specific recommendations, and remarks. The site



16

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

5 Contracting and Cost-estimation Procedures

The Contracting Process ..
Cost Estimation for Pedestrian Survey . .

Cost Estimation for Shallow Subsurface Testing (SST) Survey ...........--. 127
Cost Estimation for Deep Subsurface Testing (DST) Survey ..........----. 134
Cost Estimation for Post-Field Analysis and Report-Generation ............. 139 *

Recommendations
Management Implications

6 Summary and Recommendations .............. 000 c eee e rece eeeee 147
SuMMary 2 eee ete 147
Recommendations 2.0.2.0... cece cece ene 148

References 6.0.0... cece ete teen eee nee 150

Appendix A: Site Definitions from Regional Archaeological Literature in the
Continental United States 2.2.2.6... 6c eee eee eee eee 175

Appendix B: Statement-of-Work Guidelines .... 6.6.6.6. 0c eee eee eee eee 181

Distribution


160

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Isaac, G., J. Harris, and F. Marshall, “Small is Informative: The Application of the Study of Mini-sites
and Least Effort Criteria in the Interpretation of the Early Pleistocene Archaeological Record at
Koobi Fora, Kenya,” Union Internacional de Ciencias Prehistoricas y Protohistoricas, Actas del X
Congreso (UNESCO, Mexico, 1981), pp 102-119.

Isaacson, J. S., R. Edging, K. Landreth, C. Neidig, and D. K. Mann, “GIS Applications and Cultural
Resource Planning at the United States Military Academy and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,“
in Automation Tools for Cultural Resource Managers: Proceedings of a Corps of Engineers
Symposium on Automation Tools and Database Development for Cultural Resource Managers, F.
L. Briuer, ed. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
1992), pp 16-32.

Jackson, J., C. Ramirez, P. McGuff, and K. Landreth, Cultural Resources Management, Army
Environmental Manager's Handbook Series, Coordination Draft (USACERL, Champaign, IL, 1993).

Jameson, J. H., Jr., J. E. Ehrenhard, and W. M. Husted, Federal Archeological Contracting: Utilizing the
Competitive Procurement Process, Cultural Resources Technical Brief No. 7 (U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Archaeological Assistance Program, Washington, DC, 1990).

Jennings, J. D., A. R. Schroedl, and R. N. Holmer, Sudden Shelter, Anthropological Papers No. 103
(University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 1980).

Johnson, D. L., and C. S. Alexander, “A Portable Coring Device for Rapid Site-Sampling,” Plains
Anthropologist vol 20 (1975), pp 135-137.

Johnson, N. L., and S. Kotz, Discrete Distributions (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1969).

Jones, G. T., S. K. Campbell, and S. J. Studenmund, An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Urban Levee
Alinements (sic) in the Centralia-Chehalis Area, Lewis County, Washington, Reconnaissance Report
No. 17 (University of Washington, Institute of Environmental Studies, Office of Public
Archaeology, Seattle, WA, 1978).

Judge, W. J., “Transect Sampling in Chaco Canyon: Evaluation of a Survey Technique,” in Archaeologi-
cal Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, A. C. Hayes, D. M. Brugge and W. J. Judge, eds., Chaco
Canyon Studies, Publications in Archeology No. 18A (National Park Service, Washington, DC,
1981), pp 107-187.

Judge, W. J., J. 1. Ebert, and R. Hitchcock, “Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey,” in Sampling
in Archaeology, J. W. Mueller ed. (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1975), pp 82-123.

Judge, W. J., and L. Sebastian, eds., Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method,
and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO, 1988).

Kane, A. E., W. D. Lipe, T. A. Kohler, and C. K. Robinson, compilers, Dolores Archaeological Program:
Research Designs and Initial Results (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, CO, 1986).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 99
These consequences can be illustrated by Table 9. Site size and intrasite artifact density
+ as . . data for 19 archaeological sites in central
comparing the Michigan site data with the Michigan.
simulation exercise presented in Table 8 for Site Site Size | Artifact Density
the intensive 100-probe/hectare sampling (m in diam) (#/sq im)
scheme. Using only the site size data, we
can see that all sites greater than or equal to wae 1S ae
30 m in diameter would have a 100 percent 20ACT9 709 oar
probability of being intersected, but not 20AC75h 13.4 0.348
necessarily detected (see Table 8, column 8). 20AC81h 13.4 0.155
For smaller site sizes, 10.9 to 21.5 m in dia- 20AC93 13.4 0.221
. . ae 20AC64 13.5 0.071
meter, intersection probability would drop Q0ACTIA 215 0.326
somewhat but would still remain above 80 20AC63 31.6 0.043
percent (Table 8, column 8), while for the 20AC96 32.3 0.032
smallest sites, 1.5 m and 7.4 m in diameter, 20AC69 37.3 0.01
-intersection probability would fall well below en ae on
the 80 percent confidence threshold. Detec- 20AC80A 53,9 0.01 3
tion probabilities, however, present a some- Q0AC65 54 0.001
what bleaker picture, even with this rela- 20AC74h 55 0.084
tively intensive sampling scheme (100 20AC91 56.9 0.026
probes/ha). For example, for sites over 30 m st a oe

in diameter, the highest artifact density is
0.084 artifacts/sq m for a site measuring
55 m in diameter. The closest approxima-
tion for these variables in Table 8 would be the 50-m diameter site with a density of
0.1 artifacts/sq (columns 2 and 4). The corresponding detection probabilities for these
variables range from 19.3 to 22.4 percent depending, respectively, on whether a
negative binomial or a sinusoidal artifact distribution is being simulated (column 11).

(Source: after Shott 1985:Table 1).

