I NxoO. PX.
GEORGIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN
MAP SHoTVf.VG TWE ,%f £$$//,/? MOl/WO
6 OQ yo/r/s
Georgia Department of
JUN 4 1982
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
GEORGIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN
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
List of Plates v
List of Figures vii
Elizabeth A. Lyon ix
Lewis H. Larson, Jr. xi
LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE CONTRACT SURVEY
Paul R. Fish, University of Georgia 1
Bruce D. Smith, University of Georgia 10
David J. Hally, University of Georgia 27
Craig T. Sheldon, Jr., West Georgia College 40
LABORATORY PROCESSING AND CURATION
Roy S. Dickens, Georgia State University 61
Georgia Archaeological Survey Form and Computer Coding Format 73
Miscellaneous Archaeological Data Forms 9 3
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
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
Plate 9, Plane table mapping at a quarry site on Soapstone 59
Ridge, DeKalb County. (Courtesy of Georgia State
Plate 10, Recording catalogued artifacts collected during 64
archaeological survey. (Courtesy of Georgia State
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
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 >
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.
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
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
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
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
The initial meetings of the Task Force developed a phased work
plan and an outline for developing the research design components.
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
Lewis H. Larson, Jr.
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
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
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-
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-
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
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.
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
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
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
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
LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE CONTRACT SURVEY
PAUL R. FISH
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
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
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-
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
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
— Watershed Boundary
Big Mortar - Snuff Box Swamp
Figure 1, channelization project proposed by the soil
conservation service, long and mcintosh counties,
TO PARK ENTRANCE
EXPANSION CN EXISTING
CAMP ROAD 4-5 SITES
Row of Rocks
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
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
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
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.
>- — ■
— • O
— ■ o
— o <
CD CH — I
O LL. •—
LU I— -»
< z >■
X LU <
Ct UJ I
< CE u_
z co 1
< < t-
CD 2: CD
u_ ^ —
LU < <
Q I- OC
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-
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
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-
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
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
resources, they have to be able to study larger geographical areas
than are usually represented by the direct impact areas of proposed
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) .
^ k> *^
•■§ ^ ^
^ 51 <»J
^ C5 CO
£ $ $
Q_ — •
— < LU CD
Z I— LL_
CO CD *>
CC •— [\
lu o>— I
CD =J <
< O h-
~ cc <
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
~ 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),
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
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
D EKALB C O.
BOUNDARY OF SOAPSTONE RIDGE'
ZONE OF PRIMARY IMPACT
ZONE OF SECONDARY IMPACT
Figure 5, the location of the soapstone ridge area south of
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.
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
■j_i i I L_
CONTOUR LINES ARE AT FIFTY FOOT INTERVALS
A ARCHAIC SC OlD SCHOOL HOUSE
W WOODLAND M^ I
p— | M MISSISSIPRIAN B BUILDING FOUNDATION
UWORKSHOP H HISTORIC t HISTORIC CEMETERY
^n, H H HISTORIC HOUSE
CjQUARRY U unknown
A S SPRING
Figure 6, the location of functionally different sites within
the soapstone ridge area,
> — 1
O — •
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
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
/ 1 ,
5 I H | /
i I /* I N
Spawning Ground of Dog Salmon
Deer Hunting Hut
Bear Hunting Hut
Fishing Hut for Cherry Salmon
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
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.
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
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
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.
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 .
1. ground cover of decaying vegetation such as leaf mold and
2. thick, low lying vegetation such as pasture grass and
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.
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
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-
Reliability refers to the likelihood that a given survey tech-
nique will detect sites. The important variables that determine the
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
Plate 4, metal detector in use for archaeo-
logical SITE LOCATION ALONG THE
MARTA RAPID RAIL, EAST LINE, FULTON
►— i UJ
CO — '
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
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
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-
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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-
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-
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Subsurface Testing Techniques
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
tractor mounted backhoe
Stripping and Scarifying
tractor drawn plow, harrow or disc
tractor drawn fire plow
toothblade on tractor or bulldozer
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
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
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
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.
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-
— i h-
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 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
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
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,
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,
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-
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,
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.
UUKJIUjXtt. ftJV.L.rLrt.ILWijUO-L^rtJL, OUIXVCl
State Site No. * 9Cr1 29
Instit.Site No. WGC 1040
Location (Count y Carroll
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| , | , |
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,
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.
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
Ace. No. /Storage WGC 941/73-943/73
Collecto r Frederick T. Williams/WGC
Collector Kenneth B. Mason/WGC
8 June 19 75
Ace. No. /Storage
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.
Superviso r Frederick T,
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
Preliminary Classificatio n Possible Early Archaic/Early Woodland (Cartersville) /Etowah/
Lamar. Village or major occupation site.
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.
1 9 SP.pl 973 F. T. Williams
Prof. Status/Inst. Affil.
15Junel97 5 F. T. Williams Grad. Student/WGC"
1 Marl 980 K. R. Mason /WGC
Punch Card Submitted
Georgia Archaeological Survey Form
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.
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
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.
