GUIDELINES FORPUBLIC ARCHEOLOGY

IN WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYAugust 1997

Compiled byJennifer L. Kolb

Edited byKatherine Stevenson

Wisconsin Archeological Survey Guidelines Committee MembersElizabeth Benchley, Pensacola, Florida

Diane Holliday, State Historical Society of WisconsinJennifer Kolb, State Historical Society of Wisconsin

Chuck Moffat, Mississippi Valley Archaeology CenterJohn Richards, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Rodney Riggs, Sao Paulo, Brazil

ContributorsDavid Cooper, State Historical Society of Wisconsin

Leslie Eisenberg, State Historical Society of WisconsinMichael Kolb, Stratamorph Geoexploration, LLC.

Cynthia Stiles, USDA Forest Service

i

GUIDELINES FORPUBLIC ARCHEOLOGY IN WISCONSIN

Table of Contents

List of Guidelines................................................................................................................ iiiExecutive Summary...............................................................................................................v

Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1Preservation Planning............................................................................................... 1Federal and State Historic Preservation Legislation.................................................. 2

Establishing Historic Contexts and a Research Design........................................................ 5Introduction.............................................................................................................. 5Developing Historic Contexts .................................................................................. 6Historic Contexts in Wisconsin ............................................................................... 8Bibliography of Historic Contexts ......................................................................... 10

Archival Research............................................................................................................... 17Introduction............................................................................................................ 17Land Use History................................................................................................... 18Archival Resources................................................................................................. 19Serial Files and Map Collections............................................................................ 21Journals/Serial Publications/Published Sources..................................................... 23Standard Physiographic References....................................................................... 25Checklists for Archival Research............................................................................ 25

Phase I: Identification Surveys........................................................................................... 29Introduction............................................................................................................ 29Definitions and Objectives ..................................................................................... 30Field Investigations ................................................................................................ 32Documentation of an Archeological Site ................................................................ 36Reporting Results of Identification Surveys........................................................... 37

Phase II: Evaluation According to National Register Criteria ............................................. 39Introduction............................................................................................................ 39Determinations of Eligibility under Section 106..................................................... 41Evaluations under State Historic Preservation Legislation...................................... 41Nominating Sites to the National Register.............................................................. 44Conducting a Phase II Evaluation........................................................................... 45

Phase III: Data Recovery and Mitigation............................................................................ 51Introduction............................................................................................................ 51Developing a Data Recovery Plan .......................................................................... 51Methods and Techniques of Data Recovery........................................................... 53Reporting the Results of Data Recovery Projects................................................... 55Interested Parties.................................................................................................... 56

ii

Public Benefit .........................................................................................................56

iii

GuidelinesI. Technical Report Guidelines.......................................................................................... 57

Introduction............................................................................................................ 58Report Guidelines .................................................................................................. 59Distribution of Reports .......................................................................................... 65

II. Curation Guidelines...................................................................................................... 67Introduction............................................................................................................ 68Federal Guidelines ................................................................................................. 69State Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 70Removal of Artifacts from Private Property............................................................ 70Guidelines for Curation Facilities........................................................................... 72

III. Recording and Evaluating Historic Archeological Properties ...................................... 73Introduction............................................................................................................ 74Phase I: Identification............................................................................................. 74Phase II: Evaluation................................................................................................ 75

IV. Excavation and Analysis of Human Remains.............................................................. 79Introduction............................................................................................................ 80Burial Site Identification......................................................................................... 80Cataloguing Burial Sites......................................................................................... 82Excavation of Human Remains .............................................................................. 84Documentation Forms............................................................................................ 86

V. Geomorphological and Geoarcheological Investigations in Support ofArchaelogical Investigations..................................................................... 103

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 104Phase I Reconnaissance Survey ........................................................................... 105Phase II Evaluations............................................................................................. 111Report Preparations.............................................................................................. 111Qualifications....................................................................................................... 113Systematic Procedures for Landscape Evaluation................................................. 113References Cited .................................................................................................. 114

VI. Underwater Archeological Investigations .................................................................. 117Introduction.......................................................................................................... 118General Requirements.......................................................................................... 118Literature and Records Research.......................................................................... 119Phase I: Minimum Technical Specifications......................................................... 120Special Reporting Requirements .......................................................................... 122Special Curation Requirements ............................................................................ 123References Cited .................................................................................................. 123

VII. Recording Rock Art Sites ........................................................................................ 125Introduction.......................................................................................................... 126Definitions ........................................................................................................... 126Survey Methodology............................................................................................ 127Recording Rock Art Sites..................................................................................... 128Mapping Rock Art Sites....................................................................................... 131Recording Rock Art Figures ................................................................................ 131Site Interpretation................................................................................................. 133

iv

Report Preparation................................................................................................133Rock Art Site Preservation....................................................................................133References Cited...................................................................................................134

v

Executive Summary

In 1980, the Wisconsin Archeological Survey wrote and distributed Guidelines for ConservationArcheology in Wisconsin. This document provided basic guidelines for archeologists conductinginvestigations under federal preservation laws. The State Historic Preservation Office has usedthis document to review archeological work undertaken in Wisconsin for the past 16 years.

Since 1980, there have been substantial changes in state and federal law as well as advanceswithin the discipline of archeology itself. The WAS considers these combined changessignificant enough to warrant rewriting the Guidelines.

The new Guidelines explain the processes of state and federal compliance archeology and detailthe steps necessary to identify, evaluate, and mitigate archeological sites. In addition, thisdocument also provides new guidelines for work on specific site types (burials, rock art,shipwrecks, and terrestrial historic sites) as well as for geoarcheological investigations.

1

Introduction

Preservation Planning ............................................................1Federal and State Historic Preservation Legislation.................2

The Wisconsin Archeological Survey(WAS) Guidelines for Conservation Arche-ology in Wisconsin provide guidelines forarcheological research conducted in compli-ance with federal and state historic preserva-tion legislation. This legislation includesSections 106 and 110 of the National His-toric Preservation Act, and Chapters 44.40and 157.70 of the Wisconsin Statutes. TheWAS guidelines are intended to ensure thatarcheological investigations are conducted inaccordance with the current state of the dis-cipline, and in accordance with the Secretaryof the Interior’s Standards and Guidelinesfor Archeology and Historic Preservation.The State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO) uses these guidelines to review andevaluate archeological methods, reports, andrecommendations.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards andGuidelines for Archeology and Historic Pres-ervation, published in the Federal Register,September, 1983, discuss the importance ofpreservation planning and outline archeologi-cal activities into a logical sequence of (1)identification, (2) evaluation, and (3) treatmentof archeological sites. Key to these activities isthe development of contexts within which toevaluate the significance of archeological sites.Archeological sites should be evaluated withina cultural, chronological, and/or regionalframework. The WAS Guidelines parallel theSecretary of the Interior’s guidelines and pro-vide instructions on preservation planning, thedevelopment of historic contexts and researchdesigns, guidelines for archival research, PhaseI (identification studies), Phase II (evaluationstudies), and Phase III (treatment, or data re-covery), and the curation of archeological ma-terials and documentation generated by Public

Archeology projects. Also included are spe-cific guidelines for the preparation of archeo-logical reports, the excavation of human re-mains, geomorphological research, underwaterarcheological research, documenting historicarcheological sites, and recording rock artsites.

Preservation PlanningPlanning is critical to the preservation of Wis-consin’s archeological resources. As archeo-logical research proceeds in Wisconsin, thestate plan objectives are: (1) to establish inter-pretive frameworks, i.e. “historic contexts,”(2) to use these contexts to develop goals andpriorities for the identification, evaluation, andtreatment of archeological sites, and (3) to en-sure that the results of all of these activities areintegrated into broader planning processes.

Many people and agencies participate in pres-ervation planning in Wisconsin. They include:

• consulting archeologists conductingresearch through the Section 106 proc-ess

• federal agencies under Section 106 andSection 110

• state agencies under Wisconsin’s his-toric preservation statute, s.44.40

• the State Historical Society of Wis-consin, specifically the State HistoricPreservation Officer (SHPO), the Of-fice of the State Archaeologist, and theCompliance Section (all within the Di-vision of Historic Preservation)

• academic institutions or organizations• Certified Local Governments• tribal governments• interested members of the public

2

• the Wisconsin Archeological Survey(WAS)

In Wisconsin, the Compliance Section and theOffice of the State Archaeologist (OSA) arekey participants in the preservation planningprocess. The Compliance Section works withfederal and state agencies to identify sites, as-sess effects, and consider alternatives to avoidor reduce adverse impacts to archeologicalsites. Decisions on which areas to survey andsubsequent recommendations regarding theevaluation, nomination, and treatment of ar-cheological sites have a major impact on boththe archeological properties themselves andarcheological research in the state.

The Office of the State Archaeologist is in-volved in preservation planning through itsadministration of the regional archeology pro-grams and Survey and Planning grants fromthe National Park Service. Archeologistsworking through these regional programs andgrants produce specific cultural contexts (forexample, “Late Archaic of Southeastern Wis-consin”) as well as more general regionalchronologies. The regional programs andgrants also focus on regional surveys and theidentification and evaluation of threatened re-sources. These data are then used to assesscurrent knowledge, identify data gaps, andgenerate hypotheses. Further, this informationis used by the SHPO to assess the signifi-cance of individual archeological sites whendetermining whether or not a site is eligible forthe National Register of Historic Places.

Federal and State Historic Preser-vation LegislationMost archeological research in Wisconsin isconducted under compliance with preservationstatutes. Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act requires that every federalagency take into account how its “undertak-ings” could affect archeological sites. Under-takings include a broad range of activities suchas construction or repair projects, licenses,permits, grants, and property transfers. It is thefederal agency’s responsibility to identify ar-cheological sites that might be affected by itsproposed action. To do this, the agency con-

tacts the State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO) for site information in the project areaand hires archeologists to conduct surveywork in the project area.

If a site is found, its significance is evaluatedagainst one or more of the criteria for listingon the National Register of Historic Places.Generally, most archeological sites are evalu-ated against Criterion D, information potential.Simply put, does the site contain informationimportant in prehistory or history? Informa-tion is considered “important” if it can ad-dress current data gaps in the archeologicalrecord as identified by study units and pastsurveys.

If an important archeological site (either listedon the National Register or considered eligiblefor the National Register) will be affected by afederal undertaking, the federal agency con-sults with the SHPO, the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation, and other interested par-ties such as Indian tribes, local governments,and property owners and attempts to come toan agreement on how the federal agency willavoid, reduce, or mitigate the adverse effect.

Section 110 of the National Historic Preserva-tion Act is an extremely important documentfor preservation planning. This measure callsfor each federal agency to assume responsibil-ity for the preservation of the archeologicalsites it owns. Specifically, it requires federalagencies to establish preservation programswith the goals of identifying, evaluating, nomi-nating, and protecting archeological sites.

Wisconsin statutes also protect many archeo-logical sites and all burial sites. Wisconsin lawrequires state agencies to determine whetherany proposed action will affect archeologicalsites listed on the National Register or StateRegister of Historic Places, on the state in-ventory of archeological sites, or on lists oflocally designated historic places. Again, it isthe state agency’s responsibility to contact theSHPO to determine whether an action will af-fect an archeological site.

If there is an adverse effect, the agency shouldnegotiate with the SHPO to “reduce” theseeffects. Wisconsin state law, s.44.42, also re-quires consideration of archeological sites po-

3

tentially affected by the actions of local mu-nicipalities. At this level, however, the onlysites that require such consideration are thosealready listed on the National or State Registerof Historic Places or already placed on a list oflocally designated historic places.

4

5

Establishing Historic Contextsand A Research Design

Introduction ....................................................................5Developing Historic Contexts...........................................6Historic Contexts in Wisconsin.........................................8Bibliography of Historic Contexts..................................10

IntroductionDecisions about the identification, evaluation,NRHP registration, and treatment of historicproperties are most reliably made when therelationship of individual properties to othersimilar properties is understood. Informationabout historic properties representing aspectsof archeology and culture should be collectedand organized to define these relationships.This organizational framework is known as a“historic context.” The historic context orga-nizes information based on a cultural themebounded by geographic and chronologicallimits. A context is intended to describe thesignificant patterns of development in a par-ticular area or region. The development ofhistoric contexts is thus the foundation for de-cisions about identification, evaluation, regis-tration, and treatment of historic properties.

The development of historic contexts is an ob-jective of the Office of the State Archaeologist(OSA) and has been endorsed by the WAS forover a decade. The OSA has funded productionof regional archeological overviews as well asspecific archeological cultural contexts. Ar-cheological contexts are also developed throughresearch conducted under the Section 106compliance process. A bibliography of existinghistoric contexts is appended to this chapter.According to the Secretary of the Interior’sStandards and Guidelines for Archeology andHistoric Preservation (SISGAHP), the His-toric Context concept is basically an organiza-tional tool to facilitate comparative assessmentsof historic properties. SISGAHP guidelinesstate that:

Available information about historic proper-ties should be divided into manageable unitsbefore it can be useful for planning purposes.

Major decisions about identifying, evaluating,registering and treating historic properties aremost reliably made in the context of otherrelated properties. A historic context is an or-ganizational format that groups informationabout related historic properties based on atheme, geographic limits and chronologicalperiod. A single historic context describesone or more aspects of the historic develop-ment of an area, and identifies the significantpatterns that individual historic propertiesrepresent. A set of historic contexts is a com-prehensive summary of all aspects of thehistory of the area.

Historic contexts, as theoretical constructs, arelinked to actual historic properties throughthe concept of property type. Property typespermit the development of plans for identifi-cation, evaluation and treatment even in theabsence of complete knowledge of individualproperties. Like the historic context, propertytypes are artificial constructs which may berevised as necessary.

6

Historic contexts can be developed at avariety of scales appropriate for local,State and regional planning. Given theprobability of historic contexts overlap-ping in an area, it is important to coordi-nate the development and use of contextsat all levels. Generally, the SHPO pos-sesses the most complete body of infor-mation about historic properties and inpractice, is in the best position to performthis function.

The development of historic contextsgenerally results in documents that de-scribe the prehistoric processes or pat-terns that define the context. Each of thecontexts selected should be developed tothe point of identifying important prop-erty types to be useful in later preserva-tion decision-making. The amount ofdetail included in these summaries willvary depending on the level (local, state,regional, or national) at which the con-texts are developed and on their intendeduses. For most planning purposes, a syn-opsis of the written description of thehistoric context is sufficient.

Developing Historic ContextsThe SISGAHP guidelines identify five stepsessential to the process of developing a historiccontext:

1. Identify the concept, time period, andgeographical limits for the historic con-text.

2. Assemble the existing information aboutthe historic context.

3. Synthesize the assembled information.4. Define property types.5. Identify information needs.

The following discussion is abstracted from theSISGAHP guidelines and provides a brief over-view of each step in the process. The full text ofthe SISGAHP guidelines should be consultedprior to development of any historic context.

1. Identify the concept, time period, and geo-graphical limits for the historic context.Existing information, concepts, theories, models,and descriptions should be used as the basis for

defining historic contexts. Biases in primary andsecondary sources should be identified andtaken into account when existing information isused in defining historic contexts.

The identification and description of historiccontexts should incorporate contributions fromall disciplines involved in historic preservation.The chronological period and geographical areasof each historic context should be defined afterthe conceptual basis is established. However,there may be exceptions, especially in definingprehistoric contexts where drainage systems orphysiographic regions are outlined first. Geo-graphical boundaries for historic contextsshould not be based upon contemporary politi-cal, project, or other boundaries if those modernboundaries do not coincide with historicalboundaries. For example, boundaries for pre-historic contexts have little relationship to con-temporary city, county, or state boundaries.

2. Assemble the existing information aboutthe historic context.Collect information. Several kinds of infor-mation are needed to construct a preservationplan. Information about the history of the areaencompassed by the historic context should becollected, including any information about his-toric properties that have already been identified.Existing survey or inventory entries are an im-portant source of information about historicproperties.

Other sources may include literature on prehis-tory, history, architecture, and the environment;social and environmental impact assessments;county and state land use plans; architectural andfolklife studies and oral histories; ethnographicresearch; state historic inventories and registers;technical reports prepared for Section 106 orother assessments of historic properties; anddirect consultation with individuals and orga-nized groups.

In many cases, organizations and groups withinthe preservation, planning, and academic com-munities can play important roles in defininghistoric contexts and values, assisting with de-fining contexts, and identifying sources of in-formation. In developing historic contexts forareas whose history or prehistory has not beenextensively studied, broad general historic con-

7

texts should be initially identified using availableliterature and expertise, with the expectation thatthe contexts will be revised and subdivided in thefuture as primary source research and field sur-vey are conducted. It is also important to identifysuch sources of information as existing planningdata needed to establish goals for identification,evaluation, and treatment and to identify factorsthat will affect attainment of those goals.

The same approach for obtaining information isnot necessarily desirable for all historic contexts.Information should not be gathered without firstconsidering its relative importance to the historiccontext, the cost and time involved, and the ex-pertise required to obtain it. In many cases, pub-lished sources may be used in writing initialdefinitions of historic contexts; archival researchor fieldwork may be needed for subsequent ac-tivities.

Assess information. All informationshould be reviewed to identify bias in his-toric perspective, methodological approach,or area of coverage. For example, field sur-veys for archeological sites may have ig-nored historic archeological sites, or countyland use plans may have emphasized onlydevelopment goals.

3. Synthesize the information.The information collection and analysis resultsin a written narrative of the historic context. Thisnarrative provides a detailed synthesis of the datacollected and analyzed. The narrative covers thehistory of the area from the chosen perspectiveand identifies important patterns, events, persons,or cultural values. In the process of identifyingthe important patterns, one should consider

1. trends in area settlement and develop-ment, if relevant

2. aesthetic and artistic values embodied inarchitecture, construction technology, orcraftsmanship

3. research values or problems relevant tothe historic context, social and physicalsciences and humanities, and cultural in-terests of local communities

4. intangible cultural values of ethnicgroups and native American peoples

4. Define property types.A property type is a grouping of individualproperties based on shared physical or associa-tive characteristics. Property types link the ideasincorporated in the theoretical historic contextwith actual historic properties that illustrate thoseideas. Property types defined for each historiccontext should be directly related to the concep-tual basis of the historic context. Property typesdefined for the historic context “Coal Mining inNortheastern Pennsylvania, 1860–1930” mightinclude coal extraction and processing com-plexes; railroad and canal transportation sys-tems; commercial districts; mine workers’housing; churches, social clubs, and other com-munity facilities reflecting the ethnic origins ofworkers; and residences and other propertiesassociated with mine owners and other industri-alists.

Identify property types. The narrative shoulddiscuss the kinds of properties expected withinthe geographical limits of the context and groupthem into those property types most useful inrepresenting important historic trends. Gener-ally, property types should be defined after thehistoric context has been defined. Property typesin common usage (“Queen Anne houses,”“mill buildings,” or “stratified sites”) shouldnot be adopted without first verifying their rele-vance to the historic contexts being used.

Characterize the locational patterns ofproperty types. Generalizations about whereparticular types of properties are likely to befound can serve as a guide for identification.Generalizations about the distribution of ar-cheological properties are frequently used. Thedistribution of other historic properties often canbe estimated based on recognizable historical,environmental, or cultural factors that determinedtheir location. Locational patterns of propertytypes should be based upon models that have anexplicit theoretical or historical basis, and thatcan be tested in the field. The model is fre-quently the product of historical research andanalysis (example, “Prior to widespread use ofsteam power, mills were located on rivers andstreams able to produce water power”), or itmay result from sampling techniques.

Often the results of statistically valid samplesurveys can be used to describe the locational

8

patterns of a particular property type. Other sur-veys can also provide a basis for suggesting lo-cational patterns if they recorded a diversity ofhistoric properties and inspected a variety of en-vironmental zones. It is likely that the identifica-tion of locational patterns will come from acombination of these sources. Expected or pre-dicted locational patterns of property typesshould be developed with a provision made fortheir verification.

Characterize the condition of propertytypes. The expected condition of property typesshould be evaluated to assist in the developmentof identification, evaluation, and treatment strate-gies and to help define physical integrity thresh-olds for various property types. The followingshould be assessed for each property type: (1)inherent characteristics of a property type thateither contribute to or detract from its physicalpreservation (for example, unique preservationconcerns related to rock art sites); and (2) as-pects of the social and natural environment thatmay affect the preservation or visibility of theproperty type (for example, Native Americanbeliefs related to mound sites).

5. Identify information needs.Filling in the gaps in information is an im-portant element of the preservation plan de-signed for each historic context. Statementsof the information needed should be as spe-cific as possible, focusing on the informationneeded, the historic context and propertytypes to which it applies, and why the infor-mation is needed to perform identification,evaluation, or treatment activities.

Historic Contexts in WisconsinExamples of historic contexts that are written forWisconsin cultural resources and adhere closelyto the above guidelines are not numerous. Moststudies are most accurately termed “CulturalOverviews” or “Cultural Study Units.” Devel-opment of these studies began with the produc-tion of the Resource Protection Planning Proc-ess (RP3) and the Draft Plan for the Protectionof Prehistoric Archeological Sites in Wisconsin.These efforts were initiated by the SHPO in thelate 1980s.

Members of the WAS contributed to the pro-duction of the plan by producing the currentcultural overview for the state: “Introduction toWisconsin Archaeology: Background to Cul-tural Resource Planning” (Green et al. 1986).Currently, cultural overviews for the nine ad-ministrative regions of the OSA exist for eightregions. Included are five Paleo-Indian regionalstudy units, two Archaic study units, seven studyunits for various Woodland phases, twoOneota/Upper Mississippian study units, twoMiddle Mississippian study units, and one His-toric Logging study unit.

A variety of problems restrict the usefulness ofsome of these existing historic contexts. For ex-ample, some of the archeological contexts arenot developed to the degree necessary for inte-gration with ongoing research. Many regionalcontexts are simply a reiteration of the culturehistory of an area. To be truly useful for preser-vation planning and the management of signifi-cant cultural properties, the existing data onproperties, their types, and their distributionsshould be adequately detailed, quantified, anddescribed.

An additional problem is that the structure andformat of the existing studies are highly idio-syncratic, reflecting the particular interests ofeach context’s developer. A further limitation onthe usefulness of many studies is that geo-graphic limits are generally defined by adminis-trative regions that crosscut natural and prehis-toric and historic human territories.

Finally, some of the study units were producedover seven years ago and need to be updated toincorporate new data and interpretations. To betruly useful, regional or cultural historic contextsshould be regularly revised and updated to in-corporate newly acquired information. TheWAS recommends that the SHPO and OSAwork together to ensure that regional and cul-tural historic contexts (1) follow a basic outlinemore closely modeled on the SISGAHP guide-lines; (2) are updated regularly; and (3) are rou-tinely considered in the planning process.

9

Bibliography of HistoricContextsPublished ContextsBoszhardt, Robert F.1991 Paleo-Indian Study Unit: Region 6,

Western Wisconsin. The WisconsinArcheologist 72:155–200.

Dudzik, Mark J.1991 First People: The Paleo-Indian Tradi-

tion in Northwestern Wisconsin. TheWisconsin Archeologist 72:137–54.

Green, William, James B. Stoltman, and AliceB. Kehoe (editors)

1986 Introduction to Wisconsin Archae-ology. The Wisconsin Archeologist67(3–4).

Overstreet, David F.1991 Updated Paleo-Indian Study Unit for

Region 7. The Wisconsin Archeolo-gist 72: 201–44.

1991 Paleo-Indian Study Unit: Region 9,Southeastern Wisconsin. The Wis-consin Archeologist 72:265–366.

Overstreet, David F., editor1992 Archaeological Studies on the South-

east Wisconsin Uplands. With con-tributions by David F. Overstreet,James K. Huber, and George Rapp.Case Studies in Great Lakes Archae-ology Number 1. Great Lakes Ar-chaeological Press, Milwaukee.

Stoltman, James B.1991 A Reconsideration of Fluted Point

Diversity in Wisconsin. The Wiscon-sin Archeologist 72:245–64.

Wozniak, John, editor1983 Historic Lifestyles of the Upper Mis-

sissippi River Valley. UniversityPress of America, New York.

National Register NominationsBenchley, Elizabeth D.1989 Draft of the Multi-property Listing for

the Lakewood Inland Prehistoric

Hunter-Gather Nomination. Archae-ology Laboratory, University of Wis-consin–Milwaukee. Copy on file, Of-fice of the State Archaeologist, HistoricPreservation Division, State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin, Madison.

Birmingham, Robert A.1987 Wisconsin Indian Rock Art Sites.

Multiple Property Listing, NationalRegister of Historic Places. Copy onfile, Office of the State Archaeologist,Division of Historic Preservation, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin,Madison.

1989 The Late Woodland Stage in Ar-chaeological Region 8 (AD650–1300). Multiple Property Listing,National Register of Historic Places.Copy on file, Office of the State Ar-chaeologist, Division of Historic Pres-ervation, State Historical Society ofWisconsin, Madison.

Dudzik, Mark J.1993 Yellow/St. Croix Rivers Archaeological

District. National Register of HistoricPlaces. Copy on file, Office of theState Archaeologist, Division of His-toric Preservation, State Historical So-ciety of Wisconsin, Madison.

Kreisa, Paul P.1992 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Wiscon-

sin. Multiple Property Listing, Na-tional Register of Historic Places.Copy on file, Office of the State Ar-chaeologist, Division of Historic Pres-ervation, State Historical Society ofWisconsin, Madison.

Kreisa, Paul P., and David J. Cooper1991 Great Lakes Shipwrecks of Wiscon-

sin. Multiple Property Listing, Na-tional Register of Historic Places.Copy on file, Office of the State Ar-chaeologist, Division of Historic Pres-ervation, State Historical Society ofWisconsin, Madison.

Unpublished ContextsBarth, Robert J.

10

1985 Final Report of Regional ArchaeologyProject: Region 3. Copy on file, Officeof the State Archaeologist, HistoricPreservation Division, State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin, Madison.

1991 Regional Archaeology Program: Re-gion 3 Final Report for 1990–1991.Copy on file, Office of the State Ar-chaeologist, Historic Preservation Di-vision, State Historical Society of Wis-consin, Madison.

Behm, Jeffery A.1993 Archaeological Context of the Survey

Area. In The 1990 and 1991 Ar-chaeological Survey and Evaluation ofthe Bellhaven Estates Property, Sec-tion 7, Town of Algoma, WinnebagoCounty, Wisconsin. Reports of Inves-tigation No. l. Archaeology Labora-tory, University of Wiscon-sin–Oshkosh. (A preliminary culturaloverview was produced as part of theBell Site investigations report.)

Boszhardt, Robert F.1989 The Paleo-Indian Study Unit in Region

6, Western Wisconsin. Reports of In-vestigations No. 83. Mississippi Val-ley Archaeology Center, University ofWisconsin–La Crosse.

1990 The Late Woodland Study Unit in Re-gion 6, Western Wisconsin. Reportsof Investigations No. 115. MississippiValley Archaeology Center, Universityof Wisconsin–La Crosse.

1993 Paleo Indians and Buried MegafaunaSites, 1992–93. Reports of Investiga-tions No. 160. Mississippi Valley Ar-chaeology Center, University of Wis-consin–La Crosse.

1993 An Archaeological Survey at SilverMound in Jackson County, Wisconsin,1992–93. Reports of InvestigationsNo. 160. Mississippi Valley Archae-ology Center, University of Wiscon-sin–La Crosse.

Boszhardt, Robert F., James L. Theler, andDean G. Wilder

1993 Megafauna of Western Wisconsin.With contributions by Matthew Hilland Brian Phillips. Reports of Investi-gations No. 161. Mississippi Valley

Archaeology Center, University ofWisconsin–La Crosse.

Dobbs, Clark A.1988 Outline of Historic Contexts for the

Prehistoric Period (ca. 12000B.P.–1700 A.D.). Reports of Investi-gations No. 37. Institute for MinnesotaArchaeology, Minneapolis.

