(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Georgia Archaeological Research Design, Volume 1"

&4 

I NxoO. PX. 

/y\) 



GEORGIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 

VOLUME I 



ftau r: 




y 



MAP SHoTVf.VG TWE ,%f £$$//,/? MOl/WO 



6 OQ yo/r/s 



Georgia Department of 
Natural Resources 



Received 
JUN 4 1982 



DOCUMENTS 
UGA LIBRARIES 



Cover illustration: Mound on Messier's Plantation, in Early County. 
Plate V from Antiquities of the Southern Indians, Particularly of the 
Georgia Tribes , by Charles C. Jones, Jr., (New York: D. Appleton 
and Company, 1873) . 



This document has been funded with the assistance of a matching grant- 
in-aid from the United States Department of the Interior, Heritage 
Conservation and Recreation Service, through the Historic Preservation 
Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, under provisions 
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

The Department of Natural Resources is an Equal Opportunity Employer 
and employs without regard to Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Age or 
National Origin. 



GEORGIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 

VOLUME I 



edited by 
THOMAS H. EUBANKS 



Copyright State of Georgia 1981 

Department of Natural Resources 
Parks, Recreation and Historic Sites Division 
Historic Preservation Section Office of the State Archaeologist 
Atlanta, Georgia Carrollton, Georgia 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/georgiaarchaeolo01euba 



Contents 



List of Plates v 

List of Figures vii 



FORWARD 

Elizabeth A. Lyon ix 

PREFACE 

Lewis H. Larson, Jr. xi 

INTRODUCTION xv 

LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE CONTRACT SURVEY 

Paul R. Fish, University of Georgia 1 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

Bruce D. Smith, University of Georgia 10 

SITE DETECTION 

David J. Hally, University of Georgia 27 

SITE CHARACTERIZATION 

Craig T. Sheldon, Jr., West Georgia College 40 

LABORATORY PROCESSING AND CURATION 

Roy S. Dickens, Georgia State University 61 

APPENDIX A 
Georgia Archaeological Survey Form and Computer Coding Format 73 

APPENDIX B 
Miscellaneous Archaeological Data Forms 9 3 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 127 



LIST OF PLATES 



Plate 1, Defining an archaeological site in an urban 8 

situation by taking measurements from a lot corner 
marker, MARTA Rapid Rail right-of-way, Atlanta. 
(Courtesy of Georgia State University) 

Plate 2, Heavily quarried boulder site located by 20 

archaeological survey on Soapstone Ridge, DeKalb 
County. (Courtesy of Georgia State University) 

Plate 3, Aerial photograph of a stone fish weir (or 31 

dam) in the Etowah River, Bartow County. (Courtesy 
of Georgia State University) 

Plate 4, Metal detector in use for archaeological site 33 

location along the MARTA Rapid Rail, East Line, 
Fulton County. (Courtesy of Georgia State Universitv) 

Plate 5, Use of soil resistivity survey for the detection 34 
of archaeological sites. (Courtesy of Georgia State 
University) 

Plate 6, Auger testing during MARTA Rapid Rail survey 37 

(Courtesy of Georgia State University) 

Plate 7, Motor grader stripping to discover buried 53 

archaeological features at Oakland Cemetery, Fulton 
County. (Courtesy of Georgia State University) 

Plate 8, Trenches excavated with a backhoe in order to 55 

characterize a buried Indian village site within the 
Lake Oconee impoundment area. (Courtesy of University 
of Georgia) 

Plate 9, Plane table mapping at a quarry site on Soapstone 59 
Ridge, DeKalb County. (Courtesy of Georgia State 
University) 

Plate 10, Recording catalogued artifacts collected during 64 
archaeological survey. (Courtesy of Georgia State 
University) 

Plate 11, Cleaning artifacts at the laboratory. (Courtesy 67 
of Georgia State University) 

Plate 12, Preserving a paper artifact recovered from a 69 

project in the Atlanta area. (Courtesy of Georgia State 
University) 



LIST OF FIGURES 



Figure 1, Channelization project proposed by the Soil 4 

Conservation Service, Long and Mcintosh Counties 

Figure 2, Development of a camp ground at Vogel State r > 

Park 

Figure 3, Diagram representing a river valley as the 13 

support area of an Ainu group, showing the ecological 
zones existing in the valley 

Figure 4, Exploitation of ecological zones by the Ainu 15 

group, showing different site locations 

Figure 5, The location of the Soapstone Ridge area south 17 
of Atlanta, Georgia 

Figure 6, The location of functionally different sites 19 

within the Soapstone Ridge area 

Figure 7, The research area shown in Figure 4, overlaid 2 3 

with a grid network, and with grid units selected for 
a ten percent simple random sample 



Figures drawn after Hitoshi Watanabe are used with the permission 
of the University of Washington Press. 



vii 



FORWARD 

To meet the needs of a comprehensive historic preservation 
program in Georgia, the Historic Preservation Section of the Depart- 
ment of Natural Resources has been developing the Georgia Historic 
Preservation Plan process. Throughout this process it has become 
increasingly evident that overall direction for the historic preser- 
vation program in the State requires a better understanding of 
Georgia's cultural resources — historic, architectural, and archae- 
ological — and the input of appropriate practicing professionals 
and the general public. 

The earliest efforts to provide a sound basis for understand- 
ing the State's cultural resources originated with the State 
Archaeologist, Dr. Lewis H. Larson, Jr., who recognized that the 
mandates of the federal historic preservation program could not be 
effectively administered by the Historic Preservation Section with- 
out a strong cultural resource planning process. Under his leader- 
ship, consultations were initiated with the professional archaeo- 
logical community in 1975 and a process for obtaining archaeological 
resource information and developing strategies for archaeological 
resource planning in Georgia was begun. The Georgia Archaeological 
Research Design Task Force, appointed by the Department of Natural 
Resources, was then formed to guide this major planning effort. 

The Historic Preservation Section appreciates the leadership 
shown by Dr. Larson and his staff and recognizes the contribution 

i :■: 



of the professional archaeological community to the State's historic 
preservation program. We are pleased, therefore, to make available 
through this document the results to date of the Georgia Archaeologi- 
cal Research Design Task Force's work in the development of survey 
methodologies. The Georgia Archaeological Research Design Volume I 
assists those who carry out archaeological surveys — archaeologists, 
development agencies, resource managers and the public — to under- 
stand what such a survey should do and how it should be carried out. 
In this way, the volume serves the resource assessment needs of 
these groups whose work adds to knowledge about the cultural re- 
source base in Georgia. 



Elizabeth A. Lycn, Chief 
Historic Preservation Section 
State Historic Preservation Officer 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources 



PREFACE 

Initial discussion on a Georgia Archaeological Research De- 
sign grew out of needs that became evident in the mid-1970s as 
federal historic preservation and environmental laws affecting 
cultural resources were implemented in Georgia. Under these laws, 
the State Historic Preservation Officer within the Historic Preser- 
vation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, has re- 
sponsibility for providing review and comment on all federal 
actions that have a potential to affect cultural resources in the 
state. The State Archaeologist assists the State Historic Preser- 
vation Officer in carrying out this responsibility through review 
and comment on federal undertakings involving archaeological re- 
sources. If such review and commentary were to be responsible 
and rational, I, as State Archaeologist, felt that it should be 
made in the context of a planning framework. 

Such a framework — including an archaeological research de- 
sign and archaeological site management recommendations — would 
also serve the needs of the Office of the State Archaeologist in 
effecting the preservation, conservation, and use of archaeologi- 
cal resources on state-owned lands as defined by the Georgia Anti- 
quity Act (Georgia Law 1969 pp. 993-995). These lands, primarily 
those managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, are 
characterized by a wide variety of archaeological sites. Effective 
and responsible decisions regarding these sites require the use of 

xi 



an archaeological resource planning framework. 

The research design was not conceived as something that could 
or would be imposed upon my professional colleagues in Georgia who 
were engaged in archaeological research. Rather it was viewed as 
a guide for making management decisions on state lands and for the 
decisions made by the State Historic Preservation Officer and fed- 
eral agency officials during the process that is necessary for 
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 
Executive Order 1159 3. This process, one involving a number of 
steps, requires that the archaeological resources in an area of 
federal activity be assessed, that their eligibility for the 
National Register of Historic Places be determined, and that ad- 
verse effect on them be avoided or mitigated. The success of this 
compliance process in Georgia depends upon the development of a 
planning framework that provides direction for assessment and de- 
velops an understanding of resource significance for effective 
mitigation or project avoidance. We need to know what archaeologi- 
cal resources characterize Georgia and we need to know where these 
resources are located both geographically and chronologically. 

To fill these archaeological planning needs the Georgia 
Archaeological Research Design (GARD) Task Force was established. 
Archaeologists on the faculties of Georgia universities and colleges 
with academic programs in archaeology were asked to be members of 
the Task Force. The Assistant to the State Archaeologist, Thomas 
H. Eubanks, headed the Task Force and served to coordinate its 
activities . 

The initial meetings of the Task Force developed a phased work 
plan and an outline for developing the research design components. 



XII 



The Task Force is proceeding to implement the work plan and to develop 
planning documents related to the research design. What follows here- 
in, Volume I of the Georgia Archaeological Research Design, is intend- 
ed to assist in the assessment of archaeological resources and thereby 
meet the planning needs of federal and state agencies and others with 
responsibility for the preservation of archaeological resources in 
Georgia. 



Lewis H. Larson, Jr. 
State Archaeologist 



xm 



INTRODUCTION 

The Georgia Archaeological Research Design Task Force has been 
functioning as an appointed work unit and advisory body to the 
Historic Preservation Section of the Department of Natural Resources 
since 1975. During that period the Task Force has assisted the 
Office of the State Archaeologist with the development of archaeo- 
logical planning documents for the Georgia Historic Preservation 
Plan. Further, the Task Force has provided guidance to the State 
Archaeologist with respect to carrying out responsibilities under 
state antiquities legislation. 

The work program developed for the Georgia Archaeological 
Research Design Task Force sets forth four major phases of activity. 
The first, a period of orientation and education, provided an oppor- 
tunity for the Task Force members to review pertinent state and 
federal cultural resource protection laws along with state and feder- 
al archaeological programs. The second phase dealt with specific 
analysis of the state historic preservation program as implemented 
by the Historic Preservation Section of the Department of Natural 
Resources. Currently under development, phase three is a review of 
prehistory from an archaeological perspective. This review will 
serve as the basis of a statewide archaeological research design. 
During phase four, the review and the design will be used to develop 
archaeological site management recommendations. Those recommendations 
will contribute to the archaeological component of the Georgia 

xv 



Historic Preservation Plan. 

This volume, which reports the results of one aspect of the 
analysis carried out during the phase two Task Force activity, 
addresses methodological approaches for identifying and character- 
izing archaeological sites in Georgia. Early in the Task Force 
evaluation of archaeological programs in which the State Historic 
Preservation Officer and State Archaeologist are involved, it was 
noted that archaeological survey in and of itself had the poten- 
tial to answer many questions that would contribute to our knowledge 
of prehistory and history in Georgia. 

The purpose of this volume is to assist those individuals who 
must contract for archaeological survey in understanding what an 
archaeological survey should do and how it is carried out. Also, 
it is intended to provide technical advice to archaeologists who 
become involved in survey work in Georgia. The volume is not, how- 
ever, a guide that will answer all methodological questions about 
doing archaeological survey in the state. It simply offers expla- 
nations of methods that have been demonstrated to work in Georgia. 

Regulatory Requirements for Archaeological Survey 

When individuals or agencies are involved with development 
projects that are ground-disturbing in nature and involve federal 
funds, licenses or permits, it is necessary to follow the regula- 
tions of the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
(36 CFR 800). These regulations were promulgated under the authority 
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and 
detail the actions required for compliance with the intent of that 
law. 

xvi 



Generally stated, the regulations call for the following 
measures to take place early in project planning: 

1. Determine in consultation with the State Historic Preser- 
vation Officer and the Keeper of the National Register if 
any properties eligible for or listed in the National 
Register of Historic Places (districts, sites, buildings, 
structures or objects) are located within the area of 
project- related environmental impact. 

2. Determine in consultation with the State Historic Preser- 
vation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation if the project will have an adverse effect 
on any identified property either listed in or determined 
eligible for listing in the National Register. 

3. Determine in consultation with the State Historic Preser- 
vation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preserva- 
tion if steps can be taken to preserve the property intact, 
alter the project in such a way as to avoid the property, 
or take steps to mitigate the adverse effects to the prop- 
erty. 

It is important to note that the responsibility for carrying 
out identification studies under these regulations lies with the 
federal agency issuing the licenses or permits, or providing fund- 
ing assistance. Because the federal agency frequently requires 
the actual project developers to carry out surveys to identify 
archaeological sites (or districts, buildings, structures, or ob- 
jects) it is important for the project sponsor to understand what 
is involved in such surveys and what to expect in the way of a com- 
pliance report. 

The Historic Preservation Section is in a position to assist 
project sponsors in several ways. First, the Historic Preservation 
Section can provide available information on known sites (or direct 
project sponsors to sources for that information) that are located 
within the project area. Second, when previous archaeological sur- 
veys have been performed within the project area, the Historic Preser- 
vation Section can provide an evaluation of their quality and make 

xvii 



recommendations regarding the need for additional work, if any. 
Third, if the Historic Preservation Section recommends additional 
archaeological survey work be performed or recommends survey for 
an area that has not been previously investigated, the Historic 
Preservation Section can discuss the type of survey and/or method- 
ology to be employed and assist the developer in defining bound- 
aries for the survey. Last, the Historic Preservation Section 
maintains a set of guidelines or minimum content standards for 
archaeological survey reports. These guidelines are revised as 
laws are amended and new federal regulations developed. 

If the federal agency or project sponsor enters into a contract 
with an archaeologist or institution to have an archaeological sur- 
vey performed, every effort should be made to insure that the sur- 
vey report contains not only the archaeological data resulting from 
any archaeological sites encountered but the information necessary 
for compliance with the regulations. Because the State Historic 
Preservation Officer, the Keeper of the National Register of Histor- 
ic Places, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must 
evaluate the accuracy and creditability of archaeological survey 
reports without benefit of first-hand knowledge of the project area 
and the sites discovered, decisions about how the survey was de- 
signed and executed must be discussed in the report. Without a de- 
scription of why the archaeologist looked in the areas where he 
looked, the rationale for the methodology selected to locate and 
characterize sites and the significance of the sites in terms of 
their ability to yield information important to the understanding 
of history and prehistory, the reviewers are in a position to do 
no more than second guess the archaeologist. 



xvi 11 



If the archaeologist does not discuss his findings in relation- 
ship to the criteria for a site's eligibility for listing in the 
National Register of Historic Places, the research potential of sites 
identified and their significance within geographic, functional and 
cultural context, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the 
Keeper of the National Register cannot make their recommendations and 
decisions pursuant to the regulations. It is important to realize 
that traditional rationales for defining the importance of an archaeo- 
logical site must be stated within the criteria. The determination 
of a site's eligibility for listing in the National Register is an 
official determination which is based on very specific information 
requirements and criteria that are outlined in federal regulations. 

Inadequacies within survey reports invariably result in frus- 
tration on the part of project sponsors and agencies who must re- 
view the work. If the contract archaeologist is aware of his 
responsibilities from the outset and the project sponsors, with 
assistance from the Historic Preservation Section, work to insure 
that proper field evaluations take place, compliance with the regu- 
lations can occur smoothly without delay to project development. 
It cannot be over-stated that properly executed and reported sur- 
veys are the key to a successful and expeditious handling of his- 
toric preservation compliance requirements. 

The Archaeological Survey 

The chapters that follow address procedures for conducting 
archaeological survey in Georgia. The Task Force has intentionally 
concerned itself with methodology known to be successful in finding 
and characterizing archaeological sites. Because most project 

xix 



developers will be involved with archaeological sites on land and 
not in underwater areas, this volume is limited to discussions re- 
garding the identification of archaeological sites in terrestrial 
situations. Should it become necessary to carry out an archaeo- 
logical survey in an underwater area, consultation with the Historic 
Preservation Section would be recommended on a case by case basis. 

In the first chapter, Paul Fish discusses the limitations and 
opportunities of contract archaeological survey. He points out 
the decision-making process involved in developing a proposal for 
conducting archaeological survey in specific project locations. 
Bruce Smith follows with an examination of research designs that 
are sensitive to existing cultural resource data along with strate- 
gies to provide maximal data yield within the limitations of time 
and funding. 

David Hally and Craig Sheldon, in their chapters, comment on 
field methodologies which can be used to identify sites and evalu- 
ate their data potential. Many of the techniques described in 
those chapters work equally well for site detection and site char- 
acterization. The particular benefits of the techniques are dis- 
cussed in each chapter. 

Roy Dickens' chapter addresses the need for proper curation 
of records and artifacts which are produced as a result of survey 
activity. The appendices provide information useful for completing 
a Georgia Archaeological Survey form, coding site data for computer- 
ization in the state site file, along with examples of forms that 
2an be used to provide control of artifacts and original records. 

It is hoped that this volume will provide federal agencies, 
private and public development agencies and archaeologists with a 

xx 



better understanding of the needs of archaeological surveys as 
a part of federal cultural resource management practices. Under- 
standing the aims of the various parties involved in archaeologi- 
cal survey can result in projects that are developed with an 
appreciation for an enhancement of our cultural heritage. 



Thomas H. Eubanks 

Assistant to the State Archaeologist 



xxi 



LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE CONTRACT SURVEY 

PAUL R. FISH 

Introduction 

A steadily growing number of archaeologists, federal and state 
agencies, local governments, and private companies are being drawn 
into situations involving the contract survey. Such circumstances 
reflect the necessity, or opportunity, to conduct surveys in which 
the study area and research logistics are defined by nonarchaeolo- 
gical goals. It is to the benefit of all parties if these surveys 
are conducted with research as a goal and are able to contribute to 
an understanding of regional archaeology. 