Detection probabilities for the remainder of the sites greater than 30 m in diameter
would be considerably lower due to their extremely low artifact densities. For the
smaller sites (i.e., less than 30 m in diameter), the slightly higher artifact densities are
still not high enough to compensate for the small site sizes. Even a 30-m diameter site
with a density of 0.5 artifacts/sq m has only a 38 to 39 percent chance of detection
(column 11). As Table 9 shows, the size/density combinations for the smaller Michigan
sites are even lower than this hypothetical example, thereby precluding their detection
at reasonably high confidence threshold (e.g., 80 percent or higher). Thus, while the
larger size (greater than 30 m) of certain sites favors their intersection, the consis-
tently low artifact densities on these sites results in very low probabilities of detection.
Conversely, for sites with relatively higher artifact densities (greater than 0.1 arti-
facts/sq m), which should favor site detection, the extremely small size of the sites (less
than 22 m in diameter) still results in generally low probabilities of detection.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

21

King’s proposal has been addressed to a certain extent by the recent implementation
of the National Archeological Database (NADB)—Reports Online system (Farley, Limp
and Canouts 1991), which is sponsored by the Archeological Assistance Program of the
National Park Service and managed by the Center for Advanced Spatial Technology
(CAST) of the University of Arkansas. Even here, however, the system is principally
designed to provide bibliographic search capabilities on a national scale and provides
no information on the complex issue of survey intensity and “the quality of survey
work” as suggested by King and Cole (1978:132). Where such information exists, itis
generally managed by the individual State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or
large state-level research institutions (e.g., Byrd 1981) and exhibits varying levels of
systematic organization, computerization, and public accessibility. A similar fate has
likewise muted the call for national-level standardization of survey procedures to
ensure minimal levels of quality control. Autonomous SHPOs typically provide a
series of guidelines regarding desired levels of survey intensity, appropriate discovery
procedures, and survey reporting in their particular state, but these vary considerably
across the country, ranging from stringent to unspecified.

Through the Legacy Resource Management Program, the Department of Defense has
taken the initiative of creating standard procedures for conducting intensive archaeo-
logical surveys on a nationwide basis. This initiative falls under one of nine legislative
purposes of the Legacy Program: i.e., “to establish a standard Department of Defense
methodology for the collection, storage, and retrieval of all biological, geophysical,
cultural, and historical resource information...” (United States Department of Defense
1991:2; emphasis added). Thus one of the many preliminary recommendations of the
Legacy working group overseeing cultural resources treated the problem of cultural
resources survey (including archaeological field survey) in the following terms:

DoD should consider developing national standards for cultural resources surveys
on its lands, in cooperation with other land managing agencies, and establishing
means of accelerating survey efforts on DoD lands and in areas affected by DoD
actions. Such surveys should address the full range of cultural resources...DoD
should consider ways of screening data to ensure that it is accurate and sufficient
to meet management requirements (Neumann, Warren-Findley, and King 1991:14;
emphasis added).

Given the extensiveness of DoD landholdings throughout the United States and the
highly diverse array of cultural resources encompassed by these lands (R. Christopher
Goodwin and Associates undated; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1994),
standardizing survey procedures is not a trivial problem. To be effective, survey stan-
dards will have to become a permanent and routine component of historic preservation
planning on military installations, as well as Requests-for-Proposal and Scopes-of-
Work developed for the contracting of specific archaeological inventory surveys.



50

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

6. Content definitions [which] specify that sites are features on the landscape that
contain a laundry list of items. This list specifies the types of debris often left behind
by prehistoric and historic populations.

7. Density definitions [which] suggest that the stringency of a site definition varies with
the density of archaeological remains...

Tainter then goes on to enumerate a number of conceptual and methodological
problems with these definition which render them “unsuitable for management pur-
poses, and often unsuitable for the broader research interests which management is
designed to protect” (Tainter 1983).

But apart from their individual unsuitability lies the overriding problem of the non-
comparability that results from their simultaneous implementation within the same
regional area of a Federal land managing agency. The next section briefly considers
some of the archaeological implications of this variability in the definition of archaeo-
logical sites.

Some Consequences of Variable Site Definitions

Two examples can be used to illustrate the undesirable consequences of variable site
definitions in evaluating archaeological survey results within the same study area.
Both are “classic” examples drawn from the abundant literature on archaeological
sampling and regional survey. The first comes from the Cache River Basin of north-
eastern Arkansas. As mentioned in the previous section, Schiffer and House (1975:48)
defined sites in the Cache River Archeological Project using the subjective quantitative
criteria of “a double hand-full of cultural material” within a site area of unspecified
size (see Appendix A: Number 20). However, “locations of cultural material not
meeting this criterion were not designated as sites but were recorded” (Schiffer and
House 1975), presumably as nonsites, isolated clusters, or isolated finds, but with
significantly less analytical attention. Klinger (1976) subsequently conducted a
regional survey in the Village Creek drainage adjacent to the Cache River study area
and found the Schiffer/House definition overly restrictive and exclusionary given the
diverse nature of archaeological manifestations in the area. As a corrective measure,
he defined a site as “any discrete spatial loci exhibiting evidence of past cultural
behavior, whether it be a single sherd or flake” (Klinger 1976:55; emphasis original).
Perhaps not unexpectedly, this procedure resulted in a much higher density of
archaeological sites discovered. In an extension of one of the original transects
surveyed by Schiffer and House (Cache Transect 1), which Klinger (1976) refers to as


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

95

Table 7. Sample output file from STP program (Kintigh 1988b) showing probabilities of site intersection and
artifact detection with 8 bes arrayed with “optimal spacing” sampling geometry.

