Mississippi Administrative Code › Title 16 - History, Humanities and Arts › Part 3 - Historic Preservation Division › Chapter 12 - Mississippi Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations › Rule 16-3-12.6.4 - Special Environment Surveys

Current through June 25, 2024
Deep Sediments
If colluvial, alluvial, or aeolian deposits are known to be
				  present in the survey area from background research or by field inspection,
				  testing will be needed to identify buried sites or the potential for such
				  sites. This may be accomplished through a combination of methods such as
				  coring, hand excavation of deep shovel tests, or mechanical slit trenching. The
				  choice of technique will depend upon the depth of the deposits. If limited to
				  shovel test excavations exceeding 70 to 80 cmbs in depth, an auger or Oakfield
				  soil probe should be employed from the base of shovel test excavation to a
				  maximum depth of 120 cmbs (3.9 ft.). MDAH strongly recommends that deep testing
				  be performed on all parcels of alluvial or colluvial soil within the project
				  area, especially for projects with deep vertical impacts. If full-scale
				  systematic testing of the project area is not feasible, a geomorphologist is to
				  be employed to develop a sampling program that identifies soils suitable for
				  the preservation or formation of cultural deposits.
When deep testing is accomplished by the use of mechanical
				  equipment, care must be taken to avoid excessive damage to fragile
				  archaeological sites. Slit trenching with heavy equipment such as a backhoe
				  (preferably toothless) is to be used in situations where deep sediments cannot
				  be reached through hand excavation. Trenches are to be placed in a manner
				  suitable to reconstruct the past and present landforms. For large continuous
				  sections of terrain, the testing is to be adequate to reconstruct the alluvial
				  history of the floodplain. The excavations are to continue until a depositional
				  environment not favorable for formation or preservation of cultural horizons is
				  found. In special circumstances where the terrain limits the access of heavy
				  equipment and hand excavation is not feasible, coring or auguring may be
				  implemented. The soils from the cores are to be extracted in a controlled
				  manner and sifted when appropriate.
After excavation, the trench profile will be troweled to
				  inspect for stratigraphy and cultural features. A detailed profile drawing and
				  description shall be completed. If a geomorphologist is used, he or she is to
				  assist in the placement of trenches, evaluation, and interpretation of the
				  excavation profiles. The evaluation may include tests for soil type and
				  texture, standardized color descriptions, and grain size distributions. The
				  geomorphologist will submit a detailed interpretive analysis on the deep
				  testing that will be included as an appendix to the full technical report of
				  investigations. This analysis will address the issues of site depositional
				  processes, their effects on archaeological preservation, visibility of
				  archaeological sites, and landform evolution over time. A summary and
				  discussion of the results should be presented in the body of the technical
				  report.
In most cases it will not be possible to determine if buried
				  cultural artifacts are present simply by visual inspection of the profile
				  alone. Therefore, hand excavation will be required. Preferably, a
				  three-foot-square test unit will be excavated at the margin of each backhoe
				  trench where favorable soil horizons have been identified. The test unit will
				  be excavated in a series of arbitrary and/or natural stratigraphic levels until
				  soil horizons not favorable to the formation or preservation of cultural
				  horizons have been identified. All soil will be sifted through --inch mesh
				  hardware cloth and the artifacts retained according to level. As conditions
				  dictate, alternate sampling strategies may be implemented to evaluate the
				  integrity, age, and cultural period of the soil profile. For example, in
				  consultation with the geomorphologist, recent fill layers or very recent
				  alluvium may be removed without sifting. However, the researcher must justify
				  that the sampling strategy is satisfactory to identify historic resources that
				  may be present. In addition, if cultural material is encountered during deep
				  testing and a geomorphologist is not already employed, arrangements are to be
				  made to use a geomorphologist in an evaluation of all the trenches.
Urban Sites
An urban property is defined as any lot within the
				  boundaries of a platted city block within an incorporated city, village, or
				  town. Investigators are strongly encouraged to discuss urban survey strategies
				  with MDAH as the research proposal is developed. Deviations from these
				  standards can be agreed upon prior to beginning fieldwork and described in the
				  report. Any deviations developed in the field, and their rationale, must be
				  described in the report.
Prior documentary research is critical because the spatial
				  limits of urban archaeological deposits often cannot be defined in the same
				  manner as the boundaries of non-urban sites. Such research may aid in
				  determining the historical boundaries of streets, blocks, house lots, etc.
				  Given the unique nature of these settings, the typical 30-m grid system nor
				  traditional site delineation techniques are sufficient for defining site
				  boundaries.