The Need for a Research Orientation 

Research in the context of an archaeological survey implies 
more than a simple identification of the presence and quantity of 
archaeological remains. The key element of research is a problem 
orientation. Under the best of conditions, a limited number of 
observations can be made in an investigation. Orientation toward 
a central problem provides an explicit rationale for the particular 
characteristics observed and recorded about archaeological sites in 
a study area. It permits organization of data collection in such a 
way that traits relevant to a given set of questions will be observed 
and that subsequent results of their analysis will fit together in a 



meaningful way. 

To satisfy the ideal standards of the participating archaeolo- 
gist, the contract survey should be as much an effort at problem- 
oriented research as it is a catalogue of sites and an assessment of 
impacts to those sites. However, it is also clear that there are a 
number of management justifications for coupling traditional archaeo- 
logical research objectives with other facets of an environmental 
assessment. 

Survey undertaken during any phase of a contract sponsored 
study is an aspect of mitigation. Often, extensive secondary impacts 
will occur as a result of a project, but a company or agency cannot 
be held accountable legally or morally for such impacts. Perhaps it 
would not even have been possible to predict or define all impacts 
during project planning. If acceptable research is the goal of 
early as well as later stages of resource management, useful segments 
of the archaeological record will be preserved from unforeseen destruc- 
tion. 

Even a preliminary assessment survey almost always is a des- 
tructive force with respect to archaeological remains. Most archaeo- 
logical surveys require surface and/or subsurface collections of one 
sort or another. Often survey collections represent the entire 
assemblage of material remains constituting a site. Such destruc- 
tive actions on the part of the archaeologist and the agency which 
employs him can be justified only if a meaningful contribution to 
knowledge results. 

If archaeological remains are encountered in the areas that will 
be affected by a proposed project, an evaluation of the significance 
of these remains is necessary. In most cases, this can be accomp- 



lished only in a research context. Eligibility for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places constitutes a legal definition 
for considering the significance of an archaeological site. Among 
the criteria for listing on the National Register, the one applicable 
to most archaeological sites is the research potential in terms of 
contributions to a knowledge about the past. An evaluation of 
research potential and therefore significance can only be made relative 
to a given range of problems to be investigated. 

In practical terms, the production of good research is the basis 
for both technical and popular publication. Simple tabulation and 
description of archaeological materials is of minimal communicative 
value. A problem orientation provides a cohesive framework in which 
survey results can be presented and understood by the academic 
community and the public. The sponsoring companies or agencies 
thereby maximize their management of the affected resources and 
benefit by the formal recognition of their role in supporting scien- 
tific and culturally valuable endeavors. 

Limitations of the Contract Survey 

One of the most notable limitations of a contract related survey 
is the restriction placed on research design. The study area is 
usually restricted to a particular area specified by the activity 
locus of the contracting agency. Such an area may consist of many 
small segments, be narrow and linear, be biased in favor of a single 
set of environmental features, or in many other ways fail to coincide 
with an archaeologically defined universe (See figures 1 and 2) . 
Probability sampling programs are often difficult or impossible to 
implement. An important constraint on a regional approach is the 



V, 



y\. 











V 



*--> 



— Watershed Boundary 
Channelized Streams 



Big Mortar - Snuff Box Swamp 
Watershed 



Figure 1, channelization project proposed by the soil 

conservation service, long and mcintosh counties, 



TO PARK ENTRANCE 



RANGERS 
RESIDENCE 




EXPANSION CN EXISTING 
CAMP ROAD 4-5 SITES 



Areas Surveyed 

Camera Position 

Row of Rocks 
10/2/79 



CAMPGROUND EXPANSION 
SITE PLAN 
FOR 

VOGEL STATE PARK 




SCALE I = 200' 
AUGUST 29, 1979 



Figure 2, development of a camp ground at vogel state park, 



necessity to confine funded investigation to those areas named in the 
contract. 

Many contract surveys must take place in previously unstudied 
areas. Archaeological research in the state of Georgia has concen- 
trated on the narrow coastal strand and restricted portions of the 
piedmont and ridge and valley provinces. With virtually no informa- 
tion available for many regions, it is difficult to define culturally 
meaningful strata or to predict the most likely locations for sites. 

Contract surveys are frequently not directly related to the 
primary research interests or the regional expertise of the indivi- 
dual archaeologist conducting them. Minimal time is usually provided 
for background studies and preparation. Since contract funds are 
often the source of the archaeologist's wages or important income 
for his institution or firm, the necessity to accept additional con- 
tracts may prohibit the pursuit of a single research interest to its 
conclusion. 

Opportunities of the Contract Survey 

The most obvious advantage of contract surveys, and indeed 
contract archaeology in general, is the availability of funding. The 
magnitude of archaeological activity in the state of Georgia would 
be very significantly reduced if other sources of financial support 
were the only ones at hand. In particular, a growing amount of con- 
tract archaeology involves small-scale surveys to assess the impact 
of environmental manipulations. In the light of this fact, the 
archaeological community is presented with a continuing source of 
support for investigating the state's prehistory and history. 

The association of the contract survey with a sponsoring project 

6 



can often provide important logistical advantages. Detailed maps, 
aerial photographs and other such documentation for the study area 
may have been created or compiled as a result of overall project 
goals. Project personnel can frequently provide orientation to the 
study and liaison with local individuals whose knowledge or aid is 
of benefit. In addition, many projects involve other environmental 
specialists whose reports or consultations would not be obtainable 
in other contexts. 

Perhaps the most valuable fringe benefit of many contract 
situations is access to otherwise inaccessible study areas. In un- 
developed areas, access by vehicles or other modes of transportation 
is usually assured by previous project undertakings. In Georgia, 
where the vast majority of land is privately owned, another vital 
aspect of access is previously arranged permission from landowners 
or the purchase of the study area by the project agency. If broad 
area coverage or appreciable linear distances were attempted outside 
the project milieu, the securing of permission might be very time 
consuming if successful. 

One potential outgrowth of contract surveys is an opportunity 
to build on the survey results. Data and conclusions generated from 
survey can provide the justification for further research supported 
by non-contract funds. Proposals can be constructed from prelimi- 
nary survey findings, and the relevance of the data from specific 
areas to stated problems can be argued. In the same vein, archaeo- 
logical interest in an unknown area can be sparked on the part of the 
investigator or his report audience. 




Q 

>- — ■ 

CQ O. 

< 

z OH 

o 
— < 

I- h- 
< ce 
3 < 



a: 

< ^ 
CQ Ct 
CC < 
=3 SI 

Z Ct 

< LU 

z 

Z QL 
— • O 
O 
LU 
1- H- 

— ■ o 

CO _J 

_1< < 

< \- 
u^z 
— o < 

CD CH — I 
O LL. •— 
_1 < 

O CO 
LU I— -» 

< z >■ 

X LU < 

Ct UJ I 

< CE u_ 

=> o 
z co 1 

< < t- 

LU X 
CD 2: CD 

z *-> 



u_ ^ — 

LU < < 
Q I- OC 



UJ 

I- 
< 

_J 



Conclusion 

Archaeologists can incorporate worthwhile research objectives 
into the performance of contract surveys. Indeed, it is their 
responsibility to the sponsoring agency. In many ways, successfully 
pursuing research within the confines of these undertakings requires 
greater effort and ingenuity on the part of -the investigator than 
does participation in academic research. The contract archaeologist 
must be very resourceful and innovative in order to formulate research 
designs based on problems appropriate to his data. Because he can- 
not control the parameters of the study area and the nature of the 
remains, he must be acquainted with a broad range of topics and 
techniques necessary to produce desirable results. 

Contract surveys have fostered a holistic approach to the study 
of the archaeological materials of the regions in which they have 
been performed. This approach is currently acknowledged throughout 
the discipline. The isolated artifacts of human activity as well as 
the more substantial sites are observed. All classes of remains 
must be considered in the reconstruction of past lifeways when sig- 
nificance in particular study areas is evaluated. 

Finally, the widespread participation in contract surveys and 
other forms of contract archaeology can be seen to encourage a 
healthy atmosphere within the archaeological community. With the 
involvement of various institutions in projects throughout the state, 
parochialism is discouraged. At the same time, communication is 
promoted as investigators assemble all previous information pertaining 
to their survey locale and place their results in a regional per- 
spective. 



SURVEY METHODOLOGY 
BRUCE D, SMITH 

Why Are Surveys Necessary ? 

Often a governmental agency or private firm contracting for 
archaeological research to be carried out in a proposed project 
area is not convinced that such research is necessary. Why not check 
the existing list of archaeological sites and see if any sites are 
located in the project area? Aren't all archaeological sites in 
Georgia known and recorded? 

While the University of Georgia, Georgia State University, 
West Georgia College, Georgia Southern and the Columbus Museum of 
Arts and Crafts maintain archaeological site files, the simple truth 
is that these files list only a small percentage of the sites exist- 
ing in Georgia. 

A computer coding system is being used now to systematize the 
information available for known archaeological sites and to record 
information concerning each site that is found. The Department of 
Natural Resources has provided United States Department of Interior 
Grant-in-Aid matching funds for this purpose. The site data becomes 
part of a central archaeological data bank located at the Computer 
"enter of the University of Georgia. This system will not only pro- 
vide rapid access to known sites, but also it should eventually provide 
some degree of predictability of what might be found in project areas 

10 



based on environmental and other factors. 

Governmental agencies too often view required archaeological 
research as a quick solution to a set of short term problems. It 
would be advisable and usually less expensive to view initial research 
with an eye to establishing a solid data base for future research. 
If the overall development for an area is considered from the begin- 
ning of the project, initial research can be structured to include 
information pertinent to problems beyond the obvious and pressing 
short term ones. This initial research should not be restricted to 
locating and determining the significance of archaeological sites 
in the area to be "directly or indirectly affected" by the project. 

In addition to these basic and immediate problems, other ques- 
tions should be considered which are important for long term plan- 
ning. Such questions include: 

1. What is the nature of the archaeological sites in areas 
adjacent to the direct impact area that might in the future 
be affected adversely if the original project were ex- 
panded? 

2. Would these sites be affected adversely as a result of 
secondary development which can be predicted clearly as 
a logical result of the original project? 

3. What alternative present/future development plans might 
be more attractive to the contracting agency or private 
firm in terms of reducing the financial outlay and time 
delay involved in satisfying a required archaeological 
mitigation? 

Archaeologists are interested in studying a larger area than 

the direct impact area for reasons that go beyond the need for long 

term planning. For archaeologists to improve their understanding 

of the ways of life of past human populations and thereby be in a 

better position to assess the significance of individual sites and 

to develop a comprehensive long term plan for managing archaeological 



11 



resources, they have to be able to study larger geographical areas 
than are usually represented by the direct impact areas of proposed 
projects. 

Prehistoric populations invariably depended upon raw materials 
and food sources that were distributed over a fairly large geograph- 
ical area. The support area for a specific prehistoric human popu- 
lation often encompassed a number of distinct environmental zones 
which contained sites associated with the resources of that partic- 
ular zone. The direct impact areas of the proposed projects usually 
represent only a portion of such support areas. If the archaeolog- 
ical research is restricted just to the direct impact area, the 
information obtained may not provide a complete picture of the 
patterns of the ways of human life. This limited focus of work se- 
verely hampers the archaeologist in understanding the populations 
in question and makes it difficult to assess the importance of indi- 
vidual sites, or even the probability of sites being present within 
a proposed project area. 

A specific example will help illustrate this concept of the sup- 
port area of a human population. The Ainu are a historically known 
people who occupied the river valleys of Hokkaido, the northern island 
of Japan, until the late 1800's (Watanabe 1973). The river valleys 
and upland areas occupied by the Ainu contained a number of different 
habitat zones, each of which had a specific set of natural resources 
that they used (Figure 3) . In the process of exploiting natural re- 
sources from each zone, the Ainu established: 

1. Permanent settlements directly adjacent to salmon spawning 
grounds (Zone 3) . 

2. Long fences for driving deer along the base of the valley 
edge (Zones 3-4) . 



12 



■I 



cr> 

! 

I 



& 
£ 



■I 



I 

s 

1 






s 



i 

I 
I 

1 

1 









T 1 

^ k> *^ 

lit 

•■§ ^ ^ 

^ 51 <»J 
^ C5 CO 



.5! 



1 

Is I 



I 



5: ^ 



£ $ $ 



-Z. CC 
i—i LU 

< \~ 
Ll_ 

-z. < 

u_ >- 

O LU 

-J 

< -I 
LU < 

cc > 
< 

LU 
I- X 

cc \- 
o 

Q- -2L 
Q_ — • 

CO CD 

LU •— 

X h- 
t- CO 

CO X 

< LU 

> CO 

LU LU 



^ 



*i 



_l O 
< M 
> 

_J 

cc < 

LU <_) 

> ~ 

cc o 



< o^ 
ooo 
cd lu 

■ZL 

— < LU CD 




Z I— LL_ 
LU 

CO CD *> 

LU 2CNI 
CC •— [\ 

Q- sen 
lu o>— I 
cc x 

CO LU 

< >< 
cc.cl.-z: 

CD =J < 
< O h- 
~ cc < 

q cdis: 



ho 



UJ 

cc 

CD 



3. Deer hunting huts and bear hunting huts in upland areas 
(Zones 4-5) . 

4. Fishing huts for spearing salmon (Zones 1-2). (Figure 4). 

If the direct impact area for a dam being built downstream in- 
cluded only Zones 1-3 and archaeological research was restricted to 
this area, deer hunting huts, bear hunting huts and fences for deer 
drives would not be discovered. An incomplete picture of the way 
of life of the Ainu population would result. 

The importance of contracting agencies allowing archaeologists 
both freedom and flexibility in outlining the area within which they 
are going to work can be illustrated further with an example closer 
to home. Soaps tone Ridge, located on the southern edge of Atlanta 
(Figure 5), was an 'area occupied and intensively quarried by people 
throughout the prehistoric period. Sections, usually matrixes for 
vessels, were cut from this soft stone both above and below the 
ground. This large, important archaeological area is in the path of 
the proposed 1-675 expressway extension. 

The Georgia Department of Transportation proposed three alter- 
native routes for 1-675 (A, B, and C shown in Figure 5) and then 
evaluated the impact of each route on environmental and cultural 
resources of the area. Dr. Roy S. Dickens, Jr., Department of Anthro- 
pology, Georgia State University, assessed the impact of 1-675 on 
the archaeological resources of Soapstone Ridge. This archaeological 
survey was not restricted to the corridors of the three routes but 
covered the full extent of the ridge. The importance of working in 
the larger area is clear. Over 100 archaeological sites were loca- 
ted as a result of Dr. Dickens' survey (Figure 6). Only about a 
fourth, between 20-25, would have been located had the survey been 



14 




# Settlement 
S. River 

~ Spawning Ground of Dog Salmon 

= Deer Fence 

* Deer Hunting Hut 
d dear Hunting Hut 

c£i Fishing Hut for Cherry Salmon 

— Ridge Top 



Figure 4, exploitation of ecological zones by the 
showing different site locations (after 
1972, Nap 2), 



AINU GROUP, 
'lATANABE 



restricted to the corridors. This in turn would have impaired ser- 
iously any archaeologist's ability to study the interrelationships 
between sites of different functions on the ridge and would have 
made it difficult to determine the significance of those sites found. 
Restricting the survey to exact corridors would have produced little 
new information about prehistoric occupation of the Soapstone Ridge 
area. 

Having the original archaeological survey cover the larger 
ridge area was also advantageous for the Georgia Department of Trans- 
portation. First, the possibility existed that none of the three 
alternate routes would have been acceptable, however, the Department 
of Transportation had the archaeological information available for 
planning a fourth route without having to contract for another sur- 
vey. Secondly, by having as much information as possible on arch- 
aeological sites within the Soapstone Ridge area, the Department of 
Transportation would be in a better position to assess the potential 
secondary impact of the 1-675 route on archaeological resources. 
Thought could be given to which route would minimize the destruction 
of archaeological sites if residential and industrial development 
followed the building of the expressway. 

Establishing the Research Area 

This meeting of minds by the contracting agency and the archae- 
ologist as to the specific area to be studied could be termed formally 
the "delineation of the research universe." Terms such as research 
universe, sampling universe, research area and study area are often 
used when archaeologists refer to the geographical area in which 
they are working. Establishing the exact boundaries of the research 

16 



\ 



CLAYTON KO 




D EKALB C O. 

Tenry CO 



i 



._j 



^ 



ORIENTATION 



SCALE 
BOUNDARY OF SOAPSTONE RIDGE' 

ZONE OF PRIMARY IMPACT 

ZONE OF SECONDARY IMPACT 



MILES 



•+' 



4J 



Figure 5, the location of the soapstone ridge area south of 
atlanta, georgia. 



universe is the first step in the survey research and it is an im- 
portant one. The area agreed upon should be described clearly in 
the research report and the reasoning that was involved in estab- 
lishing the boundaries should be set forth explicitly. 

The archaeologist also must remember that the research universe 
should include not only the boundaries of the direct effect area 
but also the area of probable secondary effects and all of the envi- 
ronmental zones that were most likely used by early inhabitants. 
The most logical research area would be one which approaches as 
closely as possible the project support area of the early human pop- 
ulations being studied. This approach will not necessarily cost 
more in time or money and will amount to a savings if additional 
development occurs. For the archaeologist the larger research uni- 
verse will enable him to assess the significance of individual sites, 
develop long term management needs and collect information that con- 
tributes to a more complete and accurate understanding of the way 
early populations lived. 

Sampling Strategy 

The next step in the research process is to determine the samp- 
ling strategy to be used. If contracting agencies were willing to 
provide archaeologists with unlimited funds and unlimited time, arch- 
aeologists would be willing to locate and study every archaeological 
site within the research universe. In reality, archaeologists are 
required to carry out initial research with limited funds and time. 
Because of these restrictions, archaeologists rarely attempt to lo- 
cate and study all of the sites within a research universe. They 
attempt, instead, to locate and study only a portion or sample of 

18 





FULTON CO. 



/CD 




_- 



w 



bKTo" 



r,\ L 




& 




£> 



^ 




^O 



^ 



tfi 



SITE DESIGNATIONS 

1 2 

■j_i i I L_ 



<:- 



t. 



a 







i 



£) 



s? 






f) 



% 



#? 