File Site Artifact Density No. Sites Intersected Sites Detected
No. Diam Fn Mean k Sites Number Pct Hits Number Pct s
i 10 s O.1 0.000 1000 62 6.2 62 L O.1 L
1 10 s 0.5 0.000 1000 55 5.5 55 5 0.5 5
1 10 s 1.0 0.000 1000 67 6.7 67 4 0.4 4
1 10 s 5.0 0.000 1000 62 6.2 62 25 2.5 25
1 10 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 69 6.9 69 43 4.3 43
1 10 N o.1' 1.000 1000 74 7.4 74 2 0.2 2
1 10 N 0.5 1.000 1000 71 7.1 71 6 0.6 6
1 10 N 1.0 1.000 1000 el 8.1 81 6 0.6 6
1 10 N 5.0 1.000 1000 74 7.4 74 31 3.1 31
1 10 N 10.0 1.000 1000 63 6.3 63 41 4.1 41
1 30 Ss 0.1 0.000 1000 479 47.9 479 6 0.6 6
1 30 Ss 0.5 0.000 1000 504 50.4 504 34 3.4 4
1 30 s 1.0 0.000 1000 496 49.6 496 3 7.3 73
1 30 Ss 5.0 0.000 1000 50S 50.5 Sos 229° «22.9 229
1 30 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 519 51.9 519 320 32.0 320
1 30 N O.1 1.000 1000 497 49.7 497 8 0.8 8
1 30 N 0.5 1.000 1000 470 47.0 470 29 2.9 29
1 30 N 1.0 1.000 1000 521 52.1 521 7k 7.1 71
1 30 N 5.0 1.000 1000 480 48.0 480 183 18.3 183
1 30 N 10.0 1.000 1000 496 49.6 496 303 30.3 303
1 50 Ss O.1 0.000 1000 $76 97.6 1129 18 1.8 18
1 50 Ss 0.5 0.000 1000 977 97.7 1143 95 9.5 95
i 50 s 1.0 0.000 1000 982 98.2 1138 163 18.8 188
1 50 s 5.0 9.000 1000 969 96.9 1132 533 53.8 538
1 50 s 10.0 0.000 1000 982 98.2 1142 706, 70.6 707
1 so N O.L 1.000 1000 985 98.5 1121 13 1.3 13
1 50 N 0.5 1.000 1000 983 98.3 1148 76 7.6 793
i 50 N 1.90 1.000 1000 975 97.5 1116 134 13.4 136
i 50 N 5.0 1.000 1000 979 97.9 1136 454 45.4 486
1 50 N 10.0 1.000 1000 984 98.4 1172 622 62.2 683
1 70 s O.1 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 1985 27 2.7 27
i 70 s 0.5 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 1969 161 16.1 163
i 70. s 1.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 2014 296 29.6 306
T os 5.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 1981 $08 80.8 923
1 790 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 1955 967 96.7 1254
T 79 N 0.1 T.000 1000 1000 100.0 1920 36 3-6 36
i 70 N 0.5 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 1976 138 13.8 147
1 70 N 1.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 1966 252 25.2 277
L 70 N 5.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 2005, 643 64.9 877,
| 10-0 1.000 1000 1000 100-07 2001 602 80.2 1200]
1 100 Ss O.1 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3555 St $.1 St
1 100 s 0.5 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3531 271 «(27.1 285
1100 S. 1,0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3577 458 45.8 532
i 100 Ss 5.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3544 951 95.1 1715
1 100 Ss 10.0 0.000 1000 1000 100.0 3576 936 99.6 2183
1 100 N 0.1 1.000 1000 i000 100.0 3583 50 5.0 51
1 100 N 0.5 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3589 228 «422.8 245
1 100 N 1.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3581 403 40.3 505.
i 100 N 5.0 1.000 1000 1000 100.0 3620 B5i 86.1 1585
1 100 N 10.0 1.000 1000 1000 _ 100.0 3565 952 95.2 2169
Exécution Time 0.1 Minutes .

intersection probabilities are given in columns 7, 8, and 9, while those for the detection
probabilities are given in columns 10, 11, and 12.

In general terms, within each site size category, substantial gains are made in inter-
section and detection probabilities as artifact density increases. In all cases, sinus-
oidal density functions resulted in slightly elevated probabilities when compared to
those of the negative binomial function. This is due to the fact that sinusoidal
distributions are considerably more clustered around a centroid, while negative bino-
mial distributions are likely to have more open space between groups of smaller



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Regionalization of the data has been carried out by grouping the bibliographic refer-
ences into 8 basic geographic areas each of which is further subdivided into constituent
“archaeological regions,” giving a total of 44 regions. Standard reference texts have
been consulted for this purpose. The basic geographical areas of the continental
United States follow the “culture area” scheme of the Handbook of North American
Indians (W. Sturtevant, general editor) and consist of the following: Northeast,
Southeast, Plains, Great Basin, Southwest, Plateau, Northwest Coast, and California
(see Table 2). Further subdivision into discrete “archaeological regions’ is often a hotly
contested issue, but again, standard reference texts have been used for this purpose.
Where possible, the Handbook subdivisions have been employed (i.e., for the Northeast
(Trigger 1978], Great Basin [D’Azevedo 1986], Southwest [Ortiz 1979], and Northwest
Coast [Suttles 1990]). In the other four cases, well-known macro-regional summaries
by recognized scholars have been used (i.e., for the Southeast [Hudson 1976], Plains
[Wedel 1983], Plateau [Aikens 1983], and California [Moratto 1984)).

The second study is aimed at a more detailed treatment of temporal variability in the
archaeological record of two contrastive regions: the Illinois region of the Northeastern
culture area (see Volume 2) and the eastern region of the Great Basin culture area (see
Volume 3). The purpose of selecting these regions is to compare two archaeological
sequences that differ markedly in terms of sociocultural complexity and in terms of
their corresponding land surface conditions. Because of these differences, archaeolog-
ical research designs and site discovery procedures demonstrate interesting contrasts
and thus serve to illustrate the issue of differential survey intensity. Here emphasis
is placed on site-specific excavation and subsurface testing data in order to describe
the size and internal complexity of archaeological sites throughout the two sequences.
The treatment is not exhaustive, however, in that priority is placed on monographs
that provide information on large areal exposures within a given site. Generally these
are large-scale excavation/mitigation projects. The site descriptions are assembled by
archaeological component following a standard format. That is, for each component,
a specific project and the corresponding sites pertaining to that component are
enumerated. Table 3 provides a list of the items included in the characterization of
each site. This information provides baseline data for detailed characterizations of
archaeological sites in these two contrastive regions discussed in Chapter 3, and will
serve to illustrate the problem of survey intensity under these different conditions.



168

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Reed, A. D., and P. R. Nickens, “The Cisco Cultural Resource Study: A Sample-Oriented Inventory,
East-Central Utah, 1978-1979,” in Sample Inventories of Oil & Gas Fields in Eastern Utah, P. R.
Nickens, ed., Cultural Resource Series No. 5 (Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, UT,
1980).

Reher, C. A., ed., Settlement and Subsistence Along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey (University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, 1977).

Roberson, P. A., “The Need for Comparability in Discovering and Examining Prehistoric Sites in Contract
Archeology: An Example from Rhode Island,” Contract Abstracts and CRM Archeology, vol 1, no. 3
(1981) pp 48-50.

Rodeffer, M. J., S. H. Holschlag, and M. K. D. Cann, Greenwood County: An Archaeological Reconnais-
sance (Lander College, Greenwood, SC, 1979).