Use the full name of the county(s) in which the site is
Use of the Universal Transverse Mercator system for formally
designating site location is replacing geographical
coordinates based on latitude and longitude, but the latter
should be recorded to reduce the possibility of error in
transferring older site information to the present forms.
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
The name and address of the owner (s) should be recorded to
facilitate obtaining access, further site information and
examining existing collections.
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
visible surface features as mounds, structures, etc.
distance to fresh or salt water
present surface condition (cultivated, wooded, etc.)
REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Any pertinent data not specifically called for in other blanks
may be entered here, as:
potential or specific threats to the site
landowner attitude towards preservation or further
recommendation for future investigations
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.
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.
Indicate the collector, institutional affiliation, date, and
catalog and storage numbers of subsequent collections of
artifacts from the site.
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.
Any prior or subsequent excavations at the site should be noted
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.
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.
If the site is recommended for the National Register the basis
for this needs to be made clear and specific.
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.
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.
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
Archaeological Site Inventory Code
Column Description No. Columns
1-2 State Designation
3-5 County Designation
6-9 Site 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
Card Number (1)
Site Size (When site size exceeds
Length in Meters
Width in Meters
Orientation of Length
Type of Site (Maximum of four physical
characteristics to be coded for each
site) (see list on page 89)
Nature of Site
1 surface (when site is known to be only
3 surface & subsurface
4 surface is described (subsurface conditions
Site Midden (undisturbed occupational strata)
Site Features (context is important here)
Standing Architecture (this relates only to
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
3 recorder not reported
45 Kind of Investigation 1
4 documentary, never professionally verified
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
20 Forest Service (USFS)
21 Tulane University
22 Kennesaw Junior College
24 Savannah Science Museum
25 Soil Systems Incorporated (SSI)
26 Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT)
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
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)
67-68 Preservation State (Maximum of two states 2
to be coded for each site)
4 submerged like Dyer Natural
5 f looded-covered by man made lake
9 graded-by earth moving machinery
69-70 Preservation Prospect
2 endangered-natural eroding
3 endangered-natural flooding
4 endangered-private cultivation
5 endangered-private construction
9 endangered-Corps of Engineers
10 endangered-Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
11 endangered- Forest Service
12 endangered-U.S . Department of Housing and Urban
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
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
73 National Register Status 1
5 eligibility determination obtained (Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act)
80 Card Number (2) 1
CARD(s) 3 on
1-2 State Designation 2
3-5 County Designation 3
6-9 Site Number 4
10-12 Institution Designation 3
13-15 County Designation 3
16-19 Site Number 4
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
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
22-29 Date Range for Historic Sites (if known) 8
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
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
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
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
3. Shell Midden
4. Earth Mound
5 . Rock Mound
6 . Quarry
7. Rock Shelter
9. Rock Dam and/or Fish Weir
10. Rock Alignment (on land)
11. Petroglyph, Statue
12. Artifact Cache
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
2. Fence Wall, Stockpen
3 . Granary
16. House or Structure
17. Out House
19. Church or Mission
22. Trash Dump (domestic)
23. Municipal Trash Dump
25 . Monument
26. Court House
27. Rock Garden
Inn or Hotel
33. Railroad Station
35. Stage Coach Depot
49. Warehouse-Storage Bldg.
50. Grist Mill
51. Saw Mill
52. Mine or Quarry
53. Land Fill
54. Textile Mill
57. Sugar Mill
61. Fort & Battery or associated 68,
62. Earthworks 70,
63. Battle Field 71,
64. Camp 72,
65. Military Supply Cache 73,
66. Bomb Shelter (Cold War) 74,
Related to Water:
79. Canal or Ditch
80. Pier, Landing, Pilings or Dock 87. Boat Yard
81. Mill Pond 88. Causeway
82. Well 89. Jetty
84. Water Tank, Trough
85. Ship or Boat
91. Historic Artifact Scatter
92. Earth Work of unknown use
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,
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.
VEST GEORGIA COLLEGE
BURIAL DATA FORM
OSTEOLOGICAL DATA: ACE
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY
BURIAL DATA FORM
Date Site Number
Obeerver Burial Number
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
Primary: t ype ; deposition
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
BURIAL DATA FORM
Skeleton (or Skull) No.
Age Sex Preservation
Bones Taken: U
Cranial: Caiva Teeth: 87654321 12345678
Cranium Deirree of Attrition :
Ribs Scapula Femur
Sternum Clavicle Patella
Vertebrae Humerus Tibia
Sacrum Radius Fibula
Innominate Ulna Foot
Relationships of Burial :
Field and laboratory treatment (preservation, restoration, etc.):
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY
FEATURE DATA FORM
Date Site Number
Observer Feature Number
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)
Associated objects: For scale drawing see
Inscription Location Cat. No.
Relationships of feature:
Additional observations and interpretations:
VEST OZOP.GIA C0LLS5S
FEATURE DATA FORM
o J I
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY
PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA FORM
Site or Surrey Number
PHOTO DATA FORM
WALLACE .RESERVOIR PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS SHEET FOR CERAMIC ARTIFACTS*
Identifiable Decorated Body
Etowah Conip. St.