>W 



'<0 



SSI 







£ 



SCALE 

CONTOUR LINES ARE AT FIFTY FOOT INTERVALS 



MILES 



LEGEND 



A ARCHAIC SC OlD SCHOOL HOUSE 



W WOODLAND M^ I 

M MIS 



OCAMP 

p— | M MISSISSIPRIAN B BUILDING FOUNDATION 

UWORKSHOP H HISTORIC t HISTORIC CEMETERY 

^n, H H HISTORIC HOUSE 

CjQUARRY U unknown 

A S SPRING 

AVILLAGE Ggarden 




,850 
lB50 



^750' ^~"^ 



Figure 6, the location of functionally different sites within 
the soapstone ridge area, 




$£ 



< 
u 

> — 1 
CD 

o 
_l 
o 

UJ 

< 

X 
CJ 

< 

>- > 

pq h- 

•z. 

O 3 
UJ O 

I- o 

< 

O PQ 
O -J 
_J < 

UJ UJ 
h- O 

co -» 

UJ 

UJ Q 

O — • 
_J cc 

O UJ 
CQ Z 
O 
Q I- 
UJ C/5 
—■ D_ 
CC < 

oc o 

< CO 

r> 

o z 
o 
>- 
_) >- 

—. LU 
> > 

< OH 

UJ 3 
X CO 



UJ 

h- 
< 
_1 



the total number of sites. This sample has two basic requirements, 
one built on the other: the sample needs to reflect the whole and 
to do this it needs to be unbiased. 

The need for a representative sample: A representative sample, 
one which if selected correctly has a predictive value, is needed. 
It will allow the archaeologist to predict the number and type of 
sites and how they are distributed throughout the entire research 
universe. Based on the number, type and distribution of sites oc- 
curring in this representative sample, the pattern of site distri- 
bution for a larger area can be predicted. For a survey to result 
in a representative sample of sites, however, it must be planned 
and carried out according to certain guidelines. 

The need for a random sample: To obtain a representative sample, 
it is necessary for the actual portions of land to be surveyed to 
be chosen without any bias, either deliberate or unintentioned by 
the archaeologist. To avoid such potential bias, the areas to be 
covered must be selected in a statistically random manner. Such 
samples are termed random samples . 

No single procedure will work in every case but a number of 
different sampling schemes should produce the representative sample. 
The most appropriate method depends on the characteristics of the 
specific research universe. 

Simple random sample: To use simple random sampling the arch- 
aeologist divides the research universe into equal sized units. 
First, usually on paper, a grid is placed on the research universe 
breaking it down into a number of small grid or sample units (Figure 
7) . This network often is aligned with existing geographical fea- 
tures or political boundaries. Once ths study area has been broken 

21 



into units, each is assigned a number. Using a table or some other 
method of generating random numbers, units are selected for survey. 
The study area shown in Figure 7, which is the same river valley 
shown in Figure 3 and 4 contains a total of 321 grid units, each of 
which has been assigned a letter-number code. A table of random 
numbers has been consulted and the 32 squares indicated have been 
selected for survey. This can be termed a 10% simple random sample- 
quadrat method. Quadrat is the plot, usually rectangular, used for 
ecological or population studies. The size of the sample actually 
used depends upon the type and accuracy of the site information that 
is required. Most archaeological surveys involve sampling fractions 
of between 15 and 40%. 

A simple random sampling scheme such as the one described is 
appropriate when the research area is situated in a single uniform 
resource zone e.g., climax deciduous forest with no streams, no topo- 
graphic variation and uniform distribution of resources. However, 
such uniformity is rarely encountered. The research area defined 
by archaeologists invariably encompasses a number of different habi- 
tat zones or resource areas, and if a simple random sample is used 
in such a situation, there is a good probability that some of the 
Resource zones will not receive adequate coverage. You will notice, 
for example, that the grid units selected for survey coverage in 
Figure 7 tend to cluster down the middle of the research universe, 
resulting in inadequate coverage of Zone 4 (Figure 3 shows zones). 

Stratified random sample: In this procedure, the total research 
universe is divided into a number of different zones or strata before 
sampling units are selected. The term strata as used here does not 
refer to vertical placement as geological strata but rather is a 

22 



/ 


^^ 


■N- 


2 


/ 

./ 1 






"*«. 


""•■ 


— , 




3 




t— ' 














\ 


t 


> 


/ 
















' 


\ 
\ — 


5 


/ 


r 


■ 






'■ 


1 

1 


6 


/ 

* 


r 






















1 


7 


/ 


























i 

• 


8 








cli 
















~t^" 






1 


9 


A P^ 












h: i 


■ 






■k 


'°4 










\ 










/ 

/ 


II 


V 


»«• 


». 




) 


L 










f 


12 




'" 


V 


t* 






i 
i 


13 


< 


1 


i 


"> A 


T 












/« 








vj 


^ 












/ / 
/ 1 


15 


w 






^ 












J 


i 1 


16 


\ A 


V 


















7 


/ 

/ 1 , 


17 


) 1 


, s 


I 


L\ 














f 




18 


j/ .' 


\ 


^ 












/ 








19 


/ \ 


•* 


sS 














L 






20 


/ \ 
























21 


/ 


















22 


/ i 


















23 


J ' 
















Z¥ 


A 
















25 


1 / 


















26 


i 










^ 


5^ 
















27 


X \ 


























28 




















1 








29 


\ 








■ 


1 








r 






\A\B\C\D\£ 


F 


5 I H | / 


J 


*■ 


i I /* I N 


o 


p 



s. 






Settlement 

River 

Spawning Ground of Dog Salmon 

Deer Fence 

Deer Hunting Hut 

Bear Hunting Hut 

Fishing Hut for Cherry Salmon 

Ridge Top 



Figure 7, the research area shown in Fig. 4, overlaid with a 
grid network, and with grid units selected for a 
ten percent simple randcm sample (shown blacked out), 



statistical term referring to a section of a total research universe. 
Archaeologists usually break a research universe down into a number 
of strata matching vegetation communities or topography. The re- 
search universe shown in Figure 4 could be subdivided into four zones 
or sampling strata on the basis of vegetation and topography (Figure 

3): 

1. river edge zone (river banks) 

2. floodplain zone (river terraces) 

3. valley slope zone (hillside along river) 

4. upland zone (riverhead mountain region) 

A research universe is usually broken down into a number of 
distinct strata containing relatively homogenous vegetation commu- 
nities for an important reason: each of the different strata contain 
different sets of raw materials and food sources and therefore was 
exploited in different ways for different reasons by human popula- 
tions. This differential utilization of zones should be reflected 
by functional differences in sites. 

A grid is constructed and overlaid on each strata and a simple 
random sample is drawn within each strata. This stratified random 
sampling assures comparable coverage of each resource zone. 

This method however is difficult to employ in the field where 
there are not existing guides as township, section or quarter markers, 
Few such aids exist in many parts of Georgia, and as a result, it is 
often difficult to set up and use a grid for defining sampling units. 
Field crews often have spent more time attempting to find grid boun- 
daries than they have spent looking for archaeological sites. This 
problem is especially evident in situations where the archaeologist 
must carry out investigations in areas of dense vegetative cover. 

24 



Transect sample: An alternative that avoids such problems is 
a transect scheme. Transects are long narrow rectangular sampling 
units that crosscut sampling strata, ensuring comparable coverage 
of each strata. In the research universe shown in Figure 7, grid 
lines 3, 8, 12, 21, 25, and 27 could be viewed as a series of six 
randomly selected east-west transects. Each would crosscut the samp- 
ling strata, and would avoid the problems of locating sample quadrats. 
Field crews could simply be started in the right direction and walk 
along the transect line, looking for sites within a certain distance 
on each side. The six transects would cover a total of 67 grid units 
or more than 20% of the total research universe. Transect sampling 
schemes are often more attractive than quadrat sampling schemes be- 
cause of the time and money required to obtain comparable information 
from the research universe. 

Often one of these sampling strategies will be combined with 
a non-random method which can be expected to yield site information 
with a minimum of time and effort. For example, fields that have 
been recently plowed would be more likely to yield site information 
than areas covered by vegetation because the need for subsurface 
testing would be minimized. While sites discovered in plowed fields 
would not constitute a representative sample, archaeologists would 
be in error if they ignored such easily obtainable information simply 
because the fields did not fit into their statistically structured 
sampling scheme. 

Similarly, landowners, agents or employees of landowners, for- 
esters, surveyors, consulting engineers, wildlife biologists, game 
wardens, arrowhead collectors, and amateur archaeologists should 
be viewed as potential sources of site location information and 

25 



should be contacted. 

Finally, no matter what combination of sampling strategies are 
employed, it is important for the report to describe: 

1. what sampling strategy was used and why 

2. what sampling fraction was used and why 

3. how sampling units were selected 

4. what problems in terms of vegetation cover, alluviation, 
etc. were encountered in each sampling unit. 

The final survey report should include a detailed map showing 

the sampling area, sampling strata, quadrat/transect areas surveyed 

and vegetation/alluviation problem areas. 



26 



SITE DETECTION 

DAVID J. HALLY 

The majority of site surveys are conducted on the ground by 
foot. Sites found in this fashion are usually recognized by the 
presence of surface artifact scatters, topographic anomalies, or 
standing architecture. Unfortunately, such indicators may be ob- 
scured from the view of the pedestrian surveyor by a number of 
natural and man-made conditions . 

These include: 

1. ground cover of decaying vegetation such as leaf mold and 
pine needles 

2. thick, low lying vegetation such as pasture grass and 
palmetto 

3. burial by alluvial or colluvial sediments, humus build-up 
and recent construction activity 

4. submergence as a result of rising sea level, swamp forma- 
tion or reservoir construction 

5. swamps, marshes and impenetrable vegetation which hinder 
access to site areas. 

It is also possible that sites with diagnostic physical features 

may not be recognized by the pedestrian surveyor because of their 

low relief and large horizontal size or because of their resemblance 

to natural features. Examples of such situations include partially 

filled irrigation canals and defensive ditches, agricultural fields 

and stone fish weirs. 



27 



Finally, in some situations, sites with highly visible features 
may go unrecognized by the pedestrian surveyor simply because they 
are unexpected. Old roads and paths may be difficult to detect on 
the ground for this reason. 

In Georgia, live and decaying vegetation covers comprise the 
single greatest hindrance to site detection. While some areas of 
the state, specifically sections of the Gulf coastal plain, have a 
high ratio of cultivated to uncultivated land, pasture, forest and 
pine plantation predominate in most regions. In addition, extensive 
recent alluviation of stream and river flood plains in the Piedmont 
has often resulted in the burial of sites beneath a meter or more 
of sediments. 

Because of conditions such as these, pedestrian surface surveys 
are often impractical and unproductive or at best can be utilized 
in only a portion of a survey area. Fortunately, there is a variety 
of other techniques for site detection which are available for use 
by the archaeologist. Selection of the technique or techniques most 
suitable for any particular survey will depend upon weighing several 
different factors: natural conditions affecting visibility and 
accessibility of sites; the nature of the sites existing in the area; 
and the reliability and efficiency of the technique. The bearing 
of the first two factors on site detection should be evident from 
the preceding paragraphs and requires no further discussion at this 
point. The terms, reliability and efficiency, on the other hand, 
have rather special meanings in the present paper and require defi- 
nition. 

Reliability refers to the likelihood that a given survey tech- 
nique will detect sites. The important variables that determine the 

28 



reliability of a survey technique are of quality resolution, exposure 
size and spacing of exposures. Resolution refers to the kind of 
site evidence which can be detected with a given survey technique. 
Irrigation and fortification ditches may be visible in high altitude 
aerial photographs, but it is unlikely that a small surface artifact 
scatter can be detected in this way. Buried midden soils are less 
likely to be detected with a probe than with a hand operated post- 
hole digger. Finally, even pedestrian surface surveys may vary in 
resolution quality. The slower a surface surveyor walks, the more 
likely he is to detect small and/or sparse artifact scatters. 

The size of an area exposed to view in surveying varies from 
the 100 's of square kilometers portrayed in high altitude aerial 
photographs to the effective visual scan (5-10 meters) of a pedes- 
trian surveyor and the 10 cm diameter core obtained from a core drill 
rig. With the exception of aerial survey techniques where resolution 
quality becomes a problem, it is generally true that the larger the 
exposure the more likely sites falling within it will be recognized, 
Survey techniques such as pbsthole testing that produce small expo- 
sures will tend to yield site samples biased in favor of sites with 
dense artifact concentrations and highly visible features such as 
shell strata. 

Spacing, which refers to the linear distance between individual 
exposures, becomes an increasingly important factor in survey relia- 
bility as exposure size decreases. Obviously, it poses no problem 
with aerial photographs. It is a critical factor, however, in sub- 
surface testing with a posthole digger or probe. In general, the 
greater the distance between exposures, the greater the likelihood 
that small sites will be missed or under-represented in site samples. 

29 



Efficiency is a measure of the overall cost in time and money 
required to obtain a representative sample of sites in a given area. 
Obviously, exposure size and spacing are directly related to effi- 
ciency. But also to be considered are the speed with which an expo- 
sure can be made and its unit cost in dollars. Pedestrian surface 
surveys proceed at a relatively rapid rate and cost little to conduct, 
Subsurface surveys involving hand held posthole diggers are costly 
in time because of spacing requirements and the relatively slow 
rate at which exposures can be made; but unit operating cost is rela- 
tively little. Solid core drilling, on the other hand, is costly 
in terms of both time and money. 

Site detection techniques other than pedestrian surface survey 
that have been employed by archaeologists or have the potential for 
use are described in the remainder of this paper. In reviewing them 
the advantages and disadvantages of each technique are discussed and 
references to published accounts of their use are provided where 
available. 

Aerial photography using black and white, color, black and 
white infrared or color infrared film can be an invaluable aid in 
site detection (Gummerman and Lyons 1971; Lyons and Avery 1977). 
It is most effective where vegetation cover is light (see, however, 
Bruder et al. 1975) and with sites that because of their large size 
and low surface relief are difticult to detect on the ground. Irri- 
gation systems (Judd 1931), roads, military and ceremonial earthworks 
(Ryan 1975), fish weirs (Strandberg and Tomlinson 1969), midden 
deposits and even prehistoric agricultural fields (Fowler 1969; 
Schaber and Gummerman 1969) may be identifiable by this means. 

The utility of aerial photography is limited by several factors. 

30 




LU 



< 

Q 

cr 

o 



or 

>— I 
UJ 

2: 

X 

en 



LU - 
Z >- 
O I- 

I- z 

CO 3 
O 

< O 

LL ^ 
O O 

Q- < 

< CQ 

cc 

CD -» 
O OC 
H LU 
O > 
X -< 

o_ or 



< < 
a: o 

LU I- 

< LU 



LU 

< 

_J 
Q_ 



Dense vegetation cover, such as is characteristic of the eastern 
United States, may conceal the presence of sites. Furthermore, only 
a restricted variety of sites can be detected with the technique. 
Finally, costs mount rapidly when imagery or other than black and white 
photographs, available from United States government agencies, is 
used. 

Geophysical prospecting techniques which measure the electrical 
(resistivity survey) and magnetic field intensity (magnetometer and 
metal detector survey) of surface soils are widely used in the ex- 
ploration of buried sites (Tite 1972). While these techniques have 
the potential for detecting previously unknown sites, they have seldom 
been used for this purpose (Bowen and Carnes 1976; Kopper 1970). 
Reliability of the techniques is rather low since only a limited 
variety of sites can be detected. Detectable sites include those 
with architectural and occupation features such as walls, hearths 
and pits and those with metallic artifacts. Reliability is reduced 
also by the limited range of field conditions (mainly geological) 
under which the techniques will operate effectively. The efficiency 
of metal detectors is relatively great. This equipment is not 
expensive and continuous 2 m wide exposures can be made at the rate 
of a slow waltc. Magnetometer and resistivity techniques, however, 
are inefficient since exposures must be close-spaced and aligned in 
a grid pattern. 

Several "on-the-ground" site detection techniques that make use 
of manually operated or mechanical equipment are available for use 
in areas where sites are obscured by low-lying vegetation, a few 
centimeters of soil, or decayed vegetation. Each has its particular 
advantages and drawbacks which should be considered in choosing among 

32 




Plate 4, metal detector in use for archaeo- 
logical SITE LOCATION ALONG THE 
MARTA RAPID RAIL, EAST LINE, FULTON 
COUNTY. 




1- 
u 

LU 

LLJ 
P 

LU 



o 



UJ 

> 

CO 



> CO 


►— i UJ 


1- h- 


CO — ' 


i— CO 


CO 


LU _1 


on < 


o 


_1 — 


_ CO 


o o 


CO _J 


o 


U_ LU 


o < 


X 


UJ (_) 


CO Od 


=> < 



LA 

LU 
H 
< 



them. 

In certain forest situations, a fire rake can be used to remove 
surface debris. Where there is no humus build up, the technique is 
both reliable and efficient for the detection of surface sites. 
Wide and continuous exposures can be made rapidly and most site in- 
dicators will be visible, especially after a rainfall. 

Small shovel tests, measuring approximately 20 cm square and 
20 cm deep can be excavated with a light-weight folding shovel in a 
few minutes time (Hally et al. 1975; Lovis 1976). Overall this tech- 
nique is neither very reliable nor efficient. Exposures are small 
and, although unit cost in time and money is not great, the close 
spacing of tests necessary to avoid bias in the site sample makes 
the technique expensive. Shovel tests are probably more effective 
in detecting sites by the presence of artifacts than by soil zones 
or features. The main advantage of shovel testing is that it can 
be used in almost all kinds of terrain, in inaccessible locations 
and in places where vegetation might impede and even prohibit the 
use of other techniques. 

Hand operated garden tillers with pneumatic tires seem to have 
all of the advantages of the shovel test and few of its disadvantages, 
The machine is mobile and therefore capable of reaching and operating 
in all but the most rugged and overgrown terrain. Since it produces 
a fairly large (.5 m wide) continuous exposure, reliability is great. 
Efficiency, on the other hand, is low since the machine is relatively 
expensive to purchase and its forward progress is not too rapid. 
Furthermore, to maximize reliability, it is necessary to wait until 
a good rain has fallen before inspecting surface exposures. 