Rodeffer, M. J., and J. R. Galm, eds., A Cultural Resources Survey and Site Testing of the Bonneville
Power Administration’s Malin-Warner 230 KV Transmission Line, Klamath County, Oregon, and
Modoc County, California, Reports in Archaeology and History, 100-36 (Eastern Washington
University Cheney, WA, 1985).

Rodgers, J. B., An Archaeological Investigation of Buckeye Hills East, Maricopa County, Arizona,
Anthropological Research Paper No. 10 (Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 1976).

Rogge, A. E., “An Overview of Bureau of Reclamation Cultural Resource Contracting Procedures: A View
from the Arizona Projects Office,” in Scholars as Contractors: Report of a Workshop on the Contract
Archeology Process, W. J. Mayer-Oakes and A. W. Portnoy, eds. (U.S. Department of the Interior,
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Interagency Archeological Services Division,
Washington, DC, 1979), pp 38-43.

Rosenberg, J. M., Dictionary of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1986).

Savinskii, I. D., Probability Tables for Locating Elliptical Underground Masses with a Rectangular Grid
(Consultants Bureau, New York, 1965).

Schiffer, M. B., “Archeological Research and Contract Archeology,” in The Cache River Archaeological
Project: An Experiment in Contract Archeology, M. B. Schiffer and H. House, eds., Research Series,
8 (Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, 1975), pp 1-7.

Schiffer, M. B., Formation Processes in the Archaeological Record (University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, NM, 1987).

Schiffer, M. B., “The Structure of Archaeological Theory,” American Antiquity, vol 53, no. 3 (1988), pp 461-
485.

Schiffer, M. B., and J. H. House, eds., The Cache River Archaeological Project: An Experiment in Contract
Archeology, Research Series, 8 (Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, 1975).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 133

probes, Hoffman’s study resulted in a notably high probe completion rate of 207 probes
per person day (Table 14). As such, it exemplifies the variable nature of completion
rates for shallow coring and augering, depending on the specific purposes of the sub-
surface exploration. For purposes of areally extensive site discovery through shallow
coring or augering, McManamon’s (1984a) completion rate of 46 probes per person-day
(with a range of 24 to 72) is probably the most reliable estimator (Table 14).

A final subsurface testing technique included here for comparison only is the 1-m x
1-m test-pit (Table 14). This technique is not widely used for purposes of site discovery
in areally extensive survey tracts due to its very low completion rates and limitations
on the depths that can be attained in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, it is more
appropriately used as a site assessment technique in later phases of investigation
where more modest numbers of pits would be excavated. Table 14 presents data on
two survey projects where 1-m x 1-m test-pits have been used for purposes of site
discovery. In Nicholson’s (1983) comparative study in southern Manitoba, Canada,
test-pits were excavated to a depth of 20 cm, yielding some 200,000 cu cm of screened.
sediment with an associated completion rate of 1.5 probes per person-day (Table 14).
In another SST survey carried out in Canada, in this case northeastern British
Columbia, Spurling (1980) reports a completion rate of about 2.5 probes per person day
(range:2 to 3) for 1-m x 1-m test-pits (Table 14), but provides incomplete data on the
depths attained (see discussion by McManamon 1984a:265). Judging from a single
profile drawing (Spurling 1980: Figure 11), some pits apparently reached a depth of
50 cm, although it is unclear if all test-pits were routinely excavated to this depth.
Sediment volume for a test-pit of these dimensions would be 500,000 cu cm (Table 14).

In choosing between test-pits, shovel-tests, postholes, and cores or augers, it is
important to realize their relative advantages and disadvantages. Test-pits and
shovel-tests afford a greater “inspection window” in that they normally retrieve a
greater volume of sediment. Thus they generally have higher intersection and pro-
ductivity probabilities associated with them, assuming that cultural materials are
located in the top 50 cm or so of the landscape. Test-pits are extremely time-consum-
ing , however, when compared to shovel-tests, and are not usually deemed practical
as a site discovery technique. Postholes and augers/cores yield progressively lower
amounts of sediment and are thus less likely to locate cultural materials unless they
are extremely abundant and evenly distributed across the subsurface. The advantage
they have over test-pits and shovel-tests, however, is the ability to penetrate more
deeply into the subsurface (up to 1.25 or 1.50 m for postholes; up to 2.00 m for cores
and augers) and yield comparatively more information about site-soil/deposit relation-
ships (Abbott and Neidig 1993). Table 14 shows comparative data on estimated
completion rate per person-day and on estimated volume of sediment recovered for the
four techniques that may be useful in making cost-estimates for SST surveys.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

17

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Tables

Components of a typical historic preservation plan (HHP) showing
role of archaeological survey standards in preservation process ......

A formal model of test pit sampling. ......---- sce e eee eee eee
The role of TPS in archaeological survey ....----- sees ee eee eee
Scatterplot of six archaeological surveys conducted in different
survey tracts of the Fort Hood military installation, showing positive

correlation between level-of-effort and site density ..........--..-5

Example of hypothetical sampling unit resulting from PLACESTP
PHOQrAM eee eee eee ee

Four examples of artifact distributions with different density
functions . 0... eee tenet t een

Sample database record for selected data extracted from archaeo-
logical survey monograph .....- +e. eee cece eet eee eens

List of 8 culture areas within the continental United States and their
44 “archaeological regions” as defined in this report ......-++-+-+++

List of items included in site characterizations ..............20555
Classification of 25 site definitions listed by culture area ..........-
Selected archaeological survey projects in eight culture areas of
the United States showing various aspects of methodology and

resultS 2. ee eet eens

Mean, standard deviation, and sample size values for data
categories listed in Table 5, grouped by culture area ..........----