Dudzik, Mark J.1993 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in North-

ern Wisconsin: A Region I CultureStudy Unit. Burnett County HistoricalSociety, Siren, Wisconsin. Copy onfile, Office of the State Archaeologist,Historic Preservation Division, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin,Madison.

Flick, Geralyn1995 Study Unit: Early Woodland Study

Unit in Southeastern Wisconsin. Re-port of Investigations No. 125. Ar-chaeological Research Laboratory,University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.

1994 Study Unit: Late Archaic in Southeast-ern Wisconsin. Report of Investiga-tions No. 121. Archaeological Re-search Laboratory, University ofWisconsin–Milwaukee.

Flick, Geralyn, and Lynne Goldstein1993 Study Unit: Early and Middle Archaic

Study Unit in Southeastern Wisconsin.Report of Investigations No. 115. Ar-chaeological Research Laboratory,University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.

Goldstein, Lynne1983 Predictive Models for Southeastern

Wisconsin: Problems of Bias andStereotype. In The Southeastern Wis-consin Archaeology Project:1982–1983. Report of InvestigationsNo. 68. Archaeological ResearchLaboratory, University of Wiscon-sin–Milwaukee.

1987 Historic Native American Occupationand Settlement. In The SoutheasternWisconsin Archaeology Project:1982–1983. Report of InvestigationsNo. 88. Archaeological Research

11

Laboratory, University of Wiscon-sin–Milwaukee.

1993 A Cultural Overview & RegionalManagement Plan for SoutheasternWisconsin. Report of InvestigationsNo. 107. Archaeological ResearchLaboratory, University of Wiscon-sin–Milwaukee.

1991 Study Unit: Late Woodland in South-eastern Wisconsin. Report of Investi-gations No. 107. Archaeological Re-search Laboratory, University ofWisconsin–Milwaukee.

1992 Study Unit: Middle Woodland inSoutheastern Wisconsin. Report of In-vestigations No. 112. ArchaeologicalResearch Laboratory, University ofWisconsin–Milwaukee.

1992 Study Unit: Mississippian Cultures inSoutheastern Wisconsin. Report of In-vestigations No. 112. ArchaeologicalResearch Laboratory, University ofWisconsin–Milwaukee.

Hackenberger, Steven1992 Rock County Mound Survey 1991–92.

Survey and Planning Grant, HistoricPreservation Division, State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin, Madison. (Co-operative Project between University ofWisconsin Centers–Rock County andHistoric Preservation Division, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin,Madison.)

Hackenberger, Steven, editor1993 Final Report of the Rock County In-

dian Mounds Project. With contribu-tions by He Ping and Larry Johns.Survey and Planning Grant, HistoricPreservation Division, State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin, Madison. (Co-operative Project between the Wiscon-sin Winnebago Nation, G1S Depart-ment, Black River Falls; University ofWisconsin Centers–Rock County; andHistoric Preservation Division, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin,Madison.)

Harrison, Christina1991 The Terminal Woodland Period of

Northwestern Wisconsin: A StudyUnit. Burnett County Historical Soci-ety, Siren, Wisconsin.

1991 The Archaic Period of NorthwesternWisconsin: A Study Unit. BurnettCounty Historical Society, Siren, Wis-consin.

Kolb, Jennifer L., Michael F. Kolb, and EdgarS. Oerichbauer

1988 The Archaeological Resources ofNorthwestern Wisconsin: Region 1Archaeology Program 1987–1988.Burnett County Historical Society, Si-ren, Wisconsin.

Kolb, Michael, Linea Sundstrom, and Glen G.Fredlund

1993 Sucker Creek Assessment Project: Ar-chaeology and Geomorphology of aSouthern Lake Michigan Coastal En-vironment. Soils and Physical Geog-raphy Laboratory, Department of Ge-ography, University ofWisconsin–Milwaukee.

Mason, Carol L.1994 The 1993 Fur Trade Era Survey of the

Fox River Corridor in NortheasternWisconsin. Reports of InvestigationsNo. 5. Archaeology Laboratory, Uni-versity of Wisconsin–Oshkosh.

Moore, John Howard1994 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Central

Wisconsin: A Region Four Study Unit.State Regional Archaeology Program,University of Wisconsin–StevensPoint.

Overstreet, David F.1989 Oneota Tradition Culture His-

tory—New Data from the Old SpringSite (47 Wn 350). Reports of Investi-gations No. 219. Great Lakes Ar-chaeological Research Center, Mil-waukee.

1993 Early Woodland Study Unit for Re-gion 7. In Archaeological Investiga-tions in the Sheboygan River Water-shed, 1990–1993, by John D.Richards, David F. Overstreet, andPatricia B. Richards. Reports of Inves-tigation No. 327. Great Lakes Ar-chaeological Research Center, Mil-waukee.

12

1995 Historic Contexts of the Upper Mis-sissippi River. In Cultural ResourcesInventory of the Upper MississippiRiver, St. Anthony Falls to Pool 10,Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, ed-ited by John D. Richards, pp. 37–159.Reports of Investigation No. 384.Great Lakes Archaeological ResearchCenter, Milwaukee.

Overstreet, David F., editor1994 FY 1993 Historic Preservation Survey

and Planning Grant—Ice Age Land-scapes of Racine and Kenosha Coun-ties, Wisconsin. With contributions byDavid Wasion, Keith A. Sverdrup, andDavid F. Overstreet. Reports of Inves-tigation No. 355. Great Lakes Ar-chaeological Research Center, Mil-waukee.

1993 FY 1992 Historic Preservation Surveyand Planning Grant—Early HoloceneMegafauna Exploitation—KenoshaCounty, Wisconsin. With contribu-tions by Daniel J. Joyce, Ruth Blazina-Joyce, David F. Overstreet, and DavidWasion. Reports of Investigation No.325. Great Lakes Archaeological Re-search Center, Milwaukee.

Overstreet, David F., Annette Nekola, and An-drew Ippolito

1983 Identification and Evaluation of Log-ging Industry–Related Cultural Re-sources, Nicolet National Forest, Wis-consin—1983 Addendum. Reports ofInvestigations No. 114. Great LakesArchaeological Research Center, Mil-waukee.

Overstreet, David F., and John D. Richards1995 Cultural Resource Management Plan

for the Crandon Mining CompanyCrandon Project, Crandon, Wiscon-sin. Reports of Investigations No. 379.Great Lakes Archaeological ResearchCenter, Milwaukee.

Richards, John D.1991 Prehistoric Stone Fish Weirs. In

Phase II Archaeological Investigationsat 47 Je 932, 47 Je 933, and 47 Wk445, Jefferson and Waukesha Coun-ties, Wisconsin, edited by John D.

Richards, pp. 82–114. Reports of In-vestigations No. 268. Great Lakes Ar-chaeological Research Center, Mil-waukee.

Richards, John D., David F. Overstreet, andPatricia B. Richards.

1993 Archaeological Investigations in theSheboygan River Watershed,1990–1993. Reports of InvestigationNo. 327. Great Lakes ArchaeologicalResearch Center, Milwaukee.

Richards, Patricia B., Robert Watson, MichaelKolb, and Georgia A. Lusk

1995 Thematic Context: The Zinc-LeadMining District of Southwest Wiscon-sin. Reports of Investigation No. 375.Great Lakes Archaeological ResearchCenter, Milwaukee.

Riggs, Rodney E.1990 Overview of Archeological Cultures in

State Historic Preservation Office’sRegion 2–Wisconsin. Wisconsin Re-gional Archaeology Program, Region2. Office of the State Archaeologist,Division of Historic Preservation, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin,Madison.

1990 Overview of Archaeological Culturesin State Historic Preservation Office’sRegion 4–Wisconsin. Wisconsin Re-gional Archaeology Program, Region4. Office of the State Archaeologist,Division of Historic Preservation, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin,Madison.

Rodell, Roland L.1989 The Middle Mississippian Study Unit,

Region No. 6, Western Wisconsin.Reports of Investigations No. 94. Mis-sissippi Valley Archaeology Center,University of Wisconsin–La Crosse.

Ryden, Nancy L., Lynne Goldstein, and Eliza-beth D. Benchley

1983 Final Report on the Initial Phases ofPredictive Model Development forAboriginal Cultural Resources on theChequamegon National Forest, Wis-consin. Report of Investigations No.73. Archaeological Research Labora-

13

tory, University of Wiscon-sin–Milwaukee.

Stevenson, Katherine1983 The Regional Archaeologist Program

in Western Wisconsin: A First-YearReport. Reports of Investigations No.7. Mississippi Valley ArchaeologyCenter, University of Wisconsin–LaCrosse.

1984 The Oneota Study Unit in Region 6,Western Wisconsin. Reports of Inves-tigations No. 20. Mississippi ValleyArchaeology Center, University ofWisconsin–La Crosse.

Stevenson, Katherine, and Robert F. Boszhardt1993 The Current Status of Oneota Sites

and Research in Western Wisconsin:The Oneota Study Unit in Region 6,1993 Update. Reports of Investiga-tions No. 163. Mississippi Valley Ar-chaeology Center, University of Wis-consin–La Crosse.

Stiles, Cynthia M.1994 Cultural Study Unit: The Historic

Logging Industry in State Region 2and Nicolet National Forest. Report ofInvestigations No. 3. Nicolet NationalForest, USDA Forest Service, Rhine-lander.

Stoltman, James B.1992 Overview of the Prehistory of Ar-

chaeological Region 8, State of Wis-consin. As adapted from 1991–1992

Annual Report for Region 8 State ofWisconsin Regional ArchaeologyProgram, University of Wiscon-sin–Madison.

1992 Paleo-Indian Study Unit, IntroductoryOverview, a Reconsideration of FlutedPoint Diversity in Wisconsin. AnnualReport for Region 8 State of Wiscon-sin Regional Archaeology Program,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Theler, James L., and Katherine Stevenson1984 The Middle Woodland Study Unit in

Region 6, Western Wisconsin. Reportsof Investigations No. 25. MississippiValley Archaeology Center, Universityof Wisconsin–La Crosse.

Weisiger, Marsha1995 Barns of Wisconsin: A Field Guide.

Unpublished manuscript, Division ofHistoric Preservation, State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin, Madison.

Wendt, Dan, and Clark Dobbs1993 Archaeological Survey of Pierce

County, Wisconsin: Late PrehistoricCultural Development in the UpperMississippi River Valley. Reports ofInvestigations No. 230. Institute forMinnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis.

Wyatt, Barbara, Editor1986 Cultural Resource Management in

Wisconsin, 3 vols. Historic Preserva-tion Division, State Historical Societyof Wisconsin, Madison.

14

17

Archival ResearchIntroduction ........................................................................17Land Use History.................................................................18Archival Resources ..............................................................19Serial Files and Map Collections ..........................................21Journals/Serial Publications/Published Sources .....................24Standard Physiographic References .....................................25Checklists for Archival Research..........................................25

IntroductionArchival or background research conducted inassociation with archeological investigationsinvolves compiling a project-specific summaryof known archeological properties, known ar-cheological contexts, previous investigations,and relevant environmental variables. Archivalor pre-field research should be undertakenprior to conducting field investigations andshould not be limited to Wisconsin if the pro-ject is located near the border of Illinois, Iowa,Minnesota, or Michigan. The specificity andfocus of archival research varies with the leveland scale of the associated investigation.However, most projects can be assigned to oneof three broad categories.

First, and probably most common, is researchundertaken in support of planned field work.In this case, the purpose of archival researchis to obtain background information adequateto (1) develop an effective research design, (2)select an appropriate field methodology, (3)allow for later interpretation of the results offield work, and (4) provide a basis for pre-liminary evaluation of identified sites. Archi-val research undertaken in conjunction withPhase I identification studies will be morebroadly based than research associated withPhase II testing and evaluation or Phase IIIdata recovery projects. A second applicationof archival research is as an information-gathering tool for non–field-based researchprojects. Such background studies are oftendesigned to furnish information necessary todevelop a formal historic context or providedata required by a specific research objective.

The sources described in this chapter representa comprehensive list and would not be relevant

for every Public Archeology project. At mini-mum, the following sources should be checkedprior to conducting field investigations:

• the Archaeological Site Inventory(ASI) with associated USGS quadran-gles (Office of the State Archaeologist)

• the Wisconsin Burial Inventory(WBSI)

• the Bibliography of Archaeological re-ports (Office of the State Archaeolo-gist)

These sources will identify any previously re-ported archeological sites and survey in thearea.

Land Use HistoryA third application of archival research is as ascreening technique to determine the necessityfor actual field observations or to help definean appropriate scope of work for a particularinvestigation. In this case, the goal of archivalresearch is often the compilation of a land usehistory (LUH). A land use history representsan attempt to develop a detailed history of aparticular parcel of land with regard to usageand alteration of the original landscape. Such astudy typically consists of three components.The first is directed toward compiling the ac-tual history of the parcel in question. The sec-ond focuses on compiling a record of naturaland cultural processes that may have affectedany resources potentially present. The finalcomponent provides an assessment of the par-cel’s potential to harbor historic resources.

An LUH should reference any record of pastuse of the property. Of particular concern aredocumented developments such as structures;sewer, water, and utility improvements; land-

18

scaping; or other land alterations. The LUHshould be reviewed also in relation to com-munity and regional histories and physi-ographic studies, to assess the parcel’s po-tential for archeological or historicalsignificance. Particular attention should bepaid to presettlement vegetation, soil type, andlandform class. Finally, an effort should bemade to document individuals or groups as-sociated with the property through time. Thedegree to which any LUH is developed for aproject should be based on the project’s sizeand the severity of potential impacts to ar-cheological properties. The following list en-compasses all possible sources; not every onewould be relevant for a specific project.

In addition to the archival resources discussedin a later section, the following resources areparticularly cogent to the development of aland use history:

• county histories• county soil books• regional physiographic studies or land-

form analyses• maps and aerial photographs• plat books• Government Land Office (GLO) sur-

vey notes and field sheets• deeds and tract indices• county atlases• Wisconsin Land Economic Inventory• tax records (rolls and judgments)• post-GLO survey records• census data• state-level development permits• municipal building permits• local newspaper archives• local historical collections and photo-

graphic archives• oral histories• informant interviews

The second component of the LUH shouldfocus on identification of various land usepractices that may have affected cultural re-sources on the parcel. Essentially, this part ofthe study consists of developing a list of dis-turbances associated with the historic uses of

the property. Disturbances may include natu-ral processes such as erosion, inundation,sedimentation, mass wasting, or eolian epi-sodes. Disturbances traceable to culturalevents include various land-clearing practices;agricultural utilization; timbering or otherlogging-related operations; mineral or petro-leum exploitation; construction of facilities,structures, or roadways; and emplacement ofutilities.

This part of the LUH should pay particularconcern to the nature of specific disturbances.For example, disturbances such as land lev-eling, deep plowing, or excavation of base-ments and structure foundations destroy orradically transform most archeological re-sources affected. However, massive fill epi-sodes or episodic flooding and accompanyingsedimentation may have very limited adverseeffects or in certain cases actually act to pre-serve some kinds of archeological resources.

The final component of the LUH consists of asynthesis of the data compiled in the first twocomponents. The goal of this effort is a practi-cal assessment of the probability that a par-ticular parcel of land may harbor potentiallysignificant resources. The assessment shouldbe made with explicit reference to the kinds ofprior land use, the nature and extent of docu-mented disturbances, the range of prehistoricor historic resources potentially present, andthe potential of the landscape to harbor intactor remnant archeological deposits.

Land use histories are most effective whendealing with clearly circumscribed projectboundaries of limited areal extent; i.e., indi-vidual lots or parcels of less than about 100acres. The LUH approach does not readilylend itself to areally extensive corridor sur-veys or to reconnaissance of tracts in excessof several hundred acres. Archeological in-vestigations that target urban settings or for-mer or present industrialized land will readilybenefit from compiling of an LUH prior toinitiation of field studies. However, land usehistories centered on rural tracts can also pro-vide useful data, depending on the nature andextent of the rural developments involved. Ingeneral, the LUH approach can lead to morecost-effective field studies guided by robust,focused research designs.

19

Archival ResourcesListed below are major Wisconsin archivalresources housing essential information forarcheological investigations. The list is neitherexhaustive nor exclusive and is intended toserve only as a basic frame of reference.

The State Historical Society of Wisconsin(SHSW)The State Historical Society of Wisconsin(SHSW), located on the campus of the Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison, houses themost essential resources for archival research.The SHSW includes a number of related de-partments or resources. Major SHSW re-sources are listed below.

The Division of Historic Preservation,Compliance Section. This departmentmaintains a computerized database and paperfiles of all federally and state-mandated ar-cheological and architectural investigationsthat are currently under review or have beenreviewed in the past three years. After threeyears, the Compliance Section purges its filesand transfers the purged records to the Officeof the State Archaeologist (OSA). Purged re-cords are reviewed by the OSA staff and ex-traneous materials are discarded; the remain-ing records are filed by county, year, andproject. These records may contain copies ofsurvey reports as well as correspondence,project maps, and miscellaneous documents.

Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA).The Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA)acts as a clearinghouse for information relatedto archeology in Wisconsin. The office is re-sponsible for administering and overseeing anumber of programs related to preservationand management of historic properties inWisconsin. Among the direct responsibilitiesof the OSA are overseeing the Regional Ar-chaeology Program, awarding Survey andPlanning Grants, and approving Archeologi-cal Field Permits. The OSA is also responsi-ble for preparing State and National Registerof Historic Places nominations, coordinatingthe state tax exemption program, and assign-ing trinomial state site numbers to newly

codified archeological sites. In addition, theOSA maintains the archeological site recordsfor the state and also compiles the Bibliogra-phy of Archeological Reports (BAR).

The Burial Sites Preservation Office(BSPO). The BSPO is responsible for coor-dinating a statewide effort to record and pro-tect human burial sites. The BSPO maintainsthe Wisconsin Burial Sites Inventory(WBSI), which contains records of burialplaces or likely burial places (e.g., placeswhere human bone has been found) recordedto date. In addition, the BSPO maintains a setof USGS 7.5' quadrangle maps showing thelocations of all codified burial sites andcemeteries in Wisconsin.

Archives Division. The Archives Division,housed in the SHSW building on theUW–Madison campus, contains a wide rangeof primary materials including correspon-dence, maps, and photos relating to archeo-logical sites and archeological investigationsin Wisconsin.

State Historical Society Library. The StateHistorical Society Library, housed in theSHSW building on the UW–Madison cam-pus, houses an extensive collection of pub-lished sources relating to Wisconsin prehis-tory and history. The collection includesbooks, scholarly journals, popular magazines,and pamphlets.

American Geographical Society (AGS)The American Geographical Society collec-tion, housed at the University of Wiscon-sin–Milwaukee’s Golda Meir Library, com-prises one of the premier geographicalresearch facilities in the western hemisphere.Included are maps, charts, photos, atlases,books, journals, and satellite imagery of mostareas of the earth. The collection contains afair selection of archeological and anthropo-logical resources, including maps, historicalatlases, and various geographical and geologi-cal data sets.

Area Research CentersThe various Area Research Centers estab-lished throughout the state offer regionally

20

specific information dealing with the prehis-tory and history of portions of Wisconsin.Regional coverage and holdings are uneven,and emphasis varies from center to center.Other sources to check at Area ResearchCenters include map and air photo libraries,such as the Robinson Map Library atUW–Madison.

State Regional Archaeology CentersThe regional offices house a number of re-sources useful in archival research. For ex-ample, each regional site has hard copy re-cords of the ASI files and a set of 7.5' USGSquad maps with archeological data keyed tothe ASI for the counties within its region. Theregional centers also have computerized ASIrecords, online access to the SHSW’s data-base, or both. Each regional office also has amicrofilm copy of the Charles E. Brown ar-cheology manuscripts for the counties withinits purview.

Centers commonly have recently generatedsite and survey data not yet reported to theSHSW or codified in the ASI. In addition,most centers maintain a library of culturaloverviews, cultural study units, and other re-ports produced by the center along with re-ports of regional compliance-driven investi-gations. Regional centers typically curate avariety of reference collections along withnames and addresses of individuals, agencies,and institutions that may have information re-garding sites, planning documents, and otherpertinent data. Regional centers also have sitefiles, notes, maps, and photo documents thatcan be more extensive than those of the ASI.

Local Historical/Archeological SocietiesLocal historical societies are typically county-wide in focus. However, city-oriented institu-tions occur also. These facilities range widelyin the nature and extent of their holdings. Cu-ration and retrieval capabilities vary also.Holdings may include artifact collections,first-hand accounts of historical significance,and a variety of historical records. Local ar-cheological societies tend to be more widelyfocused in terms of a geographical area ofinterest. Only rarely do such organizationsmaintain curated research collections. How-

ever, individual members often maintain well-provenienced and readily accessible collec-tions of archeological materials and site loca-tion data.

Tribal Preservation OfficesMany tribal governments have formally orga-nized historic preservation offices. Oftenthese facilities include archival materials re-lating to the tribe’s regionally specific his-tory. In some cases, museum-quality exhibitsand research collections are available also.

Avocational Archeologists and the PublicResidents with special knowledge of a par-ticular area may possess a variety of unpub-lished data relevant to the local cultural re-source base. Material may include artifactcollections, historical documents, photos, andmaps. Such individuals are often extremelyknowledgeable concerning details of the localprehistoric and historic sequence.

Serial Files and Map CollectionsIt is recommended that the following list ofresources be consulted during the course of acomprehensive archival search. Major catego-ries include serial and map collections, pub-lished materials including journals and otherserial publications, and physiographic refer-ence materials.

Archeological Site Inventory (ASI)The Archeological Site Inventory (ASI) ismaintained by the Office of the State Archae-ologist. The archeological site records consistof two related components, the ArcheologicalSite Inventory (ASI) and a set of USGS 7.5'quadrangle maps. The ASI files are main-tained as a computerized database containinglistings for all codified archeological andburial sites in Wisconsin. Access to the ASIis provided by Borland Paradox™, a rela-tional database manager for IBM-compatiblecomputers that is currently supported by theSHSW computer system. The ASI records

21

are updated daily. Hard-copy records (up-dated monthly) are available upon request.ASI database information is also available ateach Regional Archaeology Center. The OSAmap file consists of USGS 7.5’ quadranglemaps showing the location of codified ar-cheological sites and areas that have beensubjected to formal archeological survey. Sitelocations and survey areas represent ap-proximate depictions of actual size and con-figuration. It is important to note that theOSA map file does not contain a completelisting of recorded burial sites or cemetery lo-cations; that listing is available from the Bur-ial Sites Preservation Office (see below).

Wisconsin Burial Sites Inventory (WBSI)This file is a subset of the ASI database. Es-sentially, the WBSI contains all records ofburial places or likely burial places (e.g.,places where human bone has been found)recorded in the ASI to date. Some of thesesites are sufficiently well-documented to beconsidered cataloged burial sites and areidentified as such. The data are compiledlargely by the Burial Sites Preservation Office(SHSW).

National and State Registers of HistoricPlaces (NRHP)The Division of Historic Preservation at theSHSW maintains a list of all Wisconsinproperties listed on, or officially determinedeligible for listing on, the National Register ofHistoric Places. The Division also maintains alist of all properties listed on, or determinedeligible for listing on, the State Register ofHistoric Places.

Inventory of Historic Structures (IHS)The Division of Historic Preservation main-tains a computer-based inventory and associ-ated card file of all known structures of his-toric and/or architectural interest. All sites inthe inventory and all areas surveyed are plot-ted on either 15' or 7.5' USGS quadranglemaps. Some historic archeological sites notlisted in the ASI are listed in the IHS.

Bibliography of Archeological Reports(BAR)The OSA maintains a bibliography of reportscompiled under the SHPO-reviewed compli-ance program, including compliance archeol-ogy reports (active and inactive), reports ofsurvey and planning studies, and RegionalArchaeology Center reports. The BAR wasbegun in 1977 and contains references datingto 1975. Bibliographies are compiled by cal-endar year, updated by December of the fol-lowing year, and available in print or as acomputer file.

Charles E. Brown Manuscript Files (CEBMss.) and Archeological Atlas (CEB Atlas)The Brown manuscripts, housed in the Ar-chives Division of the SHSW, consist of 50years of notes, correspondence, sketches,maps, and other data relating to historic andprehistoric archeological sites. Information isorganized according to county. These manu-scripts are also available on microfilm in theSHSW Library. Pertinent portions of theCEB Mss. are also available at each RegionalArchaeology Center. The Charles E. BrownArcheological Atlas is housed in the ArchivesDivision. The Atlas provides the locations ofarcheological sites plotted on county platmaps. The prehistoric and historic sites in-clude camps, villages, mounds, springs, rockart, workshops, quarries, cemeteries, trails, andvarious other archeological manifestations.Pertinent portions of the CEB Atlas are alsoavailable at each Regional Archaeology Cen-ter.

County Archeological Site FilesA set of files indexed by county are main-tained by the OSA. These files contain moredetailed information on some of the siteslisted in the ASI. These records often includeunpublished reports, photographs, sketchmaps, feature forms, letters, and miscellane-ous information.

Museum Archaeology Program FilesAn additional set of county files is maintainedby the Museum Archaeology Program(MAP). These files include extensive maps,

22

field notes, photographic materials, projectcorrespondence, and reports generated byfield investigations conducted for highwayconstruction projects and other public arche-ology projects undertaken by the programsince 1957. The MAP also maintains a bib-liographic database, ethnobotanical database,and project-tracking database.

Wisconsin Land Economic Inventory(WLEI)The WLEI consists of a set of maps depictingland use by section for most of Wisconsin.The inventory was conducted in the 1930sand 1940s and reports a variety of culturaland natural features. A complete set of mapsis housed in the Archives Division; a lesscomplete set is available at the AGS collectionin Milwaukee.

Trygg Map FileThe Trygg map file is a privately publishedcomposite of the GLO land survey records.These maps are less detailed than the GLOplats; however, the file is an important sourceof data relating to regional development dur-ing the late historic period (ca. 1850).

UW–Madison Map LibraryThe UW–Madison Map Library contains awide selection of cartographic resources. It islocated in Science Hall on the UW–Madisoncampus.

Wisconsin State Cartographer’s OfficeThis facility, located in Science Hall on theUW–Madison campus, functions as a clear-inghouse for mapping-related topics. TheCartographer’s Office publishes a periodi-cally updated Wisconsin Catalog of AerialPhotography. Currently, this catalog lists allknown aerial photography taken from 1936 to1993.

Journals/Serial Publica-tions/Published SourcesThe Wisconsin Archeologist

This quarterly journal of the Wisconsin Ar-cheological Society has been published con-tinuously since 1901. The Archeologist is avaluable source of information on Wisconsinprehistory, history, and archeology.

Bulletin of the Milwaukee Public MuseumThis now-defunct series contains detailed ac-counts of archeological investigations, ethno-graphic studies, and historical narrativesdealing with Wisconsin.

Milwaukee Public Museum YearbookOnce published annually, the yearbooks con-tain accounts of various archeological andethnographic projects undertaken by museumpersonnel in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

Milwaukee Public Museum Publications inAnthropologyThis now-defunct series includes scholarlytreatments of anthropological and archeologi-cal investigations.

Wisconsin Magazine of HistoryThis is the journal of the SHSW and containsa wide range of articles dealing with Wiscon-sin prehistory and history.

County Plat BooksNewer editions provide information on cur-rent ownership, and older editions often con-tain information that allows reconstruction ofchanging land use patterns and determinationof original date of settlement.

County HistoriesCounty histories range from unpublished nar-ratives and personal diaries to professionallyresearched studies. Often these historiescontain accounts of contacts between early

23

county settlers and historically known tribalgroups.

Physiographic Data and StandardReferencesThe Government Land Office (GLO) Mapsand NotesThe Government Land Office records consistof plats and survey notes that contain infor-mation regarding presettlement vegetation, to-pography, and aquatic features. Also noted onthe maps is cultural information such as thelocations of Indian trails, camps, and villages;maple sugar processing stations; pioneer set-tlements; and early industrial improvementssuch as mills, roads, homes ,and farmsteads.The GLO records are available at the Wis-consin State Archives. Microfilmed facsimilesare available at some Regional Centers.