In areas where accessibility, terrain and vegetation permit, a 

35 



tractor mounted plow or fire break trencher are the most efficient 
and reliable machines for exposing sites lying within 20 cm of ground 
surface. The latter has the advantage of producing a clean cut 
approximately 1 meter wide and 30 cm deep flanked by spoil dirt. 
Occupation features such as postholes may be visible in this cut. 
Artifacts, of course, can be collected from the exposure after a 
rain. The major disadvantage of the fire break trencher is lack of 
mobility and its high purchase cost. The machine, furthermore, is 
not generally available on a rental basis. 

The tractor drawn plow is fast, somewhat more maneuverable than 
the fire break trencher, and generally available for rental. Because 
of the large continuous exposure it produces, reliability is high. 
Purchase or rental costs are more than offset by the speed with 
which exposure can be made. 

For sites lying between 30 cm and 2 m below ground surface, 
several pieces of equipment are available to the archaeologist. The 
hand-held bucket auger and posthole digger have many of the advan- 
tages and disadvantages characteristic of the shovel test. The main 
difference is the greater time required to make an exposure with them. 
When greater depth penetration is required, the bucket auger is 
superior to the posthole digger as it is physically less strenuous 
to operate and requires less time per exposure (Bowen and Carnes 
1977). The hand-held posthole digger has been used with great success 
in the Wallace Reservoir located on the Oconee River near Greensboro, 
Georgia (DePratter 1976; Wood 1976). Vegetation there was heavy and 
ubiquitous, while the river bottom land was extensively alluviated. 
Out of a total of 140 sites found in the reservoir area during a sur- 
vey conducted in 1974, 50 were initially detected with a hand-held 

36 




>- 

LU 

> 

ZD 
CO 



< 
a: 



a. 
< 

DC 



DC 

< 



CD 



dc 

r> 

Q 
CD 



O0 



DC 
LU 

CD 

ZD 
< 



CO 

LU 

t- 
< 
_l 

Q_ 



posthole digger. 

Tractor mounted posthole augers can dig a larger (20 cm) test 
hole and do it faster. They cannot penetrate below approximately 
1 meter, however, without the somewhat cumbersome addition of an 
extension to the auger shaft in each test. The tractor, of course, 
is plagued by the problem of maneuverability. 

A continuous trench measuring up to 10 cm wide and 2 m deep can 
be excavated with a mechanical ditch digger or ditch witch. Arti- 
facts can be collected from spoil dirt flanking the trench and the 
trench profile can be inspected for features and soil zones. Since 
the exposure is also continuous, reliability is great. The machine 
does not progress very rapidly, however, and may be impeded by large 
tree roots. Leasing or purchasing expense and relative lack of 
maneuverability are the major disadvantages of the machine. 

For sites buried more than 2 m below ground surface, there are 
really only three practical detection techniques available: the 
hand-held bucket auger, the truck or trailer mounted core drilling 
rig (Price et al. 1964; Johnson and Alexander 1975) and the backhoe 
(Chapman 1976) . With a backhoe, large area tests measuring up to 
four 1 m squares (1 m x 4 m) and 4 m deep can be excavated in soft 
alluvial soil in approximately 30 minutes (Chapman 1976) . Relia- 
bility is great due to exposure size, but efficiency is low due to 
high purchase or rental cost and spacing requirements. This tech- 
nique may destroy as much information as it uncovers. Landowners, 
furthermore, may not allow it to be used because of the problems 
such large excavations pose for later land use. 

For all practical purposes there is no depth limit on a core 
drilling rig. The technique has the additional advantage of provid- 

38 



ing the archaeologist with a direct view of buried strata. Although 
resolution is relatively great for this reason, small exposure size 
and spacing requirements limit reliability and decrease efficiency. 
Other disadvantages of the technique are the high cost of equipment 
purchase or rental, the great amount of time required to make expo- 
sures and lack of equipment maneuverability. Overall, the technique 
is very inefficient. 

The hand-held bucket auger would seem to be the most efficient, 
if not reliable, technique for the detection of deeply buried sites. 
Exposures can be made more rapidly than with either of the mechanical 
techniques, and purchase and operation costs are negligible. Perhaps 
of greatest importance, use of the technique is not restricted by 
terrain and vegetation conditions. With the use of extension pieces, 
there is theoretically no depth limitation for the technique. In 
actuality, the equipment becomes cumbersome and difficult to operate 
at depths greater than 5 m. 

The need to employ random sampling procedures in the selection 
of sampling units and the .problem of locating these units on the 
ground is clearly described in Chapter 2 of this manual. When using 
small exposure techniques such as shovel or posthole tests, the prob- 
lem of locating sampling units is considerable due to the sheer num- 
ber of exposures required for adequate coverage. The only practical 
way to overcome this problem is to sample transects or strata within 
the research universe. Exposures within such areas are most effi- 
ciently located by employing a systematic sampling scheme which 
places exposures in a linear or grid pattern. 



39 



SITE CHARACTERIZATION 
CRAIG T, SHELDON, JR , 

Once an archaeological site has been detected, certain data 
must be gathered in order to adequately describe the site and assess 
its potential significance. This phase of investigation is termed 
site characterization. It would be difficult to over-emphasize the 
importance of the activities which occur during this phase. Many 
justifiable criticisms of archaeological surveys relate not to prob- 
lems of site detection, but rather to inadequacies in the subsequent 
data gathered from each site. 

The basic intent of site characterization is to assess the po- 
tential of a particular site for producing certain forms of data 
and not to measure exhaustively all of the variation of artifacts, 
features and other data present at the site. 

Adequate assessment of a site usually requires information on 
the following characteristics: 

1. an accurate location and physical description of the site 

2. the horizontal limits of the site 

3. the depth and stratification of cultural deposits 

4. the presence of any surface and/or subsurface features 

5. preliminary identification of the major cultural components 
and/or activities at the site 

6. the extent of agricultural and other disturbances to the 
site 



40 



7. a field evaluation of the potential impact of any proposed 
construction or project activities upon the data contained 
within the site. 

Specific projects or surveys may require that additional types of 
data be gathered and these must be taken into account in the plan- 
ning of the site characterization phase. 

The gathering of these data necessitates a series of explicit 
and formal testing procedures which must be followed and fully ex- 
plained in order to assure that the data are of adequate quality. 
These procedures include development of a site sampling strategy, 
selection of appropriate surface and/or subsurface testing techniques 
and accurate recording of the resulting data. 

Site Sampling 

The necessity for adopting a basic sampling strategy during the 
testing of an archaeological site is frequently overlooked, particu- 
larly if the survey (s) and/or site(s) are small in extent. Surface 
and subsurface tests executed during the original phase of site de- 
tection may demonstrate that a site exists at a particular location, 
but they do not usually provide the desired data for assessing such 
characteristics as the depth of deposit, horizontal extent and basic 
composition of the archaeological materials. Additional testings 
within the boundaries of the site are necessary and it is critical 
that this testing be conducted to produce maximal reliable data. 

It is obvious that the data produced during testing represents 
only a fraction of the total data present within a site. In order 
to provide an effective measure of the extent to which the test data 
reflect the average conditions throughout the site, the surface and 
subsurface testing activities should be carried out with reference 

41 



to a basic sampling scheme. The number and size of test units 
will vary according to the particular nature of a site and the 
scope and requirements of the individual research project, but 
the actual location of the test units must be made with some under- 
standing of the relationships that they bear to the total configur- 
ation of the site. A clearly delineated and executed sampling 
strategy not only increases the probability that all the components 
and/or activity areas are represented, but also enables a clear 
understanding of the operational biases which are present in any 
testing procedure. 

Development of elaborate sampling schemes for a half acre of 
eroded Piedmont hillside or similar area would in most cases be an 
exercise in futility. Under such circumstances, most archaeolo- 
gists would conduct a few subsurface tests at locations which 
they judge best demonstrate the eroded and disturbed nature of 
the area. This approach would be adequate, but only if the archaeo- 
logist clearly documents why a formalized sampling strategy was not 
used and on what basis he selected the specific locations of the 
subsurface tests. 

Certain basic sampling procedures have been discussed in the 
chapter on survey methodology. An additional discussion of sampling 
is presented here as it relates to site characterization. 

Availability sampling: Frequently the archaeologist is left 
few choices in his placement of subsurface tests and is restricted 
to portions of a site. Limitations may include extensive site damage 
from construction or erosion, existing buildings, roads, parking lots, 
crops, landowner preferences, rock falls and project boundaries. 
Being restricted to the peripheries of planted fields, dirt alleys, 

42 



flowerbeds and undamaged portions of a site, it is difficult and 
occasionally impossible to sample all the possible cultural and phy- 
sical divisions. Availability samples are the most biased and un- 
controlled of the sampling approaches but frequently the archaeolo- 
gist has no alternative. Careful placement of the test units around 
the portion of the site which cannot be used may reduce some of the 
effects to the bias. 

Judgmental sampling: Judgmental or intuitive sampling refers 
to testing those portions of a site which the archaeologist considers 
to have the greatest likelihood of containing important data. This 
is not a formal sampling procedure and frequently does not show 
clearly the biases which may be operating (Ragir 1975:286). So 
called "hot spots" are for the most part not intuitive hunches but 
informally observed correlations between land features and cultural 
remains (as artifact scatters, structures and wells) and concentra- 
tion of subsurface artifacts and features. Following such indicators, 
the archaeologist frequently can produce large quantities of data 
with a minimum expenditure of energy but discriminates against those 
portions of the sites where few artifacts show above ground. If a 
purely judgmental approach must be used due to restrictions of time 
and labor, whatever informal surface indicators were used must be 
described as explicitly as possible. This will enable some subse- 
quent assessment of the biases which were present during the testing 
of a site. 

Random sampling: Random sampling is the most statistically 
valid procedure considered here and also allows for the greatest 
control of any operational biases (Ragir 1975) . A site is divided 
arbitrarily into a number of points or equally sized areas, then a 

43 



certain number of points are selected for testing on the basis of 
randomly generated numbers. 

Selecting a sample purely randomly is the most dependable tech- 
nique for insuring that all portions of a site have an equal chance 
of representation, but actual application of this technique has re- 
sulted in a number of operational problems. 

First, a random sample may exclude sampling a portion of the 
site known to be highly productive from surface indications or ini- 
tial subsurface tests or judged so by the archaeologist on the basis 
of previous experience. 

Secondly, randomly selected points occasionally cluster, leaving 
large areas of a site untested. 

Thirdly, if a significant data complex (as a burial, a portion 
or trace of a structure) lies partially within a selected unit it 
may be necessary to extend testing into a sample unit not previously 
selected for excavation. Rigorous adherence to the initial system 
may preserve the dictates of a random sample, but result in the loss 
of significant data. Excavating the unselected unit will yield more 
complete recovery of the special complex but may result in abandoning 
the random scheme. Problems such as this cannot be resolved by an 
all-encompassing answer, but rather should be approached as a pro- 
fessional decision based upon information potential given alternative 
testing. Because of the numerous problems that come with rigorous 
application of the random sampling procedure, it should be used in 
conjunction with other techniques. 

Systematic sampling: Systematic or interval sampling also in- 
volves the use of grid points or equal sized units but a predeter- 
mined interval, such as every second or fourth point, is chosen. 

44 



This eliminates the clustering problems associated with random 
sampling. Intervals, however, may not fall within highly productive 
or discernible areas of a site. The sampling interval inadvertently 
may coincide with some regularity in the data itself, for example, 
all tests falling within the streets of a former colonial period 
street grid system. 

Stratified sampling: This is a more recently developed tech- 
nique which minimizes many of the problems associated with random 
and systematic sampling and also allows the archaeologist to apply 
data available to him from past experience (Rootenberg 1964, Ragir 
1975, McMichael 1977). 

As outlined in the section on stratification of the research 
universe, a stratified sample is based on the delineation of strata 
or physically and culturally discernible sections of a site, such as 
floodplain terraces, proximity of resources, gradients or structures, 
plazas, palisades. The basis on which the strata were selected 
must be stated explicitly even if they were judgemental. 

The number of units excavated in each strata is proportional to 
its percentage of the total size of the site. The tests within each 
strata may be placed randomly, systematically or by a combined approach, 

A cautionary note should be injected here in regard to strata 
based on cultural evidence. Structural remains or other nonrandom 
clusters of artifacts found on the surface may enable the archaeol- 
ogist to divide a site on the basis of focal points of activity. 
It is essential that all strata discernible at a site be tested since 
many activities confined to one area may not generate as many indi- 
cations on the surface as activities which are widespread or repeated. 

Additional discussion on intra-site sampling strategies and 

4 5 



techniques may be found in Rootenberg (1964), Binford (1964), Redman 
(1973), Ragir (1975) and Mueller (1975). 

Regardless of which sampling approach is selected by or forced 
upon the archaeologist, it is crucial that the procedures employed 
and the reasoning behind them be outlined explicitly. Such "state- 
ments of methodology" are necessary if there is to be any independent 
assessment of the reliability of the recovered data characterizing 
the site. 

Once the basic sampling strategy has been decided upon, the 

next problem is determining the sample size or the percentage of the 

site to be sampled. As Asch (1975:190) states: 

No absolute standard for archaeological sample size can 
be established; their adequacy must therefore be evalu- 
ated in terms of the research problems set forth by the 
individual investigators and by the larger archaeologi- 
cal community. 

For surveys and reconnaissances, rather than full scale exca- 
vations, sample size is influenced by three major aspects: the types 
of data sought, the cultural and physical conditions present at sites 
and the particular testing modes used. 

The types of information needed are the physical dimensions of 
the site, an identification of cultural components, the existence 
of stratified cultural deposits and features or areas of specific 
activities, physical disturbance to the site as caused by agriculture, 
and an evaluation of how the project will affect the site. 

The variation in the size and composition of a site will affect 
directly the necessary sample size. Thus large, complex sites with 
discernible internal variation (such as large villages or historical 
sites) will require a greater number of sampling points in order to 
assess areas of specific functions or overlapping occupations. Con- 

46 



versely, smaller sites with greater homogeneity in the distribution 
or deposition of artifacts, features or occupations will require 
fewer sampling points. An example of the smaller site would be a 
bluff shelter where the physical limitations of the site restricted 
the usable area and resulted in the accumulations of debris of each 
successive occupation one on top of another. 

Finally, the capability of each technique with respect to reso- 
lution quality, exposure, maneuverability and cost will affect the 
sample size. For basic site characterization, a large number of 
small tests will yield more reliable data than a small number of 
larger tests, even though the sampled portion of the site remains 
the same (Asch 1975:179). Thus a number of point samples made with 
small shovels, manually operated posthole diggers or augers distri- 
buted within a site according to some formalized sampling procedure 
would appear to be a more productive and efficient approach. Such 
small samples are biased however against locations of low artifact 
density or certain types of features. These biases may be balanced 
by excavating several larger tests in conjunction with the point 
samples . 

Testing Procedures 

In the past, the recovery of artifact samples from archaeolo- 
gical sites was generally restricted to two basic methods — surface 
collections from cleared areas and small manually excavated test pits 
In response to the increasing need for more efficient means of amass- 
ing adequate samples during surveys, archaeologists have recently 
devised and tested a number of alternative techniques and mechanisms. 
Many of these techniques have not yet been adequately assessed in 

4 7 



terms of their reliability, resolution and exposure and all have their 
distinctive advantages and limitations. In selecting a particular 
testing mode or combination of modes, it is critical to have a clear 
understanding of these qualities and to be certain that the applied 
methods will yield the required data. 

Surface Testing 

The majority of archaeological sites are detected through sur- 
face indications. While examination of materials and conditions 
found on the surface are seldom adequate for the purposes of assess- 
ment, certain procedures may enhance and supplement the subsurface 
tests . 

Systematic surface collecting: Collection of surface materials 
at a site is seldom adequate in itself since it does not permit ade- 
quate assessment of the subsurface potential or conditions. When 
conducted in a systematic manner, however, it becomes a useful guide 
for determining the location of subsequent subsurface tests. Sites 
under cultivation or with enough surface exposed, may be divided into 
equal parts and artifacts systematically collected on the basis of 
a total, random interval or stratified plan (Redman and Watson 1970, 
Binford 1964) . If time does not permit establishing a grid, circu- 
lar sampling areas of a standardized radius may be considered as an 
alternative. 

In much of Georgia, extensive reforestation and conversion to 
pasture makes systematic surface collecting difficult if not impos- 
sible. An alternative approach is the use of mechanical equipment 
to replow or scarify the original plowzone, exposing it to subse- 
quent rain and then systematically collecting exposed areas. It is 



not necessary to expose the entire site; plowed strips or transects 
located on the basis of a formalized sampling scheme will yield 
adequate information. 

In western Carroll County, Georgia, three sites with an eroded 
shallow plowzone were scarified by several 6 foot (or 1.8 meters) 
wide transects, each 50-100 feet or 15-30.5 meters long, using a 
front end loader with a toothed blade. Following subsequent rains, 
the exposed artifacts were systematically collected. Selected por- 
tions of the plowzone were then removed using a bulldozer to uncover 
features which extended below the plowzone. The rep lowing or scar- 
ification of these sites exposed a greater area and produced a larger 
artifact sample than the more traditional manually excavated test 
pits would have (Sheldon 1975) . Other mechanical equipment which 
could be used is listed in Table 1. 

Probes: Metal probes are seriously limited in their quality 
of resolution, but have application under special circumstances. 
Probing can be useful in locating or tracing buried shell middens, 
bed rock, walls and foundations. The best design consists of a 4 
foot rod (1.2 meters) of h; inch (.6 centimeters) tempered steel with 
a slightly larger steel ball bearing welded to the lower end and a 
brass door knob attached to the upper end. Considerable time is 
necessary to develop the skill necessary to use and interpret the 
results of such probing. 