61

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Several archaeologists in the Southwestern United States have compiled data on this
hypothesized relationship as a means of testing its validity. For example, Plog, Plog,
and Wait (1978:391) compiled a list of 12 large-scale archaeological surveys from which
they were able to extract data on survey intensity (person days/sq mi) and site density
(number of sites/sq mi). A scatterplot of these data show a positive linear relationship
having a Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.888 (significant at the
0.01 level) for all prehistoric sites. In a slightly different vein, Schiffer and Wells
(1982:353) compiled data from 12 archaeological survey projects regarding survey
effort (number of person-days expended/sq mi), crew spacing (in meters) and site
density (number of sites/sq mi). They show that the relationship between crew spacing
and survey effort, while seemingly direct, is actually curvilinear in nature (Schiffer
and Wells 1982:352) such that progressively smaller crew spacing (ranging from 50
m to 10 m) results in only gradual increases in survey effort until intervals of less than
10 m are achieved, at which point level of effort increases dramatically. This phenom-
enon may be due to greater attention paid to the discovery and recording of “nonsite”
data in certain surveys, or alternatively, to genuinely low site densities in the study
area, which would require shorter crew spacing and slower inspection procedures in
order to locate sites at all. Judge (1981:129) has argued that increasing survey
intensity involves a “point of diminishing returns;” i.e., a point beyond which surface
survey will be nonproductive. While it is true that “as intensity of survey increases,
so does the frequency of sites discovered...” (Judge 1981:129), there is an upper limit
placed on the effectiveness and productivity of the search procedure. “Even though
survey intensity can be increased beyond this point, the information return becomes
increasingly less productive due to the limitation on sites visible from the surface”
(Judge 1981:129; emphasis added).

In recent years, and largely as a result of the increased use of subsurface testing
programs, the issue of survey intensity has come into even sharper focus due to the
greatly reduced “inspection window” that results from subsurface probing (Wobst
1983). It should be noted that subsurface testing surveys can involve a variety of
specific techniques each having different properties, relative site discovery efficiencies,
and different costs. To avoid confusion, these are collectively referred to herein as
shallow subsurface testing (or SST) surveys in that they range only from 50 to 100 cm
below the surface and are generally limited to no more than 75 cm in depth. In order
of their relative size or inspection window, these techniques can be roughly divided
into the following:

1. shovel-testing (Dincauze et al. 1980; Gatus 1980; Lynch 1980; Spurling 1980;
Stone 1981a; Nicholson 1983; Krakker, Shott, and Welch 1983; McManamon
1984a, 1994; Shott 1985,1989; Nance and Ball 1986, 1989; Lightfoot 1986, 1989;
Hasenstab 1986);



130 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Using McManamon’s average rate of rate of 18 probes/p-d as a reasonable approxima-
tion, and assuming a 40-cm-diameter probe size and 25 to 75 cm depth, we can cal-
culate the Level of SST Survey Effort for shovel-testing as follows:

if # of probes/18 = # of person-days required,
then # of p-d/total area surveyed = Level of SST Survey Effort

For example, suppose we decide to intensively survey a 15-hectare tract of land by
placing 100 shovel probes over each hectare in a staggered grid pattern with 10-m
probe intervals. To calculate the level of effort required to complete this work, we first
calculate the number of person-days required, as follows: 1500/18 = 83.3 p-d. Dividing
this figure by the total area surveyed (in ha), we obtain the following: 83.3 p-d/15 ha
= 5.55 p-d/ha. Converting this estimate to square miles, then, we arrive at a figure of
1437.45 p-d/sq mi.

This same algorithm can be used to arrive at level-of-effort estimates for Lightfoot,
Kalin, and Moore’s (1987; see also Lightfoot 1986) shovel-test survey on Shelter Island
by substituting their value of 25 of probes per person-day (i.e., the median of their
range estimate from 20 to 30 probes per person-day) when using unit sizes of 30 cm x
30 cm. They executed a total of 5523 shovel-tests within a 44-hectare study area.
Thus, 5523/25 = 220.92 person-days. Dividing this figure by the total area surveyed
(in ha), we obtain the following: 220.92/44 = 5.02 p-d/ha. or 1300.18 p-d/sq mi (see
Lightfoot 1986:500 and Figure 8).

It is important to point out that the crucial values suggested by McManamon and
Lightfoot for number of completed probes per person-day are by no means written in.
stone (as Nicholson’s [1983] data demonstrate). They are both averaged values with
associated ranges and they are both derived from large data sets gathered in two
comprehensive SST survey projects in the Northeast. They should not be regarded as
all-purpose “cookbook” recipes for rote use throughout the United States. Local
archaeological experience should ultimately dictate the value used in a given case, but
the McManamon and Lightfoot values still serve as useful points of reference. In cases
where no prior experience exists, they can be used to make reasonable preliminary
cost-estimates based upon published archaeological literature.

The above algorithm can be equally applied to other kinds of SST procedures such as
postholing, augering, and shallow coring if you have reliable estimates of the number
of probes completed per person-day. While the literature on this topic is not abundant,
some data do exist. For example, in a recent summary article on posthole testing,
Abbott and Neidig (1993:42) provide time estimates for the execution and thorough
recording of an “average posthole test in a typical upland silt loam soil, if taken to a



114 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

installation “on the grounds of being either totally disturbed or excessively wet”
(Hasenstab and Resnick 1990:296). On other types of installations, these impacts are
much greater. On many Air Force bases ranging from 5000 to 8000 acres, for example,
landscape alterations required for the construction of buildings, roads, hangar/runway
complexes, and other infrastructural works will often affect a major portion of the
installation’s property (John Isaacson, Principal Investigator, U.S. Army Construction
Engineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, IL, professional discussion, 1994).
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, provides a particularly good example. In a GIS-
based predictive archaeological modeling study of this installation, undisturbed soils
were found on less than half of the installation’s 8,000-acre property (Isaacson et al.
1992:Figure 2). All installation managers must consider these impacts and disturb-
ance processes in their Historic Preservation Plans and in the specific planning and
implementation of archaeological inventory surveys. General overviews on this topic
in the archaeological literature include Wood and Johnson (1978); Wildesen (1982),
and Brace and Klein (1984). Briuer and Niquette (1983) provide a general discussion
of military impacts and Carlson and Briuer (1986) provide a case study on the
monitoring of military impacts at known archaeological sites on the Fort Hood, TX,
military reservation.