Each lot is considered by MDAH to be a separated entity,
				  inherently defined by its legal boundary. Therefore the typical approach of two
				  negative shovel tests defining the edge of an archaeological site is not
				  required nor necessarily applicable. Consequently, the definition of the site
				  boundary should be restricted to the current or historic, legally-defined
				  limits of the lot. This can be depicted through historic Sanborn maps, city
				  maps, historic and modern aerial photographs, physical separation of lots from
				  neighbors through the use of fences and plantings along lot lines, etc. Each
				  urban lot should be subjected to survey to see if archaeological deposits are
				  present. (For further information about urban sites and developing boundaries
				  for urban districts please see NRHP Bulletin #21). In general, identification
				  efforts in an urban area are to include:
1. STPs excavated at 10m (33 ft.) intervals
				on transects spaced no further than 10m apart;
2. All STPs should be square in profile, at
				least 30 cm (~1.0 ft.) in width, and be excavated to sterile subsoil or a
				minimum depth of 80 cmbs (2.6 ft.);
3. Identification of the presence,
				distribution, and preservation of architectural evidence, site stratigraphy,
				features, and assessment of site significance based upon all available
				documentary evidence. Previous work at urban sites regionally indicates it is
				useful to target mid-lot and backlot areas for cellars, privies, wells and
				cisterns;
4. Recordation and
				assessment of features containing large numbers of artifacts;
5. The use of metal detectors is encouraged
				along 1.5-m (~5.0 ft.) lanes along transects spaced no more than 10 m apart;
6. Sampling strategies for
				artifact recovery. Sampling strategies are to be addressed on an individual
				basis and the method chosen justified in the research design;
7. Recordation of excavation procedures
				including drawings and photographs; and
8. Geophysics may be used on vacant lots
				where traditional survey methods can be employed (i.e. paved lots, etc.).
In cases where the above techniques are not applicable,
				  please consult MDAH about alternative survey strategies/methods.
Military Sites
Conventional survey employing shovel testing at military
				  sites has consistently proven to be unsuccessful in identifying these types of
				  sites across the Southeast. Military sites such as encampments and battlefields
				  are to be considered sensitive resources as many contain unmarked burials.
				  Surveys in areas having potential for military sites need to be sensitive to
				  the following:
1. A thorough
				visual observation of the ground surface needs to be conducted to identify
				surface features (huts, chimney falls, latrines, etc.), broad scatters and/or
				clusters of building materials, and evidence of relic hunting. This is
				especially needed for transect surveys where it is likely that only a portion
				of the site is contained in the project area;
2. Areas of steep slopes (15%), sometimes
				excluded from survey, need to be examined as slopes are often favored locations
				for military encampments;
3.
				Landscape features are key components to military sites and can be recorded as
				archaeological resources; and
4.
				Metal detector surveys are recommended because the majority of diagnostic items
				deposited at military sites are metallic. When implemented, the metal detector
				survey shall consider relevant factors such as the experience of the metal
				detector operator(s), the type of metal detector(s), ground cover, intensity of
				survey coverage, extent of previous relic hunting, and environmental factors.
A system of interpreting battlefield landscapes known as the
				  KOCOA system (explained below) has been adopted by the NPS and endorsed by the
				  American Battlefield Protection Program for the evaluation of historic
				  battlefield environments. It encompasses key landscape features that may have
				  affected or directed the military action in a given location and keeps the
				  evaluator from focusing solely upon archaeological remains or built environment
				  such as earthworks:
K: Key terrain (terrain that must be taken or held to obtain
				  victory);
O: Observation and fields of fire (terrain that permits
				  observation of enemy movements and avenues of approach);
C: Cover/concealment (terrain that provides troops with
				  cover or protection from enemy fire);
O: Obstacles (features that stand in the way of seizing key
				  terrain - these can be natural, such as heavy woods or deep swamp, or man-made
				  such as fencelines, ditches or earthworks); and
A: Avenues of approach (terrain by which the enemy may be
				  approached - this can be anything from an established roadway to an open
				  field).
Underwater Sites
Archaeological testing in underwater settings often involves
				  unusual circumstances. Research designs for underwater Phase I surveys are to
				  be discussed in advance with MDAH. In general, identification efforts in an
				  underwater setting are to include:
1.
				Placement of exploratory units based on remote sensing results and knowledge of
				the sunken vessel or submerged cultural remains;
2. Use of mechanized equipment where
				extensive modern overburden present;
3. Careful examination of air-lifted and
				water-dredged soil samples. The soil samples must always be screened through
				mesh or net bagging;
4.
				Recordation of the excavation procedure to include drawings and photographs if
				visibility permits; and
5.
				Compliance with safety standards of nationally recognized diving organizations
				(PADI, Instructors NAUI, SSI, etc.).
Metal Detection
Research designs and proposed methodologies for metal
				  detecting must be discussed in advance with MDAH staff, and any relevant
				  Federal agencies. Avocationalists should be interviewed regarding their
				  knowledge of the area. Use judgement when involving avocationalists. If looting
				  has and continues to be a strong possibility, then involving avocationalists
				  may not be appropriate. It is suggested that devices be recent models and
				  professional grade, as technology is always improving.
1. Coverage: When required during Phase I,
				metal detector coverage should be systematic along 1.5 meter lanes on transects
				at a maximum 30 meter interval, though closer or even overlapping coverage may
				be necessary to meet specific research objectives; and removal of ground
				vegetation and/or leaf litter along detection lanes may be needed for metal
				detecting to be effective.
2.
				Reporting: Equipment, personnel, and time spent should be clearly stated in the
				methods section. Coverage, mapping, and artifact collection strategies should
				likewise be clearly stated.
3.
				Personnel Experience: Although recommended, no specific metal detecting
				training course is required. Preferred qualifications:
a. Principal Investigators/Field Directors:
				have at least 100 hours hands-on field experience and/or equivalent training
				with remote sensing applications, when those applications are the primary focus
				of the archaeological investigation; and
b. Other investigative personnel: the skills
				of all other investigative personnel must be appropriate to the requested
				task(s), the nature of the project, and to the goals and specifications
				delineated in the research design.