Geophysical testing procedures: While the various electronic 
remote sensing systems have received comparatively little applica- 
tion in finding sites, their use in site characterization would 
appear to be more productive due to the limited area and greater 
control of local background activity. Magnetometers which measure 

49 



Table 1 



Subsurface Testing Techniques 



Point Samples 



conventional archaeological test pits 
small shovel tests 
manually operated posthole diggers 
truck or tractor mounted auger 
portable gasoline powered auger 
truck mounted hydraulic corer 
tractor mounted backhoe 



Trench Samples 

tractor mounted backhoe 
ditch digger 
bulldozer 
dragline 



Stripping and Scarifying 



tractor drawn plow, harrow or disc 
tractor drawn fire plow 
toothblade on tractor or bulldozer 
motor grader 
garden cultivator 
bulldozer 



50 



variation in magnetic field intensity, resistivity which measures 
variations in electrical field conductivity (Tite 1972) and ground 
penetrating radar (Bevan and Kenyon 1975) are the most commonly em- 
ployed survey techniques. All have the capacity to detect buried 
anomalies which on an archaeological site may include pits, hearths, 
subsurface strata, ditches, tombs and stone and brick walls. Instru- 
mentation costs are generally high but the majority of systems are 
easily transported. Before these can be used, it is necessary to 
establish a grid system and determine the local level of background 
magnetism or resistivity, a task requiring numerous readings. In 
order to interpret properly the significance of any electronic sig- 
nature, some subsurface tests must be excavated to confirm that the 
indicated anomalies are cultural and not natural features. Because 
of these problems, these geophysical techniques are more efficient 
when used on large sites where internal arrangements of features 
are important. 

The beat frequency or oscillating types of electromagnetic 
metal detectors are relatively inexpensive, light and compact. They 
are suited to historic and those prehistoric sites where metallic 
artifacts are encountered. By careful plotting of each signal on 
a site map, it is possible to not only determine relative density 
of metal artifacts but also to identify pits and dumps, thus allowing 
them to be incorporated into subsequent subsurface testing schemes. 

Some types of electromagnetic surveying instruments may also 
be used for the detection of buried soil features such as pits, 
ditches and walls (Tite 1972:32-39). 

Photography: Due to their usually small scale, existing aerial 
photographs are of greater value in site detection than in site 

51 



characterization. Where vegetation conditions permit they can be 
useful in recording site locations, determining site boundaries and 
spatial dimensions and arrangements of surface features. Features 
which are not easily discernible from the surface may show up clearly 
in aerial photographs. Examples of such features include agricul- 
tural fields (Morrell 1965, Fowler 1969), walls and structures 
(Kurjack and Andrews 1976) and fish traps (Strandberg and Tomlinson 
1969). 

Although it is not specifically a testing technique, surface 
photography is an important aid in site characterization due to its 
high resolution quality, exposure size and relative ease. Many sur- 
veys require site photographs as part of subsequent nomination to 
the National Register of Historic Places. Where vegetation is dense 
and no cultural features are visible, site photographs retain con- 
siderable value in recording the physical condition and configuration 
of the land and serve as an aid in relocating the site in the future. 
Photographs should include a known scale and a reference to direction. 
They should be planned to record the maximum amount of information 
visible (Hester et al. 1975:233-248, Conlon 1973). This is particu- 
larly necessary where standing structures, walls, ditches, mounds and 
similar features are present. 

Subsurface Testing 

A number of alternative subsurface testing techniques have al- 
ready been discussed in the section on Site Detection and need not 
be repeated here (See Table 1). Frequently the same technique em- 
ployed in detecting the presence of a buried site may be used in the 
site characterization phase. For example, once a site has been dis- 

52 




I 

o 
_J - 

> 

LU h- 
< -ZL 

1 =) 

o o 

CC CD 

< 

■21 
Q O 
LU H 
— _l 
CC =D 
ZD LL. 
PQ 

CC > 
LU CC 

> LU 
O \- 
(_) LU 
CO 21 
1—1 LU 
Q O 

O Q 

I- 2: 

< 

CD —I 

— < 
Q. O 

Q_ 
— i h- 

cc < 

I— 
co co 

LU 

cr cc 

LU ID 
Q h- 
< < 

CC LU 
CD LL 

CC -J 

o < 
I- u 

o ~ 

S CD 



LU 

h- 
< 

_J 
Q_ 



covered through the excavation of small pos tholes, then additional 
postholes placed within the parameters of the site according to a 
sampling strategy should provide the necessary information on depth, 
stratification and so forth. 

As discussed in the section on Site Sampling, the small exposure 
"point sampling" methods frequently lead to biases against recovery 
of materials from areas of low artifact density or against certain 
types of features. In this instance, a combination of different 
testing modes may be useful. Thus a limited number of large exposure 
tests, excavated manually or mechanically, might be used in addition 
to a larger number of postholes or small shovel tests. If the pre- 
sence of linear features such as stockades, walls, ditches, and so 
forth are known or suspected, then short trenches excavated by ditch 
digger or backhoe may be instrumental in revealing their location 
and extent. 

Mechanized equipment offers a number of potential cost and time 
saving alternatives to manual techniques (Wedel 1951) . Depending 
on their individual qualities of control, capacity, maneuverability 
and considering rental costs and maintenance, each presents a range 
of advantages and disadvantages. Caution must be used to insure the 
equipment is not indiscriminately used in inappropriate situations 
where it would destroy more data than it recovers. 

One of the most frequent flaws of archaeological assessment 
reports is the failure of the archaeologist to adequately describe 
the specific techniques and results of the field testing program. 
The simple statement that a particular test unit yielded no cultural 
material is insufficient because it does not provide a basis for 
evaluation of representatives of the test unit. In assessing the 

54 





Plate 8, trenches excavated with a backhoe in order to 

characterize a buried indian village site within 
the lake oconee impoundment area, 



potential data contained within a site, negative indications are as 
important as positive ones and should be as fully recorded. In 
addition to specifying the basic sampling strategy and presentation 
of a detailed map of the location of each test unit, there should 
be textual and graphic indications of the type of testing mode (e.g., 
posthole digger, backhoe, etc.), terminal depth of the test, the 
soil horizons encountered and an explanation for the absence of 
cultural materials (e.g., beyond site boundaries or below annual 
flood elevation) . 

Recording Site Information 

The data produced by surveys and site testing must be clearly 
and concisely recorded, both for cultural resource assessments and 
the permanent archaeological record. It would be difficult to over- 
stress the importance of complete and accurate documentation of field 
data. All too often otherwise fully adequate testing projects are 
flawed by incomplete field notes and records. For sites which do not 
meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic 
Places, the data gathered during the survey becomes critical. It 
may become the only record of that site's existence and nature. 

Location and Basic Site Information 

The geographic location of a site must be determined accur- 
ately and recorded precisely. This is mandatory not only for future 
archaeological research but also for planning and resource manage- 
ment. Georgia Archaeological Survey forms are available from the 
Office of the State Archaeologist and are provided upon request. 
A sample form and explanation of categories is in Appendix A. 

56 



In addition to recording the site on the survey form, it is 
desirable to complete the computer code sheet for the Archaeological 
Site Inventory, currently being maintained by the University of 
Georgia. Once established, this computerized file will serve as a 
valuable research and planning tool. There is some overlap in the 
information requested on the survey form and the computer inventory 
code, but the code does require additional data. Coding information 
is also included in Appendix A. 

Recording of Test Data 

The systematic survey of a large area frequently demands that 
numerous sites be sampled, resulting in a considerable amount of 
facts to be recorded. To make it possible to compare the data from 
different sites and to lessen the chances of certain information 
being overlooked for a particular site, a system of standard record- 
ing procedures should be established. This is most effectively 
done by developing a series of printed forms, either for general or 
institutional purposes or for specific projects. At minimum, the 
following records should be maintained: 

Daily field log: Kept by the supervising archaeologist, this 
notebook should record the day to day activities of the investiga- 
tions and any data not recorded in other forms. This should include 
the project title, the contract agency, the names of supervisory 
personnel and laborers, details of the sampling rationale and test- 
ing techniques used. 

Test unit record: A printed form similar to the Georgia State 
University excavation unit data sheet (see sample in Appendix B) 
would be useful in assuring that all necessary information is 

57 



recorded for each test. This should include the field number of 
each test, the type of test (posthole, backhoe, etc.), size, eleva- 
tions, graphic profile sketches and descriptions of all discernible 
natural and cultural strata and descriptions of features and non- 
transportable cultural data. 

Maps and plans: These should record the location of all visi- 
ble surface features, both cultural and natural, as concentrations 
of artifacts, walls, streams or whatever; the location of all test 
points and systematic surface collection areas; benchmarks and datum 
points; the boundaries, cultural and natural, which served for 
stratification of the site, and if possible contour lines and ele- 
vations sufficient to depict the basic topography of the site. All 
maps, plans and drawings must have a legend listing the site name 
and number, project or survey title, north arrow, scale, datum, 
field specimen and test excavation numbers, date and name of mapper. 
These are essential. 

Feature and burial forms: Standardized forms for features and 
burials encountered during testing assure that all pertinent data 
are recorded. Sample forms are included in Appendix B. 

Photographic record: A separate log should be maintained list- 
ing the photograph number, project, site, subject, direction of view, 
the date and the name of the photographer. These details are crucial 
since photographs are an integral part of the archaeological record. 
A sample form is included in Appendix B. 

Field container log: A separate notebook listing the number 
of containers of cultural materials, soil samples, etc., recovered 
from each site or test unit is necessary to record the provenience 
(horizontal and vertical location) of the material. This information 

58 




LL1 
CD 

a 

i— i 

en 

LU 



GO 

< 

o 

GO 



o 

LU 

h- 

•— « 

GO 

LT 

< 

a 
< 

< 



Q_ 
Q. 

< - 

LU -Z. 

_J =) 

PQ O 

< O 

L1J-I 

<^ 

_1LU 
O. Q 



en 

LU 

I- 

< 



must be maintained in subsequent laboratory analysis. 

Records inventory: Frequently site and test data from a single 
site are recorded in a variety of forms. As an aid in the laboratory 
phase and any subsequent use of the records, a check list of the 
number and type of notebooks, maps, plans, logs, cards and forms 
completed for each site would be valuable. 



60 



LABORATORY PROCESSING AND CURATION 

ROY S, DICKENS 

William Lipe (1974:238-240) has made a convincing case for good 

management in the laboratory and museum of archaeological remains, 

and for the obligations that we all must assume when we remove these 

remains from their original site contexts. 

At some indefinite point in the future, hopefully far in 
the future, archaeological sites, at least of the prehistoric 
period, will be very rare, and field work almost a thing of the 
past. All that will be left for the prehistorian of the future 
will be the reports we publish today, and the basic records and 
collections that remain. .. .The report is in no sense a substitute 
for the basic field data and collections, if someone with a differ- 
ent perspective, a new set of problems, or new techniques wants to 
examine these basic materials ... .1 submit that we should be even 
more concerned about the future indefinite preservation of our 
records and collections than about preservation of our published 
works. . .published works are likely to grow more and more obsolete 
through time and to receive less and less attention, whereas the 
basic records and collections are likely to grow more important 
and to be frequently consulted through time, as our supply of 
actual sites dwindles. 

This return to older collections has already begun. For ex- 
ample, Southeastern archaeologists are making increasing use of data 
gathered under the public works programs of the 1930's and 1940' s 
(e.g., Mason 1963; McKenzie 1966; DeJarnette and Peebles 1970; 
Peebles 1971; Hatch 1975). Many of these Civil Works Administration 
and Works Progress Administration projects were conducted in the 
large river basins, such as the Tennessee Valley, sites that are now 
flooded and inaccessible to modern archaeologists. With today's 
prices for labor, materials, and equipment, projects comparable in 

61 



magnitude to those conducted forty years ago will be few. As Lipe 
noted, our resource base is also dwindling. For these reasons, the 
older data become increasingly important. 

But what does one find upon opening the boxes and file drawers 
from past projects? It has been my experience that these older data 
are in conditions varying from good to unusable. On the more tragic 
end of the continuum, I have found boxes in which the bags and labels 
had been eaten by rats or insects, effectively destroying the pro- 
venience of the materials. I have found items which are shown in 
one archaeological context by field photographs, but which are stored 
in a situation that suggests they were from a different context. I 
have seen numerous examples of artifacts on which the catalog num- 
bers have become abraded beyond recognition, or where the ink had 
deteriorated or become detached from the surface. I have discovered 
40-year old negatives with cracking or peeling emulsion, and original 
field documents that have turned brown or on which the ink has eaten 
through the paper. 

On the brighter side, I have found some of these older collec- 
tions and records that were well organized, accessible, and in good 
condition. The bad examples usually were not the fault of the ori- 
ginal excavators. In most cases deterioration had resulted from 
hurried processing, adverse storage conditions, or careless curation 
and handling. Of course, some of the decline in these materials was 
simply the result of normal aging and could not be avoided with 
existing archival techniques. 

We must recognize that most of our laboratory and storage tech- 
niques were not, and still are not, aimed at maximum permanency. 
How many of us are careful to wash our negatives and prints an extra 

62 



30 minutes to make sure that the destructive chemicals are thoroughly 
removed? Do we store our maps, photographs, and negatives in acid- 
free holders? How many of us can afford fire-proof filing cabinets 
for our field data, or dehumidif iers for our collection rooms? Are 
we always careful to avoid breaking or abrading fragile artifacts 
for which we are only the temporary custodians? The state of our 
resource base now demands that we begin to treat archaeological 
specimens and records as an irreplaceable, but reusable, resource. 

TREATMENT OF ARTIFACTS 

Field Removal and Transportation to the Laboratory 

The archaeologist must take seriously his responsibility for 
the handling of artifacts during removal from the field and trans- 
portation to the laboratory. Fragile items, especially bone, shell, 
wood, leather, and paper, require special attention. Usually, these 
materials have survived because of unusual soil and/or climatic 
conditions. Thus, when they are removed from their field, it is 
necessary to keep them in a similar environment until they are ready 
for laboratory treatment. For example, fragile bone or shell may 
be left in its soil matrix to avoid breakage, and wrapped in burlap 
to prevent excessive drying (Runquist 1970) . Wood from a wet arch- 
aeological context should be kept moist until lab treatment can be 
initiated (Keel 1963) . 

When artifacts are in transit to the laboratory, they should 
be handled with care to avoid crushing or breaking. When in temp- 
orary storage at the lab, prior to processing, boxes and bags of 
artifacts should not be placed in areas where they will be in danger 

63 




CD 



DC 

Q 
Q 

LU 

H 

UJ 



o 
o 

00 

< 



DC 

< - 

Q UJ 
LU > 

=) Ct 

CD => 
O CO 

_l 

< -I 
\- < 

< o 

CJ -« 

CD 

CD O 

•z -I 

— o 

Q LU 
or < 

O X 
CJ CJ 
UJ DC 
cc < 



CD 



LU 

< 



of spillage or come under the prying hands of curiosity seekers. 
Also, containers should not be stacked to such a height as to crush 
materials on lower levels. Perhaps, the most serious error that is 
committed when artifacts are in transit, or in temporary storage, 
is the loss or mixing of provenience data. Labels, tags, and other 
identifying marks should be clearly written and securely affixed to 
their containers. Water-proof ink always should be used for labeling 
boxes and bags in the field. 

Laboratory Techniques 

Laboratory treatment of artifacts is a complex, time-consuming 
and often costly process. Therefore, the archaeologist is obligated 
to determine prior to fieldwork that he possesses the facilities 
and resources necessary for the proper cleaning, preserving, cata- 
loging, storage, and retrieval of the resulting materials. 

Cleaning: An artifact should be cleaned no more than is neces- 
sary for analysis, and then the cleaning should be carried out in 
a careful and thoughtful manner. Too much cleaning can reduce the 
information content of an artifact. For example, indiscriminate 
scrubbing might remove tell-tale residue from the edge of a stone 
scraper, the "cake" from a pipe bowl, or paint from the surface of 
a potsherd. 

Commonly, artifacts are cleaned by hand with brush and water. 
If tough clay adheres to the surface of pottery, for example, one 
might use warm water and a mild detergent for cleaning. Certain 
fragile materials, such as bone and shell, are sometimes best cleaned 
with a soft brush without wetting the artifact, or with the use of 
acetone which evaporates quickly. Metals can be cleaned by a number 

65 



of techniques, including chemicals, sand-blasting, and electrolysis. 
The latter two techniques usually are reserved for iron, which may 
be heavily oxidized, especially if recovered from an underwater site. 
Keel (1963) discusses appropriate techniques for various metals, and 
Dunton (1964) gives the specifications for setting up electrolytic 
apparatus in the small laboratory. Chemical and electrolytic clean- 
ing should be carefully monitored as they can destroy an artifact 
if carried too far. The cleaning of clay, metal, stone, bone, shell, 
wood, textiles, skins and paper are covered in several manuals (e.g., 
Plenderleith 1956; Keel 1963) and numerous specialized papers (e.g., 
Dunton 1964; Runquist 1970; South 1962; Worthy 1978). 

Preservation and Restoration: As with cleaning, an artifact 
should be subjected to preservation treatment (soaking, coating, 
encasing, etc.) only to the extent necessary to protect the item 
from future deterioration. Several preservation manuals (e.g., 
Plenderleith 1956; Keel 1963; Lewis 1976) are available, and the 
bibliographies of these books contain numerous articles on the treat- 
ment of specific materials. 

One should always be as certain as possible that he has deter- 
mined the appropriate technique by experimentation prior to large- 
scale treatment. For example, if an artifact is recovered in several 
pieces, a small piece might be tested prior to treating the remain- 
ing portions. Better yet, similar, non-artif actual material might 
be obtained for testing purposes. 

Wooden artifacts recovered from a damp environment should be 
kept submerged or wrapped in wet cloth until treatment can be initi- 
ated. Treatment of wet wood usually involves impregnation with a 
wax or resin substance to prevent shrinkage and cracking during drying, 

66 




>- 

CD 
H 
< 
DC 
O 

< 



< 
CO 

h- 

< 



< 
ID 



< 

LU 
_l 
CJ 



UJ 

h- 
< 



Recently, Polyethylene glycol (Carbowax) has proven useful (Seborg 
and Invenarity 1962) . Small wooden items usually can be treated 
indoors in the normal laboratory setup; however, it might be neces- 
sary to treat larger items (e.g., a dugout canoe) in a makeshift 
tank constructed out-of-doors (Dickens 1964) . 