The increase in site recording that results from greater survey intensity and more
inclusive site definitions is a problem faced by all archaeologists. The obvious solution
is increased implementation of automated field recording techniques, such as hand-
held calculators and data-recorders, pen-based computer hardware, electronic distance
measuring (EDM) equipment, etc., which permit downloading of field data on a daily
basis for management, analysis, and storage in master databases. Many of these same
automated systems are now being implemented by natural resource managers on
military installations, so that collaborative efforts in the procurement, use, and main-
tenance of such equipment at the installation level are now possible. It is imperative
that automated recording devices and specific hardware and software suitable for
archaeological field recording of SST data, controlled surface collection data, and lim-
ited site descriptions be thoroughly evaluated by the DoD so that specific guidelines
can be established for their future field application by installation managers or the
archaeological consultants that they contract.


116

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

archaeology nor familiarity with current Federal legislation governing these resources.
As a result, contractual language often exhibits little sensitivity to the complex
decisionmaking issues encountered in planning and executing inventory surveys for
Section 106/Section 110 compliance. It is not necessary that archaeologists actually
write the final scopes-of-work since they are usually unfamiliar with the technical
language and legal aspects of such documents. For this reason, the task of preparing
a comprehensive scope-of-work should ordinarily be carried out by an agency’s Con-
tracting Officer, who is the ultimate legal authority in all aspects of contract procure-
ment and administration. Nevertheless, the expertise of a seasoned archaeologist or
cultural resource specialist is indispensable in providing that officer with technical
guidance and advice as a Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR).

A COTR’s duties usually include, but are not limited to, the following twelve tasks
(Management Concepts Incorporated 1993:1.11-1.12):

¢ Establishing program or project objectives;

¢ Developing requirements;

¢ Scheduling;

. Estimating;

¢ Budgeting;

¢ Developing quality controls;

. Developing specifications and work statements;

° Developing specific project plans, including financial status;

* Coordinating project planning with the contracting office;

« Evaluating proposals;

. Participating in the source selection process; and

* Monitoring work progress; identifying delays, determining needed changes, and
suspensions.

For the contracting of archaeological inventory surveys or other kinds of archeological
investigations, an experienced archaeologist or cultural resource specialist should be
sought on matters involving the planning, implementation, monitoring, and report
evaluation of an archaeological survey project. They should also be capable of pro-
viding the Contracting Officer with expert advice on Federal historic preservation
legislation.

One consequence of poor archaeological input in the preparation of a SOW is the
implementation of inappropriate or ineffectual site discovery procedures for certain
landscape conditions or ground cover circumstances. If it is not explicitly stated in the
SOW when and under what conditions subsurface testing must be implemented, or
that the fill of all subsurface probes must be screened with one-quarter inch hardware



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

excludes from analytical study large portions of the archaeological record represented
by small, light-density artifact scatters and isolated finds, which often are not con-
sidered “sites” in the traditional sense. Some degree of standardization in the defini-
tion of this concept is essential for broad comparability of survey results on DoD
installations.

The development of standards for site definition and inventory survey procedures in
the present document has been based on an extensive analysis of the “gray literature”
(conference presentations, unpublished manuscripts, etc.) produced both in cultural
resource management contexts and in academic contexts. The analysis provides
baseline data for developing regionally and temporally sensitive models of archaeologi-
cal site characteristics. These regional and temporal models can help to determine
appropriate site discovery procedures and levels of survey intensity (i.e., the interval
spacing between pedestrian survey crews or between subsurface test-units) for
inventory surveys carried out on DoD lands. A number of statistical methods exist in
the archaeological literature for accurately predicting the size of sites that a survey
design will recover at a given the level of confidence. These are reviewed for their
applicability in regionally sensitive survey standards. Recommendations also are
made regarding the operational definition of archaeological site to be used in a
standard manner in all DoD inventory surveys.

Once regional standards have been established, person-hour or person-day estimates
for different site discovery procedures (e.g., pedestrian survey, shovel test-pit surveys,
deep coring programs, etc.) can be calculated. These figures can then be used to
estimate the cost of conducting inventory surveys on installation lands at an
acceptable degree of effectiveness. Estimates of discovery probability should vary
depending on the size and density of the sites being prospected since surveying for
sites of small diameter in areas of low site density is more labor intensive than
surveying for larger sites in areas of higher site density. The expected size/density of
the sites to be recovered in an inventory survey, together with the estimates of artifact
density and density-distribution, should (a) reflect the local cultural sequence, (b) be
explicitly stated in the cultural overview prepared for the installation, and (c) be
restated in the installation manager’s scope-of-work and in the contractor’s survey
design as a series of probability estimates for the retrieval of targeted archaeological

resources.

The overall goal of this project is to provide quantifiable and statistically defensible
methods for conducting archaeological survey on DoD lands. It will also result in
greater comparability of archaeological survey data from DoD installations across the
United States, thereby enhancing cultural resource assessment capabilities between
installations having variable landscape conditions and regional prehistories. Finally,


USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

93

Fa xx 7 x x x |
i

(Source: Reproduced by permission of the author and the Society for American Archaeology from
American Antiquity, vol 53, no. 4, 1988.)

Figure 5. Example of hypothetical sampling unit resulting from PLACESTP Program.

shovel-testing surveys. The output file from this exercise also includes a statement of
the maximum diameter of a site that could escape detection given the test unit spacing
and layout employed. The hypothetical sites superimposed on the survey area in
Figure 5 approximate the critical size for that test unit geometry. While several of
them are intersected by test units, several others fit neatly within the spaces defined
by the hexagonal pattern and thus would not be intersected.

The second component, the STP Program, involves the Monte Carlo simulation itself
using the test unit geometry set up in the PLACESTP Program. In this case the user
defines the hypothetical parameters of the archaeological record needed to estimate
discovery probability. These include: (a) site size, (b) artifact density (number of
artifacts/sq m), and (c) the shape of the artifact density-distribution, or its density
function. The program permits exploration of several different density functions
including uniform, hemispherical, conical, and sinusoidal distributions, and the nega-
tive binomial distribution with varying degrees of clustering. Figure 6 shows four
examples of different density functions for a hypothetical 20-m-diameter site with a
density of one artifact per sqm. Note, for example, the differences in the amount of
“empty space” resulting from the negative binomial distributions (Figure 6b and d)
when the degree of clustering (i.e., the k parameter) is altered. The number of
repeated simulation trials is also specified and depends on the degree of accuracy and
reliability desired in the simulation results. One of the advantages of this program is
that multiple combinations of these parameters can be specified for a given simulation
run so that the results can encompass a wide range of archaeological situations and
sampling designs.