County Soil Survey MapsCounty soils maps and accompanying docu-mentation are available from Soil ConservationService offices located in each county.

County Cartographic CataloguesThese compendiums are issued by the Officeof the State Cartographer.

Wetland Inventory MapsThis series of maps delineates formally rec-ognized wetland areas within Wisconsin. Themaps are available from the Wisconsin De-partment of Natural Resources (WDNR).

Wisconsin Natural and Scenic AreasThis relatively recent program, developed bythe WDNR, is not yet fully documented.However, the proposed scheme will delineatea number of natural regions defined with ref-erence to a complex set of environmental vari-ables. The resulting divisions may be moreuseful for archeological interpretation thanconventional divisions based solely on vege-tation or physiographic data.

Standard Physiographic ReferencesCurtis, John T.1959 The Vegetation of Wisconsin—An Or-

dination of Plant Communities. TheUniversity of Wisconsin Press, Madi-son.

Finley, Robert W.1951 The Original Vegetation Cover of

Wisconsin. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-sity of Wisconsin–Madison.

1970 Geography of Wisconsin, A ContentOutline. College Printing & Publish-ing, Madison.

1976 Original Vegetation Cover of Wiscon-sin from U.S. General Land OfficeNotes (1:500,000 map). North CentralForest Experiment Station. ForestService, USDA, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Hole, Francis D.1976 The Soils of Wisconsin. University of

Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Martin, Lawrence1965 The Physical Geography of Wiscon-

sin, 3rd ed. University of WisconsinPress, Madison.

24

Paull, Rachell Krebs, and Richard A. Paull1977 Geology of Wisconsin and Upper

Michigan—Including Parts of Adja-cent States. Kendal/Hunt, Dubuque,IA.

Checklists for Archival ResearchThe Archaeological Literature and RecordsReview Checklist form was developed by theMuseum Archaeology Program at the SHSWto record information generated by the litera-ture and records search prior to undertakingfield investigations. The Historic Structureschecklist was developed by the Great LakesArchaeological Research Center.

These forms are presented as a possible toolfor easily summarizing literature search in-formation for inclusion in a technical report.Not every source listed is relevant for everyPublic Archeology project; the forms includethose sources commonly checked prior toinitiating field investigations.

25

26

27

29

Phase I:Identification Surveys

Introduction ........................................................................29Definitions and Objectives ...................................................30Field Investigations..............................................................32Documentation of an Archeological Site..............................36Reporting Results of Identification Surveys..........................37

IntroductionPhase I identification studies (archeologicalsurvey) are undertaken to gather informationabout the location, nature, and condition of ar-cheological sites. The survey methods andtechniques should be based on existingknowledge about archeological sites in the re-gion, the objectives of the survey, and the na-ture of the project being proposed. The objec-tive is to determine whether significant ar-cheological sites would be affected by a pro-ject reviewed under Section 106, an agency’sproposed management practices as defined inSection 110, a state action as defined throughthe state compliance process (s.44.40,Wis.Stats.), or any burial site as protected un-der s.157.70, Wis.Stats. The goal, in the ma-jority of situations, is to identify all archeo-logical sites within the proposed project area.

In any of these scenarios, the Division ofHistoric Preservation, Compliance Section, ofthe SHPO can provide an agency with a rec-ommendation regarding the need to conductidentification studies. Presently, the SHPO hascompiled information based on over 20 yearsof data generated by archeologists conductingresearch under Section 106 or 110. Data filesinclude the Archaeological Site Inventory(ASI), which also contains information on re-ported burial sites or cemeteries; the Bibliog-raphy of Archaeological Reports (BAR);USGS quadrangle maps detailing survey cov-erage and known site locations for the state;agency management plans; and regional cul-tural overviews and specific study units. The

SHPO uses these sources of informationwhen making its recommendations.

The Compliance Section (SHPO) conducts aproject review and provides a recommendationbased on previous identification efforts (sur-veys), the distribution of reported sites, thearea’s environmental diversity, and the poten-tial of the project to impact archeological sites.This information should be provided to anagency to support the SHPO recommendationand assist the agency in making decisionsduring project planning and development. Thisinformation, and the more detailed data gener-ated during the archives and literature search,assist the archeologist in selecting appropriatefield methods and techniques. The consultingarcheologist should review the data presentedby the SHPO, use current archeological theoryand methods, and adhere to these guidelines inperforming archeological field investigationsand research.

The Wisconsin Archeological Survey sub-scribes to the Department of the Interior’s Ar-cheology and Historic Preservation; Secre-tary of the Interior’s Standards and Guide-lines for Identification, as published 29 Sep-tember 83. These guidelines focus on the roleof identification studies in a state’s preserva-tion planning process; the importance of re-cord-keeping and information distribution; andthe need to conduct studies that generate thedata required to make decisions regarding thetreatment or preservation of archeologicalproperties. The results of Phase I archeologi-cal surveys should be appropriately docu-

30

mented, reported, and integrated into thestate’s historic preservation planning process.

Definitions and ObjectivesThe Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines forIdentification group survey techniques intotwo categories, defined by the survey’s objec-tive and results. The first category is termedreconnaissance survey. This category in-cludes techniques that result in the characteri-zation of a region’s historic properties. Suchtechniques might include “windshield” orwalk-over surveys, with perhaps a limited useof subsurface survey. These surveys are gen-erally conducted under Section 110 or under aProgrammatic Agreement.

The second category is termed intensive.These survey techniques include those thatpermit the identification and description ofspecific archeological properties in a definedarea. This would include surveys that usetechniques intended to identify all archeologi-cal sites in a project area. These surveys aregenerally conducted under Section 106. Asdescribed in the Secretary of the Interior’sGuidelines for Identification,

Reconnaissance survey might be mostprofitably employed when gathering datato refine an historic context—such aschecking on the presence or absence ofexpected property types, defining specificproperty types, or estimating the distribu-tion of historic properties in an area. Theresults of regional characterization activi-ties provide a general understanding of thehistoric properties in a particular area andpermit management decisions that con-sider the sensitivity of the area in terms ofhistoric preservation concerns and the re-sulting implications for future land useplanning. The data should allow the for-mulation of estimates of the necessity, typeand cost of further identification work andthe setting of priorities for the individualtasks involved. In most cases, areas sur-veyed in this way will require re-survey ifmore complete information is neededabout specific properties.

A reconnaissance survey should documentthe:

• Kinds of properties looked for;

• Boundaries of the area sur-veyed;

• Method of survey, including theextent of survey coverage;

• Kinds of historic properties presentin the surveyed area;

• Specific properties that were iden-tified and the categories of datacollected; and

• Places examined that did not con-tain historic properties.

Intensive survey is most useful when it isnecessary to know precisely what historicproperties exist in a given area or when in-formation sufficient for later evaluationand treatment decisions is needed on indi-vidual historic properties. Intensive surveydescribes the distribution of properties inan area; determines the number, location,and condition of properties; determinesthe types of properties actually presentwithin the area; permits classification ofindividual properties; and records thephysical extent of specific properties.

An intensive survey should document:• The kinds of properties looked

for;• The boundaries of the area sur-

veyed;• The method of survey, including

an estimate of the extent of surveycoverage;

• A record of the precise location ofall properties identified; and

• Information on the appearance,significance, integrity and bounda-ries of each property sufficient topermit an evaluation of its signifi-cance.

The majority of Section 106 Phase I identifi-cation surveys would be considered intensive.The archeologist is required to conduct a sur-vey of the entire project area to identify ar-cheological sites. The distinction between sur-vey and evaluation in these guidelines parallelsthe common categorization of field researchinto Phase I and Phase II, respectively. It doesnot parallel the federal guidelines, which com-bine the results of both Phase I identificationstudies and Phase II evaluation under the defi-nition of identification, or intensive and recon-

31

naissance surveys. The federal designationfollows the Section 106 procedures, in thatagency consultation is based on an assessmentof “effect.” This assessment is made by theagency when it determines how the proposedproject will affect (impact) a significant ar-cheological property. To clarify, the Wiscon-sin Archeological Survey guidelines provideseparate recommendations for Phase I identifi-cation studies and Phase II evaluation of ar-cheological sites.

Reconnaissance surveys are used for samplingstrategies or making estimates, for overviews,or for obtaining a general view of the numberand kinds of archeological properties in anarea. Reconnaissance surveys are often per-formed by regional archeology offices,through survey and planning grants adminis-tered by the Office of the State Archaeologist(Division of Historic Preservation), andthrough some academic and avocational sur-veys. In most cases, areas investigated in thisway should be intensively surveyed shouldthey become included in an undertaking (pro-ject) defined under Section 106 or if landmanagement activities under Section 110 willalter the ground surface, threatening potentiallyundiscovered archeological properties.

An example of such a study would be theUSDA Forest Service survey methodology,which combines both reconnaissance and in-tensive identification surveys, defining strate-gies based on environmental variables. TheWisconsin Department of Transportation alsocombines both strategies in developing a Cor-ridor Methodology for its large projects, basedgenerally on several realignment alternatives.Sampling and systematic approaches shouldbe developed only for large tracts of land inwhich intensive survey coverage is not feasi-ble.

It is important to record the boundaries of allareas surveyed, whether or not sites are found.This information and corresponding docu-mentation is critical in developing predictionsabout site distributions in various geographicareas and to develop other research questions.In Phase I identification studies the WAS alsorecommends that:

1. Along with number and location ofsites, information on property con-dition should be documented at thisphase (specifically the evidence for oragainst in situ archeological deposits).

2. Property types should be definedusing information developed at thisstage/level of work (i.e., including thatfrom the SHPO’s background docu-mentation, the development of the re-search design, and the newly developedsurvey data). “Classification” shouldbe based on common denominators ofmaterial class(es), facilities class(es),and matrix class(es) of the site in com-parison to others reported in the stateor the geographic region of study.

3. The physical extent of the propertyshould be documented. This infor-mation is important for determining theproportion and part of the property’smatrix that may be disturbed by theproject. Such documentation may re-quire examination of the property out-side the proposed project limits. It ishighly recommended this be done sothat the impact of the project on the ar-cheological property can be evaluated(e.g., whether the project will affect themost important or least important areaof the archeological property). Agen-cies often discourage survey outsidethe project area. The individual agencyshould be notified of the need to gobeyond the project area to ensure thatcosts will be reimbursed.

Field InvestigationsThe goals of Phase I survey are to determinewhether archeological sites exist within a de-fined project area and to generate sufficientinformation on the nature, extent, and condi-tion of the site(s) to make appropriate recom-mendations regarding the need for further ar-cheological investigations. A Phase I surveyshould thoroughly examine all portions of theproposed project area. All appropriate infor-mation should be recorded in field notes, sur-vey forms, and maps. The archeologist shouldconsider potential secondary impacts from theproject and how these impacts could affect anyarcheological site(s).

32

Field work should take place only after• a thorough literature and records

search is completed• the archeologist is familiar with the

nature of the project and exact projectboundaries have been defined

• the archeologist is aware of the variousfederal and state agencies involved, andor related federal and state legislation,regulations, and guidelines that shouldbe followed

• the archeologist is aware of the majorresearch questions relevant to the studyarea and the survey’s potential re-search contributions

• explicit permission from appropriateproperty owners and/or agencies isobtained, including written permission,if appropriate, from the property ownerto remove the artifacts, soil, and anyother materials necessary for analysisand interpretation

A Phase I archeological survey should not beundertaken if the area is snow covered and/orfrozen, or if the condition of the project areawill compromise either the results of the sur-vey or the health or safety of the archeologistsconducting the survey. Systematic survey ofthe entire project area should not be under-taken unless a sampling strategy, developed ina research design, has been approved by theagency funding/regulating the project. Obser-vation of the survey area should help deter-mine the proper survey techniques, includingintensive survey of project areas with less thana 15-degree slope and a walk-over of areaswith a greater than 15-degree slope.

Archeologists should conduct a complete in-spection of the project area, including exam-ining slopes for rockshelters, caves, or ledgesthat might contain archeological sites. Guide-lines for documenting rock art sites can befound in guidelines section VII, “RecordingRock Art Sites.” If the area has been dis-turbed to the extent that no archeological mate-rial could reasonably be expected to remain,the agency and the SHPO should be notifiedand the need for further field investigations re-evaluated. The archeologist should ensure that

all necessary information has been obtained tosubstantiate the extent and degree of priorground disturbance and should include thisdocumentation in the technical report. In allother cases, archeological survey of the entireproject area should be undertaken using meth-ods and techniques appropriate to the envi-ronmental setting.

Survey Methods and TechniquesThe variety of field survey techniques avail-able, in combination with the varying levels ofeffort that may be assigned, provide greatflexibility in implementing field surveys. It isimportant that the selection of field surveytechniques and level of effort be responsive tothe management needs and preservation goalsthat direct the survey effort.

Informant interviews. When permission isobtained to work on a property, owners shouldbe interviewed regarding the property’s his-tory and any past discoveries. Local collectorsand historical societies should also be con-tacted.

Surface collection (pedestrian survey).Surface survey should be carried out in areaswith substantial exposed ground surface, suchas plowed or cultivated fields. Plowed fieldswith a visibility of more than 10% should besurface collected. If the ground surface ismore than 90% obscured by vegetation, thearea should be shovel tested (shovel probed).Surface survey should be undertaken in asystematic manner, with field crew membersobserving the ground surface along evenlyspaced transects, as topography indicates.Distance between transects should not exceed(15) meters. To improve the results of the sur-vey, an area that has been cultivated but is nowfallow should, if possible, be plowed/disked instrips 15 meters wide (to a depth of less than15 centimeters), washed by rain, and then sur-face collected. Prior to plowing, subsurfacetesting should be undertaken to verify thedepth of the plow zone.

When there is archival evidence that mounds, ahistoric site, or other cultural features onceexisted in an area where there are no longersurface indications, an effort should be madeto confirm the location and assess the condi-

33

tion of the archeological deposit. This wouldinvolve shovel testing (probing), coring, re-moval of the plow zone, placement of excava-tion units, or a combination thereof. The spe-cific techniques used should be based on anunderstanding of the soil development in theimmediate area. In the case of burial sites (e.g.,mounds), verbal authorization from the BurialSites Preservation Office is required.

Shovel testing (shovel probing). Shoveltesting should be used in areas with significantvegetation or in which the original ground sur-face is not visible (fill, or post-settlementdeposition environments). Shovel testing in-volves the excavation of small holes, approxi-mately 35 to 50 centimeters in diameter, alongtransects at intervals of not more than 15 me-ters between transects and between shovel testswithin a transect. A shovel test interval not ex-ceeding 10 meters is highly recommended. Incertain areas a shovel test interval of less than10 meters may be needed to locate smallersites with more diffuse artifact distributions.

The shovel tests should be excavated to adepth sufficient to observe culturally sterilesubsoil, or until bedrock is reached. If sterilesoil has not been reached at 50 cm below thepresent ground surface, or the depth feasibleusing a standard shovel, techniques should beimplemented for deep testing (use of a post-hole digger or soil auger, or excavation of atest unit or backhoe trench). For guidance onassessing the potential for deeply buried de-posits, see the guidelines under “Geoarche-ological Investigations in Support of Archeo-logical Investigations” (Guidelines V).

The soil excavated from each shovel testshould be screened through hardware cloth notexceeding _-inch mesh. Certain soil types mayprevent screening the contents of the shoveltests, but such conditions should be describedin the report and changes in the techniqueclearly stated. In these uncommon situationsthe soil should be examined for artifacts bytroweling through the excavated soil. If com-plex, stratified soil profiles are defined, thesubsurface techniques should be sufficient tothoroughly define the stratigraphy and to es-tablish whether or not archeological sites arepresent.

Soil coring (auger). A standard 1” soilauger is often used as an adjunct to surfacesurvey and shovel testing. Conducted with astandard soil sampler to a depth of about onemeter, this technique monitors the stratigraphicsequence of soils in the study area. It is usefulfor identifying the presence of shallow buriedground surfaces that might contain archeologi-cal deposits. It is also useful for generatingdata on the extent of disturbance to an ar-cheological site from cultivation.

Post hole diggers. This tool can excavate ahole, generally with a diameter of 20–30 cen-timeters, to a maximum depth of approxi-mately 2 meters (or the length of the handle).These holes are usually excavated at regularintervals along a transect, as an adjunct to sur-face survey and shovel testing. This techniqueis useful to excavate to a depth not easilyreached with a standard shovel. The soil re-moved should be screened.

Backhoe trenches. The use of heavy machin-ery to excavate a trench to look for deeplyburied sites, generate data on the nature andstratigraphy present, and evaluate the degreeand depth of recent disturbance, can be a cost-effective technique. It is frequently used togenerate geomorphic data.

Remote sensing. Special survey techniquesmay be needed in certain situations. Remotesensing techniques may be the most effectiveway to gather background environmental data,plan more detailed field investigations, dis-cover certain classes of archeological proper-ties, map sites, locate and confirm the presenceof predicted sites, and define features withinproperties. Remote sensing techniques includeaerial, subsurface, and underwater techniques.The results of remote sensing should be veri-fied through independent field inspection be-fore any evaluation or statement is made re-garding frequencies or types of properties.

As an adjunct to the survey techniques de-scribed above, remote sensing techniques maybe useful for discovering buried features if thesoils in the features differ significantly instructure and/or moisture content from the sur-rounding matrix. Ground-penetrating radar,resistivity, and conductivity methods all haveproved useful in archeological applications. All

34

are still more or less experimental and requirefollow-up testing to confirm the types of bur-ied features. Each has its limitations, depend-ing on the setting, so a particular technique’sapplicability in a particular setting should bedetermined beforehand through experimenta-tion or other evaluation.

Geomorphological research. Subsurfaceevaluation is required in areas where sensitivearcheological surfaces may have been coveredby buried soil horizons, or where complex orunusual conditions of soil deposition exist. Aqualified geomorphologist should evaluate theproject area to identify these areas. All suchresearch should follow the guidelines in thesection titled, “Geomorphological and Geoar-cheological Investigations in Support of Ar-cheological Investigations.”

Metal detectors. Metal detectors can assist inPhase I identification surveys, particularlywhen dealing with historic archeological sites.

Redeposition of Archeological MaterialIn certain environmental settings, archeologicalmaterials may no longer be in their primarycontexts. If redeposition of artifacts is sus-pected, the archeologist should fully under-stand the nature of the site prior to submittingthe report. This may require additional investi-gations outside of the project area to generatedata needed to interpret the artifacts foundwithin the project area. Failure to investigatethe nature and integrity of the materials at thetime of the Phase I survey results in additionalcosts to the agency or client and fails to pro-vide the information needed by the agency andthe SHPO. The archeologist should ensurethat all available avenues of interpretation havebeen explored and that the data needed tomake appropriate recommendations have beengenerated.

SamplingReconnaissance survey methods sometimesfollow a sampling procedure to examine lessthan the total project or planning area. Sam-pling can be effective when several locationsare being considered for a project or when it isdesirable to estimate the cultural resources ofan area. Sampling strategies include random,

stratified, and systematic. Selection of a sam-pling strategy should be guided by the surveyobjectives, the nature of the expected proper-ties, and the environmental diversity in theproject area.

If large land areas are involved, sampling canbe done in stages. In this approach, the resultsof the initial large-area survey are used tostructure successively smaller, more detailedsurveys. This “nesting” approach is an effi-cient technique since it enables characterizationof both large and small areas with reducedfield effort. As with all investigative tech-niques, such procedures should be designed topermit independent assessment of results.

For reconnaissance surveys in which exactproject boundaries are not known or in whichsurvey data will be used to assist in designinglarge-scale projects, sampling techniques, par-ticularly predictive modeling, may be appropri-ate. Most attractive are stratified and system-atic approaches; random approaches are likelyto direct efforts in one area. Stratification,either by natural areas or “practical” areas(e.g., a proposed area of impact with no visiblenatural differences that is divided into several“strata”), with random survey units selectedand thoroughly examined within each stratum,is a sound approach for discovering a varietyof archeological properties and making pre-dictions as to their discovery in the unsampledareas. Systematic approaches are those withsurvey units set at intervals—systematically. Intheory, they should cover all likely “strata” inan area of study, but they have the potential tomiss areas smaller than the interval picked andmiss things that are “regular” in their intervalof occurrence.

One form of sampling used by the WisconsinDepartment of Transportation (WisDOT) iscalled a “Corridor Methodology.” For largermulticorridor projects and new alignments, thearcheologist is required to develop a method-ology for the study of the project area using asampling strategy. The parameters for thistype of sampling have been established by theWisDOT and approved by the SHPO, Com-pliance Section. In this approach, intensivePhase I survey is conducted after the corridorsurvey is completed and the WisDOT has de-termined the final alignment. The entire final

35

alignment is then resurveyed to ensure that itmeets these guidelines for Phase I survey (e.g.,transect intervals not to exceed 15 meters).

Documentation of an Archeologi-cal SiteWhen archeological materials are discovered,the site boundaries should be determined, andartifact concentrations or other patterns in arti-fact distribution should be mapped and docu-mented. The distribution of artifacts can berecorded by piece-plotting or by conducting acontrolled surface collection of equal-sizedunits placed systematically across the entiresite area.

If a site is identified through other subsurfacetechniques, minimally the general provenienceof the artifacts should be documented, and ob-servations on the stratigraphic position anddensity of materials recorded. If subsurfacetechniques are used, representative soil profilesacross the site area should be recorded. Strati-graphic position of the artifacts should be re-corded by depth below the present ground sur-face. There are several different ways to sam-ple a site once it is identified. A standard pro-cedure is to reduce the shovel test interval to 5meters or less to assist in defining siteboundaries. Care should be given to minimiz-ing the impact to the site by the excavation ofshovel tests at close intervals.

All artifacts should be collected, properly de-scribed, and curated according to the guide-lines outlined in the section titled “CurationGuidelines.” If a property owner refuses toallow the removal of the artifacts, all requireddocumentation should be generated in thefield, including the documentation of all diagnostic artifacts (e.g., meas-urements, written descriptions, and photo-graphs).

Reporting Results of IdentificationSurveysRequirements for reporting the results ofidentification studies are addressed in a latersection titled, “Technical Report Guidelines.”

These guidelines provide an outline for theminimum information that should be includedin a technical report.

Protection of information about archeologicalsites should be considered because many sitesmay be threatened by dissemination of infor-mation. Such sites can include fragile archeo-logical properties or religious sites, structures,or objects whose cultural value would be com-promised by public knowledge of the prop-erty’s location. The Wisconsin ArcheologicalSurvey concurs with the federal guidelines andthe following reporting criteria:

All documentation on sites found should besubmitted to the Office of the State Archae-ologist, Division of Historic Preservation(SHSW), and a site codification number ob-tained for inclusion in the report. Minimally,an Archeological Site Inventory Form shouldbe completed for all new sites and a site mapattached. If the site was previously reported, asite update form should be completed andsubmitted to the SHSW. This information isessential for integrating survey results withstate preservation planning efforts. New in-formation will best serve all archeologists in-volved in planning, research, or complianceefforts if it is fully reported.

36

39

Phase II: Evaluation According toNational Register Criteria

Introduction.................................................................................... 39Determinations of Eligibility under Section 106.............................. 40Evaluation under State Historic Preservation Legislation.................. 41Nominating Sites to the National Register........................................ 44Conducting a Phase II Evaluation.................................................... 44

IntroductionThe purpose of a Phase II evaluation underSection 106 of the National Historic Preserva-tion Act is to determine whether an archeologi-cal site is significant. According to the SIS-GAHP, evaluation is the process ofdetermining whether identified properties meetdefined criteria of significance and, therefore,should be included in an inventory of historicproperties. The SISGAHP standards are:

Standard I. Evaluation of the significanceof historic properties usesestablished criteria.

Because the National Register of HistoricPlaces is a major focus of preservation activi-ties on the federal, state, and local levels, theNational Register criteria have been widelyadopted not only as required for federal pur-poses but also for state and local inventories.Under Section 106, significance is evaluatedagainst four basic criteria established by theNational Park Service for the National Regis-ter of Historic Places. These are

• association with events that have madea significant contribution to the broadpatterns of history

• association with the lives of significantpersons

• embodiment of distinctive characteris-tics of a type, period, or method ofconstruction

• potential to yield important informationin prehistory or history

Archeologists can determine the significanceof an archeological site or a district (a concen-

tration of related sites) on any or all of thesecriteria. Most archeological sites and districtsare considered significant under criterion D,their potential to yield important information inhistory or prehistory. What archeologists con-sider to be important information has changedthrough the years. In the past, a site was con-sidered significant only if it was large anddeeply stratified, could produce data to solvechronological problems, or had data on fea-tures and burials.Today, the focus of archeological investiga-tions has shifted away from single-site con-cerns toward regional approaches in whichmany varieties of sites can produce importantinformation. Recent research concerns focuson topics such as settlement/subsistence sys-tems, seasonal rounds, cultural landscapes, andideology. In these contexts many kinds ofsites are important besides stratified sites orlarge villages.

Sites such as isolated projectile points, lithicworkshops, quarries, short-term camps, fishingstations, extractive locales, symbolic markerssuch as rock art and mounds, and amorphouslithic scatters can be critically important in un-derstanding patterning in past human behavior.In addition, archeological sites of the Historicperiod may be significant; information onevaluating these site types can be found in thesection titled “Recording and Evaluating His-toric Archeological Properties.”

Standard II. Evaluation of the signifi-cance applies the criteriawithin historic contexts.Properties are evaluatedusing a historic context that

40

identifies the significantpatterns that properties rep-resent and defines expectedproperty types againstwhich individual propertiesmay be compared. Withinthis comparative frame-work, the criteria forevaluation take on particu-lar meaning with regard toindividual properties.

Archeological properties should be evaluatedbased on comparative data associated with ahistoric context, including configurations ofartifacts, soil strata, structural remains, or othernatural or cultural features, associated with ahistoric context. The importance of such in-formation is evaluated within a cultural,chronological, or regional framework or bydeveloping a “historic context.” Evaluatingthe information potential of a site requires de-veloping research questions to which the sitemay contribute answers.

The research questions may be developedfrom a general body of archeological theory ordata (see “Establishing Historic Contexts anda Research Design”) or from the existing ar-cheological contexts such as those in “Intro-duction to Wisconsin Archeology: Back-ground for Cultural Resource Planning”(Green et al.,1986) or Cultural ResourceManagement in Wisconsin (Division of His-toric Preservation, SHSW).

Standard III. Evaluation results in a listor inventory of significantproperties that is consultedin assigning registrationand treatment priorities.

The evaluation process and subsequent devel-opment of an inventory of significant proper-ties is an ongoing activity. Evaluation of sig-nificance should be completed before aproperty is included in the inventory and be-fore preservation treatments are considered.Each property in the inventory should be fullydocumented, including a statement that clari-fies the significance of the property within oneor more historic contexts. In theory, such acomprehensive list should be maintained bythe Division of Historic Preservation; however,

in practice the Division maintains only a list ofregistered properties, published semiannually.There is no complete list of archeological sitesthat have been evaluated in Wisconsin, nor isthere a listing of properties by type or withinany historic context.

Standard IV. Evaluation results are madeavailable to the public.

Evaluation is the basis for registration andtreatment decisions. Information about evalua-tion decisions should be organized and avail-able for use by the general public and by thosewho take part in decisions about registrationand treatment. Use of appropriate computer-assisted databases should be part of the infor-mation-dissemination effort for land-managingagencies, but sensitive information on site lo-cations should be safeguarded from generalpublic distribution.

Archeologists may also be involved in theevaluation of other types of cultural propertiessuch as “traditional cultural properties” or“rural historic landscapes.” In these situa-tions, archeologists are advised to contact theNational Park Service to obtain copies of Na-tional Register Bulletins 30 and 38, which dis-cuss these types of properties. These proper-ties should also be evaluated against the fourcriteria noted above.