After cleaning, bone and shell may be coated with a thin solu- 
tion of Gelva and commercial-grade acetone; wood and most metals 
with a clear (matte finish) acrylic such as Krylon or polyurethane; 
paper with magnesium carbonate; and leather or skins with a light 
coating of leather dressing. Again, there should be minimal use of 
these preservatives, as overtreatment can produce destructive and 
unattractive results. Special care, and multiple techniques, may 
be required on delicate objects or on objects made from more than 
one material (e.g., copper-covered or shell- inlaid wooden artifacts). 

Restoration of artifacts requires skill and practice. Several 
articles (e.g., Runquist 1970; Torrey 1940) are concerned with this 
subject. Usually, restoration is conducted for the purposes of 
determining the overall configuration of an artifact or to prepare 
it for exhibition. 

Accessioning and Cataloging: A consistent and accurate system 
of accessioning (recording units of related artifacts) and catalog- 
ing (recording individual items) should be maintained by an institu- 
tion housing archaeological collections. It is totally unacceptable 
for materials to be brought from the field and left uncataloged for 
an indefinite period. The accession-catalog system should allow for 
accessibility in locating and extracting individual items and groups 
of related items from storage. The accession book and catalogs 
should be neat and easy to follow, and should be stored in a safe, 

68 




o 

LU 
O 
Q_ 



O 
OH 



a 

LU 
OC 
LU 

> 

o 
o 

LU 
OC 



< 

Ll_ 



on 
< 

LU - 
Q_ < 
< LU 
Q_ OH 

< 
< 

< 

o y- 

~ < 
> -I 

OC I— 
LU < 
CO 

LU LU 
££ X 



CN1 



< 



dry location. Preferably, duplicate copies should be kept in diff- 
erent buildings, in case of fire. 

During the cataloging process, and in subsequent retrieval and 
study, artifacts should be handled with care, keeping in mind that 
the researcher has an obligation to maintain each item in the same 
condition that he found it. Fragile items can be easily chipped, 
abraded, or cracked through careless handling, sometimes destroying 
important information (e.g., edge-wear patterns and manufacturing 
marks) . Good sources on museum accessioning and cataloging are 
available (e.g., Lewis 1976; Schneider 1971). 

TREATMENT OF RECORDS 

Any institution or agency that attempts to conduct archaeolo- 
gical work should recognize that the photographs, maps, data sheets, 
catalogs, and other records, as well as the artifacts, form a pri- 
mary archive of each field project. Therefore, it is incumbent upon 
the archaeologist or curator to maintain these archives in a safe 
and permanent manner, and to make them readily available to quali- 
fied researchers. 

Site data forms should be maintained at each institution or 
agency practicing archaeology. These must be kept up-to-date, neat, 
and complete. All such data should be forwarded promptly to the 
Georgia Archaeological Site Inventory at the University of Georgia. 

Slides and negatives should be clearly and accurately marked 
(-'n most systems the same accession number assigned to the artifacts 
from a project is also assigned to the field records and photographs) 
They should be placed in acid-free holders and stored in a clean, 

70 



dry, fire-proof environment. 

Field notebooks and data forms are best stored in fire-proof 
filing cabinets, and field maps should be kept flat in standard map 
cabinets. All photographic records, maps, notebooks, and data sheets 
should be cataloged and indexed in such a manner that a researcher 
can readily and conveniently use them. 



71 



APPENDIX A 



UUKJIUjXtt. ftJV.L.rLrt.ILWijUO-L^rtJL, OUIXVCl 



State Site No. * 9Cr1 29 
Instit.Site No. WGC 1040 



Location (Count y Carroll 
UTM References 



Site Name Smith Site 



Site Photos 35mm B/W. Photo // 216-243 



Lat. 33° 32' 14" N L ong. 85° 05' 14" W 



Allj^J 1 6l 7. 8l 0,2t0l l3.7ll,2h,2,5l E?l , 1 1 | , 1 , , f| , | , | 



J— L 



ZONE EASTING NORTHING ZONE EASTING NORTHING 

cLd I l ■ I . . I I ■ I ■ I , i |_°LJ I I . I . . I I . I . i , ■ I 



Owner .Tamp.s R. Smith 



Description (Acreage 5_ 



Address Rt. 1 Box 172, Carrollton, GA 30117 

_;Site Elevation, above sea level 1020' ;Soil Type [s] ;Present 
Condition and Use; Intrusions ; Topography ; Vegetation; Eros ion, Etc. ) Begin at square in 
center of Carrollton and proceed west on GA Highway 166 for three blocks and turn south 
onto US Highway 27. Proceed for 4.6 km and turn right onto Donrich Drive. Proceed 
0.95 km west and then north to where pavement ends. Site is located 0.2 km north in 

plowed field, on both sides of stream, northwest of earth dam. 

The site is 150 m in diameter and extends from the immediate stream banks across the 
narrow flood plain to the lower portions of the surrounding slopes. Soil types include 
Masada fine sandy loam and Congaree soils. In addition to listed artifacts, fragments 
of daub and fire cracked rock litter most of the surface area. The area was plowed for 
pasture in 1973 (July'). Some erosion on the lower slopes. The lower portions of the 



site are occasionally flooded. 



emarks and Recommendations Donrich Heights S/D will expand north over the site in 1977 
Chattahoochee-Flint APDC contacted in January, 1976. 



fap Referenc e USGS 7V Topo Carrollton, GA quad 1973 



ferial Photo Reference ASCS 1-2000/022-184, November, 1969 

i ketch Map of Site** Official Map 




• lt >how relationship to nearby sites, access roads, 
.ndicate scale. 



streams, and major landmarks, and 



'> mplete all categories even if unknown (U/K) , unavailable (U/A) , incomplete (I/C) , or 
:< e attachment (S/A) ; explain if necessary. 



7 5 



RECORD OF MATERIALS 



Collected by Surve y Cartersville Check Stamped: 25/ Mossy Oak Simple Stamped: 8/ Etowah 
Complicated Stamped: 14/ Lamar Bold Incised: 37/ Chert Triangular Point: 2/ Chert 
Debris: 18/ Quartzite Blade: 3/ Quartzite Debris: 32/ Daub: 16/ Unidentified animal 

Bone: 29 

Ace. No. /Storage WGC 941/73-943/73 



Subsequent Collections 

Collecto r Frederick T. Williams/WGC 

Collector Kenneth B. Mason/WGC 



Collector 



Date 
8 June 19 75 
13Febl980 



Ace. No. /Storage 

WGC 123/75-126/75 

WGC 099 



Private Collections 
Collector James R. Smith 



AddressRt. 1 Box 172, Carrollton, GA 30117 



Type of Material Similar to that collected by original survey 
schist two hole bar gorget. 



Includes diabase celt and 



Collector William B. Smith 



AddressRt. 1 Box 172, Carrollton, GA 30117 



Type of Material Similar to above. Includes Bolen Beveled quartzite projectile point. 



Excavation Record 
Superviso r Frederick T, 
Supervisor 



Williams/WGC 



Date Ace .No. /Storage 

8-10Junl975 WGC 127/75-162/75 



Published Recor d Frederick T. Williams. 1976 Test Excavations at a Multicomponent Site 
in Carroll County, Georgia. Report to Chattahoochee-Flint APDC Manuscript 



CULTURAL AFFINITY 



Preliminary Classificatio n Possible Early Archaic/Early Woodland (Cartersville) /Etowah/ 
Lamar. Village or major occupation site. 



Subsequent Classification 



NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 



Eligible for Nomination (circle appropriate response) : ( Yes) No Nominated Registered 
Justificatio n Test excavations indicate that the site is stratified and that post holes, 
pits and other features are present below the plowzone. 

Cultural Significance (circle appropriate evaluation) : Local ( Stated National 

Justificatio n Contains data relating to problems of regional chronology and cultural 

adaptation on a state-wide level. 



FORM COMPLETION/UPDATE 



Date Name 

1 9 SP.pl 973 F. T. Williams 



Prof. Status/Inst. Affil. 
Grad. Student/WGC 



15Junel97 5 F. T. Williams Grad. Student/WGC" 
1 Marl 980 K. R. Mason /WGC 



Contract/Proj . 
Chatt-Flint APDC 

#65-012 

NONE 

NONE 



Punch Card Submitted 
(Circle Response) 
ffe^ No 



%ep 


No 


CtelD No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 


Yes 


No 



76 



Georgia Archaeological Survey Form 
Instructions 



STATE SITE NUMBER: 

This number is assigned currently when a completed site 
survey form and an Archaeological Site Inventory Code form 
are submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University 
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602. This number is assigned 

according to the Smithsonian system 9-Crl-29 is Georgia, 

Carroll County, site 29. 



INSTITUTIONAL SITE NUMBER: 

This is assigned by each institution according to its own 
system of site designation. To prevent confusion with the 
state number, county designations should not be used. A 
common practice is to use the initials of the institution as 

a prefix followed by the site number WGC 4 is West 

Georgia College site 4. 



SITE NAME: 

Names may be assigned arbitrarily, but if names relating to 
historic usages, landowners, natural landmarks or project 
area are available, they should be used in order to prevent 
confusion. Record previously used names also, in order that 
existing records and collections may be assigned to the 
correct designation. 



SITE PHOTOGRAPH: 

This blank is used to record the existence of photographs of 
the site, its environs and any test excavations. The total 
number and type of photographs and the appropriate catalog 
numbers should be indicated. 



COUNTY: 

Use the full name of the county(s) in which the site is 
located . 



latitude/longitude: 

Use of the Universal Transverse Mercator system for formally 
designating site location is replacing geographical 
coordinates based on latitude and longitude, but the latter 

77 



should be recorded to reduce the possibility of error in 
transferring older site information to the present forms. 



UTM REFERENCES: 

These blanks are used to record the Universal Transverse 
Mercator Coordinates of each site or area. Recording of a 
single central coordinate point is adequate if the site is 
small. 



owner/address: 

The name and address of the owner (s) should be recorded to 
facilitate obtaining access, further site information and 
examining existing collections. 



DESCRIPTION: 

An indication of size is important. 

acreage: Given the increasing conversion to the metric 
system, the term acreage should be crossed out and the term 
hectare substituted. A hectare is 100 by 100 meters. That is 
approximately 328 by 328 feet. It should also be noted 
briefly if the figure was determined by estimate, map scale, 
pacing or actual measurement. 

elevation: Average site elevation above sea level should be 
expressed in meters. The elevation in feet may be determined 
from a United States Geological Survey quadrangle map, then 
converted to meters by dividing by 3.281. 

description: In addition to describing the physical 
configuration and environs of a site, it is crucial to provide 
written directions for reaching that site. The directions 
must be specific, beginning at an easily identifiable place as 
a town or highway junction. Distances may be determined by 
vehicle odometer. Only permanent physical or cultural 
features should be used as landmarks. Basic site character- 
istics which should be included are 

topography of the site and environs 

dimensions 

visible surface features as mounds, structures, etc. 

distance to fresh or salt water 

soil types 

present surface condition (cultivated, wooded, etc.) 



REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Any pertinent data not specifically called for in other blanks 

78 



may be entered here, as: 

potential or specific threats to the site 
landowner attitude towards preservation or further 

investigation 
recommendation for future investigations 



MAP REFERENCE: 

Give the specific designation of the map used to indicate the 
location of the site. This should be a generally available 
map, as a USGS quadrangle or a county highway map, and not a 
special issue. The USGS quads are preferable. 



AERIAL PHOTO REFERENCE: 

If the site can be located on an aerial photograph, its full 
designation (the agency which sponsored the photography, the 
flight number, run designation, frame number and date) should 
be entered here. 



SKETCH MAP OF SITE: 

Space is provided for a large scale sketch map showing the 
site location and extent, access roads, pertinent landmarks 
and other important information. 



OFFICIAL MAP: 

Attach a photocopied section of the map listed in the blank 
for map reference here. The site location and size should be 
indicated on the map in ink. 



COLLECTED BY SURVEY: 

These lines are provided for a brief listing of the artifacts 
recovered by the survey. Although these usually are recovered 
from the surface, artifacts from test excavations should be 
listed also. The artifacts should be identified as specifi- 
cally as possible as to formal and functional type or component, 



acc(ession) number and storage: 

The specific institution catalog number(s) and storage place 
should be indicated here to insure that the collection may be 
easily examined at a later date. 



79 



SUBSEQUENT COLLECTION: 

Indicate the collector, institutional affiliation, date, and 
catalog and storage numbers of subsequent collections of 
artifacts from the site. 



PRIVATE COLLECTIONS: 

Although surface collections made by amateurs/ landowners tend 
to be biased toward intact or unusual artifacts, they are of 
value in indicating the range of artifact variation present at 
the site. The collector's name and address should be given as 
well as any artifact forms which were not present in the 
collection made by the formal survey. 



EXCAVATION RECORD: 

Any prior or subsequent excavations at the site should be noted 
here. 



PUBLISHED RECORD: 

This blank is provided for any pertinent publications about 
the site. If a manuscript, paper or unpublished special report 
exists, list where they are filed or may be obtained. 



CULTURAL AFFINITY/PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION: 

A tentative indication of the periods, components or occupa- 
tions which appear to be present at the site should be listed 
here. Interpretations of the function or type of site as 
village, rock quarry or shell midden should be included. In 
order to increase comparability between different sites or 
areas, the period categories outlined in the Archaeological 
Site Inventory Code available at the University of Georgia 
should be used. 



SUBSEQUENT CLASSIFICATION: 

If the preliminary classification is proven correct or invalid 
as the result of subsequent excavation/analysis, this should 
be entered here. 



ELIGIBLE FOR NOMINATION: 

Indicate any action toward recommending the site for nomination 
to the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria and 
procedures for this will be discussed in another section. 



80 



JUSTIFICATION: 

If the site is recommended for the National Register the basis 
for this needs to be made clear and specific. 



CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: 

Indicate the level of significance (local, state or national) 
of the site and its data. For a discussion of cultural 
significance, see Raab and Klinger, 1977. 



JUSTIFICATION: 

The basis for selecting a level of significance can be made 
clear by determining if the site contains information relating 
to research problems on a local, state or national level. 



FORM COMPLETION/UPDATE: 

The name, professional status and institutional affiliation if 
any of the persons completing the survey form should be listed 
here. The date and nature of the survey (contract, private or 
whatever) should be indicated. The spaces on the right are 
for indicating the status of entering the site information in 
the Georgia Archaeological Site Inventory at the University of 
Georgia. 



8] 



Archaeological Site Inventory Code 



CARD 1 

Column Description No. Columns 



State Number 
1-2 State Designation 

3-5 County Designation 

6-9 Site Number 

Institution Number 
10-12 Institution Designation 
13-15 County Designation 
16-19 Site Number 

20-32 Site Name 

Universal Transverse Mercator Grid Coordinates 
33-38 Meters East 
39-45 Meters North 

46 Accuracy of UTM Coordinates 

1 Exact or high accuracy, site is probably 
not misplaced more than + 100 meters 

2 Site may be located more than + 100 meters 
off UTM Coordinates 

3 Prov. Problem - See Site Form 

4 No Data on Location 
Site Elevation 



3 

3 
4 

13 



47-51 


+ 


Elevation 


in meters 


52-53 


Map 
1 
2 
3 


Source 

USGS 

Corps of 
County 


Engineers 


54-59 


Map 


Scale 




60-69 


Map 


Name 




70-73 


Map 


Date 




80 


Card Number (1) 



h 

10 
4 
\ 



82 



CARD 2 
Column 



1-2 
3-5 
6-9 



10-12 
13-15 
16-19 



20-22 
23-25 
26 



27-29 
30-32 
33-35 
36-38 



Description 


No. 