As an example, Table 7 illustrates a sample output file from the STP Program
pertaining to a 1-hectare sampling unit having 8 shovel-probes measuring 40 cm x
40 cm each, and laid out with optimal spacing generated by the PLACESTP Program.



38 USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

2 Site Definition

Sites and Nonsites: Regional Definitions of Archaeological Distributions

One of the most fundamental and firmly entrenched concepts in modern archaeological
research is that of the “site,” yet paradoxically it is currently one of the most conten-
tious and variably defined concepts in the discipline; (see, for example, the recent
discussions of Binford [1992], Dunnell [1992], Ebert [1992], and Fotiadis [1992)]).
Clearly, some measure of consensus, if not standardization, is warranted in the
definition and use of this important concept. As Plog, Plog, and Wait (1978:385) have
argued, “one of the most critical decisions we must face if we are to develop survey
data with an iota of comparability is the question of what is and what is not a site.”
Beyond the question of comparability, however, lies the more fundamental issue of the
labor time required to locate and record archaeological sites according to a particular
definition of what constitutes a “site.” As Dincauze, and associates (1980:226) have
observed, “...the concept of ‘site’ which an archaeologist carries into the field has a
powerful effect upon the efficiency and productivity of a given survey strategy.” Before
examining regional trends in site definition throughout the United States, it is
necessary to review some of the theoretical and methodological justifications for this
variability.

Much of the current controversy surrounding traditional definitions of the archae-
ological “site” originated in regional-scale archaeological survey projects whose
primary, if not exclusive, focus was on prehistoric hunters-and-gatherers and
archaeological evidence for foraging activities. By recognizing the ephemeral impact
of human foraging activity on a regional landscape and the low level of archaeological
visibility such activities generate, it has become clear that the archaeological remains
commonly included in the term “site” represent only the most densely concentrated of
archaeological materials, usually representing successive occupations at one spatially
bounded locality. Prehistoric foragers, however, would have had a much more diffuse
impact on the regional archaeological record in terms of their discarded material
residues, due to their higher incidence of residential mobility on a seasonal basis
(Ebert and Kohler 1988). Due to their relatively low level of sustained occupational
intensity, then, their material residues should be characterized by a much broader
regional distribution of unobtrusive, low-density, artifact scatters and isolated artifact
occurrences than one would expect to find in the case of, say, village-based agricultural


158

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

Flynn, L. L., “On Playing and Paying and Calling the Tune,” in Scholars as Contractors: Report of a
Workshop on the Contract Archeology Process, W. J. Mayer-Oakes and A. W. Portnoy, eds. (U.S.
Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Interagency
Archeological Services Division, Washington, DC, 1979), pp 44-48.

Foley, R., “A Model of Regional Archaeological Structure,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol 47
(1981a), pp 1-17.

Foley, R., “Off-site Archaeology: An Alternative Approach for the Short-sited,” in Pattern of the Past:
Essays in Honour of David L. Clarke, 1. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, eds. (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981b), pp 157-183.

Fotiadis, Michael, “Units of Data as Deployment of Disciplinary Codes,” in Representations in
Archaeology, J-C. Gardin and C. S. Peebles, eds. (Inidana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1992)

Fowler, D. D., “Cultural Resource Management in the Great Basin: What Have We Learned?,” in
Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, C. J. Condie and D. D.
Fowler, eds. (University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1986), pp 169-178.

Fowler, M. L., The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology, Studies in Mlinois
Archaeology No. 6 (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, IL, 1989).

Fry, R. E., “Manually Operated Post-hole Diggers as Sampling Instruments,” American Antiquity, vol 37,
no. 2 (1972), pp 259-261.

Fuller, S., A. Rogge, and L. Gregonis, Orme Alternatives: The Archaeological Resources of Roosevelt Lake
and Horseshoe Reservoir, Volume I Archaeological Series, 98 (Arizona State Museum, Tempe, AZ,
1976).

Gallant, T. W., “Background Noise’ and Site Definition: A Contribution to Survey Methodology,” Journal
of Field Archaeology, vol 13 (1986), pp 404-418.

Gallegos, D., J. Cook, E. L. Davis, G. Lowe, F. Norris, and J. Thesken, Cultural Resources Inventory of the
Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions, California, report prepared by Westec Corporation
for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Contract No. YA-512-CT8-163 (Bureau of Land
Management, Cultural Resources Publications, Riverside, CA, 1980).

Gatus, T. W., “A Review and Comment on Surface and Subsurface Survey Methodologies Operationalized
in Kentucky,” Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin, vol 22 (1980), pp 141-145.

Glassow, M., “Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources,” American Antiquity,
vol 42 (1977), pp 413-420.

Goodwin, R. Christopher and Associates, Cultural Resources in the Department of Defense (United States
Department of Defense, Legacy Resource Management Program, Washington, DC, 1993).

Goodyear, A.C., L. M. Raab, and T. C. Klinger, “The Status of Archaeological Research Design in Cultural
Resource Management,” American Antiquity vol 43 no. 2 (1978), pp 159-173.



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1 125

“Dividing the previous result by 8 hrs/day yields an equation for the absolute
minimum survey effort” (Schiffer and Wells 1982:351), as follows:

Minimum Survey Effort = 67 days/crew spacing (m) [Eq 1]

This equation was then calculated for the 12 test cases and compared with the actual
person-day expenditures for each one. This provides a “useful ratio ranging from 3.7
to 8.6, with a mean of 6.0” (Schiffer and Wells 1982;p 351). The wide range in this
ratio is thought to reflect the extraneous variables affecting labor expenditure, such
as recording time, accessibility, etc. Schiffer and Wells use the mean value of 6.0 as
a multiplier for Equation 1 in order to calculate the level-of-survey-effort required to
cover a survey tract of a given size at a given level of intensity. As mentioned in
Chapter 3, they suggest the following equation:

Survey Effort = 402/crew spacing (m) [Eq 2]

Its utility for making cost-estimates of pedestrian survey tracts is stated in the
following terms:

To use Equation (2), one divides 402 by crew spacing (in meters) to obtain the
estimated number of person-days per square mile. If the survey involves low
accessibility and lengthy recording time, then the estimate should be raised by
about 30 percent. Reductions can similarly be made. A good rule of thumb is that
a large-scale pedestrian survey using 20 m intervals requires about 20 person-
days/square mile under average conditions for areas of good visibility and fairly low
resource densities(Schiffer and Wells 1982:351 emphasis added).