' Woodstock Corap. St.
; Napier Comp. St.
Swift Creek Comp. it.
red filmed 1
Stal lings Punctated
concentric circle st.
fiifot crossed st.
line blocked st.
rectilinear, comp. st.
i curvilinear comp. st.
linear check st.
fabric/ basket marked
corncob/ fingernail narked
cross hatched incised
*Rim and body modes are tabula
■ once as modes and once as types.
Rim nodes (list by type If possible: I.e., Lamar Plain, Swift Cree* Complicated
Body Modes (11st by type, 1f possible)
strap/loop handles with nodes
WALLACE RESERVOIR PROJECT
pmrnmARY ANALYSIS SHEET for polished and ground stone artifacts
•Unldent. Polished Scone
Formal Ground Scone
Unldent. Formal Ground Stone
Informal Ground Scone
Facet Use Implement
Edge Uae Implement
Possible Ground Scone
Unldent. Informal Ground Stone
Fire Cracked Rock _..,., „ _,
Pebbles _, ,.,,..,
WALLACE RESERVOIR PROJECT
Preliminary Analysis Sheet for Flaked Stone Artifact*
uaplete 81 face
Broken 31 face
Fire Cracked -tack. 9
Other stone o.
WALLACE RESERVOIR PROJECT
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS SHEET FOR HISTORIC MATERIALS
Willow transfer pattern(lO)
Annular ware(13) '
Green edged (19)
Transfer-pr1nted(1 1 ) J
Po 1 ychrome( 4 )
Del f tware \
S1 1 pware
Overg lazed enamelled Chinese
Underglaze (hand painted) (17^
White (salt-glazed) (43)
Finger-painted (polychrome) (8)
•numbers in parentheses Indicate numbers of type collections and S. South's type
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOCY
LABORATORY SKELETAL ANALYSIS AND INVENTORY
Morphological data location^
Id data locati
Inf. nasal c
8 7 6 5
4 3 2 1
12 3 4 5 6
3 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
12 3 4 5 6 7
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
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
I 5 4 3 2 1 Metacarpals I 2 3 4 5 R
L Sesamoids R
L 5 4 3 2 t
Metatarsals 12 3 4 5
ANOMALIES, PATHOLOGIES, INJURIES. ETC.
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ETHNOGRAPHIC SPECIMEN CATALOG
Photograph Accession No. .
Date Collected .
Date Accessioned .
Storage Location _
Description and Measurements:
Value for Insurance Purposes.
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LABORATORY OP ARCHAEOLOGY
Site or Survey Number .
Laboratory of Archaeology
Georgia Stat* University
Excavation Unit Data Sheet
fhoto- Roll / Exposure /
Color ^____ _____
Material Recovered (Mo. of Containers)
10 lb. bg.
Sol I Texture^
Elevation- Top of Level HW
Corrected Read 1 no
Clevatlon-Botto*) of Level HW
i : 1
i l -
WEST GEORGIA COLLEGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LABORATORY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS FORM
Plane Table Sheets
Place of Storage
Loans (Names, addresses, dates and items loaned)
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.
1975 On Sample Size Problems and the Use of Non-probabilistic
Sampling. In Sampling in Archaeology , edited by James W. Mueller,
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
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.
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.
Coleman, Laurance V.
1939 Manual for Small Museums . G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
1937 The Preservation of Textile Remains. American Antiquity
1931 Technical Methods in the Preservation of Anthropological
Specimens. National Museum of Canada Annual Report for 1929 .
Lewis, Ralph H.
19 76 Manual for Museums . National Park Service, U.S. Government
Lipe, William D.
1974 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. The Kiva 39:
Lovis, William A., Jr.
1976 Quarter Sections and Forests: an Example of Probability
Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41:
Lyons, Thomas R. and Thomas Eugene Avery
1977 Remote Sensing . Cultural Resources Management Division,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington,
Mason, Carol I.
1963 The Archaeology of Ocmulgee Old Fields, Macon, Georgia .
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Michigan.
McKenzie, Douglas H.
1966 A Summary of the Moundville Phase. Journal of Alabama
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.
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.
1976 Use of Mechanical Earth Auger at the Torreya Site, Liberty
County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 29:24-32.
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
Raab, L. Mark and Timothy C. Klinger
1977 A Critical Appraisal of "Significance" in Contract Archaeology.
American Antiquity 42:629-633.
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.
1954 Science in the Care of Museum Objects. Museums Journal 54:
Redman, Charles L. and Patty Jo Watson
1970 Systematic Intensive Surface Collection. American Antiquity .
1973 Multistage Fieldwork and Analytical Techniques. American
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.
1964 Archaeological Field Sampling. American Antiquity 30:181-188.
1941 The Preservation of Wood Sculpture: The Wax Immersion Method.
The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 4:123-127. (Baltimore)
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.
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,
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)
19 72 Methods of Physical Examination In Archaeology . Seminar Press,
1940 Pottery Restoration. Society for American Archaeology Notebook
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
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.)