Columns 


State Number 






State Designation 




2 


County Designation 




3 


Site Number 




4 


Institution Number 






Institution Designation 




3 


County Designation 




3 


Site Number 




A 


Site Size (When site size exceeds 


three digits 




use 999) 






Length in Meters 




3 


Width in Meters 




3 


Orientation of Length 




1 


1 n/s 






2 e/w 






3 ne/sw 






4 nw/se 







Type of Site (Maximum of four physical 
characteristics to be coded for each 
site) (see list on page 89) 



12 



39 



40 



Nature of Site 

1 surface (when site is known to be only 
surface) 

2 subsurface 

3 surface & subsurface 

4 surface is described (subsurface conditions 
unknown) 

Site Midden (undisturbed occupational strata) 

1 present 

2 absent 

3 unknown 



41 



Site Features (context is important here) 

1 present 

2 absent 

3 unknown 



42 



Standing Architecture (this relates only to 
historic sites) 

1 present 

2 absent 



83 



CARD 2 (continued) 

Column Description No. Columns 

43 Percentage of Site Disturbance 1 

1 no disturbance 

2 less than 50% disturbed- road thru site 

3 more than 50% disturbed-site is cultivated 

4 condition not noted on form 

44 Status of Investigator 1 

1 amateur 

2 professional 

3 recorder not reported 

45 Kind of Investigation 1 

1 surface 

2 tested 

3 excavated 

4 documentary, never professionally verified 

5 unknown 

Date of Investigation 

46-47 Day 2 

48-49 Month 2 

50-53 Year 4 

54-55 Primary Location of Collection 2 

1 Augusta College 

2 Augusta Museum 

3 American Museum of Natural History 

4 Columbus Museum 

5 Cobb-Fulton County Survey 

6 Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

7 Georgia State University 

8 Museum of the American Indian (Heye Foundation) 

9 National Park Service 

10 Shorter College 

11 Smithsonian Institution 

12 University of Georgia (UGA) 

13 Valdosta State College 

14 West Georgia College 

15 Private Collection 

16 Augusta Archaeological Society 

17 National Museum Collection 

18 University of North Carolina 

19 Peabody 

20 Forest Service (USFS) 

21 Tulane University 

22 Kennesaw Junior College 

23 Unknown 

24 Savannah Science Museum 

25 Soil Systems Incorporated (SSI) 

26 Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) 



84 



CARD 2 (continued) 

Column Description No. Columns 

54-55 Primary Location of Collection (continued) 2 

27 Office of State Archaeologist 

28 University of Florida 

29 Florida State University Southeast 
Archaeological Center 

30 Corps of Engineers 

31 University of South Carolina/Institute 
of Archaeology and Anthropology 

56-5 7 Primary Location of Documentation 

Date of Entry (Date on the form) 

2 

2 
4 



58-59 


Day 


60-61 


Month 


62-65 


Year 


66 


Ownership 




1 private 




2 municipal 




3 county 




4 state 




5 federal 




6 unknown 



67-68 Preservation State (Maximum of two states 2 
to be coded for each site) 

1 undisturbed 

2 cultivated 

3 eroded 

4 submerged like Dyer Natural 

5 f looded-covered by man made lake 

6 vandalism 

7 destroyed 

8 redeposited 

9 graded-by earth moving machinery 

69-70 Preservation Prospect 

1 safe 

2 endangered-natural eroding 

3 endangered-natural flooding 

4 endangered-private cultivation 

5 endangered-private construction 

6 endangered-pothunting 

7 endangered-municipal 

8 endangered-county 

9 endangered-Corps of Engineers 

10 endangered-Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 

11 endangered- Forest Service 

12 endangered-U.S . Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) 

13 endangered-Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) 

14 endangered-Georgia Power Company 

15 endangered-Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

8 r , 



CARD 2 (continued) 

Column Description No. Columns 

69-70 Preservation Prospect (continued) 2 

16 military 

17 unknown 

71 Federal or State Register Status 1 

1 National Historic Landmark 

2 National Natural Landmark 

3 National Register (state) 

4 Georgia Heritage Trust 

5 National Register 

72 National Register significance 1 

1 local 

2 state 

3 national 

73 National Register Status 1 

1 ineligible 

2 eligible 

3 nominated 

4 registered 

5 eligibility determination obtained (Section 
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) 

80 Card Number (2) 1 

CARD(s) 3 on 

State Number 

1-2 State Designation 2 

3-5 County Designation 3 

6-9 Site Number 4 

Institution Number 

10-12 Institution Designation 3 

13-15 County Designation 3 

16-19 Site Number 4 

Cultural Affiliation 
(Component 1) 
20-21 Period Identification 2 

1 Early Paleo-Indian 

2 Late Paleo-Indian 

3 Early Archaic 

4 Middle Archaic 

5 Late Archaic 

6 Early Woodland 

7 Middle Woodland 

8 Late Woodland 

9 Early Mississippian 



86 



CARD(s) 3 on (continued) 

Column Description No. Columns 

20-21 Cultural Affiliation (continued) 2 

10 Middle Mississippian 

11 Late Mississippian-if a site is described 
as protohistoric use Late Mississippian 
unless trade goods or documentation 
proves otherwise (Lamar) 

12 Historic Aboriginal 

13 Historic Non-Aboriginal 

14 Unknown 

22-29 Date Range for Historic Sites (if known) 8 
e.g. 18001825 

30-79 Most Diagnostic Artifact Type(s) 50 

Write out or abbreviate type name(s) , or 
if item is not capable of being placed 
in a known or established type category, 
provide brief description, (e.g., Lanceolate 
projectile pt.-lOO mm long) 

80 CARD NUMBERS (3) or greater 1 



87 



The Coding System 

This is the third edition of the archaeological site inventory 
code. During the initial process of coding site data using the 
coding system, it was found necessary to make several minor changes. 
Most of the changes are self explanatory. However, those categories 
which offer potential confusion are considered in the following dis- 
cussion. General considerations for using the coding system, as 
outlined in the first edition of the code, are reiterated here for 
convenience. 

1. All information that is coded numerically must be right-justified 
in the field under consideration. For example, if a site num- 
ber is only three digits in length, such as site 101, the number 
is entered in columns 7/8, 9 and not in 6, 7,8. Column 6 should 
be left blank in this case. 

2. All information that is coded in alphameric or non-numeric sym- 
bols should be left-justified in the field under consideration. 
For example, the county designation RA would be placed in columns 
3, 4 and not in 4, 5. 

3. If data for any category are either unknown or unobtainable, the 
columns for that category code should be left blank. The only 
exception is noted below. 

Card 1, column 47 

If the elevation is above sea level the "+" can be left out. 
The elevation must still go in columns 48-51. On Card 2, under 
Site Size, Columns 20-25, if the length or width of the site 
should exceed the allotted three column field then use the Code 
999 to represent the Site Size. 

4. Columns 2/-38 of Card 2 must be considered as 4 "fields" or 4 
"blocks" of 3 columns each. A maximum of 4 codes for physical 
characteristics can then be used to describe each site. Each 
code must be placed in only one of the fields of 3 columns. 

The digits from 101 to 199 are reserved for prehistoric abori- 
ginal site characteristics while the digits 201-299 will pertain 
to characteristics of those sites which have historical abori- 
ginal components. The digits from 301-399 are reserved for 
historic non-aboriginal site characteristics. This system 
should allow adequate room for future additions of coding cate- 
gories. The following list includes a numbered set of categories 
which have initially been used in coding prehistoric aboriginal 
site characteristics. Some of the characteristics however are 



88 



also appropriated for historic aboriginal and historical non- 
aboriginal site data. 

To exemplify the coding of multi- component site characteristics 
in the 4 "blocks" comprising columns 27-38, consider a site 
which yields a scatter of both prehistoric aboriginal and his- 
toric non-aboriginal cemetery. Columns 27-29 would be coded 
101, columns 30-32 coded 104, columns 33-35 coded 208, and col- 
umns 36-38 would be coded 301. The list of characteristics used 
to describe prehistoric aboriginal and historic sites follows: 

Aboriginal Site Characteristics 

1. Artifact or Shell Scatter 

2. Village 

3. Shell Midden 

4. Earth Mound 

5 . Rock Mound 

6 . Quarry 

7. Rock Shelter 

8. Cemetery 

9. Rock Dam and/or Fish Weir 

10. Rock Alignment (on land) 

11. Petroglyph, Statue 

12. Artifact Cache 

13. Cave 

14. Isolated House or Hamlet 

15. Isolated Burial 

Note: Characteristics Number 2, Village, and Number 14, Isolated 
house or hamlet, pertain only to those sites where there can be 
no question about the nature of the site. Generally, the site 
characteristics correspond with observations rather than refer- 
ences. Thus, an extensive artifact scatter should not neces- 
sarily be interpreted nor coded as a village unless there is 
firm evidence supporting this assumption. 

Historic Site Characteristics 

Agricultural : 



1. Barn 

2. Fence Wall, Stockpen 

3 . Granary 

4. Terrace 
5. 

6. 
7. 



8. 

9, 
10, 
11, 
12, 
13. 
14, 



Domestic-Public : 



16. House or Structure 

17. Out House 

18. Cave-Cellar 

19. Church or Mission 



20. School 

21. Cemetery 

22. Trash Dump (domestic) 

23. Municipal Trash Dump 



KQ 



24. Settlement 

25 . Monument 

26. Court House 

27. Rock Garden 



28. 
29. 
30. 



Inn or Hotel 



Transportation : 

31. Road 

32. Railroad 

33. Railroad Station 

34. Tunnel 

35. Stage Coach Depot 
36. 

37. 



38. 
39. 

40. 
41. 
42. 
43. 
44. 
45. 



Commercial-Industrial : 



46. Store 

47. Factory 

48. Furnace 

49. Warehouse-Storage Bldg. 

50. Grist Mill 

51. Saw Mill 

52. Mine or Quarry 



53. Land Fill 

54. Textile Mill 

55. Brickyard 

56. Still 

57. Sugar Mill 

58. Bank 

59. Sign 
60. 



Military: 

61. Fort & Battery or associated 68, 
structures 69. 

62. Earthworks 70, 

63. Battle Field 71, 

64. Camp 72, 

65. Military Supply Cache 73, 

66. Bomb Shelter (Cold War) 74, 

67. 75. 



Related to Water: 

76. Bridge 

77. Dam 

78. Levee 

79. Canal or Ditch 

80. Pier, Landing, Pilings or Dock 87. Boat Yard 

81. Mill Pond 88. Causeway 

82. Well 89. Jetty 

90. 

Miscellaneous : 



83. Sewer 

84. Water Tank, Trough 

85. Ship or Boat 

86. Spring 



91. Historic Artifact Scatter 

92. Earth Work of unknown use 
93. 

94. 



95, 
96, 
97, 
98, 
99 



90 



5. Every site will have card 1 and 2, but each card thereafter is 
used to describe separate components at chat site. If there is 
a separable (or single) component at a site that cannot be allo- 
cated to one of the named periods, there should still be a card 
denoting this by using category 14 in columns 20-21. It would 
be most convenient for future bookkeeping if the cards 3, 4 ... 
were arranged so that the earliest component was described on 
card 3, the next most recent on card 4, etc. 

6. Card 1, Column 60-69 - Map Name 

Often the map name must be cut short or abbreviated because of 
its length. If abbreviation is necessary and if, for example, 
the map name consists of two parts (e.g., Flowery Branch), the 
first part is entered in its entirety while the second part is 
abbreviated — FLOWERY BR. 

7. Card 2, Columns 1-9 - Site Number 

State Site numbers can only be assigned by the Central Site 
File, University of Georgia. 

8. Card 2, Columns 66-67 - Preservation State 

Columns 66-67 of card 2 must be considered as 2 blocks of 1 
column each. A maximum of 2 codes for preservation state can 
then be used to describe the conditions at each site. For a 
site which is under cultivation and has also been pothunted, 
the coding would be indicated as 2 and 6 in columns 66 and 67, 
respectively. 

9. Card 2, Columns 68-69 - Preservation Prospect 

If the site being coded is threatened by either natural or cul- 
tural destruction, the most imminent threat (i.e., private 
cultivation) should be coded, even if there are other potential 
adverse processes endangering the site. 

10. Card 3, Columns 30-79 - Most Diagnostic Artifact Type(s) 

It was considered to be impossible to develop a reasonable or 
manageable code for all potentially recovered artifact "types." 
These considerations stem not only from the problems surround- 
ing the concept of type, but from the potentially overwhelming 
number of types of artifacts that might be encountered, espe- 
cially in historic sites. The suggested strategy therefore is 
to allow each investigator (person coding site data) the great- 
est possible leeway in the description of diagnostic artifact 
types or artifacts per component by leaving 50 columns for 
actual alphabetic code (English) . 

11. If the need arises, additional entries may be added to the list 
of coded characteristics for several categories of data — e.g., 
Map Source (Card 1, Columns 52, 53), Primary Location of Collec- 
tion (Card 2, Columns 54, 55), and Preservation Prospect (Card 
2, Columns 69, 70). Two columns have been provided for each of 
these categories so that, for example, additional map sources, 
institutions, and project agencies can be included. Any sug- 
gested additions should first be cleared with UGA, however, so 
that the coding form can be kept accurate and up to date. 



91 



APPENDIX B 



VEST GEORGIA COLLEGE 
BURIAL DATA FORM 



SQUARE_ 
LEVEL 



DEPTH 



SITE 
8URIAL_ 
CAT. NO. 
PHOTO 



DESCRIPTION: 



OSTEOLOGICAL DATA: ACE 



SEX 



PRESERVATION: 

PATHOLOGY: 



ASSOCIATIONS: 


CAT. NO. 





























OBSERVER 



DATE 



9S 



GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 
BURIAL DATA FORM 

Date Site Number 

Obeerver Burial Number 

Photo Number 



Placement: 



Horizontal: location of pelvis (from 0) 

Vertical: at RJ> B.S. is +R.PA.E. =HJ. 

HJ -Reading top of akull =HJ. 

HJ. -Reading top of pelvis =A.E 

HJ. -Reading top of pit = AE. 

HJ. -Reading =A.E 

HJ. -Reading „ =AE 

Sketch (manikin) 



Primary: t ype ; deposition 

orientation 

Secondary: type ; no. of individuals 

Cremation: type ; degree of burning 



Urn: type ; max.dia. ; height 

killed ; condition ; cover 

Pit: m ajor axis ; max. length ; max. width 

max. depth ; horiz. relationships 

; strat relationships 



Associated Objects: 



97 



BURIAL DATA FORM 



Burial No. 
Site No. 



Skeleton (or Skull) No. 



Age Sex Preservation 

Bones Taken: U 

Cranial: Caiva Teeth: 87654321 12345678 

L 
Calvaria 

Calvarium 

Cranium Deirree of Attrition : 

Post-Cranial: 

Ribs Scapula Femur 

Sternum Clavicle Patella 

Vertebrae Humerus Tibia 

Sacrum Radius Fibula 

Innominate Ulna Foot 

Hand 



Posthumous Deformations: 



Posthumous Disturbances: 

Relationships of Burial : 

Field and laboratory treatment (preservation, restoration, etc.): 



FORM 6 



98 



GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 
FEATURE DATA FORM 



Date Site Number 

Observer Feature Number 

Category 

Photo Number 



Placement: 

Horizontal: location of center (from 0) 

Vertical: at RJ> B.S. is +R.P.A.E =H.I. 

HJ -Reading at =A.E. 

HJ. -Reading at = A.E. 

HJ. -Reading at =A.E. 

H.L -Reading at =A.E. 

Sketch (plan and profile) 

Measurements : 



Max. length 

Max. width 

Vertical thickness 
Interior depth 



Associated objects: For scale drawing see 

Inscription Location Cat. No. 



Relationships of feature: 

Additional observations and interpretations: 



99 



VEST OZOP.GIA C0LLS5S 
FEATURE DATA FORM 



SQUARE_ 

LZVEL_ 
DEPTH 



DEFINITION 



DESCRIPTION 



SITZ 

FZATURE_ 
CAT. SO. 
PHOTO 



DIMENSIONS: 
MAX. LENGTH_ 
MAX. WIDTH 



DEPTH ENCOONTERED_ 
DEPTH TERMINATED 



DIRECTION_ 
DIR£CTION_ 
FROM 



FROM 



ASSOCIATIONS: 



CAT. NO. 



OBSERVER 



DATS 



101 



5 

O 
J 
O 

a 

< 

B 
O 

as 

< 

o 

OS 

£ 

< 

OS 

o 

CO 

< 

Eh 

S3 

OS 

w 

> 

2 

w 

< 

CO 

5 

OS 

o 
u 
a 



05 
JO 

TO 

o 



cT 
o 



as 

0) 



CO 

05 S 

03 CO 

2 O 



03 



03 

co 
O 

o 



o 

0) 

(75 



o J I 



C 

D 



o 

-C 
Q_ 

O 

o 
o 



3 



T5 

C 

to 

CO 

w, 

E 

CO 



o 

0) 



103 



GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 
PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA FORM 



Accession Number 

Site or Surrey Number 



FUld 
No. 



F1U 
No. 



Sub1*rt 



D»U 



Dilu- 
tion 



Comments 



105 



PHOTO DATA FORM 



Film 



Site 



Type_ 



Roll I 



Exposure # 


Provei 
Lens 
Flash 
Time 


ilenca 




Camera 


Shutter speed 
Camera height 
Weather conditions 


f/stop 


Filter 
tlon 


Camera dlrec- 
Date 


Photographer 




Remarks 










Exposure # 


Provenii 
Lens 
Flash 


snce 




Camera 
Filter 


Shutter speed 
Camera height 
Weather conditions 
Remarks 


f/stop 

Camera dlrec- 


tlon 
Photographer 


Time 


Oate 


Exposure # 


Provenl 
Lens 
Flash 


ence 




Camera 
Filter 


Shutter speed 
Camera height 
Weather conditions 
Remarks 


f/stop 

Camera direction 


Photographer 


Time 


Date 









107 



WALLACE .RESERVOIR PROJECT 
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS SHEET FOR CERAMIC ARTIFACTS* 



SITE NO. 



RECORDER 



PROVENIENCE UNIT 



DATE 



LOT NUMBER 



Identifiable Decorated Body 


Rim 


Undecoratea Body 


Rim 


Bofd" incised 


plain 


H. Incised 




fiber 




F. incised 




grit 








«h#tl 




n 


i 




Etowah Conip. St. 



















' 1 


burnished plain 




' Woodstock Corap. St. 


i 


fiber 






1 grit 






9 




; Napier Comp. St. 
























Swift Creek Comp. it. 


— 


red filmed 1 








grit 












Stal lings Punctated 








Stalling* Incased 












polished black 








grit 




Unidentifiable Decorated 












concentric circle st. 






rough plain 




fiifot crossed st. 








line blocked st. 








brushed 




Disc 




suripio st. 








rectilinear, comp. st. 








i curvilinear comp. st. 








check, 'st. 




Pipe 




linear check st. 








cordmarlced 








fabric/ basket marked 








corncob/ fingernail narked 




Worked Stone 




cross hatched incised 








punctated 




















Other Earthenware 




Unident. decor. 
































Weathered" 












































Subtotals 








*Rim and body modes are tabula 


t'eH twice 


■ once as modes and once as types. 





109 



Rim nodes (list by type If possible: I.e., Lamar Plain, Swift Cree* Complicated 
Stamped, etc.) 



plain 
roTTeT 



> Hoped 
folded 



plain 



pinched 
punctated" 



incised 



nodes 
efflqJes 



Repair Holes 



Body Modes (11st by type, 1f possible) 
strap/loop handles 



strap/loop handles with nodes 



nodes 



TeeT 



110 



WALLACE RESERVOIR PROJECT 

pmrnmARY ANALYSIS SHEET for polished and ground stone artifacts 



SITE NO. 



RECORDER. 



DATE 



PRO/EBIEHCE UNIT 



LOT NO. 





No. 




Polished Scotia 






Atlacl Weight 


Axe 






Celt 






Discoldal 






Bead 






|Gorget 






Pipe 




1 


Other 






•Unldent. Polished Scone 






Formal Ground Scone 






Mfeno 


Metace 






Mortar 






Peatle 






Pendant/Weig'hc 






jNotched-Crooved Height 






Perforated Weight 






Axe 






Bead 






Scone Dlac 






Stone Bowl 






Other 






Unldent. Formal Ground Stone 






Informal Ground Scone 






Axe /Hoe 


Shaped Hammeratone 






Pebble Hammerstone 






Non-Pebble Hasmerstone 






Pounder 






Grlndlng_Sl^b 






Handatone 






Palette 






Anvil/Pitted Stone 






Abrador/Grooved Stone 






Facet Use Implement 






Edge Uae Implement 






Possible Ground Scone 






Other 






Unldent. Informal Ground Stone 






Unvorked. Steatite 




Weight 
Fire Cracked Rock _..,., „ _, 


Pebbles _, ,.,,.., 




Coamtencs 







111 



WALLACE RESERVOIR PROJECT 
Preliminary Analysis Sheet for Flaked Stone Artifact* 



Site No. 