Determinations of Eligibility underSection 106If an archeologist working under Section 106concludes that a site is significant, the federalagency should reach a formal Determinationof Eligibility (DOE). The documentation to becompleted by the archeologist is NPS Form10-900, the National Register of HistoricPlaces nomination form. Copies of this form,including a “short form,” are available fromthe Historic Preservation Division, SHSW.Step-by-step instructions are available in Na-tional Register Bulletin 16A, How to Completethe National Register Registration Form;copies can be obtained from the National ParkService.

If the SHPO and the federal agency agree thatit is significant, the site is then officially de-

41

termined eligible for the National Register ofHistoric Places. If the archeological propertycannot be either avoided through project re-design or incorporated into the project designwithout being impacted by construction, amitigation plan should be developed by thearcheologist and reviewed by appropriateagencies (see “Phase III: Data Recovery &Mitigation”). It is important to provide asmuch information as possible in the DOE,which establishes the important research ques-tions. Further, if the site is avoided throughproject redesign, such as a shift in the highwayalignment, the Office of the State Archaeolo-gist can use the DOE to formally nominate thesite to the National Register of Historic Places.Formally listing the site on the NRHP canhelp future preservation efforts under statehistoric preservation laws, should the site bethreatened by activities regulated by stateagencies or local units of government.

Evaluations under State HistoricPreservation LegislationInformation provided by Chip Brown, StateCompliance Coordinator (State HistoricalSociety)It is important to recognize that Wisconsinstate historic preservation laws, while paralleland similar in intent to federal historic preser-vation laws, are quite different from them inexecution, party responsibility, and investiture.

State laws, found at Wis. Stat. §§ 44.40, 44.42and 66.037 (the first dealing with state agen-cies, and the latter two dealing with local unitsof government and school boards), require thatthe agency or other unit of government deter-mine whether a particular undertaking1 willaffect an historic property. Historic propertiesare defined at § 44.30(3) Stat. as:

Any building, structure, object, district,area or site, whether on or beneath the sur-face of land or water, that is significant inthe history, prehistory, architecture, arche-ology or culture of this state, its rural andurban communities or the nation.

Further, only certain categories of historicproperties may be evaluated for effects undereach of the above state laws. According to §

44.40 Stat., an evaluation may be conductedwhen an undertaking will affect an historicproperty that is (1) a listed property on theNational Register or State Register either indi-vidually (single properties or districts) or ascontributing elements in a district; (2) on theWisconsin inventory of historic places; or (3)on the list of locally designated historic placesunder § 44.45 Stat.2

Under § 44.42 Stat., which is defined for localunits of government and school boards by §66.037 Stat., the categories are further re-stricted to listed properties (as above), or prop-erties recorded on the list of locally designatedhistoric places under § 44.45 Stat.

In no case does state historic preservation lawrequire an archeological survey to locate his-toric properties. In every case, known historicproperties (as described above) must be pre-sent and within the area to be affected by theundertaking before any review, and possiblearcheological survey, is required.

Under state law, the State Historic PreservationOfficer (SHPO), through the State Compli-ance Coordinator (SCC), must determinewhether the undertaking will adversely affectthe historic property. Based upon informationfound in the Archeological Site Inventory(ASI), the Architecture History Inventory(AHI), past Compliance records, publishedand unpublished reports, and other informa-tion, the SCC determines that an adverse effectmay, or may not, result. The SCC then mayrequire negotiation with the agency or unit ofgovernment to “reduce such [adverse] ef-fects,” (§ 44.40[3] and § 44.42[2]).

When an archeological historic property maybe adversely affected, negotiation may lead toarcheological field work of some kind. Thescope of any archeological survey may be nar-row or broad as each case requires and as eachnegotiated agreement dictates.

Frequently, a survey is conducted to identifythe boundaries of a known site to establish thebasis for redesigning specifics of an under-taking.3 Guidelines for retrieving this informa-tion from the archeological record may be nec-essary and helpful to ensure appropriate (to

42

the particular case) data-collection methods,information collection, and report format:

A pedestrian survey and/or shovel testing,if justifiable, at the site location shall beconducted to determine site boundaries.The resulting report from such surveyshall include information known about thissite, lists and general descriptions of arti-facts and/or artifact classes if no diagnosticartifacts are obtained, lists and general de-scriptions of associated materials (e.g. fau-nal remains), a map showing the site in itsspecific environs—particularly in relationto the area of the undertaking, and a USGStopographic map showing the site locationas accurately as possible.

Specifics of many undertakings dictate fromthe outset that additional archeological infor-mation be obtained, including on significanceof the archeological site. Guidelines for theseactivities also will assist archeologists in theirsurvey work:

Extensive shovel testing, and some test ex-cavation of defined units, may be neces-sary to establish this information. The re-sulting report shall provide extensiveinformation on and analysis of the recov-ered archeological and associated materi-als. This analysis shall be provided withinthe appropriate local/regional/global con-text for such sites at such locales. A deter-mination of eligibility for listing in theState Register and National Register ofHistoric Places may be included in this re-port. If this survey type is conducted as theinitial survey, all of the information de-scribed above to be included in the siteboundary survey shall be included in thissurvey report. If this survey is conductedafter a site boundary survey has been con-ducted, data replication is not necessaryfor its own sake—it is sufficient to refer-ence the previous report.

Infrequently, an archeological mitigation mustbe performed if a significant archeological sitewill be destroyed as a result of the undertak-ing. Guidelines for this work should be thesame as those used to direct mitigation workunder federal law. Nevertheless, standards forwork may be negotiated under state law so thatthe archeological scope of work is either moreor less extensive than a comparable scope ofwork executed under federal law.

Finally, some archeological surveys are tai-lored to the negotiated settlement pertinent tothe undertaking. One common example of aspecialized survey type is monitoring of aproject area during ground-disturbing activitiesto identify archeological remains, includingartifacts, associated materials, and features.General guidelines for such archeological ac-tivity may be useful:

An archeologist shall monitor grounddisturbing activities for the unearthing ofarcheological material. If such material isidentified, the ground disturbing activitiesmay be halted to allow for immediatemitigational data recovery. The SCC shallbe notified of such finds as soon as possi-ble after discovery. The excavation shallinclude recovery of material within thearea of ground disturbance. If possible, re-connaissance should be undertaken to de-termine whether any, and if so what por-tion, of the archeological site remainsundisturbed. Upon completion of data re-covery, the archeologist shall prepare a re-port detailing, with brief analysis (if possi-ble), the materials excavated. A statementof site significance shall be included, ifsignificance may be reasonably ascer-tained. The report shall note that the mate-rial was recovered pursuant to a negotiatedagreement to allow monitoring and salvagemitigation.

Each case under state law jurisdiction involv-ing archeological sites may be negotiated tosuit the particulars of the specific undertakingand the principle players involved. Necessarily,constructing guidelines for archeological workmay be general at most, and unknown untilnegotiated at least. It is important to coordinateall work with the SCC and the relevant agencyor other unit of government before carrying itout because, under state historic preservationlaws, as is clear from the foregoing, the actual-ity of a survey type with its associated guide-lines, and any additional or progressive surveywork, is never absolute.

1 Under state law, the word “undertaking” is not oftenused. Undertaking is used in this context so as to pro-vide some analogy to federal law. We refer to undertak-ings as projects or cases. According to § 44.40 Stat.,undertakings actually are

actions of the state agency that may cause orpermit an adverse effect on historic property in-

43

cluding, but not limited to, any state agency ac-tion that involves the exercise of state agencyauthority in the issuance of a permit, license,authorization, variance or exception or in anygrant of financial assistance and any state agencyaction related to property owned by the stateagency or related to its long-range planning andfacilities development.

Under § 66.037, which provides some defining infor-mation for 44.42 Stat., undertakings are

1. Long-range planning for facilities development.2. Any action under sub. (3) [See below.].3. Razing any historic property which it owns.

(3) OWNERSHIP, USE AND DISPOSITION OFPROPERTY.

(a) A political subdivision may preserve orrehabilitate any historic property which it owns,construct buildings on that property, own andmaintain that property for public purposes or leaseor convey that property.

(b) If a political subdivision leases to anotherperson a historic property, the political subdivi-sion shall include provisions in the lease whichprotect the historic character and qualities of thatproperty. If the political subdivision conveys ahistoric property, the political subdivision shallobtain a conservation easement under s. 700.40 toprotect the historic character and qualities of theproperty.

2 The list of locally designated historic places is veryshort; it includes historic properties from a smallnumber of communities. The office of the Local Pres-ervation Coordinator (LPC) in the Division of HistoricPreservation maintains the list of locally designatedplaces. For more information, contact the LPC di-rectly.3 A project may be redesigned to avoid the site, or fur-ther archeological work may be conducted.

Nominating Sites to the NationalRegisterTo nominate an archeological site to the Na-tional Register of Historic Places, the NPS 10-900 form should be completed and submittedto the Office of the State Archaeologist, His-toric Preservation Division (SHSW). Forthose who have never completed the NPS 10-900 form, a copy of National Register Bulletin

16A, How to Complete the National RegisterRegistration Form, is recommended. Nomi-nations are presented at the quarterly meetingsof the State Historic Preservation ReviewBoard. If the state board approves the nomina-tion, it is forwarded to the National Park Serv-ice in Washington DC. If the National ParkService concurs that the site is significant, itformally lists the site and sends a notice to theHistoric Preservation Division. The propertyowner of a site on the NRHP can obtain a taxcredit for the land included in the nomination,under Wis.Stats.70.11(13m).

Consideration should be given to a possibledistrict nomination in those situations whereextensive identification studies have been ac-complished. For example, for long linear pro-jects such a proposed highway corridor, it maybe possible to identify numerous sites within aparticular valley. These sites may be more ap-propriately evaluated as a district, with signifi-cance not solely determined by individualcharacteristics of each site. Other sites may bemore appropriately evaluated as part of a the-matic nomination, such as logging camps innorthern Wisconsin.

Conducting a Phase II EvaluationPhase II evaluations may be conducted inconjunction with a variety of preservationplanning activities. Often they are performedto comply with Section 106, if the site is likelyto be impacted by a federally sponsored orlicensed activity or project. Sites may also beevaluated in conjunction with Section 110compliance if a federal agency is evaluatingsites on lands that it owns. In these situations,the site may not be threatened with imminentdestruction, and often multiple sites are evalu-ated at one time. Sites may also be evaluated inconjunction with the Office of the State Ar-chaeologist Survey and Planning Grant pro-gram. Survey and planning evaluations inWisconsin often focus on thematic or multipleproperty nominations to the NRHP. In Wis-consin, sites on state and municipal lands mayalso be evaluated under state historic preserva-tion statutes.

44

All Phase II evaluations should be conductedby placing the site within a historic context. Asdiscussed, historic contexts are patterns ortrends in prehistory or history through whichsites can be understood, categorized, and as-sessed under the NRHP criteria. The criteriaaddress the kinds of data considered importantin this context, as well as requirements for siteintegrity.

Examples of historic contexts developed forWisconsin include cultural study units such asThe Early and Middle Archaic Periods ofSoutheastern Wisconsin and The LateWoodland Study Unit in Region 6, WesternWisconsin, as well as National Register Mul-tiple Property Documentation Forms such asThe Paleoindian Tradition of Wisconsin, andThe Historic Logging Industry in State Region2 and the Nicolet National Forest. Typically,these documents provide summaries of perti-nent site data, note gaps in the data base, anddefine research questions. Some also providedefinitions of property types (site types repre-senting that particular historic context) andrequirements for National Register eligibility.

If an appropriate historic context is not avail-able, the archeologist evaluating a site shouldprovide sufficient information to place the siteinto an interpretive framework and providespecific data to support the conclusion that thesite is significant. Archeologists working onPhase II evaluations are encouraged to consultwith the state regional archeologists and theOffice of the State Archaeologist to obtain themost up-to-date information on cultural studyunits, Multiple Property DocumentationForms, pertinent National Register nomina-tions, and formal determinations of eligibility.

In addition to meeting NRHP criteria, an ar-cheological site should also possess integrity.Integrity means that the site has not been se-verely impacted, and that it still maintains somedegree of contextual association with the land-form on which it lies. In Wisconsin, a site isusually considered to have integrity if it hasnot been deeply plowed or eroded, or if in situ,sub–plow zone features or artifacts have beenidentified. It has been argued, however, thateven disturbed or plowed sites may possessenough spatial integrity to qualify for theNRHP, particularly in regions or landscape

settings where the majority of archeologicalsites have been severely impacted.

One corollary of the increasing importance ofdiverse site types is that small surface sites arebeing viewed as having potential for yieldingsignificant information. It is now recognizedthat surface and subsurface distributions ofartifacts may reveal patterning even when a sitehas been plowed or eroded. The kinds of arti-facts recovered from a site can yield importanttemporal or functional information even if thecontext of the artifacts is somewhat disturbed.Site size information alone can be important inexplicating regional settlement patterns.

The scale of Phase II field investigations mayvary according to the type, size, and complex-ity of the archeological deposits. At a mini-mum, Phase II evaluations should be designedto generate data on site size, date, structure, andcondition. Examination of the site should con-sist at a minimum of controlled surface collec-tion or shovel testing to establish site size andidentify variability in debris densities acrossthe site, along with subsurface testing to de-termine whether features or activity areas arepresent. If the site is significant, the recom-mendation to the agency should be to redesignthe project to avoid the site. Further measuresof protection, such as placement of a preserva-tion covenant on the land or development of amanagement plan, should be considered to en-sure future protection of the site.

If redesign is not a feasible or prudent alterna-tive, additional field investigation may be war-ranted to generate additional data on sitestructure and feature density and distributionprior to the development of an appropriateData Recovery Plan (see Phase III: Data Re-covery and Mitigation). The need for addi-tional field investigations and archival workafter completion of the Phase II evaluation, butprior to the development of a Data RecoveryPlan, often results when agencies place a re-striction on the amount of field work that canbe undertaken during the Phase II evaluation.Such restrictions preclude an understanding ofthe entire site, making it difficult to formulaterecommendations on appropriate mitigationtreatment and to develop the research ques-tions and Data Recovery Plan.

45

Sample SizeThere is no way to determine a universalminimum sample size appropriate for Phase IIevaluations. The sample size used for field in-vestigations should be justified given the typeof site, size of the site, environmental setting,and historic context. Minimally, the samplesize selected should be sufficient to generatethe data needed to determine site size, type,cultural/temporal affiliation, integrity, and sig-nificance. Subsurface investigations should beconducted to insure that significant remainshave not been missed by sampling.

In some cases, limited subsurface investiga-tions may make it possible to conclude that asite has no information potential. For example,when minimal material remains are recoveredafter several collections, and the site is on ahighly eroded or deflated landform, it could beconcluded that the loss of site integrity, hencethe minimal potential for intact remains, justi-fies the determination that the site is not eligi-ble for the NRHP. Such decisions should bebased on an understanding of site formationprocesses and natural processes or modernland use practices affecting site destruction.

If sufficient data are not generated to demon-strate the lack of site integrity, a general guide-line would be a minimum 10% sample of non-plowed sites and 25% sample of plowed sitesbefore the investigator concludes that the siteis not significant and therefore not eligible forthe NRHP. Further, archeologists should con-sider how the field and analytical methodsused affect the data generated and the conclu-sions reached. For example, using shovelprobes or 1 x 1 meter excavation units toevaluate a site may produce information on thedistribution of artifacts in the plow zone or Ahorizon, but the probability of intersecting aspatially discrete feature, activity area, or postmold is minuscule. Further, excavation unitsplaced in areas of high debris density may in-tersect only secondary middens while missingresidential zones, cemeteries, or activity areas.Large-scale machine stripping of the plowzone in several different landscape positionsacross a site is the most effective way to de-termine whether significant spatial informationis preserved. Deep excavations by hand or ma-chine may be necessary to determine whether

any buried occupations are present (see“Geomorphological and GeoarcheologicalInvestigations in Support of Archeological In-vestigations”).

Evaluation of historic sites is often difficult forarcheologists, as many agencies do not under-stand the role of historic archeology in inter-preting recent history. The specific require-ments for the evaluation of historic sites havenot been clearly defined. Further, determiningwhen something should be considered an his-toric archeological site, such as a property withstanding structures, is not always clear. Formore specific information on documenting andevaluating historic sites, see “Recording andEvaluating Historic Archeological Properties.”

Field Methods and TechniquesThe following steps should be considered anecessary part of Phase II field work:

1. Mapping. Detailed topographic mappingof a site and its immediate environs is neces-sary to provide a base for plotting investigationunits, site limits, artifact distributions, andmodern features. Topographic mapping mayalso reveal important microrelief features re-lated to human use of the locale. Including to-pographic data regarding a site’s landformsetting is especially important for documentingmounds and mound groups.

2. Controlled surface collection/close in-terval shovel probing. Collecting surfacecultural materials with horizontal spatial con-trols is used to define apparent site limits andto reveal clustering or patterning in artifactdistributions. Controlled surface collectionsare most effectively conducted on sites thathave been recently plowed and washed by rain.Multiple surface collections may be needed toobtain a representative sample of the quantity,variety, and distribution of various artifactclasses. There are many ways of performing acontrolled surface collection, including pieceplotting all debris and tools or collectingwithin equal-sized grid units. The samplingapproach selected should be justified throughthe research design.

Subsurface investigation should be used onsites where the surface is obscured by vegeta-

46

tion, fill, or other factors. An explicit samplingdesign should be used, and shovel probing,post-hole coring, and/or other subsurfacetechniques should be employed. Shovel prob-ing alone is never sufficient for evaluating anarcheological site.

3. Excavations. Excavation of units by natu-ral or arbitrary levels should be conductedfollowing the controlled surface collection, tosample the site for potential subsurface orsub–plow zone remains and to assess thesite’s integrity and information potential.Questions such as site size and depth, sitedate(s) and cultural affiliation, site function,degree of preservation of organic remains,presence of cultural features or activity areas,and extent of previous disturbance should beconsidered.

The size and number of excavation unitsshould be sufficient to make reliable state-ments about these characteristics and the con-dition of the site. Investigations should focuson confirming site limits, understanding thecomplexity and extent of the archeological de-posits, and examining the potential for deeplyburied occupations or ground surfaces. Propercare should be given to recording all culturaland stratigraphic data through field notes, planand profile mapping, and photography.Screening of cultural sediments and flotationsampling should be implemented.

4. Removal of the plow zone. Machine re-moval of the plow zone can be an effectivemethod for examining a larger percentage ofthe total site area than could be accomplishedthrough the use of hand excavation unitsalone. The plow zone should be stripped bymachine (scraper, pan, backhoe) only to justabove the base of the plow zone. The junctionof the plow zone with the subsoil should beshovel skimmed by hand, so that potentiallyintact cultural deposits will not be damaged.Stripping the plow zone should be institutedonly after topographic mapping, controlledsurface collection, and sampling the plow zoneto establish the depth of the plow zone acrossthe site.

5. Remote Sensing. Aerial photo interpreta-tion, including infrared work, can be useful indefining site setting, site limits, and the internal

structure of the site. Other forms of remotesensing, such as ground-penetrating radar orresistivity and conductivity techniques, mayalso be appropriate.

6. Buried archeological deposits. Archeo-logical sites should be examined to identify thepotential for deeply buried archeological de-posits (see “Geomorphological and Geoar-cheological Investigations in Support of Ar-cheological Investigations”).

7. Safety concerns. Before conducting anyfield investigations using heavy machinery,including for trenching, it is important to callDigger’s Hotline: 1-800-242-8511. Digger’sHotline should also be notified prior to con-ducting archeological excavation, particularlyalong a highway right-of-way, where utilities,including fiber optic cables and gas pipelines,are often present. Note that some local utilitiesdo not subscribe to Digger’s Hotline and mustbe contacted directly.

Analysis and InterpretationDocumentation for a Phase II evaluation is notcompleted with field work; analysis is an inte-gral part of the documentation process. Ana-lytical techniques should be selected that arerelevant to interpreting the site within the his-toric context and appropriate to the type ofdata generated by the field work. Types ofanalysis that may be appropriate include butare not limited to studying artifact types anddistribution; radiometric and other means ofage determination; studies of soil stratigraphy;studies of organic matter, pollen, animal bones,shells, and seeds; studies of soil composition;and studies of the site’s natural environment.

Analysis of the materials recovered and datagenerated during Phase II field work shouldinclude, minimally,

• a description of all artifactsclasses/types, with a summary tablenoting quantity and weight (if appro-priate) by horizontal and vertical pro-venience and/or feature context

• a description of the means of chrono-logical determination for the assem-blage

47

• a description of the attributes of diag-nostic artifacts, including type nameand date, and illustrations of all diag-nostic artifacts, or a representativesample of artifact types, by line draw-ings or photographs

• a sampling approach for the analysisof paleoecological data (pollen, floral,faunal, sediment, phytolith, etc.)

• a description of all features, includingcontent, plan view, and profile infor-mation

• a description and interpretation of thesoil matrix, including horizons, distur-bances, and site formation processes

• a description and interpretation of thespatial relationships of features and ar-tifacts concentrations within the site

If the site is significant, the data generatedfrom it should be interpreted within the his-toric context or compared to other similar sitesin the region. If the historic context has beendeveloped, the site should be compared to de-fined property types, or a new property typeshould be defined. The features or characteris-tics of the site should be compared with thoseexpected. In the absence of a well-definedhistoric context, the site should be compared toother similar sites in the region. This shouldinclude describing the site’s information po-tential or research value and placing the prop-erty within a cultural, temporal, and/or thematiccontext.

Recommendations and DocumentationIf the archeologist believes the site has the po-tential to produce important information andshould be determined eligible, or formallynominated to, the National Register, then thearcheologist should recommend avoiding thesite through project redesign. Recommendingfencing the site, or even monitoring construc-tion in the immediate site area, may be appro-priate and ensure that the site is not inadver-tently destroyed during construction.Language can be recommended for construc-tion contracts to ensure that the contractor isaware of the specific areas to avoid and ofpenalties for disturbing the site area. Moni-toring, however, is never a substitute for datarecovery. If the site does not qualify for listing

on the NRHP, then no additional archeologicalinvestigation should be recommended.

No matter whether a site is determined eligibleor not eligible for the NRHP, a technical reportshould be prepared describing the results ofthe evaluation (see “Technical Report Guide-lines”). If the site is determined eligible for, orwill be formally nominated to, the NationalRegister, the archeologist should completeNPS Form 10-900.

Additional information can be found in Na-tional Register of Historic Places in Wiscon-sin: Guidelines for Completing National Reg-ister of Historic Places Forms,Supplementary Manual, a publication of theDivision of Historic Preservation, SHSW (re-vised 1988).

48

51

Phase III:Data Recovery and Mitigation

Introduction.................................................................................... 51Developing a Data Recovery Plan.................................................... 51Methods and Techniques for Data Recovery ................................... 53Reporting the Results of Data Recovery Projects.............................. 55Interested Parties............................................................................. 56Public Benefit ................................................................................. 56

IntroductionData recovery may be undertaken as a form ofmitigation at an archeological site determinedeligible for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places and that will be impacted by aproposed federal undertaking. Data recovery isundertaken when neither preservation in placenor avoidance through project redesign is fea-sible. The purpose of data recovery is to re-cover the significant information the site con-tains by collecting the relevant data, analyzingand reporting the results of the investigations,and curating the recovered materials and re-cords.

Under Section 106, the federal agency, inconsultation with the SHPO and the AdvisoryCouncil, should determine how a project mayaffect significant archeological site(s). Inter-ested parties, such as local historical societiesand Native American tribes, are afforded anopportunity to comment. If there is consensusthat adverse impacts cannot be avoided, thedata recovery option may be selected. Thefederal agency is responsible for preparingthe Documentation for Consultation, whichdetails the project’s history, describes signifi-cant archeological site(s), details the findingof effect, and describes how any adverse ef-fects of the project will be mitigated. A DataRecovery Plan should be developed that de-tails the research questions, excavation strat-egy, laboratory analysis, schedule, andbudget. This Data Recovery Plan is subject toSHPO and Advisory Council review. In cer-tain situations a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) may be developed and executed byrepresentatives of the federal agency, theSHPO, and the Advisory Council.

Developing a Data RecoveryPlanThe Advisory Council’s (1980) publication,Treatment of Archeological Properties: AHandbook, provides recommendations fordeveloping a data recovery plan. The Secre-tary of the Interior’s Standards and Guide-lines also provide guidance on what should beincluded in a Data Recovery Plan. A key ele-ment in the plan is a research design that fa-cilitates an orderly, goal-directed, and eco-nomical project. However, the research designshould be flexible enough to allow for modi-fication to take advantage of unanticipated butimportant research opportunities that ariseduring the investigation. The following gen-eral topics have been recommended for inclu-sion in the Data Recovery Plan:

1. A project introduction should providebackground on the proposed undertaking,the recommendations of the agencies in-volved, and other administrative detailsrelated to the treatment of the site.

2. A description of the site or district, the en-vironmental setting, and a summary of theresults of previous research should beprovided. This information should include

52

a discussion of site size, chronology, type,and structure.

3. An explicit discussion of the justificationfor data recovery may be needed, unlessthis information has been provided else-where. The Data Recovery Plan shouldprovide a rationale for carrying out datarecovery. Two issues should be ad-dressed: (1) that the information con-tained in the site is sufficiently importantto warrant recovery; and (2) that the na-ture of the site or the conditions of theundertaking do not suggest an alternativetreatment, such as preservation in place.

4. Specific research questions to be consid-ered should be discussed. This requiresthe development of a detailed research de-sign. The main research questions and thesignificance of the data that can be gener-ated should also be detailed in the Na-tional Register nomination form thatshould be completed to reach a formaldetermination of eligibility under Section106. The research questions should buildon the results of previous investigationsand reference state resource plans, re-gional cultural overviews, thematic con-texts, and other relevant planning docu-ments.

Previous investigations of similar prop-erty types in the property’s geographicarea (or comparable geographic areas)should be summarized and their effective-ness evaluated. The research design maywork “backwards” by stating objectivesin terms of desired results. The desiredresults should be based on a good under-standing of an archeological site’s prop-erty type (as specified in the State Plan) inrelation to other examples of the type, aswell as the potential contribution of thenew data for refining the property type,the historic context, and the researchquestions identified.

5. Data recovery should generate informa-tion on a broad range of research ques-tions based on the historic context. Re-search questions should not be sitespecific only, but should also explorecultural and/or regional interpretations

that further develop or clarify the culturalcontext and property types defined. Notall contexts will be equally detailed, due tothe variable extent of past archeologicalresearch in different regions of the state.

6. Research priorities should be established,as it may not be necessary to address eachresearch question at the same level of de-tail. For example, if the chronology of aparticular site type is well understood, butsubsistence activities are less thoroughlyknown, it may be justifiable to focus theresearch effort on the subsistence data.An archeological site may include severalcomponents of varying research value; itmay be advisable to target a particularcomponent and give less attention to theothers.

7. The field and laboratory methods bestsuited to recovering the important dataneed to be specified and explained. Thefield and laboratory methods proposedshould be related to the research problemsidentified in the research design. Expertsin related subareas such as geomorphol-ogy, ethnobotany, faunal analysis, andlithics studies should be consulted if theirexpertise is relevant to the proposed re-search questions. All data recovery effortsrequire the development of a samplingstrategy. As complete recovery is rarelyfeasible, the sampling procedures shouldbe described and justified.

8. The supervisory personnel should beidentified; vitae documenting their qualifi-cations should be appended if the person-nel are not known to the agency or theSHPO. Key personnel include the princi-pal investigator, the field director, thelaboratory director, and any specialists(e.g., geomorphologists, paleoethnobota-nists) whose skills may be needed. If theprincipal investigator delegates primarysupervisory responsibility for field orlaboratory work to other persons, theseindividuals should also meet the minimumNPS standards.