It is important to note that this algorithm should be used only as a general guideline
or “rule of thumb” in making cost-estimates for pedestrian survey, and not as a
cookbook recipe. Schiffer and Wells are careful to note the potential effects of reduced
accessibility, poor surface visibility, difficult terrain, site density, internal site
complexity, etc., on cost estimates. These effects must be factored into the estimate
by knowledgeable archaeologists having previous field experience in the study area.
Bearing these considerations in mind, then, Table 13 presents the estimated level-of-
effort required (in person-days per unit area) for different survey intensities. The
survey intensities are expressed as crew interval spacings ranging from 5 to 50 meters
with the corresponding person-day estimates expressed in square miles, square
kilometers, hectares, and acres.



100

USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

It should be noted, however, that Shott’s Table 10. Site size and. intrasite artifact density
data for 13 archaeological sites in southeastern

archaeological data may represent uncom- Massachusetts.
monly low values when compared to figures Site | Site Size | Arlifact Density
from elsewhere in the United States. For ex- i(m in diam)| (#/sqm)
ample, in New England, an area not known

: . im . DP 7 128.9
for its complex and highly visible archaeolog- 76 335 35
ical record, McManamon (1984a: Table 4.15) 7RP 40.9 22.8
presents site size/density data for a series of 7SP 419 101.3
13 sites in southeastern Massachusetts 7TP 43.3} 12.1
(originally documented by Thorbahn un- as : aot us
dated). These sites range in size from 17.0 HHP 91 303
to 143.3 m in diameter with intrasite artifact 7CP 104.2 71
densities ranging from 7.1 to 128.9 arti- 7MP. 113.9 28.5
facts/sq m (see Table 10). Even a cursory 7AP 126.2 64.6
comparison of these site variables with the TUP 128.3 72

7KP 143.3 72.4

simulated values given in Table 8 indicates
that all of these sites would have very high
intersection and detection probabilities in an
intensive 100-probe/ha sampling scheme. Since the simulation exercise represented
in Table 8 was not developed with such high artifact densities in mind, it may be
useful to present two additional Monte Carlo simulations that more closely approxi-
mate the Massachusetts site data discussed by McManamon (1984a), while using the
same sampling intensities and geometries as those used in Tables 7 and 8 for compari-
son; i.e., 8 probes/ha with optimal spacing and 100 probes/ha with staggered spacing,
respectively.

Table 11 shows the sample output file from the STP program using the 8 probes/ha
sampling intensity in an optimally spaced sampling grid. In this case, however, seven
site diameter categories have been simulated (20 m, 40 m, 60 m, 80 m, 100 m, 120 m,
and 140 m in diameter; see Table 11, column 2) in combination with eight artifact
density categories (10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140 artifacts/sq m; see Table 11,
column 4) as a reasonable approximation of the variability expressed in the
Massachusetts data set. The density-distributions remain the same as those simu-
lated in Table 7; i.e., the sinusoidal distribution and the negative binomial distribution
with the k parameter equal to 1.0 (see Table 11, column 3). As the simulation results
demonstrate, the relatively low sampling intensity results in a spacing between probes
of about 43.30 m. Thus the maximum size of an undetected site would be on the order
of 50 m in diameter. This fact is clearly expressed in the Table 11 simulation results
even considering the relatively high artifact densities found in the Massachusetts data
set. For example, at this sampling intensity, a 20-m diameter site with an artifact
density as high as 120 artifacts/sq m would still only have a 23 to 25 percent chance

(Source: after McManamon 1984a:Table 4.15).



USACERL SR 96/40, Vol 1

4

materials that we find. Bounded sites and statements about their contents are
abstracted—that is, essentially made up—by looking at individual artifacts, and
usually if not always by looking at only a portion of those making up the site
abstraction (Ebert 1992:69-70).

Since legitimate comparability requires a complete inventory of site contents anyway,
in Ebert’s view, the notion of a “site” is argued to be not only methodologically
unsound, but largely irrelevant for research purposes. Since all surface artifacts are
to be inventoried, Ebert prefers “distributional archaeology” as a term for this
approach, avoiding entirely any use of the term “site.” Even related terms for
approaches similar to his, such as “nonsite” and “off-site,” are avoided since they still
imply the existence of sites. “What we need,” he argues, “is an antisite archaeology,
an archaeology that has nothing to do with sites, at least at the methodological level.
It may be acceptable to use the concept of sites at an anthropological level, although
we have better and more discriminating theoretical terms, and the use of the word
‘site’ would be confusing” (Ebert 1992:70; emphasis original).

This view is echoed in Dunnell’s (1992) recent discussion of the site concept where its
ontological reality and, hence, its methodological utility are seriously questioned; (see
also Fotiadis 1992). Binford (1992:51) has effectively countered these claims by noting
that organized human behavior is sometimes manifested spatially as «_.structured
consequences of short-term organizations and events of the past,” that these “conse-
quences certainly exist...,” and that they can be conveniently studied archaeologically
by use of the site concept. While not denying the validity and utility of a nonsite land-
scape approach to the archaeological record in some instances, Binford sees the two
approaches as mutually reinforcing and complementary scales of analysis depending
on which aspects of the archaeological record one is interested in exploring. To cat-
egorically deny the existence of archaeological sites, then, would amount to “throwing
the baby out with the bath water...” (Madsen 1993:1029).

From a CRM perspective, the nonsite approach is particularly cumbersome since it is
unclear how the mapped distribution of individual archaeological artifacts can be
effectively managed in all archaeological regions and under variable geomorphic and
surface landscape conditions. For example, how would such an approach work in the
American Bottoms region of the Mississippi River Basin where the archaeological
record is considerably more complex than that found in Ebert’s test area in the arid
Eastern Great Basin? How would spatially clustered resources such as features or
architectural remains be treated in such an approach? How would archaeological
resources be identified for purposes of Section 106 and Section 110 compliance and
National Register eligibility determinations, if not collectively as sites? How could such
resources be effectively managed in the absence of a discrete spatial referent that
groups, however imperfectly, perceived clusters of artifacts, features, and other