Provenience Unit 



Recorder 



Data 



Lot No. 



uaplete 81 face 

Broken 31 face 

Flake Tool 

Otter Tool 

Core 

Percussion Flake 

Thinning/ 
Retouch Flake 

Unldent. debris 

TOTALS 



Quartz 


Lt 


. Chert 


| Ok 


. Chert 


Rhrollte 


Other 


TOTALS 












































































































i 




C 


P 


N 


C 


P 


N 




Perc. 














Fire Cracked -tack. 9 


Thltm. 














Pebbles _J 


Unldent. 














Other stone o. 



Coements 



113 



WALLACE RESERVOIR PROJECT 
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS SHEET FOR HISTORIC MATERIALS 



SITE HO. 



PROVENIENCE MO. 



RECORDER 



DATE 



LOT NO. 



Creamware 
F1nger-pa1nted (polychrome) 
Annular ware 
Hand-pa1nted 



Transfer-printed 
P1a1n(22)* " 



Embossed(9) 

Willow transfer pattern(lO) 

Annular ware(13) ' 

Blue edged(19) 



Green edged (19) 
Underglaze polychrome 
Transfer-pr1nted(1 1 ) J 

Po 1 ychrome( 4 ) 

Pla1n(2Q) 



Otfter Earthenwares" 
Wh1tew are(2) 
Hoclw 
Luster decorated" 

Del f tware \ 

S1 1 pware 



Olive Jar. 
Porcelain 



Overg lazed enamelled Chinese 
Underglaze (hand painted) (17^ 
Undecorated 



Stoneware 
Ironware. 
Brown 



Bl ue/gray 

White (salt-glazed) (43) 
Black 



Glass 



Pearl ware 

Stenciled (polychrome) 

Mocha(6) 

Finger-painted (polychrome) (8) 



Green 


Base 


Neck 


Embossed 


Clear 




'■■■ 


Slue 








Purple" 








Amber 








Milk Glass 















Marbles 

Others 



MetaT 

""Tool 

Coin (Date) 
Other 



Clothing/Adornment* 
Button 
Buckle_ 
Dead 



Hook7Pln" 
Other 



Construction Materials 
flail Square 

80I t/Nut 

Brick 



Hire 



Drain T11e_ 

Roofing ~ 

Insulators 



Pipe 



Other 



•numbers in parentheses Indicate numbers of type collections and S. South's type 
numbers. 



115 



Burial No. 



GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOCY 

LABORATORY SKELETAL ANALYSIS AND INVENTORY 
Site No. 



Accession No. 
Preservation 



Bona* present^ 



absent 



Morphological data location^ 



Observation 
Observer 


lc 


f is 


>ld 


Date 


Photo No. 



Sax 


[ned 
Taeth 
Pubic 
Other 


symphysis 




Lab 
Fie 
Epiphyseal 
Suture clos 


9torage locat 
Id data locati 
union 


:ion 




Age assij 


.on 




Criteria: 








ure 














CRANIUM 


















Occipital 






Vomer 








L 


Parietal 


R 


L 


Inf. nasal c 


:oncha 


R 






Frontal 




L 


Lacrimal 




R 




L 


Temporal 


R 


L 


Zygomatic 




R 






Sphenoid 




L 


Palaclne 




R 






Ethmoid 




L 


Maxilla 




R 






Ossicles 






Mandible 








L 


Nasal 


R 




Hyoid 






TEETH 
















Left 


8 7 6 5 


4 3 2 1 




Maxillary 


12 3 4 5 6 


7 8 


Right 









3 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 



12 3 4 5 6 7 



Comment! 



THORAX 

Cervical: 
Thoracic: 
Lumbar: 
Sacrum: 
Coccyx: 
Sternum: 
Right ribs: 
Lett riba: 



12 3 4 5 6 7 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

12 3 4 5 

12 3 4 5 

12 3 4 

Manubrium 1 Mesoataraum 

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



2 3 4 5 Xiphisternum 



117 



3urial So. 



INNOMINATE 



APPENDICULAR SKELETON 



Clavicle 

Scapula 

Humerus 

Ulna 

Radius 



I Ilium 
L Ischium 
L Pubis 



L Femur R 

L Patella R 

L Tibia R 

L Fibula R 



L Navicular R 

L Lunate R 

L Triangular R 

L Pisiform R 

L Greater mulcangular R 

L Lesser mulcangular R 

L Capicace R 

L Hamace R 



Calcaneous 
Talus 
Cuboid 
Navicular 
Cuneiform 1 
Cuneiform 2 
Cuneiform 3 



I 5 4 3 2 1 Metacarpals I 2 3 4 5 R 
L Sesamoids R 



Phalanges (no.) 

Proximal _____ 

Middle 

Distal 



L 5 4 3 2 t 
L 



Metatarsals 12 3 4 5 
Sesamoids __________ 

Phalanges (no.) 

Proximal 

Middle 

Distal 



Unjoined eplphyses_ 



ANOMALIES, PATHOLOGIES, INJURIES. ETC. 



118 



GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 
ETHNOGRAPHIC SPECIMEN CATALOG 



Photograph Accession No. . 

Catalog No 



Photograph No. 
Specimen 



Provenience. 



Collector. 



Date Collected . 



Date Accessioned . 
Storage Location _ 



Description and Measurements: 



Historical Record: 



Cultural Affinities: 



119 



References: 



Comments: 



Evaluacor. 



Value for Insurance Purposes. 



120 



GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OP ARCHAEOLOGY 
SPECIMEN CATALOG 



Accession Number 

Site or Survey Number . 



Spac No. 



Location 



Nombor 



D»xriptioo 



121 



Laboratory of Archaeology 

Georgia Stat* University 

Excavation Unit Data Sheet 



Oate Started 



Site 



Date Completed 

fhoto- Roll / Exposure / 

«4U 

Color ^____ _____ 

Material Recovered (Mo. of Containers) 

10 lb. bg. 

2 '• 
1/2 " 
Vials 
Boxes 

Other 
Total 
Excavation Method: 



Field 


Lab 



































Accession No. 
Area 



Unit Type 



SE Coordinates^ 
Level 



Soil Color 



Sol I Texture^ 
Features 



Burials 



Other 



Workers 



Recorded by 



Instrument Height^ 
Elevation- Top of Level HW 



HE 



SE 



su 



Instrument Reading 










Corrected Read 1 no 











Clevatlon-Botto*) of Level HW 


HE 


SE 


SW 


instrument Reading 










Corrected Reading 











12 3 



AcCi)k$iOA/_ 

Ar«a 



Site 



Snu*r« 



Unit 



L«v«l 



T 



i : 1 



T'ff 



13 



m-~ 



# 



i- ^ 

p 



# 



t 






ii 



■j- 



i l - 



124 



WEST GEORGIA COLLEGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LABORATORY 
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS FORM 



Item 

Ledgers 

Notebooks 

Legal Pads 

File Folders 

Feature Forms 

Burial Forms 

Plane Table Sheets 

Maps 

Photos B/U 

Photos, Color 



Number 



Place of Storage 



Loans (Names, addresses, dates and items loaned) 



125 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Anonymous 

1972 Underwater Archaeology: A Nascent Discipline. Museum Monument 
Series 13. (UNESCO, Paris.) 

Antle, H. R. 

1940 Some Points in Bone Preservation. Society for American 
Archaeology Notebook 1:118-125. 

Asch, David 

1975 On Sample Size Problems and the Use of Non-probabilistic 

Sampling. In Sampling in Archaeology , edited by James W. Mueller, 

Barghorn, E.S. 

1943 Collecting and Preserving Botanical Materials of Archaeological 
Interest. American Antiquity 9:280-294. 

Bevan, Bruce and Jeffrey Kenyon 

1975 Ground-penetrating Radar for Historical Archaeology. MASCA 
Newsletter 11(2): 2- 7. 

Bick, E.S. Cripps and D.M.D. Thacker 

1954 Some Methods for Protecting Cleaned Iron Objects. Museums 
Journal 54(1): 32-36. 

Binford, Lewis R. 

1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American 
Antiquity 29:425-441. 

Bowen, William R. and Linda Carnes 

1976 Metal Detection as a Technique in Urban Archaeological Survey: 
a Preliminary Statement. Early Georgia 4(1&2) : 14-26 . 

1977 Archaeological Impact Studies: Marta East and West Lines. 
Department of Anthropology, Georgia State University. Xeroxed. 

Bruder, J. Simon, Elinor G. Large and Barbara L. Stark 

1975 A Test of Aerial Photography in an Estuarine Mangrove Swamp in 
Veracruz, Mexico. American Antiquity 40:330-337. 

Burns, Ned J. 

1941 Field Manual for Museums . National Park Service, Washington. 

Chapman, Jefferson 

1976 Early Archaic Site Location and Excavation in the Little 
Tennessee River Valley: Back Hoes and Trowels. Southeastern 
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 19 : 31- 36 . 

Clausen, Carl J. and J. Barto Arnold III 

19 76 The Magnetometer and Underwater Archaeology. The International 
Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 52. 



129 



Coleman, Laurance V. 

1939 Manual for Small Museums . G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 

Conlon, V.M. 

1973 Camera Techniques In Archaeology . St. Martin Press. 

Crabb, Edward D. 

1923 A Handbook of Preserving Museum Specimens in the Field . 
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Davis, Hester 

1972 The Crisis in American Archaeology. Science 175:267-272. 

DeJarnette, David L. and Christopher S. Peebles 

1970 The Development of Alabama Archaeology: The Snow's Bend Site. 
Journal of Alabama Archaeology 16:77-119. 

DePratter, Chester B. 

n.d. The 1974-75 Archaeological Survey in the Wallace Dam Reservoir, 
Greene, Hancock, Morgan and Putnam Counties, Georgia: Final 
Report. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series , 
(In press, ms. 1976.) 

Dickens , Roy S . 

1964 Report on Preservation of an Indian Canoe at Town Creek Indian 
Mound, North Carolina. (Unpublished report on file at the 
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill.) 

Dunton, John V.N. 

1964 The Conservation of Excavated Metals in the Small Laboratory. 
The Florida Anthropologist 17:37-42. 

Fowler, Melvin L. 

1969 Middle Mississippian Agriculture Fields. American Antiquity 34: 
365-375. 

Greathouse, Glen A. and Carl J. Wessel 

1954 Deterioration of Materials, Causes and Preventive Techniques . 
Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York. 

Gummerman, G.J. and T.R. Lyons 

1971 Archaeological Methodology and Remote Sensing. Science 172: 
126-132. 

Hally, David J., Richard Zurel and Tom Gresham 

1975 An Archaeological Survey of Channel, Dike and Streambank 

Protection Structures, Big Mortar-Snuffbox Swamp Watershed, 
Long and Mcintosh Counties, Georgia. Department of Anthro- 
pology, University of Georgia. Xeroxed. 

Hatch, James W. 

1975 Social Dimensions of Dallas Burials. Proceedings of the 

Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 18:132-138. 



130 



Hester, Thomas R., Robert F. Heizer, and John A. Graham 

1975 Artifacts: Their Study and Care. Field Methods in Archaeology 
6th edition, pp. 207-224. Mayfield Publishing Company, 
Palo Alto, California. 

Johnson, Donald L. and Charles S. Alexander 

1975 A Portable Coring Device for Rapid Site Sampling. Plains 
Anthropologist 20:135-137. 

Judd, Neil M. 

1931 Arizona's Prehistoric Canals, from the Air. Explorations and 

Fieldwork of the Smithsonian Institution in 1930 . pp. 157-160. 

Keel, Bennie C. 

1963 The Conservation and Preservation of Archaeological and 
Ethnological Specimens. Southern Indian Studies 15. 

Kopper, Steve 

1970 Resistivity Survey of Cave Sites, Balearic Islands, Spain. 
MASCA Newslette r 6(2):l-2. 

Kurjack, Edward B. and E. Wyllys Andrews, V 

1976 Early Boundary Maintenance in Northwestern Yucatan, Mexico. 
American Antiquity 41:318-324. 

Laudermilk, J.D. 

1937 The Preservation of Textile Remains. American Antiquity 
2:277-281. 

Leachman, Douglas 

1931 Technical Methods in the Preservation of Anthropological 

Specimens. National Museum of Canada Annual Report for 1929 . 
pp. 127-158. 

Lewis, Ralph H. 

19 76 Manual for Museums . National Park Service, U.S. Government 
Printing Office. 

Lipe, William D. 

1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39: 
213-243. 

Lovis, William A., Jr. 

1976 Quarter Sections and Forests: an Example of Probability 
Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41: 
364-371. 

Lyons, Thomas R. and Thomas Eugene Avery 

1977 Remote Sensing . Cultural Resources Management Division, 
National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, 
D.C. 

Mason, Carol I. 

1963 The Archaeology of Ocmulgee Old Fields, Macon, Georgia . 

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 
University of Michigan. 



131 



McKenzie, Douglas H. 

1966 A Summary of the Moundville Phase. Journal of Alabama 
Archaeology 12:1-58. 

McMichael, Allen E. 

1977 Barrier Island Settlement Pattern. Southeastern Archaeological 
Conference Bulletin 20. 

Morrell, L. Ross 

1965 A Suggested Method of Locating Aboriginal Garden Areas. 
Southeast Archaeological Conference Bulletin 3:38-41. 

Mueller, James W. (Ed.) 

1975 Sampling in Archaeology . University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Museums Association 

1954 Handbook for Museums . Museums Association, London. 

Peebles, Christopher S. 

1971 Moundville and Surrounding Sites: Some Structural Considerations 
of Mortuary Practices II. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions 
of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown. Memoirs of the 
Society for American Archaeology 25:68-91. 

Percy, George 

1976 Use of Mechanical Earth Auger at the Torreya Site, Liberty 
County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 29:24-32. 

Plenderleith, H.J. 

1956 The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art . Oxford 
University Press, London. 

Price, John E., Richard G. Hunter and Edward V. McMichael 

1964 Core Drilling in an Archaeological Site. American Antiquity 
30:219-222. 

Raab, L. Mark and Timothy C. Klinger 

1977 A Critical Appraisal of "Significance" in Contract Archaeology. 
American Antiquity 42:629-633. 

Ragir, Sonia 

1975 A Review of Techniques for Archaeological Sampling. In Field 
Methods in Archaeology, by Thomas R. Hester, Robert F. Heizer 
and John A. Graham, pp. 283-302. Mayfield Publishing Company, 
Palo Alto, California. 

Rawlings, F.I.G. 

1954 Science in the Care of Museum Objects. Museums Journal 54: 
263-264. 

Redman, Charles L. and Patty Jo Watson 

1970 Systematic Intensive Surface Collection. American Antiquity . 
35:279-291. 

1973 Multistage Fieldwork and Analytical Techniques. American 
Antiquity 38:61-79 



132 



Reed, Nelson A., John W. Bennett and James Warren Porter 

1968 Solid Core Drilling of Monks Mound: Technique and Findings. 
American Antiquity 33:137-148. 

Rootenberg, S. 

1964 Archaeological Field Sampling. American Antiquity 30:181-188. 

Rosen, David 

1941 The Preservation of Wood Sculpture: The Wax Immersion Method. 
The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 4:123-127. (Baltimore) 

Runquist, Jeanette 

1970 Archaeological Skeletal Material: A Study in the Methods of 
Excavation, Preservation, Reassembly and Analysis. Unpublished 
MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North 
Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Ryan, Thomas M. 

1975 Semisubterranean Structures and Their Spatial Distribution at 
the Marksville Site (16Av-l) . Southeastern Archaeological 
Conference Bulletin 18:214-225. 

Schaber, G.G. and G.J. Gummerman 

1969 Infrared Scanning Images: An Archaeological Application. 
Science 164:712-713. 

Schneider, Mary Jane 

1971 Cataloging and Care of Collections for Small Museums. Museum 
of Anthropology, University of Missouri. 

Seborg, R.M. and R.B. Invenarity 

1962 Conservation of 200-year-old Waterlogged Boats with Polye- 
thylene Glycol. Studies in Conservation 7(4):11-12. 

Sheldon, Craig T., Jr. 

1975 Miscellaneous Correspondence. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Soil Conservation Service, on file Athens, Georgia, and 
Laboratory of Archaeology, West Georgia College, Carrollton. 

Sheldon, Craig T., Jr. and Harvey McKenzie 

19 77 Archaeological Survey of the Wansley-Yates Power Transmission 
Line in Carroll and Coweta Counties, Georgia. Report on file 
in the Archaeological Laboratory, West Georgia College, 
Carrollton. 

South, Stanley A. 

1962 A Method of Cleaning Iron Artifacts. Southeastern Archaeological 
Conference Bulletin 9(1):17-18. 

Strandberg, Carl H. and Ray Tomlinson 

1969 Photoarchaeological Analysis of Potomac River Fish Traps. 
American Antiquity 34:312-319. 

The Textile Museum 

1956 Principles of Practical Cleaning for Old and Fragile Textiles. 
Workshop Notes 14. (Washington) 

133 



Tite, M.S. 

19 72 Methods of Physical Examination In Archaeology . Seminar Press, 
New York. 

Torrey, Howard 

1940 Pottery Restoration. Society for American Archaeology Notebook 
1(3):136-138. 

Watanabe, Hitoshi 

1973 The Ainu Ecosystem . University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Wedel, Waldo R. 

1951 The Use of Earth-moving Machinery in Archaeological Excavations. 
Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of 
Michigan 8:17-33. 

Wood, W. Dean 

1976 A Sampling Scheme for Sub-Surface Archaeological Survey. 
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 19:39-42. 

Worthy, Linda H. 

1978 Techniques for the Recovery, Preservation and Storage of Paper 

from Archaeological Sites. Southeastern Archaeological Conference 
Bulletin 21. (In press.) 



134