53

Methods and Techniques ofData RecoveryData recovery field techniques will vary de-pending on the specific site conditions and theresearch problems to be investigated. In se-lecting data recovery methods, it is useful toconsider the following information, whichshould be established during the Phase I andPhase II investigations: (1) the extent of thesite; (2) the site’s stratigraphy; (3) the kinds offeatures the site contains; and (4) the densityof features and their distribution across thesite. Some of this information may be estab-lished by previous investigations in the regionor at other sites included in the property type.

In many cases it may be advantageous to carryout data recovery as a two-step process. Thefirst stage would involve the investigation of aportion or a sample of the site. After the firststage is completed, a preliminary evaluation ofthe results may be undertaken. Consultationwith agency officials and the SHPO about theresults may also occur. If all parties agree thatit is appropriate, more extensive data recoverycould be undertaken as a second stage. Thistwo-step approach also may allow for moreefficient modification of the research design ifunanticipated discoveries are made.

Controlled surface collection of sites on culti-vated lands is an important source of informa-tion for data recovery planning. These studiesshould be undertaken during the Phase I andPhase II investigations. Frequently, the distri-bution of various kinds of cultural materials onthe surface reflects the nature and distributionof subsurface features. Thus, analysis of thecontrolled surface collection data can be usedto develop predictions about the results of datarecovery. The excavation results, in turn, canbe used to refine the interpretation of con-trolled surface collection data on future pro-jects. Controlled surface collections that coverthe entire site area, as opposed to limited sam-ples, are the most useful for the interpretationof intrasite patterning.

Machine excavation is often used to uncover asbstantial percentage of site plan and to reducelabor costs on data recovery projects. For sites

that have been cultivated, a common excavationmethod is to strip off the plow zone using abelly scraper or other suitable piece of equip-ment. Features exposed during stripping arethen mapped and excavated. When driven byexperienced operators, belly scrapers can clearlarge areas in a fairly short time.

Feature excavation is usually the most costlyand time-consuming aspect of the project,while the cost of renting earth-moving machin-ery (if it should be billed to the project), islikely to be a minor item in the budget. Analy-sis of controlled surface collection data may beused to select areas for stripping. If feasible,plow zone removal from 100% of the site areashould be attempted.

Total excavation is particularly useful if limitedinformation is available on intrasite featuredistribution patterns; it allows for the testing ofproposed relationships between artifact con-centrations on the surface and subsurface fea-ture distributions. For example, at some exten-sively excavated sites, structures have beenfound in areas that had relatively low surfaceartifact densities. For many projects, however,the extent of plow zone removal is constrainedby construction limits. Machine excavationshould not be attempted on formerly cultivatedsites that have been reforested.Commonly, one of the major goals of exten-sive excavation projects is to define a villageplan. This is accomplished by systematicallymapping the exposed features and activity ar-eas and looking for patterns in the distribu-tions of various feature types. Information oninternal site organization and patterning can beincorporated into planning documents andused in future research. This approach hasbeen used on some Wisconsin projects. Ide-ally, the potential for intact features should berealized during the Phase II evaluation, and asampling plan for defining site structure de-veloped in the Data Recovery Plan.

Excavation of features uncovered through ex-tensive excavation may provide data relating toa variety of research problems, including chro-nology, subsistence, and settlement organiza-tion. If very large numbers of features are ex-posed, it may be necessary to sample themrather than completely excavate every one.Sampling can take various forms, including

54

screening only selected features or cross-sectioning some features but not removing thesecond half. Any sampling procedures usedshould be explained and justified.

If the site to be excavated has never beenplowed, it will require hand excavation. Typi-cally, block excavation consists of 2 x 2 metersquares or other suitably sized units. This datarecovery method tends to be the most laborintensive and expensive. Site definition in un-plowed areas is commonly established byclose-interval shovel testing (probing). Some-times close-interval shovel testing along a gridof transects that covers the entire site area isused to make inferences about the distributionof cultural materials and features. Thus sys-tematic shovel testing is used as a substitutefor controlled surface collection. However, theusefulness of close-interval shovel testing forthis purpose has not been demonstrated(Bruhy and Wackman 1980). A detailed to-pographic map of the site should be preparedand an excavation grid established. At sitesthat cannot be machine stripped, at least 25%of the site area that will be impacted should beexcavated. At small or special-purpose sitesless than 500 square meters in area, a 60 to70% sample is recommended. For plowedsites, mechanical removal of the plow zoneshould be completed for a minimum of 75%of the area to be impacted.

A variety of specialized studies are appropriatefor data recovery projects. Radiometric datingshould be conducted for materials from goodcontexts. Provision should be made for recov-ering and analyzing a sample of floral andfaunal remains. The use of flotation to processarcheological deposits for subsistence remainshas been standard practice for many years. Asample of midden deposits and feature fillsshould be processed by flotation during datarecovery projects.

Soil samples collected for flotation should belarge enough to yield useful results; 18 liters isthe recommended minimum size. If the featureis smaller than that, the entire feature should beremoved for flotation. If the feature fill isstratified, each zone should be sampled. Spe-cialists in archeobotany and faunal analysisshould be consulted in developing samplingdesigns for the recovery of these remains.

Buried sites present many problems for datarecovery. Site definition may be difficult fordeeply buried sites, and close coordinationwith geomorphologists is critical. If the ar-cheological remains can be associated withparticular natural strata, it may be possible todefine the extent of these strata by systematiccoring at regular intervals. It is common to usea backhoe or other earth-moving machinery toremove sterile overburden or disturbed filloverlying the cultural deposits. Hand excava-tion is then confined to the buried deposit.

This could still be costly if the site is stratifiedor if there are problems with water seepage.Side walls in buried sites may need to bebraced to prevent cave-ins. Excavations ofdeeply buried sites and excavations usingheavy machinery present a variety of potentialhazards to field personnel. Special safetymeasures may be needed; archeologists shouldreview OSHA guidelines prior to initiatingfield investigations. (See, for example, Jack L.Mickle (1995), Occupational Safety andHealth Administration Regulations on Excava-tion Safety, Journal of the Iowa ArcheologicalSociety 42:1–4.

Reporting the Results of DataRecovery ProjectsA technical report should be prepared that pre-sents the results of excavations, subsequentanalyses, and summaries of all archeologicalinvestigations at the site and provides an inter-pretive framework by further development ofthe historic context. The section of SISGAHPentitled “Reporting Results” may be used asa checklist for Phase III report content andorganization. Usually, the result will be amonograph-length report that describes theexcavations and provides a typological analy-sis of the artifacts recovered.

If plow zone removal was the primary excava-tion method, the final report will describe thefeature excavations and contents. Patterning infeature or activity area distributions will be animportant topic for analysis. If subsistencestudies were a focus of the research, there willbe sections authored by specialists describing

55

the flora and fauna. Geomorphologists mayconduct studies if the site is buried or in a rivervalley. Historic sites may require detailed ar-chival research.

The dissemination of the results of data recov-ery projects is a continuing problem. Manyagencies will expect a data recovery report tobe published, and the associated costs shouldbe included in the project budget. Alternatively,a condensed article could be published in aregional journal such as The Wisconsin Ar-cheologist. Copies of the technical reportshould also be provided to the federal agency,Office of the State Archaeologist, RegionalArchaeology Office, local historical societies,and any interested parties.

Interested PartiesThe Section 106 process provides opportuni-ties for comment by interested parties on theeffects of a project (undertaking) on culturalproperties. Professional consultants (arche-ologists) can be directly involved in obtainingand addressing comments and concerns raisedby interested parties. It is important to under-stand when comment from interested parties isappropriate and to consider how these con-cerns may be resolved in the mitigation planfor archeological properties.

Public BenefitEfforts should be made to inform the publicabout the results of large-scale data recoveryprojects. Archeologists are frequently accusedof generating a great deal of community inter-est and then leaving without providing infor-mation on the findings and accomplishmentsof their investigations. Each data recoveryproject should include some public benefit atthe local level, and associated costs should beincluded in the project budget. Brochures orinformation flyers should be available to visi-tors on-site to explain the significance of thediscovery and the importance of archeology.

Alternatively, one or more general brochureson archeology could be distributed. Examplesinclude Past Cultures of the Upper Missis-sippi River, published by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, for pro-jects in the Mississippi River trench; or Ar-chaeology Along Wisconsin Highways, pre-pared by the State Historical Society’sMuseum Archaeology Program for generalWisconsin Archaeology. News releases dis-seminate information to a wider audience andare generally well received by the media. Al-ternative ways of disseminating information tothe public include public lectures and tempo-rary displays at libraries, visitor centers, orother public facilities. Documentary videotapes of archeological projects also may beused to inform the public and provide a long-term record of the project.

Additional Sources for Phase IIIPreparing Agreement Documents: How toWrite Determinations of No Adverse Effect,Memoranda of Agreement, and Program-matic Agreements Under 36 CFR Part 800.Publication of the Advisory Council on His-toric Preservation. September 1989.

Treatment of Archaeological Properties: AHandbook. Publication of the Advisory Coun-cil on Historic Preservation. November 1980.

57

I.

Technical ReportGuidelines

58

Technical Report Guidelines

Introduction ........................................................................58Report Guidelines................................................................59Distribution of Reports ........................................................66

The following guidelines for technical reportswere prepared to promote responsible andhigh-quality archeological research in Wis-consin. These guidelines are not intended tooffer a rigid format or to exclude categories ofdata not listed. Rather, they outline the level ofdocumentation that could be provided in re-ports prepared for all Public Archeology pro-jects. The guidelines provide a general outlinefor the format and content of reports and wereprepared in accordance with the federal guide-lines for compliance with Section 106 of theNational Historic Preservation Act. They alsoincorporate the report guidelines adopted bythe Society for American Archaeology Re-gional Conference on Cultural ResourceManagement Subcommittee on Standards andGuidelines (1986). The guidelines follow theresearch process for federal and state-regulated research projects:

• Archival documentation or reconnais-sance documentation only.

• Phase I identification research.• Phase II evaluation of a site(s) ac-

cording to the criteria of eligibility forlisting on the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP)(36 CFR 60).This would also include a statement ofsignificance for each site (potentiallyeligible, eligible, not eligible, etc.) andshould include documentation for aformal Determination of Eligibility (ifappropriate).

• Phase III mitigation of archeologicalproperties after the agency and SHPOhave reached a formal Determinationof Effect (no effect, adverse effect, no

adverse effect, conditional no adverseeffect, etc.).

These guidelines are for reports that detail theresults of Phase I identification and Phase IIevaluation research projects, as appropriate tothe nature of the undertaking (project), resultsof the investigations, and nature of the sitesidentified. Reports detailing Phase III (formalexcavation/mitigation) research projects arewritten in accordance with the Data RecoveryPlan approved by the agency, SHPO, and Ad-visory Council on Historic Preservation. It isassumed that such reports will include all ofthe information described below, in addition tothe requirements of the Data Recovery Plan.

Report GuidelinesA report should contain, minimally, the fol-lowing sections and the information describedunder each section. Prehistoric sites should bedocumented in metric, and historic sites shouldbe documented in both metric and English.

1. Title PageThe title page should contain information onthe researcher, agency, and all relevant projectnumbers:

• the title of the report, including thename and location of the project andthe type of archeological investiga-tion(s)

• the principal author(s) and principalinvestigator, and their organizationalaffiliation and address

59

• a list of contributors and their organi-zational affiliations, if appropriate

• the name of the lead agency, institution,or organization funding the research,the agency project number, and thename and address of the client, if ap-propriate

• the number assigned by the Compli-ance Section (Division of HistoricPreservation), referred to as the SHSWcompliance number

• the date the report was prepared

2. AbstractThe abstract should contain enough informa-tion to be used as a summary statement forentry into the Bibliography of ArchaeologicalReports. The abstract should include

• the type of project and size of the pro-ject area (in hectares and acres) forwhich the archeological research wasconducted

• the type of research conducted (PhaseI, II, III, archival research, etc.), themethods used, and a brief summary ofthe results of the research

• the number of archeological sites in-vestigated, including their state codifi-cation numbers

• a statement of significance for each siteaccording to NRHP criteria (poten-tially eligible, eligible, not eligible, etc.)

• the nature of potential impacts, withrecommendations

3. Table of ContentsThe table of contents should list all sections(topical headings) within the report with thecorresponding page numbers. Authors of sec-tions should be indicated if different from theprincipal authors.

4. Lists of Figures, Tables, and AppendicesThese lists should include the name of eachindividual figure (illustration, plate, map, etc.),table, and appendix with the correspondingpage number. Figures and tables should belisted in the order in which they appear in the

text. They should be placed on the page(s)following their citation in the text.

5. IntroductionThe introduction should include

• a description of the purpose and cir-cumstances of the project, includingproject administration and constraints

• a map showing the location of theproject area in Wisconsin

• a map showing the location of theproject area on a USGS 7.5' quadran-gle (to assist the SHPO in plottingsurveyed areas on state base maps)

• a detailed map of the project area (suchas highway plans showing the pro-posed right-of-way and slope inter-cepts) and/or the location of the projectarea plotted on a low-flight aerial pho-tograph (USDA Agricultural Stabiliza-tion and Conservation Service 1" =660' air photos, standard and availableat every county ASCS office)

• a summary of the scope of work (con-tract requirements)

• dates of work and numbers of fieldpersonnel involved

• a concise summary of the report’scontents, including site investigations,results, statement of significance, po-tential impacts, and recommendations,as appropriate

6. Environmental SettingThe Environmental Setting section should in-clude

• a description of the current environ-mental characteristics of the projectarea and how they may have affectedthe results of the field investigations

• a review of the history of land use forthe project area (regardless of the re-sults of the investigations), including adetailed description of current land use

• a description of the prehistoric envi-ronment, including the geology, geo-morphology, soils, hydrology, andvegetation, if archeological propertieswere identified, with the environmental

60

information related to the nature andtype of archeological properties identi-fied

7. Archeological ContextThis section should include

• a summary of the archeological recordfor the project area and surroundingregion (i.e., known archeological sitedistributions in, or within one mile of,the project area)

• a description of the nature and type ofpreviously reported sites and previousfield investigations

• a description of Euro-American occu-pations in the area, based on archivalresearch (such as early plat maps)

• a description of the informationsources consulted (such as publishedmaterial, site files, unpublished manu-scripts, and informants)

• relevant culture histories, chronologicalsequences, settlement and subsistencepatterns, site types, and other availabledata useful in assisting in the identifi-cation of archeological sites

For reports detailing the results of Phase IIevaluations, an archeological context should bedeveloped. This should include a descriptionand the results of other site evaluations withinthe region (e.g., cultural overviews or studyunits). Cultural components should be identi-fied and temporal associations should bespecified and reviewed.

8. MethodsThis section should describe the research de-sign (purpose and intent of the research, in-cluding assumptions, techniques, strategies,methods, and hypotheses), field methods,analyses conducted, and any additional infor-mation on how the research was conducted. Ifa sampling strategy was used in the field orlaboratory, it should be described.

Phase I Identification. The Methods sectionfor a Phase I report should include

• A description of the research designand a discussion of any departure fromthe strategy initially proposed.

• A description of the field methods andtechniques used (surface collection,shovel probing or testing, coring, exca-vation units, backhoe trenching, etc.).This description should include thedistance between and within surveytransects, percentage of ground visibil-ity, and representative soil profiles. Ifmore than one technique was used,maps or text should clearly describewhere within the project area specifictechniques were used. Each mapshould contain a scale, north arrow,caption, and key to symbols used.

• If an archeological site was identified,information on how the data were re-corded, the nature of field mapping,and a description of how the artifactswere collected and provenience infor-mation recorded.

• A description of the field methods andtechniques used to evaluate the ar-cheological site(s), such as excavationunits, mechanical removal of the plowzone, backhoe trenching, ground-penetrating radar, or coring.

• A description of the laboratory proc-essing procedures used.

• A description of the classifica-tion/typological schemes used in arti-fact description and analysis, and themeans of chronological determinationfor the assemblage. All artifacts classesor types should be explicitly defined; iffollowing a published description, thesource should be cited and included inthe References Cited section.

Phase II Evaluation. For a Phase II projectreport, the Methods section should in-clude

• A description of the research designand a discussion of any departure fromthe proposed research strategy.

• A description of the field methods andtechniques used to evaluate the ar-cheological site(s), such as excavationunits, mechanical removal of the plowzone, backhoe trenching, ground pene-

61

trating radar, or coring. Maps shouldbe used to provide this information andshould contain a scale, north arrow,caption, and key to symbols used.

• A description of how the data were re-corded, the nature of field mapping,and how the artifacts and other sam-ples (floral, soil, charcoal, etc.) werecollected and provenience informationrecorded.

• A description of the laboratory proc-essing procedures used.

• A description of the classifica-tion/typological schemes used in arti-fact description and analysis, and themeans of chronological determinationfor the assemblage. All artifacts classesor types should be explicitly defined; iffollowing a published description, thesource should be cited and included inthe References Cited section.

• A description of the field and labora-tory techniques used in the study ofpaleoecological data (pollen, floral,faunal, sediment, phytolith, etc.).

• A description of specialized analyticaltechniques (edge wear analysis, rawmaterial source identification, manu-facturing techniques, etc.).

9. Results of InvestigationsPhase I Identification. If archeological sitesare identified during a Phase I project, the Re-sults section should contain

• The location of all identified sites,plotted on a copy of the USGS quad-rangle map (7.5' series), and on eithera low-flight aerial photo or the projectmap, if of reasonable scale. (Note:USDA Agricultural Stabilization andConservation Service 1" = 660' airphotos are standard and are available atevery county ASCS office).

• A description of the site, including sitesize, cultural-temporal affiliation (ifknown), site type/function, and the reli-ability and value of the data recorded(considering field condition, presentland use, etc.). If a site map is pro-vided, it should have a scale, north ar-row, key to symbols used, and caption.

• A description of all cultural materialrecovered listed by site, temporal pe-riod, and artifact and/or feature type.

• Description and illustrations of all di-agnostic artifacts, or of a sample ofeach type, using either line drawings orphotographs that include a scale andlabel showing each artifact’s cul-tural/temporal association.

• Measurements and descriptions of allprojectile points. Chronologi-cal/cultural names should be providedand raw material types noted.

• Descriptions of all cultural materialobserved but not collected; the reasonsfor not collecting certain materialshould be noted.

• For historic archeological sites, asketch map that shows the locations ofall structural remnants and artifact con-centrations. The results of a deedsearch should be presented detailingthe history of ownership.

• An assessment of integrity for eachsite, such as the degree of erosion, de-flation, or deposition, and an assess-ment of site context and stratigraphiccontext as indicated by shovel test dataor soil cores.

Phase II Evaluation. For a Phase II evalua-tion, the Results section should contain• The location and name (including state

codification number) of the site, plottedon a copy of the USGS quadranglemap (7.5' series), and on either a low-flight aerial photo or the project map, ifof reasonable scale. (Note: USDA Ag-ricultural Stabilization and Conserva-tion Service 1" = 660' air photos arestandard and are available at everycounty ASCS office).

• A description of the site, including sitesize, cultural-temporal affiliation (ifknown), site type/function, and the reli-ability and value of the data recorded(considering field condition, presentland use, etc.).

• A site map showing the site bounda-ries; location of all excavation units,shovel probes (tests), areas mechani-

62

cally stripped of the plow zone, and ar-eas in which any other investigativetechnique was used; and locations offeatures and artifact concentrations.The map should also contain a scale,topographic features, modern features,and the coordinates of a permanentdatum.

• A description of the levels excavated(natural, cultural or arbitrary) and anexplanation of techniques used.

• A description of all cultural material,with tabulations by horizontal and ver-tical provenience, count, weight (if ap-propriate), temporal period, and artifacttype. Distribution plotting should beused, when appropriate, to assess sitestructure.

• Illustrations of diagnostic artifacts, orof a sample of each type, using eitherline drawings or photographs that in-clude a scale and a label showing eachartifact’s cultural/temporal association.

• Measurements and descriptions of allprojectile points. Chronologi-cal/cultural type names should be pro-vided (Raddatz Side Notched, MononaStemmed, etc.) and raw material typesindicated.

• Quantification of all lithic debitage in atable containing appropriate lithic re-duction stages and raw material types.

• Descriptions of ceramics. If possible,all ceramic rims should be describedand typed and attributes (paste, temper,profile, etc.) assigned to a specifictype.

• Descriptions of all cultural materialobserved but not collected; the reasonsfor not collecting certain materialshould be noted.

• Tabulations of faunal and floral mate-rial by taxon and number, if possible.

• Results of radiocarbon dating of repre-sentative samples. It is not acceptableto state in the report that a sample hasbeen submitted but the results are notavailable for interpretation and inclu-sion. If samples have been submittedbut the lab has not processed them in a

timely manner, the sample number andname of the lab should be listed.

• Laboratory reference numbers for allabsolute dates.

• For historic archeological sites, a mapshowing the locations of all structuralremnants and artifact concentrations.The results of the archival searchshould be presented detailing the his-tory of ownership, occupation, andland use.

• An assessment of site integrity, such asthe degree of erosion, deflation, ordeposition, and an assessment of sitecontext and stratigraphic context as in-dicated by shovel test data or soilcores. This interpretation should be ac-companied by the supporting data gen-erated in the field (e.g., detailed soildescription, a geomorphologist’s re-port, and illustration of profiles and/orsoil core data.

Statement of significance. The site’s sig-nificance, or potential to contribute to scientificor humanistic understanding of the past (po-tentially eligible, eligible, not eligible, etc.),should be determined after evaluating thesite’s potential to contribute information to thehistoric context defined for the site. Relevantresearch questions that could be addressed byfurther study of the site should be outlined andsupporting documentation provided. The valueof the site to any specific living group shouldbe addressed, as should the site’s possible in-terpretive value. It is not sufficient to say that asite is significant simply because it has an in-tact feature.

Documentation for a Determination ofEligibility. Archeological sites should beevaluated according to the criteria for listing onthe NRHP. Each site should be placed in itscontext (e.g., state plan, thematic nomination,regional cultural overview, or property types asdefined by the Office of the State Archaeolo-gist) and an assessment made of its interpre-tive or research potential. Each site should beconsidered of potential National Registerquality until enough information on its natureand condition is collected to permit a profes-sional determination of significance. Potentialresearch questions should be detailed.

63

A copy of the Determination of Eligibility(NPS Form 10-900) should be included as anappendix to all Phase II evaluation reports inwhich the recommendation is that the archeo-logical site be considered eligible for listing onthe NRHP.

10. Summary and RecommendationsAn evaluation of the impact of the proposedproject (or project alternatives) on the archeo-logical resources should

• Provide a recommendation for the needfor additional work. Any recommen-dation for no further work must be ex-plained fully; it indicates that the site isnot eligible for the NRHP and meansthat the site will be destroyed by theproposed undertaking (project). Rec-ommendations for further work shouldbe explained fully and include a dis-cussion of the nature and extent of theproposed research.

• Discuss the type and degree of adverseeffects the project will have on the site.

• Identify possible cumulative adverseeffects the project may have on the site.

• Identify possible indirect impacts tothe site as a result of the project (e.g.,impacts from altered water flow,changes in lake levels, or increased in-dustrial, recreational, commercial, orresidential development).

Specific recommendations should be directedtoward preservation and conservation of ar-cheological resources and should include

• Where possible, a discussion of alter-natives and their implications. The re-port should recommend the alternativethat either assures the preservation ofthe resource or, if preservation in placeis not possible, allows for maximumrecovery of the potential archeologicaldata.

• Recommendations and justificationsfor preservation, mitigation, or addi-tional preliminary work, described inenough detail so the agency can under-stand how to proceed. A statementshould be included that mitigation ef-

forts be coordinated with the StateHistoric Preservation Office.

Curation statement. All artifacts, samples,field notes, maps, log books, photographs,drawings, analysis sheets, project correspon-dence, and any other documentation generatedduring the project should be deposited in afacility that meets the standards described inthe “Curation Guidelines” section.

The report should provide a statement of thepresent location of artifacts and documentationand, if different, of the facility that will serve asthe permanent curation location. A lettersigned by an authorized representative of thecuration facility should be included; it shouldcontain

• a statement that the collection will becurated in perpetuity, indicating theprocedures to be followed should theinstitution no longer be able to curatethe collection at a later date

• an explanation of how the collectionwill be cataloged

• the specific date by which the collec-tion will be transferred to the curationinstitution

It is the responsibility of the archeologist toobtain permission for permanent curation priorto the initiation of fieldwork.

Accidental discovery. The report should alsoinclude a statement that acknowledges the pos-sibility that presently undiscovered archeologi-cal sites may exist in the project area. Thestatement should note that if such discoveriesare made, the agency, project coordinator, orconstruction personnel should immediatelynotify the Office of the State Archaeologist at608/264-6495. Discoveries that potentiallyinvolve human remains should be directed tothe Burial Sites Preservation Office at608/264-6503 or 1-800/342-7834. The localpolice or sheriff’s department should be calledif a potential burial area cannot be appropri-ately secured until it can be evaluated by quali-fied personnel.

11. References Cited

64

The references cited should follow AmericanAntiquity style guidelines.

12. AppendicesAppendices should include necessary sup-porting data, such as the scope of work, theproposal for work, or the Memorandum ofAgreement (or letters) between the contractorand the principal investigator. Examples in-clude

• the project research design (especiallyif approved by the SHPO as a separatedocument, such as a WisDOT corridormethodology)

• artifact summary tables (if too lengthyto incorporate into the main text)

• a curation statement and supportingdocumentation

• National Register form NPS 10-900for a Determination of Eligibility

• qualifications of the primary projectpersonnel

• the scope of work requested by theagency

• project correspondence

Distribution of ReportsArcheologists working on compliance projectsshould provide copies of reports to the fol-lowing offices:

• Two copies of the report should besubmitted to the State Historic Preser-vation Officer (SHSW) as a part of theSection 106 consultation process. Thisis generally done by providing copiesto the agency funding the research,which then forwards the copy to theSHPO. One copy of the final reportwill be forwarded to the State Archae-ologist for entry in the Bibliography ofArchaeological Reports and to be for-warded to the Regional ArchaeologyOffice.

• If human remains, cemeteries, or po-tential burial areas are described in thereport, one copy should be sent to theBurial Sites Preservation Office(SHSW).

67

II.

Curation Guidelines

67

Curation Guidelines:Artifacts, Samples, Materials, and Project and

Site Documentation

Introduction.................................................................. 68Federal Guidelines................................................. ....... 69State Guidelines..................................................... ....... 70Removal of Artifacts from Private Property ........... ....... 70Guidelines for Curation Facilities........................... ....... 72

IntroductionThese curation guidelines respond to concernsregarding the appropriate conservation andcuration of archeological objects, samples,materials, notes, maps, and other archival andproject documentation. Recent federal legisla-tion precludes private contracting firms fromcurating archeological collections generated byfederal historic preservation legislation. Asmuseums and other curation facilities face se-rious space and storage problems and risingcosts associated with long-term curation, thereis a continuing debate over exactly whatshould be curated in perpetuity. Members ofthe Wisconsin Archeological Survey need toensure appropriate treatment for the archeo-logical collections they generate, regardless ofthe source funding for any research project.The Survey would like to take a leadership rolein ensuring the safe storage and availability ofthese collections, materials, and documentationfor future research and interpretation.

Because the process of field archeology is de-structive, many sites will not be preserved forfuture research unless care is given to the cu-ration of collections, records, and documents.The primary purpose of curation is to care forthese artifacts and documents to ensure theiravailability for further study. Due to the rapiddestruction of archeological sites in Wisconsinby both development and natural processes,

the scholarly and informational value of cu-rated collections increases steadily throughtime.

The no-collection policy espoused by somefederal agencies is not acceptable in Wiscon-sin. It is important that archeologists eithercollect all classes of materials from archeo-logical sites or develop a sampling approach toensure that all material classes are appropri-ately represented in the assemblage curated foreach archeological site. Classes of materialremains and other types of samples (soil, char-coal, wood, pollen, etc.) that should be col-lected vary according to the age and type ofarcheological site.

The documentation that should accompanyartifact assemblages includes original fieldnotes, project and site maps, photographs andnegatives, site forms, correspondence files,other types of field and laboratory analysisforms, and other relevant information. Theagreement between an archeologist and a cura-tion facility should include procedures foridentifying (accessioning), recording (cata-loging), and maintaining (storing and retriev-ing) the provenience of all collected artifacts,samples, and documents. There is considerablevariation in institutional polices regarding howcollections are labeled, organized, and stored,but professional museum cataloging and cura-tion practices should be followed. Generally,artifacts are labeled and cataloged with theirprimary provenience information and stored in

69

containers that meet museum conservationguidelines.

Costs associated with the long-term curationof archeological materials are the responsibil-ity of the federal or state agency funding theresearch. It is acceptable under federal historicpreservation legislation to request payment forcuration services as part of the contract for ar-cheological services (see 36 CFR Part 79,Section 79.7).

Federal GuidelinesThe following is taken from the Secretary ofthe Interior’s Guidelines for ArcheologicalDocumentation (1983), subheading “Cura-tion”:

Archeological specimens and recordsare part of the documentary record ofan archeological site. They should becurated for future use in research, in-terpretation preservation, and resourcemanagement activities. Curation of im-portant archeological specimens andrecords should be provided for in thedevelopment of any archeological pro-gram or project.Archeological specimens and recordsthat should be curated are those thatembody the information important tohistory and prehistory. They includeartifacts and their associated documents,photographs, maps, and field notes;materials of an environmental naturesuch as bones, shells, soil and sedimentsamples, wood, seeds, pollen and theirassociated records; and the productsand associated records of laboratoryprocedures such as thin sections, andsediment fraction that result from theanalysis of archeological data.

Recent federal legislation has more specificallydefined the responsibility of federal agenciesto ensure that archeological collections gener-ated through public archeology projects areproperly documented, curated, and made avail-able for ongoing research. This legislation istitled, Curation of Federally Owned and Ad-ministrated Archeological Collections (36CFR Part 79).

Archeologists conducting field investigationsand generating archeological collections anddata from sites on federal or tribal land shouldadhere to the requirements of the Archeologi-cal Resources Protection Act. This act requiresthat archeologists obtain an ARPA permit thataddresses appropriate curation, as mandatedunder 36 CR 79. Archeologists should alsobe aware of their responsibility to meet the re-quirements ofthe Native American Grave Protection andRepatriation Act (NAGPRA).

State GuidelinesWisconsin Historic Preservation legislationdefines the responsibility of the Office of theState Archaeologist to oversee archeologicalresearch on state lands (public lands) as de-fined under Field Archaeology (s.44.47,Wis.Stats.). Prior to conducting field investi-gations on public lands, archeologists shouldobtain a permit from the Office of the StateArchaeologist, Division of Historic Preserva-tion (SHSW). To receive a permit to conductarcheological investigations on public lands, asdefined in s.44.47, Wis.Stats., the archeologistshould demonstrate that the collection, materi-als, and documentation will be curated at anappropriate facility. The ownership, custody,and use of objects and data are defined as fol-lows:

The state reserves to itself the title to allobjects found and data gathered in fieldarcheology on state sites. Although apermit may name a custodian other thatthe Historical Society, title to the objectsand data discovered at state sites is re-served to the Historical Society as trus-tee for the state. Physical possession ofsuch objects shall revert to the state ifthe custodian is not properly caring forthem or keeping them convenientlyavailable for study by students of ar-cheology (s44.47[5], Wis.Stats.).

It is the responsibility of the archeologist con-ducting field investigations to inform propertymanagers where the archeological materialswill be curated. Should problems arise re-

70

garding the curation of materials from fieldinvestigations being conducted under a statepermit (s44.47, Wis.Stats.), the Office of theState Archaeologist should be notified.

Removal of Artifacts from PrivatePropertyIn Wisconsin, the opinion of the State Attor-ney General’s Office is that artifacts remainthe property of the landowner unless a writtenagreement has been signed specifying owner-ship of artifacts, samples, and other items re-moved during field work. The following“permission form” was approved by the StateAttorney General’s Office as representing alegal and binding agreement. It was developedin response to an increasing number of con-flicts involving archeologists, property owners,and agencies, as to who owns the artifacts. Itsintended use is for projects that involve exca-vation of substantial artifact assemblages, suchas the Phase II evaluation of a site. It is rec-ommended that a formal agreement be negoti-ated between the agency and the private prop-erty owner to ensure professional curation ofarcheological collections.

71

_____________________________________________________________________

Permission to Access Property for Archeological Investigationsand Collect Material/Artifact Samples

I hereby grant permission to [insert name of institution or organization] to access my property in T____ N, R ____ E/W, Section _____, Town of ______________ for the purpose of conducting ar-cheological investigations for the [insert name of federal or state agency].

The investigations may involve surface reconnaissance, soil coring, digging shovel holes, excavatingtrenches and square units by hand, excavating with heavy machinery, collecting samples of artifacts,cultural debris, soil and/or rocks, and mapping and/or photographing the area. I agree that the samplesof artifacts, cultural debris, soil and/or rocks and corresponding notes and documentation may be re-moved from my land and will be curated at [insert name of curation facility], and become the propertyof the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. I understand that all excavations will be refilled by the[insert name of institution or organization].

The investigations will be concentrated within areas designated for acquisition by [insert name of fed-eral or state agency]. However, some investigation may also be performed beyond this area in order todetermine the extent and condition of any archeological remains encountered as indicated on the attachedmap.

The investigations will take place between ____________________________, 1996.

_________________________________ _______________________, 1996signature of property owner date_________________________________name of property owner (please print)

_________________________________ ________________________ , 1996signature of [insert name] date_________________________________name of representative (please print)

_____________________________________________________________________

It is the responsibility of the agency sponsor-ing the project to ensure that permission toremove and curate artifacts and other docu-mentation has been obtained from the propertyowner. Archeologists representing a state orfederal agency do not have any legal authorityto negotiate any other arrangement with aproperty owner. It is the responsibility of theagency to meet appropriate curation guidelinesand to make any other necessary arrangementsregarding ownership and curation of archeo-logical collections. In some cases agenciespurchase needed right-of-way or sign ease-ment agreements before the scheduled date to

prevent problems that may occur dur-ing archeological or other environ-mental studies.

Property owners will often grant per-mission to conduct a Phase I identifi-cation study or survey only if they arepermitted to retain the artifacts. In suchcases, archeologists often return theartifacts, but only after they have beenproperly analyzed and documented.Prior to returning artifacts to a prop-erty owner, archeologists should in-clude an inventory of the artifacts re-turned, and a drawing or clear photo-

72

graph of all diagnostic artifacts, including ap-propriate measurements, in the report detailingthe results of the field investigations. For stateor federal compliance projects, archeologistsshould notify the appropriate agency, in writ-ing, of the terms of the agreement with theproperty owner.

Guidelines for Curation FacilitiesProfessional archeologists should ensure thatthe collections, materials, and documentationthey generate are curated at an acceptable cu-ration facility. The Office of State Archaeolo-gist can provide guidance in finding and de-termining the appropriateness of a curationfacility. Temporary curation is acceptable onlyif the material is protected and arrangementsare made for permanent curation within aspecified time frame. Information on the loca-tion and nature of curated materials should beprovided in technical reports (also see “Tech-nical Report Guidelines”). If the curation fa-cility is managed by a different organization orinstitution, the report should include a letterindicating the willingness of the curation facil-ity to accept and curate the collection.

Many institutions in Wisconsin that currentlycurate archeological collections would find itdifficult to meet the federal curation guidelines(see 36 CFR 79.9). The institution should beable to ensure perpetual preservation of thematerial and ensure that the items are retriev-able for future research and interpretation. At aminimum, an institution curating archeologicalcollections should

• accession, label, catalog, store, main-tain, inventory, and conserve the col-lection on a long-term basis, using pro-fessional museum and archival prac-tices

• maintain complete records on the col-lection, including acquisition records;inventories, field notes, forms, and re-ports; photographs, negatives, andslides; accurate location information;conservation information; and any re-cords on lost, deteriorated, damaged, ordeaccessioned and transferred materi-als

• provide appropriate facilities,equipment, space, and profes-sional staff to properly store,conserve, and study the collec-tion

• provide adequate security forthe collection

73

III.

Recording and EvaluatingHistoric Archeological Properties

74

Recording and EvaluatingHistoric Archeological Properties

Introduction ....................................................................................74Phase I: Identification......................................................................74Phase II: Evaluation.........................................................................75

IntroductionThere is no simple formula for determining thesignificance of an historical archeological site,but general parameters can be set. Certainly,sites considered eligible should have archeo-logical deposits sufficiently intact to addressthe questions being asked. Additionally, any ofthe following qualities argue strongly in favorof a site’s eligibility:

1. rarity of site type (based on time pe-riod, function, ethnic affiliation, etc.)

2. short-term occupations (providingclarity of data)

3. long-term occupations with verticallyor horizontally separated deposits

4. historical documentation of residents’identities (allowing more specificity inquestions)

5. representation of a historic theme

Phase I: IdentificationBackground ResearchIn addition to the standard resources for pre-historic sites (ASI, Burial Sites Inventory,Charles E. Brown Mss., landowner interviews,

etc.), background research for the project areashould also include the systematic examinationof early plat books, aerial photographs, countyhistories, oral histories, HSI (Historic SitesInventory database), Wisconsin Land Eco-nomic Inventory Field Sheets and, for urbanareas, Sanborn insurance maps. This work willprovide potential locations of historic siteswithin the project area, and in some instances,a ready identification of these sites. Much ofthis research should be done prior to the ini-tiation of field work. Once sites have beenidentified, census records and tax rolls forthose properties should be examined.

Field WorkPhase I field work should identify the natureof the resource, provide a preliminary assess-ment of the site’s condition, and provide suffi-cient information to design an effective testing strategy for Phase II investiga-tions. An archeological site is defined as anarea of focused human activity that is at least50 years old. Areas of widely scattered historicceramics, with no archival or archeological evi-dence of structures or focused activity areas,are generally not considered sites. Propertieswith standing structures that are over 50 yearsold should also be evaluated for their archeo-logical potential. Archeologists are encouragedto work closely with historians.

ResultsAt minimum, reports on Phase I investigationsshould include the following information:

• site function through time• rough dates of occupations

75

• photographs of all existing structures• descriptions/analysis of recovered arti-

facts (also note any classes of artifactspresent but not recovered)

• data on ownership and land use frommapped archival materials

• site layout and estimation of siteboundaries (should include sketch mapdrawn to scale)

• assessment of the site’s integrity,based on subsurface testing unlessotherwise justified

• assessment of the site’s potential sig-nificance

Phase II: EvaluationBackground ResearchResearch should focus on establishing a his-toric/cultural context within which to under-stand the relationship of individual sites to thebroader historical development of a particularregion or, in some instances, to the develop-ment of particular industries. A first step, if ithas not already been done for the area, is toexamine successive plat books and chart thehistory of development by recording numbersof structures through time within a specificgeographic area (decided in concert with theSHPO—e.g., township, county, drainage, roadcorridor). Developing a cultural context willdepend upon the nature of the property beingexamined. For example, if a site was occupiedby a particular ethnic group, the focus of thehistoric context could be the immigration, ac-culturation, and land use practices of that par-ticular group. If a site was known to have beena dairy farm, the focus of the context could bethe development of the dairy industry in thatparticular region. Background information onWisconsin’s ethnic groups, industries, andnumerous other resources and themes deemedsignificant has already been synthesized in theCultural Resource Management in Wisconsin(Volumes I–III). These study units are

Vol. 1 1. Historic Indians2. Fur trade3. Government

4. Euro-American settlement(German, Norwegian, British Isles, Yankee,etc.)

Vol. 2 5. Agriculture (wheat, dairy, to-bacco, farming the “cutover”, etc.)

6. Industry (mining, logging,brewing, tanning, etc.)

7. Transportation (Mississippi,Great Lakes, railroads, etc.)

8. Architecture (vernacularforms, agricultural outbuildings, etc.)

Vol. 3 9. Education10. Social Movements11. Religion

The CRM provides good introductions to eachof these topics through relatively brief discus-sions and accompanying bibliographies.

Field WorkPhase II work should provide sufficient data toassess the research potential and integrity ofthe site. Specifically, testing should focus onproviding an assessment of artifact and featurediversity and determining whether there is ver-tical and/or horizontal separation of deposits atthe site.

ResultsAt minimum, the Phase II report should in-

clude• a detailed history of past ownership

and land use• a detailed site map with established

boundaries and landscape features• descriptions of features and artifacts,

including an assessment of the clarityof the data (i.e., at sites with a longhistory of occupation, are there tempo-rally discrete features or levels withinfeatures?)

• an assessment of site integrity• an assessment of research

value/NRHP eligibility• a Determination of Eligibility form if

the site is considered significant

76

According to National Register Bulletin 15,properties may be eligible for the NationalRegister under four different criteria:

Criterion A: association with events thathave made a significant contribution to thebroad patterns of historyCriterion B: association with significantindividualsCriterion C: representation of distinctivedesign or construction (of a type, period,or method of construction)Criterion D: potential to yield informa-tion important in prehistory or history

Although archeological sites can be eligibleunder Criteria A, B, and/or C, this generallyrequires that the site be in overall good condi-tion with excellent preservation of features,artifacts, and spatial relationships. Integrityrequirements under Criterion D are not asstringent. For this reason most archeologicalsites are generally nominated under CriterionD, the potential to yield important information.The “importance” of information should bemeasured in terms of its ability to address re-search questions identified within the disci-plines of historical archeology, archeology,history, or anthropology. In addition to thetopics identified in the CRM, SHPO historiansand archeologists have suggested the follow-ing list of significant research areas:

• ethnicity• gender• social/class inequalities• consumerism• transportation networks• evolution of technology• settlement studies (frontier settlement,

settlement patterns)• adaptation to natural and cultural envi-

ronments• material culture studies

In preparing a Determination of Eligibility ornomination under Criterion D, it is essential toexplain a site’s potential to address one ormore questions related to themes in CulturalResource Management in Wisconsin and/orthe listed research areas. For example, can eth-nicity be identified by artifact types or site lay-

out? Does this vary across regions withinWisconsin? How quickly did acculturationoccur? How dependent were a site’s occupantson local, regional, or world markets?

When preparing a Determination of Eligibilityor National Register nomination, archeologistsare strongly encouraged to examine the appro-priate National Register bulletins.

77

IV.

Excavation and Analysisof Human Remains

79

Excavation and Analysis ofHuman Remains

Introduction ........................................................................80Burial Site Identification......................................................80Cataloging Burial Sites.........................................................82Excavation of Human Remains............................................84Documentation Forms .........................................................86

IntroductionWisconsin’s burial sites preservation law,Wis. Stats., s.157.70, was passed in 1987.Under that law, all discoveries of human boneon private or state land must be immediatelyreported to the Burial Sites Preservation Office(BSPO), and excavation or construction can-not proceed without the authorization of theDirector of the State Historical Society ofWisconsin. It is illegal to disturb burial siteswithout prior authorization. Further, accordingto state statute and Chapter HS 2 of the Wis-consin Administrative Code, only “qualifiedarcheologists” approved by the Director mayoversee the excavation of burials. To apply forcertification, an archeologist must demonstrateexperience in the excavation of burials bysubmitting a curriculum vitae and two lettersof reference for consideration to the Director,State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 816State Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706.

All archeologists working in Wisconsin mustread and become familiar with the burial lawand the administrative rules (Chapter HS 2)written to implement this legislation. Copies ofthose documents can be obtained, at no charge,by calling the Burial Sites Preservation Office.

Burial Site IdentificationRecords and Literature SearchPrior to initiating field work (either for Phase Ior Phase II efforts), an archeologist mustcompile information on the cultural history ofthe region in general and the project area inparticular. That effort must include, at mini-mum, data on the geology, pedology, and bi-otic environment as well as the known and ex-pected distribution of all site types (historicand prehistoric). References to consult include

Phase I:• local county ACSC surveys• inventory and case files, county files,

and USGS 7.5' topographic mapsmaintained by the Burial Sites Preser-vation Office

• early county plat books located in theState Archives (SHSW) or in individ-ual county courthouses

Phase II:• County Register of Deeds offices for

deeds within the project area• Wisconsin Land Economic Inventory

Field Sheets, series 1956 (State Ar-chives)

• Wisconsin State Old Cemetery Society(WSOCS) regional and county coor-dinators (list of coordinators is avail-able, at no charge, from the BSPO)

• local genealogical societies

81

Field SurveyThe goal of an archeological survey is to de-termine whether archeological sites, includingprehistoric and historic burial sites, are presentwithin a delimited area. Background researchand interviews with local residents and collec-tors are useful for obtaining corroborating in-formation on site location(s) and additionalinformation on site types and locations thatmay not be referenced or recorded in writtendocuments.

Surface survey. Burial sites are often, but notalways, marked by surface features. These in-dications may include actual human bone orbone fragments discovered on the surface ofbadly eroded and/or plowed sites; grave pitdepressions; obvious changes of vegetation,either natural or cultural (lilies or lilacs, forexample); spirit houses; wooden crosses; pre-historic mounds; and gravestones or fragmentsof stone markers. Please note that, accordingto Chapter HS 2.02 (8), all prehistoric Indianmounds are defined as “grave markers.”

Methods employed to locate different types ofburial sites in diverse environments vary fromlocation to location. Consequently, the surveyand sampling strategy must be reevaluated andredesigned for every survey. For example, ifbackground research suggests that an isolatedhistoric grave may lie within a given projectarea, the transect interval employed must rep-resent the minimum necessary to locate thatburial. In areas of dense vegetation, whereground visibility is limited, it is advisable, if atall practical, to undertake surface survey dur-ing the late fall or early spring.

If an archeologist identifies a feature that mayrepresent a prehistoric Indian mound forwhich no Archeological Site Inventory (ASI)record exists, that feature may be exploredusing a soil probe to assess whether or not that“earthwork” is actually a Native Americanmound. In such an instance, it is highly rec-ommended, but not mandatory, that the arche-ologist contact the Burial Sites PreservationCoordinator to discuss testing options prior toundertaking that activity.

Under state law, it is not necessary to physi-cally uncover human bone to designate a

mound (or any other location) a burial site. If asoil profile confirms a soil discontinuity that iscultural in origin and clearly not related to“recent” land disturbance or agricultural ac-tivity, the location of that mound feature mustbe documented on a Wisconsin ArcheologicalSite Inventory form and submitted to the Of-fice of the State Archaeologist (SHSW). Anarcheologist may also probe a suspected gravepit depression to evaluate whether a disturbedsoil profile confirms the presence of a humanburial.

Probing a feature to determine whether thatfeature represents a burial site is not consid-ered a “disturbance” and does not requirepermission from the Burial Sites PreservationOffice. Please note, however, that archeologistsworking on municipal or federal land mustsecure a permit from the Office of the StateArchaeologist or the appropriate federal landmanager.

Subsurface survey. Subsurface testing mustonly be undertaken

• after documentary research is com-pleted

• following surface survey (if advisable)• in the event that surface survey could

not be effected because of denseground cover

It must be designed to provide the maximumamount of information regarding the strati-graphic continuity and spatial extent of thesite.

Depending on the nature of local sediments,vegetation cover, size of the area to be tested,and cost considerations, remote sensing tech-niques may be the least intrusive and mostcost-effective method for examining a largearea. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and soilresistivity surveys have both proved useful inspecific archeological contexts (primarily his-toric) where radio interference from outsidepower sources is not a factor. Because resultsof these tests can vary tremendously depend-ing upon local conditions, subsequent test ex-cavations may be recommended to confirm(“ground-truth”) the results obtained.

82

In some cases, mechanical stripping of largeareas of topsoil/plow zone to locate grave out-lines or burial pits can be a practical, low-costalternative to the use of remote sensing equip-ment, which can cost over $1,000 per day. Al-though destructive, mechanical stripping pro-vides the most comprehensive plan view ofsurface distributions of burial (and other) fea-tures. Such stripping is recommended whenearly maps indicate the presence of Indianmounds within the present-day project area butsurface indications of those cultural featuresno longer remain.

When the sediments in the area under investi-gation exhibit clear soil horizons (with colorand textural differences), burial pits can bedetected by locating areas of disturbed soilprofiles. Soil probing can be effective in lo-cating burials, particularly if a systematic sur-vey strategy is employed. Because close-interval testing is recommended when probingto locate burials, the recommended 10- to 15-meter interval between shovel tests is not con-sidered an adequate or effective means of lo-cating burials.

Cataloging Burial Sites1. DocumentationAccording to Administrative Rule Chapter HS2.03 (2), documentation of a burial site mayinclude, but is not limited to

• physical evidence, as demonstrated byarcheological or written historical re-ports showing the presence of humanbone or grave markers

• adequate historical documentation• oral depositions, affidavits, or oral

histories• any additional information requested

by the director

2. Metes and Bounds Description of a Bur-ial AreaUnder law, the location of a burial site can befiled with the Register of Deeds office in thecounty in which it is located, a process knownas “cataloging.” To cataloge a burial site, thefollowing information must be provided to the

Burial Sites Preservation Office: a legal (metesand bounds) description of the property(drafted by a licensed surveyor); the names,addresses, and telephone numbers of the prop-erty owners (and owners of land within thefive-foot buffer zone surrounding the site, ifappropriate); and photographs. In a compli-ance case, the agency applying to the SHPOfor project review must furnish the Burial SitesPreservation Office with a metes and boundsdescription if the property on which the burialsite is located lies within or near the proposedproject area.

Because of potential legal concerns, the BurialSites Preservation Office will no longer acceptmetes and bounds descriptions from any indi-viduals not trained and certified as land sur-veyors. Archeologists can, however, flag aburial site or a mound in advance of a certifiedsurvey; the marked area must incorporate atleast the five-foot buffer zone required by law.If landowners request a larger buffer zone sur-rounding a burial site on their property, thatrequest must be reasonable, not excessive(simply to take advantage of a larger tax ex-emption). Since a burial site that is catalogedrepresents, to some degree, a restricted area (interms of what can and cannot occur on oraround it), and “runs with the land,” the land-owner may want to consider those factorswhen deciding to exempt more than 10 to 25feet around a discrete burial site.

Historic burial sites. Many historic burialsalready have metes and bounds descriptionsrecorded on deeds filed with the County Reg-ister of Deeds. The Burial Sites PreservationOffice requires a copy of the deed describingthe cemetery, including its name and numberand the page number(s) of the volume fromwhich the description was copied. If there is adeed describing the boundaries of a burial site,this legal description, whenever possible, mustbe verified in the field against the actual (i.e.,present-day) dimensions of the burial site. Forexample, if the dimensions of a cemetery wererecorded as 100 x 100 feet in 1878, thatcemetery in 1995 must still measure 10,000square feet.

If there is no existing deed with a metes andbounds description, the archeologist must de-fine the burial area and “sufficient continuous

83

land” necessary to protect the site; this may beaccomplished by surface survey and/or sub-surface testing. “Sufficient contiguous land”is defined in the statute as a minimum of fivefeet. After the archeologist has completed thiswork, a certified land surveyor may produce ametes and bounds description of the area de-fined by the archeologist.

Prehistoric burial sites. As with previouslyundefined historic burial sites, the archeologistmust first define the burial area and sufficientcontiguous land necessary, under the law, toprotect the site. A registered land surveyormust then produce a metes and bounds de-scription of the defined burial area.

Excavation of Human RemainsAuthorizationThe discovery of any human remains, or re-mains suspected to be human, must be re-ported immediately to the Burial Sites Preser-vation Office, either in person or by telephone.No excavation of human bone is permittedwithout the express permission of the Directorof the State Historical Society of Wisconsin.To excavate human remains from a burial siteon state or private land in Wisconsin, an ar-cheologist must be “qualified” as per 157.70and approved (in writing) by the Director. Toapply for certification, an archeologist mustdemonstrate experience in the excavation ofburials by submitting a curriculum vitae andtwo letters of reference for consideration to theDirector, State Historical Society of Wiscon-sin, 816 State Street, Madison, Wisconsin53706. A listing of “Archeologists Qualifiedto Excavate Burials” is updated as needed andkept on file in the Burial Sites PreservationOffice.

An archeologist does not need prior authoriza-tion to excavate human remains if the bone isnot recovered from a burial context. For ex-ample, no advance permission is required toexcavate isolated pieces of human bone from atrash midden. If the context of discovery is atall questionable, it must be treated (until oth-erwise evaluated) as a burial site until a fieldvisit to the location of discovery is made byBurial Sites Preservation Office staff.

If a Native American burial site is discoveredduring compliance work (i.e., pursuant to theAntiquities Act of 1906, the Reservoir SalvageAct, the National Historic Preservation Act of1966, as amended, or the Archeological Re-sources Protection Act of 1979), provisions ofthe Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act (NAGPRA) may apply andoverride Wisconsin’s burial law. The con-tracting archeologist must contact the BurialSites Preservation Office immediately andmust also contact the funding or licensing fed-eral agency regarding its policy on the excava-tion of (Native American) human remains. Theexcavation of non–Native American humanremains still requires authorization from theDirector of the State Historical Society ofWisconsin.

MethodologyThe following guidelines represent the mini-mum amount of information that must be re-corded during the excavation of human re-mains:

Exposure and documentation:1. The first step is to identify boundaries of

the burial pits(s) and record burial dimen-sions (once exposed) and pit size(length/width/depth), orientation, burialtype, shape, and vertical and horizontal lo-cation in a plan view (refer to BSPO FieldRecording Form). Contrasts in soil colorand texture should be described, and a soilsample taken of the surrounding pit fill.

2. The next step is to carefully remove the

sediments surrounding the burial(s) andexpose the human remains using excava-tion tools appropriate to the task. The boneshould not be touched with sharp metaltools. Wooden or bamboo picks are rec-ommended. A second sample of sedimentsshould be taken from the area of the sa-crum, if possible. If bones are damp wheninitially exposed, they should not be left todry in direct sunlight.

3a. If the burial is supine, the frontal bone ofthe cranium and the innominates (pelvicbones) will normally be the first exposed

84

through excavation. Because these ele-ments are often the most fragmentary (andwill often yield the greatest information onsex and age during analysis), they shouldbe excavated last if possible. They can beused as landmarks from which to ap-proximate the location of the long bones(arms and legs) and expose them beforeexcavating the chest, pelvic, and cranial re-gions. Once an area is exposed, it shouldbe kept free from sediment by covering itwith newspaper or lightweight cloth. Thisis not always easy as one area (e.g., elbowor hip joint) is likely to still be in articula-tion with other bones sharing other con-nections.

3b. If the burial is flexed, the side of the skull(and possibly the lateral portion of the or-bit), side of the pelvis, and knee joint willlikely be exposed first. Because of the cir-cumstances of burial deposition, excava-tion must begin at the most elevated pointsand work sideways and downward untilthe remains are exposed. Procedures usedmust be sensitive to the context and reflectthe objectives (including time and costconstraints) of the recovery plan.

4. All skeletal elements and associated ob-jects should be left in situ until the remainsare completely exposed, photographed, andmapped on graph paper. Photographicdocumentation must include both black-and-white prints and color slides and a listof photographs taken, their numbers, ori-entation, and type of film used. All photo-graphs should include a scale and an arrowpointing to magnetic north. If possible, theburial number(s) must also appear in thephotograph.

5. The vertical and horizontal location of the

human remains should be recorded, and ascale drawing made of each burial and anyassociated artifacts.

6. Field notes and the information on the

Field Recording Form (see attached) mustbe as complete as possible. If feasible, andif within the scope of the project, the landadjacent to the burial must be investigatedto determine whether there are features thatmay provide additional context for inter-

preting the burial site and associated mor-tuary behavior. If the adjacent land cannotbe surveyed, for whatever reason, that factmust be explicitly recorded in the fieldnotes.

Removal1. After documentation, the remains should

be removed as quickly as possible. An ex-posed burial should not be left overnight.

2. When skeletal elements are placed in paper

or plastic bags, all provenience information(including burial number) should be writ-ten on the bag before the bone is put inside(for example, “Burial 1, 47-WK-1000, lefthand bones”). If plastic bags are used,even for transport only, they should be leftpartially open if possible; a sealed bagtraps humidity and accelerates bone de-composition.

3. Before excavated bone is placed into bags

or boxes, as much adherent soil as possi-ble should be removed. The one exceptionis a cranium that has dense, compacted soilremains within the internal cavity; no at-tempt should be made to remove the soil inthe field, as the cranial bones will likelycome apart and make laboratory recon-struction much more difficult.

4. When a large concentration of secondary

(commingled) burials with no identifiablecluster(s) of skeletal elements is excavated,the position of each bone must be docu-mented (graphically and numerically) on aplan view. An arbitrary grid system shouldbe established along the long axis of theburial, and bones assigned to a designatedexcavated subunit.

Documentation FormsThe following forms were developed for thedocumentation of burial sites and the excava-tion, analysis, and reporting of research onhuman remains:

• Burial Sites Inventory Form• Field Recording Form

85

• Skeletal Inventory for Single Individu-als

• Skeletal Age and Sex DeterminationForm

• Bone Union and Epiphyseal Clo-sure—Immature Remains

For additional information contact

Burial Sites Preservation OfficeThe State Historical Society of Wisconsin816 State StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53706608-264-6502/6503

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

103

V.

Geomorphological and GeoarchaeologicalInvestigations in Support ofArcheological Investigations

104

Geomorphological and Geoarchaeological Investigationsin Support of Archeological Investigations

Introduction ............................................................................104Phase I Reconnaissance Survey..............................................105Phase II Evaluation .................................................................110Report Preparation..................................................................111Qualifications..........................................................................113Systematic Procedures for Landscape Evaluation ...................113References Cited.....................................................................114

IntroductionGeomorphological and geoarchaeological in-vestigations on archeological sites should bedesigned to (1) establish the physical contextof archeological deposits and (2) assist in as-sessing the effects of post-depositional (post-abandonment) environment on the condition orintegrity of the archeological deposits. Thephysical context is three dimensional and hasfour major components: (1) morphology, (2)soils, (3) stratigraphy, and (4) biota. Becausegeomorphology is the study of earth surfaceprocesses, numbers 1 through 3 are directly inits realm. Number 4, biota, covers the role offlora and fauna, including humans, in shapingthe landscape and therefore lies on the inter-faces between geomorphology, biology, ecol-ogy, and archeology (social sciences). The roleof people in the formation of archeologicaldeposits is, obviously, the purpose of archeo-logical investigations. Not as obvious is theimportant role of people and other biota inpost-depositional changes that structure thearcheological record.

The post-depositional environment consists ofall the physical and biological forces that im-pinge on the archeological deposits after thearcheological site is abandoned. Post-depositional conditions determine what ar-cheological features and artifacts will be pre-served. The major forces involved are (1) ero-sion, (2) deposition, (3) soil formation includ-ing biological activity, and (4) anthropogenic

activity. Here the focus is on the archeologicaldeposits themselves as a source of informationon past human activity and the need to makedecisions about site integrity and eligibility forthe National Register.

Resources for preservation or excavation ofarcheological sites are limited; therefore, it isimportant to understand the condition of thedeposits when designing research and makingpreservation decisions. For instance, specificsets of data are necessary to address specificresearch questions. The condition of the de-posits in part determines whether the appropri-ate data can be recovered. In Wisconsin, amajor factor in altering and destroying ar-cheological deposits is Euro-American landuse, especially farming, lumbering, and urbani-zation.

The guidelines focus on geomorphologicaland geoarchaeological aspects of locating andinterpreting (developing a physical context thatdirectly or indirectly aids in interpretation) ar-cheological deposits. Archeological depositsare the result of the interaction of the fourcomponents outlined above with the materialremains of human activity. The interaction be-gins when a landscape facet is occupied andcontinues until the soil/sediment is removed.The continuous interaction creates the archeo-logical deposit and turns a landscape facet intoan archeological site.

105

Physical context is, in some ways, analogousto historic context as outlined in the WASGuidelines. As with a historic context, a physi-cal context can be viewed as an “organiza-tional framework” for the geomorphologicaland geoarchaeological variables. Continuingwith the analogy, a geomorphic equivalent of aproperty type, the Landform-Soil-SedimentPackage (LSSP) is suggested. The physicalcontext of each archeological deposit is notunique; patterns exist and can be discovered.An LSSP characterizes the morphology of theland surface, the soils/sediments, and thestratigraphy, in three dimensions. Also, siteformation processes can be addressed throughthe relationships between soils, vegetation, andbiomechanical mixing regimes. LSSPs can beconstructed from archival data and refined inthe field. In combination with the soil-regionapproach to site location outlined in the WASGuidelines, LSSPs will form project- and site-specific data for assessing site integrity anddata potential (Criteria D for determination ofeligibility), in the context of preservation plan-ning.

The portion of the guidelines that follow arebased on those recently adopted in Iowa (As-sociation of Iowa Archaeologists 1993). Addi-tional sections not covered in the Iowa guide-lines pertain to geoarchaeological investiga-tions of site formation processes and determi-nations of site “integrity,” especially in regardto the direct and indirect effects of modernland use on archeological deposits.

All archeological projects need some level ofgeomorphological assessment. The level ofassessment and the degree of expertise neededdepends on the complexity of the landscape inthe project area. Archeological deposits cannotalways be located by examining the modernlandscape surface (pedestrian survey andshovel testing). To determine the type of geo-morphological investigation needed, the phaseof the archeological investigation, the com-plexity of the landscape, and the archeologicalor geoarchaeological research questionsshould be considered.

Phase 1 Reconnaissance Survey

The goal of Phase I archeological survey is toidentify and record all archeological propertiesin a project area. Perhaps it is useful here toview the geographic location of the project notas an area but as a volume, especially whenconsidering the project’s potential for de-stroying archeological resources. The role ofgeomorphological investigations at the Phase Ilevel are twofold: (1) to locate and investigateareas of the landscape where the potential forburied archeological deposits exists, and (2) toaid in assessing the integrity of the archeologi-cal deposits. Archeological deposits are con-sidered buried if they occur below the penetra-tion depth of the archeological survey tech-nique utilized. Generally shovel probing andpedestrian surface survey sample the upper30–40 cm of the landscape. In areas whereburied archeological deposits are suspected,soil-stratigraphic investigations should be de-signed to evaluate the potential of the buriedenvironment for archeological deposits andsuggest techniques for sampling that environ-ment for archeological materials. The effectsof modern land use on the archeological de-posits is the major initial concern in assessingdeposits’ integrity.

Geomorphological investigations of largeproject areas or study corridors in which thefinal project design will impact only a portionof the area surveyed sometimes must be di-vided into standard survey and deep surveysubphases. The reason for the two subphasesis cost. If large parts of the project area havepotential for buried soils and/or archeologicaldeposits, the cost of subsurface geomorphicexploration to identify areas with archeologicalpotential and then sample those buried envi-ronments to locate archeological materialwould be prohibitive. A solution is the twosubphase approach carried out either duringthe Phase I archeological survey (geo-subphase 1 and 2) or during the Phase II ar-cheological evaluation (geo-subphase 2). Inthe first subphase the parts of the project areawith potential for buried deposits are identi-fied, and standard archeological survey tech-niques are employed over the rest of the pro-ject area. In the second subphase the areaswith potential for buried sites are investigatedfrom both an archeological and a geomor-phological perspective. If the area to be im-pacted by the project construction activities can

106

be narrowed down, then the geo-subphase 2should be conducted in the potential impactareas.

Pre-Field Investigation PreparationLiterature search. A search of the geological,soil science, and geoarchaeological literatureshould be conducted to locate informationrelevant to the project area and/or the projectgoals. The search should include technical re-ports, published material, and maps (especiallythe county soil surveys, published by theUSDA, and the county surficial and Pleisto-cene geology series published by the Wiscon-sin Geological and Natural History Survey).Maps, especially 1:24,000 topographic maps,and the other sources, if extant, should provideinformation for the initial assessment of thepotential for buried sites and provide, at least, ageneral physical context for the project area.

The project geomorphologist should coordi-nate scheduling and research goals, including(1) providing information to the archeologistsfor use in planning the archeological investi-gations and (2) determining project goals thatneed geomorphological data to be adequatelyaddressed. To provide useful information apreliminary geomorphological field reconnais-sance, with the archeologist, may be necessary,especially if landscape in the project area iscomplex.

Environmental assessment: land use his-tory. Modern land use (post–Euro-Americansettlement) impacts archeological depositsboth directly and indirectly. Understandingthese impacts is important to determining theintegrity of the archeological deposits and as-sessing their information. Because the impactsare relatively recent, the effects of the impactsand evidence for interpreting the impacts iseasily obtained.

Previous to field investigations, if possible, abrief land use history should be compiledfrom old air photos, deeds, old maps, and oldplats, to name a few. Much of the informationfor a land use history may already have beencollected during records searches for the ar-

cheological and historical literature search.From the perspective of the environmental as-sessment, land use that results in ground-disturbing activities, including cultivation, ex-cavations, or filling, should be documented.The effect of the land use identified during therecord search must be confirmed during thefield investigation. In addition, data collectedduring the records search is useful in deter-mining what type of disturbance to look forand where to look for it during the field inves-tigations.

Field InvestigationsEnvironmental assessment during fieldinvestigation. Assessing the effects of mod-ern land use on the landscape should be anintegral part of all archeological surveys. Di-rect impacts fall into two very broad catego-ries: (1) construction activities, especially inurban and suburban areas, and (2) agriculturalactivities, especially plowing and timber har-vesting.

The types of construction activities associatedwith urban and suburban sprawl are numerousand their effects on archeological depositsneed to be assessed on a case by case basisuntil research linking types of constructionwith degree of soil disturbance is undertaken.Just because an archeological project is in asuburban or urban area does not mean that insitu archeological deposits, both historic andprehistoric, do not exist. Archeological phe-nomena exist at a variety of scales, and there-fore important archeological resources may bepreserved in patches in urban and suburbanareas.

The intensity and nature of construction activi-ties varies from place to place and throughtime. For example, the pre–Euro-American soilsurface in a backyard, park, or courtyard maybe relatively undisturbed even in the midst ofbuildings and roads. Before the extensive useof modern excavating equipment and the“moonscape” approach to civil engineering,construction methods were very different andoften less destructive to archeological deposits.Fill, depending on how and when it was em-placed, may actually preserve archeologicaldeposits.

107

No project area should be summarily writtenoff because it is in part covered by buildingand roads. The degree of disturbance to ar-cheological deposits should be determined inthe course of field investigations and/or byexamining old construction or road-buildingplans or the building themselves to determineif the pre–Euro-American soil surface hasbeen removed.

Landowner interviews conducted either whenobtaining permission to enter private land or asa separate procedure are very useful for ob-taining information on present and past landuse. An effective approach is to use a map orair photo with the project area clearly markedand direct questions about land use to the spe-cific project area.

Plowing has an obvious direct impact on ar-cheological deposits. Less obvious is its indi-rect impact. Plowing exposes the soil surfaceto erosion, which proceeds at a rate manytimes greater than on a vegetated surface. Theerosion results in the removal of soil by sheetflow, rill flow, and gullying. On many plowedfields erosion also results in the movement ofartifacts downslope or the creation of artifactlags. Eroded soil and artifacts are transportedto lower areas on or off the agricultural fields.In these areas the original A horizon or plowzone may be buried and isolated below thedepth of cultivation. The direct and indirectimpacts of cultivation on the archeological de-posits should be an explicit component of theprocess of determination of eligibility.

Identification of areas with potential forburied archeological deposits. Geomorphicprocesses are all ultimately powered by grav-ity, by gravitational forces on water, and bywind. Gravity and water move material fromhigh landscape positions to low landscape po-sitions. Wind can move material either up ordownslope. In general, especially with regardto gravity and water-laid deposits, low land-scape positions are depositional and highlandscape positions are stable or erosional.Low landscape positions or depositional land-scape facets have potential for buried archeo-logical deposits. Conversely, higher landscapepositions or erosional facets (slopes) have lowpotential for buried archeological deposits. Acouple of exceptions exist: (1) burial of ar-

cheological deposits by eolian sediments,which can occur anywhere, including uplands;and (2) burial and movement of artifacts bybiomechanical processes within the soil,sometimes to depths below standard penetra-tion of plows or shovel tests.

It is not yet possible to predict where on thelandscape or within a geographical region ar-cheological deposits may be buried by biome-chanical processes in the soil. Suffice it to sayarcheological deposits can be buried by theseprocesses and that further research will deter-mine where biomechanically buried depositsoccur and what the effect is on the archeologi-cal record. Using minimal training in soils andgeology, archeologists can determine whichparts of a project area have potential for buriedarcheological deposits.

In the field, landscape position and degree ofsoil formation can be used to locate areaswhere archeological deposits may be buried.Subsurface investigations should be conductedon floodplains, terraces (former floodplains),alluvial fans, and footslopes. Subsurface in-vestigations should begin with the simplestand least expensive techniques, such as soilpits and hand probing, and move to more ex-pensive and sophisticated techniques asneeded. Degree of soil development can beused to get a gross relative age on the surfacedeposits: historic (A–C horizon sequence withdepositional structures in the subsoil), prehis-toric? (A–Bw or E–C horizon sequence), andprehistoric (A–E–Bt or Bs horizon se-quences). Soils can be used to relatively dategeomorphic surfaces but a detailed study isnecessary. The tripartite scheme (historic, pre-historic?, and prehistoric) is designed to beused as one line of evidence in assessing thepotential for buried archeological deposits.Field identification then involves interpretingmultiple lines of evidence, landform, landscapeposition, and degree of soil development, todelineate areas with potential for buried ar-cheological deposits.

Investigation of areas with potential forburied archeological deposits. Investigationof areas with potential for buried archeologicaldeposits should be both archeological andgeomorphological in nature. Strata/horizonsidentified in the subsurface should be de-

108

scribed using standard terminology andchecked for artifacts, preferably by screening asample of the matrix. Techniques for samplinga volume of soil/sediment for archeologicalmaterials at depth are fraught with logisticaland statistical problems. However, it is neces-sary to apply state-of-the-art approaches tolocating buried archeological deposits and be-gin developing efficient, cost-effective meansofdoing so. Some suggested techniques are asfollows:

1. Existing exposures: Stream bank cuts,gravel pits, road cuts, and any other exist-ing exposure should be described. Expo-sures are extensive in some areas of thestate and provide quick, inexpensive accessto the subsurface.

2. Hand-excavated soil test units: These

units are effective in sandy soils where ex-ploratory holes can be dug quickly, allowfor good vertical control as each unit is ex-cavated, and expose soil/stratigraphic pro-files to depths of 1–2 meters.

3. Backhoe trenches: Backhoe trenches are

fast and economical, especially over largeareas. They can expose large areas of bur-ied soils for archeological sampling andexpose soil/stratigraphic profiles to depthsof 2–4 meters. If no stratigraphic or pe-dogenic indicators of buried archeologicaldeposits exist, artifacts may be missed.Selected strata exposed in the profile wallshould then be screened.

Hand and power auguring (flight augersand bucket augers): A flight auger is es-sentially a large screw that delivers a con-tinuous stream of sediment to the top ofthe hole; the depth of penetration dependson the sediment and the diameter of theauger (for example, a 12-inch-diameterauger can reach a depth of 8–10 feet in asilt loam or sandy loam soil; smaller-diameter augers can penetrate deeper). Allmaterial coming out of the hole should bescreened for artifacts. There are problemswith vertical control because only the up-per profile and the cuttings are directly ob-servable. Mixing of strata /horizons may

occur. This technique can be used as amethod of systematic deep samplinganalogous to shovel testing, but it is bestutilized in conjunction with techniques thatexpose a deep profile (excavations).

Bucket augers recover an arbitrary inter-val of soil/sediment depending on thelength and width of the auger bucket. Theadvantages of bucket augers are the depthcontrol on the sample and the lack ofmixing. The disadvantages are the lack ofan exposed profile and the relatively longtime required to sample deep into the sub-surface. Bucket augers can be effectivelyused in conjunction with flight augers forsampling easily recognizable horizons orstrata.

5. Hand and power coring: Various lengthsand volumes of intact soil and sedimentcan be recovered and small-diameter corestaken by hand, but larger-diameter coresneed a motorized drill rig. Intact cores areadvantageous for soil and stratigraphicanalysis but do not recover an adequatevolume of soil for reliable archeologicalsampling. If cores are to be used for lo-cating archeological deposits, the coreshould be of as large a diameter as possi-ble and samples should be fine-screenedby flotation. The hope is to recover smallartifacts (microdebitage) or ecofacts thatmay indicate the presence of archeologicaldeposits. Coring is best used in conjunc-tion with some sort of open excavation.

6. Remote sensing: Remote sensing usesvarious magnetic, electrical, and acoustictechniques for examining the subsurface.Techniques are too varied and setting spe-cific to be outlined here; for a concise ex-planation of the applications in archeology(see Heimmer 1992). These techniques areuseful for extending point data (trenchesor cores) laterally over a larger area, in-creasing the strength of stratigraphic cor-relations. They should be used in conjunc-tion with techniques other than remotesensing. Remote sensing techniques canalso be used to identify some archeologicalfeatures.

109

Evaluating the potential of buried envi-ronments for archeological deposits.Evaluating the potential of a subsurface envi-ronment for archeological deposits is basicallylandscape analysis with very few data points.The subsurface environment is defined bysedimentary environments and buried soils.Sedimentary environments provide informa-tion on the type of buried deposit or landform,and soil attributes provide data on the condi-tion of the buried landscape before burial.

Buried soils mark former landscape surfaces,and soil attributes provide information on theenvironment during soil formation, particularlywhether the soil was formed under well orpoorly drained conditions. Nationally acceptedguidelines have been established for identify-ing hydric soils (Wetlands Training Institute1995) in conjunction with delineating wet-lands. Hydric soils have organic surface hori-zons (peat or muck) or are mineral soils thatare gleyed and/or mottled. Landscape positionand/or environment of formation can be in-ferred from hydric features. All the soil mor-phological attributes of hydric soils can beidentified in the field readily, with minimaltraining. Training received by a certified soiltester is all that is needed to describe a soilsmorphology. A manual published by the Stateof Wisconsin for soil testers is a inexpensivesource that could also be used by archeolo-gists (Soil and Site Evaluation Handbook).

As in archaeology, in geomorphology there arealways exceptions and corollaries that dependon context. Soil morphological features thatresult from soil formation under wet condi-tions are reversible if the conditions changeand the soil becomes better drained. Climatechange, for instance, could result in a soil be-coming better drained, due to lower water ta-bles. With the new soil-forming environment,soil morphology would begin to reflect thenew conditions, imprinting over or destroyingsoil features formed under the wet conditions.Soils formed in deposits of early and middleHolocene age may be better drained duringsome part of their developmental history.

Determining sedimentary environments iscomplicated if a person lacks training in geol-ogy and sedimentology; a good description ofthe sediments, fossils, and sedimentary struc-

tures is necessary. The best approach is to fa-miliarize oneself with some basic terminologyby consulting some of the texts listed in theReferences Cited section.

Archeological deposits are rarely encounteredduring the reconnaissance coring. Therefore,recommendations are based on the potentialfor a buried soil to contain archeological de-posits, given the stratigraphic and pedologiccontext. If the potential is high, the buried sur-face should be sampled for archeological ma-terial either by (1) exposing the surface forshovel probing or test excavations, or (2) usinglarge-diameter core tubes or augers at closeintervals to obtain large samples without ex-posing the buried surface. With the latter it isrecommended that the archeological depositsbe screened through very fine mesh to recovermicroartifacts or ecofacts indicative of humanhabitation.

Phase II EvaluationThe purpose of the soil and geomorphologicalinvestigations during Phase II archeologicalinvestigations is to (1) develop and interpretthe geomorphic, pedologic, and stratigraphichistory of the archeological deposits at the siteand (2) determine the effects of the geomor-phic and pedologic processes on the formationof the archeological deposits. If a geomorphiccontext for the Phase II investigations was notdeveloped during the Phase I investigations, itshould be incorporated as part of the Phase IIinvestigations.

The geomorphological evaluation methods areflexible and consist of a two-stage approach.The first stage is collection of field data andsamples. Field data are collected from archeo-logical excavation units, backhoe trenches andcores. Backhoe trenches and cores are used innearby off-site areas, and on-site in areas notbeing hand excavated, to obtain critical infor-mation for interpreting site stratigraphy andsite formation processes. Field data consist ofdetailed descriptions of strata and soil hori-zons, photographs, and drawings. Descriptionsfollow standard terminology for soils (SoilSurvey Staff 1975, 1993) and sediments(Tucker 1982; Collinson and Thompson 1982;Folk 1974). The types and number of

110

soil/sediment samples taken depend on thetypes of laboratory data necessary to addresspertinent research questions. The followingforms of analysis are available for varioustypes of geomorphological and geoarcheologi-cal investigations.

1. Basic characterization: This level ofanalysis provides descriptive data for gen-eral interpretation of pedogenesis, sedi-mentation, and site formation processes. Abasic characterization is generally neces-sary for any extensive soil-geomorphic in-vestigations.

2. Sedimentological analysis: This type of

analysis furnishes data for interpretation ofdepositional units from the perspective ofphysical processes of sedimentation byboth natural and cultural agents.

3. Chemical analysis: This form of analysis

provides data for interpretation of culturalcontent of the deposits that is not pre-served in macro form such as bone, ash,wood tissue, etc. It may also provide an-cillary information on the formation of thedeposits by distinguishing cultural fromnoncultural strata.

Report PreparationA separate technical report on the geomor-phological investigations should be preparedand included as an appendix to the archeologi-cal report unless the geomorphologist is oneof the authors, not just a contributor. If thegeomorphologist is not an author, thesoil-geomorphic data should be integrated intothe text by the archeologists with a citation tothe appendix. The geomorphologist's reportshould include the following as a minimum.

1. IntroductionThe introduction should contain

• the location of the project area relativeto the landform and/or geologic re-gions

• the scope and purpose of the geomor-phological investigations, especially

relative to the archeological researchquestions and goals

2. Background ResearchThis section should include the locations ofand a summary of literature and maps thatprovide information on the physical and envi-ronmental context of the project area. Includedshould be any information on landforms, soils,land use, geology, and environmental andgeomorphic history as they relate to the loca-tion and interpretation of the archeological de-posits.

3. MethodsThe Methods section should provide descrip-tions of

• methods and techniques used and howthey fit in with the goals of the project

• equipment and personnel used in thefield and laboratory investigations.

4. Results of the Geomorphological Investi-gationsThe Results section should

• provide a geomorphic/geologic map (a7.5' USGS Quadrangle or portionsthereof) of the project area that includethe location of data points such as boreholes, soil pits, trenches, or exposures

• describe and interpret landforms, soils,deposits, and stratigraphy with the goalof constructing a physical contextualframework for interpreting the archeo-logical and environmental data (in-cluding presentation of relevant fieldand laboratory data)

• integrate the geomorphology with thearcheological investigations, includingdirect reference to research questions,potential for buried archeological de-posits, effects of geomorphic and pe-dogenic processes on the archeologicaldeposits, and possible paleoenviron-mental reconstructions

5. Conclusions and RecommendationsThe final section should present

111

• conclusions with regard to archeologi-cal and geomorphological researchquestions and project goals

• recommendations for further work ifproject goals have not been achieved,and/or recommendations for geomor-phological and geoarcheological inves-tigations for the next phase in theevaluation process.

6. References

7. AppendixThe appendix should contain the raw datafrom which inferences and conclusions weredrawn, including (1) detailed soil and stratadescriptions from profiles, exposures, andcores and (2) tables of all laboratory data, in-cluding radiocarbon dates and associated in-formation. It should also serve as a data re-pository for use by other researchers.

QualificationsPersons conducting geomorphological andgeoarcheological investigations should havethe ability to describe and evaluate the sedi-mentology, stratigraphy, and pedology of thedeposits in and around the project area usingstandard terminology and techniques. The per-sons need not be geomorphologists but shouldknow enough to bring in professional geo-morphologists when needed. Much of thegeomorphological-type investigation can andshould be done by archeologists with earthscience training. The minimum training shouldbe a working knowledge of standard descrip-tive systems available for describing land-scapes, soils, and sediments (see attached ref-erences). Standard descriptions not only pro-vide an objective data base for geoarcheologi-cal and archeological research, they also fa-cilitate communication with professional geo-morphologists and soil scientists.

Geoarcheologist (Para-geomorphologist)

A geoarcheologist is an archeologist who,through experience, publication, or earth sci-ence training has

• acquired adequate skills to evaluateproject areas, especially on Phase I re-connaissance surveys

• demonstrated familiarity with and abil-ity to apply standard descriptive termi-nology in field situations

• experience in the Upper Great Lakesand/or Upper Mississippi valley

Project GeomorphologistA geomorphologist qualified to be a projectgeomorphologist has

• completed or nearly completed a post-graduate degree in geology, physicalgeography, soil science (pedology), orQuaternary studies

• experience in the Upper Great Lakesand/or Upper Mississippi valley

Systematic Procedures for Land-scape EvaluationGeomorphological analysis is implicitly, to atleast some degree, an integral part of all ar-cheological investigations. The context of allarcheological deposits is soil or sediments thatoccur on or within landforms. Archeologistsare aware of the physical contexts of sites butoften do not study the physical context of asite explicitly.

The following procedures are an attempt todesign a scheme to assist archeologists in im-plementing geoarcheological and geomor-phological investigations in conjunction witharcheological investigations. The procedure isbased on the concept of landscapes as a three-dimensional phenomenon, with the vertical di-mension extending below the modern land-scape surface. It is the vertical subsurface di-mension that is important to interpreting for-mation processes and landscape history.

Landscape Hierarchy

112

Consider the landscape in the project area as ahierarchy of forms. The landscape consists oflandforms that in turn consist of slopes. Ini-tially, landforms and groups of landforms canbe delineated on topographic maps and airphotos. Detail must be added through a thor-ough field reconnaissance. Without the fieldreconnaissance, the landform map is not de-tailed enough to use at the scale of archeologi-cal survey. The landscape should be dividedbased on the surface morphology as follows:

1. First subgroup:a. Interfluves and valleys in dissected

landscapes, such as in the DriftlessArea and in areas covered by glacialdeposits older than Late Wisconsin.

b. Upland and lowland landforms in ar-eas glaciated during the Late Wis-consinan.

2. Second subgroup:a. The first subgroup is divided into land-

forms based on surface morphology.b. For example: terraces and floodplains,

or end moraine and abandoned lakebasin.

3. Third subgroup:The landforms are divided into slopesbased on length and gradient. Archeologi-cal deposits exist on slopes or groups ofslopes. Landscapes and landforms aregenerally larger than archeological depos-its (sites). Often pedogenic and geomor-phic processes at the scale of slopes arethe most critical to interpreting the ar-cheological deposits.

Evaluation of the SubgroupsThe landscape morphology is only a part ofthe data necessary to interpret the landscape.The three subgroups are a hierarchy of forms,that is they are delineated on the basis of sur-face dimensions. In the geomorphic evaluationphase, the subsurface dimension is investi-gated. Shallow subsurface investigations andexamination of existing exposures is a quickand inexpensive way to obtain information onsoils and stratigraphy, especially in conjunc-tion with Phase I archeological investigations.

Shallow subsurface investigations involve us-ing hand probes or augers and small soil pitsto gather geologic and pedologic informationon landforms and slopes in the project area.

Deep subsurface investigations are necessaryon depositional landscape segments that areHolocene in age and in which sedimentary se-quences greater than 1 meter thick have accu-mulated. Machine coring and trenching are themost effective ways to directly investigate thedeep subsurface. Remote sensing techniques(geophysics) can also be used but should beaugmented with data from cores or trenches.

At the Phase I level, implementation of thelandscape hierarchy would entail mappinglandforms, with field checking and limitedshallow and deep subsurface investigations asneeded. The product would be a map thatcould be used to predict areas where there ispotential for (1) archeological deposits buriedby sedimentation or biomechanical processes,(2) eroded archeological deposits, and (3) theabsence of archeological deposits.

References CitedAssociation of Iowa Archaeologists1993 Guidelines for Geomorphological In-

vestigations in Support of Archaeo-logical Investigations in Iowa. Journalof the Iowa Archaeological Society40:1–19.

Collinson, J. D., and Thompson, D. B.1982 Sedimentary Structures. George Allen

& Unwin, London.

Folk, R. L.1974 Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks.

Hemphill, Austin, Texas.

Heimmer, D. H.1992 Near Surface High Resolution Geo-

physical Methods for Cultural Re-source Management and Archaeologi-cal Investigations. Interagency Ar-chaeological Services, National ParkService, Denver, Colorado.

Soil Survey Staff

113

1975 Soil Taxonomy. U. S. Department ofAgriculture Handbook 436, U. S.Government Printing Office, Wash-ington DC.

1993 Soil Survey Manual. U. S. Departmentof Agriculture Handbook needs num-ber

Tucker, M. E.1982 Field Description of Sedimentary

Rocks. John Wiley and Sons. Needscity

Wetland Training Institute1995 Field Guide for Wetland Delineation.

1987 Corps of Engineers Manual,Poolesville, Maryland, WTI 95-3.

114

VI.

Underwater ArcheologicalInvestigations

119

Underwater ArcheologicalInvestigations

Introduction..................................................................118General Requirements...................................................118Literature and Records Search.......................................119Phase I: Minimum Technical Specifications ..................120Special Reporting Requirements....................................122Special Curation Requirements......................................123References Cited ...........................................................123

IntroductionThe following guidelines provide an expandeddiscussion of archeological, historical, andgeophysical methods for identifying, evaluat-ing, and documenting underwater archeologi-cal resources in Wisconsin waters. Theseguidelines supplement standard WisconsinArcheological Survey (WAS) guidelines;when there is a discrepancy, the special un-derwater archeological guidelines are to re-place general WAS guidelines.

The following guidelines are meant to be usedin conjunction with accepted underwater ar-cheological methods and are adopted from,and in general conformity with, guidelines de-veloped by the U.S. Department of InteriorMinerals Management Service and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Technology forunderwater archeological investigations issubject to rapid advances and changes; it isanticipated that these guidelines will requirefrequent updates. In any case, most underwaterarcheology in Wisconsin takes place in water-ways regulated by the State of Wisconsin orthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and willusually be subject to specific project scopes ofwork and permit conditions. Permit applicantsand others conducting underwater archeologyin Wisconsin waters are encouraged to contactthe State Underwater Archaeology Programwell in advance of anticipated work to conferon specific project methodology and permitrequirements.

General Requirements

It is the responsibility of the archeologicalprincipal investigator (hereafter “archeolo-gist”) to ensure satisfactory completion of allarchival research, field survey, excavation, re-covery, conservation, curation, and reportingrequirements. These tasks include

• obtaining or providing all necessarymaterials, equipment, personnel, andpermits needed to complete the project

• developing a project research proposal• conducting the necessary investiga-

tions• making recommendations regarding

possible National Register of HistoricPlaces eligibility and additional re-search and evaluations as required

• preparing and submitting draft and fi-nal reports

• conserving and curating all artifacts,notes, maps, photos, original manu-scripts and figures and any other mate-rials generated from this research, ac-cording to federal guidelines 36 CFR79 and accepted professional guide-lines

The methods and techniques used in conduct-ing underwater archeological investigationsmust be in accordance with Archeology andHistoric Preservation; Secretary of the Inte-rior Standards and Guidelines and the Aban-doned Shipwreck Act; Final Guidelines pre-pared by the National Park Service (U.S. De-partment of the Interior 1983, 1990), and theWisconsin Archeological Survey (WAS)guidelines. The principal investigator and the

119

field director (if different from the principalinvestigator) must be qualified archeologists inaccordance with NPS and WAS guidelines.

The archeologist is responsible for obtainingany permits associated with conducting ar-cheological research on state bottomlands, in-cluding but not limited to (1) a Wisconsin De-partment of Natural Resources (WDNR) Bu-reau of Water Regulation and Zoning permitto disturb bottom sediments in the course oftest excavation; (2) a Field Archeology permitfrom the Office of the State Archaeologist,State Historical Society of Wisconsin(SHSW), for survey and excavation of ar-cheological remains on public lands; and (3)any county or municipal permits required toanchor vessels or conduct diving operations inthe project area. The archeologist is, of course,also responsible for complying with federal,state, and local laws pertaining to all facets ofthe work, including environmental protection,worker safety, labor standards, vessel opera-tions, and diving operations.

Archeologists are referred to Breiner (1973),Anderson (1988), Green (1990), Dean (1992),and the Museum Small Craft Association(1993) for additional discussion of profes-sional archeological, historical, and geophysi-cal methods and technology applications.

Literature and Records SearchA comprehensive literature and records searchfor the project area must be conducted prior tofield investigation. This research must providedocumentation of prehistoric and historic sitesbelieved to be present in the project area, in-cluding wrecks of vessels and small craft, har-bor structures, and other prehistoric and his-toric remains. Historical documentation mustinclude a project area history (includingphases of harbor construction, if relevant);photographs and maps; data on construction,operation, loss, and salvage of vessels in theproject area (including, if possible, builders’plans or records and photographs); and pre-sent location of known or suspected sites.

The archeologist should consult, at a mini-mum, records of the State Historical Society ofWisconsin, local and county historical socie-

ties, the respective state Regional ArchaeologyCenter, the Milwaukee Public Library marinecollections, the Institute for Great Lakes Re-search, the Duluth Canal Park Marine Mu-seum, the Wisconsin Maritime Museum, andother repositories having information relativeto the prehistory, history, navigation, water-front and harbor development, and shipwrecksof the project area. Historians, divers, arche-ologists, and other individuals knowledgeablein these subjects should also be consulted forfurther information and to determine whetherany underwater archeological resources maylie within the project area.

Phase I: Minimum TechnicalSpecificationsThe methods and techniques used in under-water archeological surveys must be adequateto identify all significant archeological re-sources, prehistoric or historic, within a projectarea.

Phase I field survey should be conducted witha complete (100% coverage) marine remote-sensing survey of the project area, employingdual instrumentation that will detect both bur-ied and exposed cultural remains. Remotesensing instrumentation must represent state-of-the-art technology and be properly de-ployed and tuned, and all recorded data mustbe legible, accurate, and properly annotated.

InstrumentationShipboard survey equipment should include ata minimum

1. A navigation/positioning control sys-tem (geographical positioning system[GPS] or continuous microwave position-ing system) with a minimum accuracy of ±5 meters, digitally interfaced or manuallycorrelated with all other remote sensing re-cords.

2. A marine magnetometer, a towed sen-

sor-type, with ± 1 gamma resolution, withthe data sampling rate not to exceed 1-second intervals. The sensor must betowed as near as possible to the lake or

120

riverbed, optimally at a distance of 6 me-ters or less. A mechanical or digital depthsensor must be attached to the magne-tometer sensor, and each survey line mustbe annotated with tow sensor depth andstart of line (SOL) and end of line (EOL)times. In all instances where a magneticanomaly is encountered, the sensor depthmust be annotated on the magnetometerrecord. The magnetometer must not be op-erated in “zero mode,” as this setting doesnot measure the ambient magnetic field.Background noise levels must not exceedthree gammas, peak to peak.

Analog strip chart recorders must beequipped with dual trace pens. Recordingscales must include both 1,000-gamma and100-gamma full scale. Position fixes andrecorder speed must be annotated on thestrip charts for each survey line. The stripchart recorder speed must be approxi-mately 2 inches per minute. Wheneverpossible, the magnetometer must be toweda minimum distance of 2.5 vessel lengthsbehind the survey vessel to eliminate anymagnetic influence from the vessel.

3. A side-scan sonar, a towed 500-kHz

dual-channel sensor, with high resolution.Side-scan sonar must be used to recordcontinuous planimetric images of the pro-ject area lake or riverbed, providing 100%coverage of the survey area. Data obtainedmust be of such quality to permit detectionand evaluation of objects, structures, andfeatures lying upon the lake or riverbedwithin the project area. Whenever possible,the side-scan sonar sensor must be towedabove the bed at a distance of 10 to 20 per-cent of the instrument range. The verticalsound beam width must be appropriate tothe water depth, and the horizontal soundbeam width must provide optimum resolu-tion. Tuning must be accomplished in amanner that enhances the echo returnsfrom small nearby objects and featureswithout sacrificing the quality of echo re-turns from more distant objects and fea-tures.

4. A depth recorder/fathometer with mini-

mum 1-foot resolution. Continuous waterdepth measurements must be made using a

high-frequency, narrow-beam depthsounder. Bathymetric data must be re-corded with a recording sweep appropriateto topography and water depth.

Optional equipment includes

5. A sub-bottom profiler with minimum 2-meter resolution. As required by the pro-ject scope of work, a sub-bottom profilermay be necessary to determine the locationand nature of sediments, geological fea-tures, and archeological remains beneaththe floor of a lake or river. Data obtainedmust be of sufficient quality to permitevaluation of these features and remainsfor determining possible prehistoric orhistoric significance. The system usedmust be capable of providing data for theupper 15 meters of sediment; however, theactual bottom penetration achieved willvary with bottom sediment type and condi-tions.

6. Other equipment as needed. Under cer-

tain conditions, additional remote sensingsystems or methods such as underwatertelevision; still, video, or movie cameras;remote or manned submersibles; bottomcoring; or other equipment may be re-quired.

Survey ParametersThe following navigation and survey parame-ters are recommended for conducting under-water archeological remote sensing surveys:

Area surveys. An area survey must cover theentire area of a proposed bottom-disturbingactivity as well as that portion external to theproject area within which activities may causephysical and/or long-term magnetic distur-bances. The survey must be run along parallelprimary lines spaced at a maximum of 50 me-ters. Tighter line spacing may be required inspatially restricted areas, in areas of known orsuspected underwater archeological resources,or where otherwise required by the nature ofbottom sediments, bathymetry, or the archeo-logical resources themselves.

Linear surveys. The parameters for all linearsurveys (such as pipelines and cables) must

121

include a transect along the proposed projectcenterline, and one or more offset parallel lineson either side of the center transect at a maxi-mum spacing of 50 meters. The number ofparallel transects must be sufficient to provide100% coverage of the area within which theproject may cause physical and/or long-termmagnetic disturbances. A minimum of twooffset parallel transects are required. The areaof physical disturbance includes, but is notlimited to, the area where anchors will beplaced during construction activities.

Data Collection and AnalysisTransects shall be run at a survey vessel speednot to exceed 2 to 4 knots, to provide for accu-rate data recovery. All analog records shall bemanually annotated with position coordinatesat a minimum of every 100 feet along a tran-sect, unless continuous remote-sensing/positioning data correlation is pro-vided automatically through a shipboard com-puter interface.

For reporting and analysis purposes, magne-tometry data shall be contour plotted, in at least10-gamma contour intervals. Side-scan datamay be graphically depicted either throughscanned or photoprinted annotated images orby supplying original sonargraphs. Acoustic(sonar) targets that appear to be shipwrecksmust be recorded from several different as-pects to facilitate target identification. Mag-netic targets must also be recorded on sonar (ifdetectable) to facilitate identification.

Magnetic anomalies and sonar targets shall beground-truthed by diver reconnaissance. Ex-posed cultural remains shall be ground-truthedby visual inspection. Subsurface anomaliesshall be ground-truthed by manual or hydrau-lic probing, and if necessary, by test excavationusing induction dredge, airlift, or water jet, asappropriate to conditions. Ground-truthingshall include documentation by measuredsketches, verbal description, and photogra-phy/video if necessary.

Project Reporting and Record KeepingThe archeologist is responsible for keepingstandard archeological records for the project,including field notes and maps, site survey

forms, excavation records, photographs, video-graphy, sonargraphs, magnetometry data, andfield logs. State archeological survey formsmust be prepared for all sites discovered dur-ing the survey, and records on previously re-ported sites updated if new information is ob-tained.

The consultant is responsible for providing adetailed report of the survey and/or excavationoperations in accordance with the WAS Tech-nical Report Guidelines. Reports shall presentinformation in whatever combination ofgraphic, textual, and tabular data the archeolo-gist finds most effective, while still conformingwith WAS minimum guidelines. Specializedunderwater archeological figures must include,but are not limited to, magnetic contour mapsof the project area, sonargraphs of acoustictargets, and line drawings and photographs ofimportant architectural, engineering, and ar-cheological features.

Additional report sections, figures, or topicsmay be added at the discretion of the arche-ologist. Although the reports are to be printedand bound as separate documents, they mustbe of a quality and scope that would makethem suitable for publication in professionalarcheological journals such as Historical Ar-chaeology, The Wisconsin Archeologist, andthe International Journal of Nautical Archae-ology.

Special Reporting RequirementsThe following requirements are in addition to,or in deviation from, WAS guideline require-ments:

Methods. This section will describe all archi-val and field methods, equipment, and person-nel used on the project. It will also provideproject dates, number of staff, and approximateperson-hours devoted to different aspects ofthe project.

Results. This section will describe field con-ditions, site environment, archeological find-ings, and general project results. It will, in de-tail, review survey findings and provide a fulldescription and analysis of wreckage, struc-tures, features, artifacts, and remote sensing

122

anomalies encountered by the survey. Mapsand schematic drawings shall be used to showthe location of and fully describe all archeo-logical findings. National Ocean Service chartsmay be used in lieu of USGS 7.5' quadranglemaps to plot site locations.

References. This section will provide biblio-graphic references in accordance with Histori-cal Archaeology format (vol. 25, pp. 124–37)for every publication or data source cited orotherwise used in the report.

Special Curation RequirementsMaterials recovered from underwater archeo-logical sites pose extraordinarily complex con-servation problems and therefore require spe-cial consideration for recovery and curation.As discussed in the WAS curation guidelines,archeologists are responsible for conservingand curating all project notes, maps, photos,original manuscripts and figures, artifacts, andany other materials generated from archeologi-cal research according to federal guidelines 36CFR 79, Curation of Federally-Owned andAdministered Archeological Collections, andaccepted professional guidelines. An under-water archeologist may seek assistance fromthe State Underwater Archaeology Program,State Historical Society of Wisconsin, infinding suitable in-state repositories for projectrecords and artifacts. However, acceptable pro-vision for conservation of recovered artifactswill generally be a precondition for issuance ofstate archeology permits.

As a detailed discussion of professionalguidelines in artifact conservation and curationcannot be attempted within these guidelines,specific requirements are to be written into in-dividual project scopes of work and artifactcustody agreements. As a general guideline,only professionally accepted, safe, and reversi-ble methods for artifact conservation must beemployed (see Singley 1988). Due to the ex-tensive training and experience required tosafely and successfully undertake conservationwork, conservation treatments must be under-taken only under the supervision of a conser-vation professional meeting the code of ethicsand guidelines of practice of such organiza-tions as the American Institute for Conserva-

tion (AIC) and the International Institute forConservation (AIC 1991).

References CitedAmerican Institute for Conservation1991 Guidelines for Selecting a Conserva-

tor. American Institute for Conserva-tion of Historic and Artistic Works,Washington, DC.

Anderson, Richard K., Jr.1988 Guidelines for Recording Historic

Ships. National Park Service, U.S. De-partment of the Interior, Washington,DC.

Breiner, Sheldon1973 Applications Manual for Portable

Magnetometers. Geometrics,Sunnyvale, California.

Dean, Martin (editor), et al.1992 Archaeology Underwater: The NAS

Guide to Principles and Practice.Nautical Archaeology Society. DorsetPress, Dorchester, Great Britain.

Green, Jeremy1990 Maritime Archaeology: A Technical

Handbook. Academic Press, San Di-ego.

Museum Small Craft Association1993 Boats: A Manual for Their Docu-

mentation. American Association forState and Local History, Nashville,Tennessee.

Singley, Katherine1988 The Conservation of Archaeological

Artifacts From Freshwater Environ-ments. Lake Michigan Maritime Mu-seum, South Haven, Michigan.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService1983 Archaeology and Historic Preserva-

tion: Secretary of the Interior’s Stan-dards and Guidelines. Federal Regis-ter 48(190, Part IV):44716–42. U.S.

123

Government Printing Office, Wash-ington, DC.

1990 Abandoned Shipwreck Act; FinalGuidelines. Federal Register 55(253,Part III):50116–45. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC.

125

VII.

Recording Rock Art Sites

Recording Rock Art Sites

Introduction ......................................................................126Definitions........................................................................126Survey Methodology ........................................................127Recording Rock Art Sites .................................................128Mapping Rock Art Sites ...................................................131Recording Rock Art Figures.............................................131Site Interpretation..............................................................133Report Preparation............................................................133Rock Art Site Preservation................................................133References ........................................................................134

IntroductionRock art sites have been reported in Wiscon-sin since the late 1870s. As of 1995, over 100sites had been recorded in the state. Most ofthese sites have been identified through sys-tematic survey begun in 1985. Over the past10 years, rock art identification and documen-tation has become a primary focus in state-funded research.

Documentation has two purposes: to recordthe sites for posterity and to provide a baselinedata set for each site. In the event that an at-tempt to destroy or remove rock art figuresoccurs at the site, the initial documentation canbe used to assess the new damage. Prosecu-tion of the perpetrator may depend on the ac-curacy of the initial documentation.

Until the 1970s, photography and plastercasting were the primary forms of documenta-tion. In most sites, chalking carved figures be-fore photographing was used to clearly ac-centuate the faint markings. Evidence of chalkand plaster still remain from these early ex-periments in rock art documentation.

Rock art sites are more fragile than any othertype of archeological site. They are fully ex-posed and have been for hundreds, and insome cases thousands, of years. For this rea-son, extreme care must be exercised. These

guidelines, which reflect the lessons learnedfrom past experimentation, outline the tech-niques most likely to preserve the remainingfigures and panels.

DefinitionsRock art site identification and documentationconcentrates on prehistoric and historic NativeAmerican designs. While it is important to re-cord all historic and modern Euro-Americangraffiti present on rock art panels, survey hasnot focused on locating graffiti.Three types of Native American rock art fig-ures have been found in the state. Photographsand drawings of petroglyphs and pictographscan be found in “Wisconsin Rock Art” (Bir-mingham and Green 1986).

Petroglyphs. Petroglyphs are carved, pecked,or incised figures, the most numerous type offigure recorded. These figures are found pri-marily in caves and rockshelters and on blufffaces. Most of these figures are found on ver-tical faces, although a few have been recordedon cave floors. One site in Dodge County iscomposed of figures on exposed surface bed-rock unconnected with a cave or shelter.Petroglyphs are primarily outline figures.Some contain interior designs such as heartlines. A large majority of petroglyphs aregeometric in design (i.e., line combinations,circles, or diamonds) rather than plant, animal,or human figures.

127

Pictographs. Pictographs are painted figuresfound on vertical faces and ceilings in cavesand rockshelters and on bluff faces. Picto-graphs often contain more detail and interiordesign than petroglyphs. Red, orange, blue,and black paint have been recorded. Petro-glyphs and pictographs sometime occur in thesame sites, and a few rare figures contain bothcarved and painted designs.

Petroforms. Petroforms are boulder outlinefigures located on unsheltered soil surfacesand constructed of portable glacial erratics.These figures are very large and are usually inwide open locations, similar to mound sites;like mound sites, they may have been placedwith aerial view (spiritual in nature) in mind. Inmany instances, these figures are found in afield or pasture littered with glacial debris. Forthis reason, petroform locations are problem-atic and great care must be taken to determinethe past and present use of the area.

Survey MethodologyPetroglyphs and PictographsLocating rock art is, in most cases, as simpleas locating exposed rock faces and large boul-ders. The best time to survey for rock art is inthe late fall, winter, and early spring, when foli-age is absent and snow accentuates exposedrock. In caves and shelters where light is dim,a high-intensity flashlight placed at an angle tothe wall reveals shallow petroglyphs and faintpictographs. Many sites in the state occur onvery fragile and exfoliated surfaces. It is es-sential that physical contact with the figures bekept at an absolute minimum for several rea-sons:

• Human oils, sweat, and exhalation havebeen proven to destroy pictographs, asevidenced by the deterioration of well-known sites in France.

• Many walls containing pictographsand petroglyphs are composed ofpoorly cemented sandstones. At leasttwo sites have experienced naturaldamage since the sites have been re-corded. Even more sites have experi-enced human damage. It is essential to

determine the content and fragility ofthe base rock before contact.

• Due to weathering and graffiti, manyfigures are already faint or distorted.Additional contact may further damagethe figures.

• Rock art sites are considered sacredsites by many Native American tribes.Extensive physical contact may beconsidered lack of respect. Communi-cation with local tribes and thoseknown to have inhabited the area his-torically is an essential part of rock artsite survey, documentation, and reportwriting.

Many caves, rockshelters, and bluff facescontain growths of lichen, worts, and moss. Inmost cases, figures will be visible through thegrowths. Growth removal is strongly discour-aged at this time, until future research can pro-vide a nondamaging method. If the growth isremoved physically, it is likely that portions ofthe rock art figures will be removed as well.Chemical removal may disrupt future dating orpaint analysis and may discolor pictographs. Itis not advisable to use any chemical that is not100% reversible. Experimentation on wallsfree from rock art must be done before appli-cation on rock art figures themselves. Chemi-cals that may work in other areas of the coun-try may not work the same way in Wisconsin.At this time only distilled water sprayed in afine mist is permissible on Wisconsin rock artsites. In all cases, growths will reestablishthemselves, further damaging the rock art fig-ures.

PetroformsSurvey in areas undisturbed by agriculture,development, and other ground-altering activi-ties may identify boulder alignments. It is im-portant to carefully investigate and map everyboulder within and surrounding the potentialalignment to determine whether the figure isindeed ancient or a result of natural or modernhuman construction. Research into past andpresent land use is essential. Investigating, inplace, the soil lines and lichen growth of eachboulder in the alignment will reveal recentdisturbance.

128

Subsurface InvestigationsMany floors in caves and rockshelters, as wellas ledges beneath bluff faces, contain soil lev-els. Since it is unlikely that these deposits havebeen disturbed by modern human activities, itis not recommended that shovel testing bedone in these sites. The areas inside caves androckshelters are very small, and shovel testingcould compromise future excavations. If it isimportant to determine the extent of the de-posits, a 1" to 3" geologic probe or a small 2"to 3" trowel-dug hole would do the least dam-age. Any subsurface investigations should bebackfilled and any disturbance marked on theplan view/floor map. Backdirt from any animaldisturbances should be screened through 1/4"hardware cloth. If shovel testing is needed at apetroform site, it should be conducted outsidethe figure outlines.

Landscape SurveyDuring project planning for rock art site sur-vey, survey of the surrounding lowland orlandscape should be considered. These areasmay produce habitation or activity areas. Fu-ture investigations may link the rock art sitesto other sites in the area.

Recording Rock Art SitesField notes, maps, photographs, and drawingsare required in rock art site documentation.Monitoring sites recorded in the past hasproved the importance of comprehensive siterecords. Advanced technology, such as com-puter-enhanced photographs, photogrammetry,and large-format cameras may be used tocomplement the methods described in theseguidelines. However, basic site and figuredocumentation must be conducted initially.The guidelines that follow provide a completeand economically viable way to document sitesand the rock art figures within them.

Not all caves, rockshelters, bluff faces, and ex-posed bedrock contain pictographs and petro-glyphs, just as not all undisturbed ground sur-faces contain petroforms. Gathering informa-tion on location and surrounding environment

is as important to identifying high-priority ar-eas containing rock art as it is with habitationor other activity sites. The following checklistis recommended as minimum documentationfor recording rock art sites. A form checklist isattached as a memory guide.

It is important to allow enough time to conductall mapping, photography, drawing, and note-taking when planning a documentation project.Recording is very time-consuming. It is alsoimportant to remember that information gath-ered on the initial visit can be used to assessnatural and human damage visible in subse-quent visits. It may be necessary to revisit thesite to confirm details that appear in photos butwere not visible to the eye.1. Site name. Rock art sites should not be

named after the landowner or a nearbynamed feature (such as a stream, coulee,lake, or road). These types of names couldpoint looters directly to the site. The nameselected should not diminish or inadver-tently show lack of respect for the sacred-ness of the site to Native American tribes.

2. Date recorded.3. Names of surveyors and recorder.4. Legal location. The site should be plotted

on a USGS topographic quadrangle map,7.5' series, with township, range, section,quarter-section (at least three), and UTMcoordinates recorded.

5. Elevation. Three elevations must be re-corded:a) Elevation above sea level.b) Elevation of the site from the bottom-

land, if applicable.c) Elevation above ground surface for

every panel or figure. This last eleva-tion will indicate whether further ex-amination will be necessary to deter-mine whether the ground surface hasbeen altered either naturally or me-chanically since the rock art was placedon the wall. If rock art is low to thepresent ground surface, it is possiblethat the prehistoric ground surface iscovered by fill—additional figures mayexist below the present floor. If rockart is high on the wall, it is possible

129

that soil has been removed from thefloor since the rock art was placed onthe wall. It is also possible that a typeof scaffolding may have been used.

6. Landowner. It is essential that landownerpermission and, if possible, participationbe gained. Future site preservation de-pends on landowner cooperation. In somecases, the landowner is absent from theland, has rented the land, or has allowedother parties access for activities such ashunting. Contact with other such parties isalso important.

7. Landowner attitude. Rock are sites arerare, unique, and irreplaceable. These sitesare also increasingly subject to vandalism,either inadvertently through graffiti or aspart of the illegal antiquities market. It isimportant to know whether the landownersare willing to help protect the site. It is alsoimportant to know how the landownersfeel about additional investigations or ifthey are uncomfortable with further visitsto the site.

8. Accessibility. Both modern and easiestpre-modern access to the site should be re-corded. Most sites are located in remoteareas, and access from the nearest modernroad may not have been the route taken byprehistoric Native Americans. It is alsoimportant to note whether the site is easilyaccessed. Some sites may have been cho-sen for their position on the landscaperather than ease of accessibility.

9. Closest water source. The name anddistance of the closest water source shouldbe recorded.

10. Unusual or outstanding geo-logic/topographic feature. The land-scape visible from the site should be de-scribed. It is possible that the area waschosen for visual, acoustic, or other sen-sory features. Photographs of the siteshould include scenic views.

11. Dimensions of the site.Caves and rockshelters require the fol-lowing:• the direction of the opening

• the direction of bluff face in which thecave or shelter is found

• the length (range) and width (range) ofthe cave or shelter interior

• the height (range) from floor to ceilingBluff faces require the following:• the direction of the bluff face• the length (range) and width (range) of

the ledge below the rock art• a note of any protective overhang and

the height between the bottom ledgeand the overhang, if possible

Petroform sites or petroglyphs/ picto-graphs on a horizontal rock outcrop re-quire:• the acreage/size of the site• if the site is located on a discrete land-

form, a description of that landform12. Type and condition of rock faces and

boulders. It is important to record• the type of rock on which the figures

are placed (i.e. sandstone, limestone,granite) and the conditions of the sur-face (smooth, slightly rough, veryrough, irregular, fractured)

• whether the rock is stable, poorly ce-mented, exfoliating, wet, or dry, andwhether mineral deposits are present

• whether the surface was prepared be-fore the rock art was applied

• the presence of lichen, worts, or mossand how extensive the growths are

• any historic or modern graffiti, distur-bances to the dirt floor, or roof mark-ings such as an area blackened by fire(natural hematite stains and colored li-chens, especially black, may resembleareas blackened by fire)

• for petroform sites, the type and size ofthe boulders along with any lichen,wort, or moss growth

13. Subsurface investigations. Results ofany subsurface investigation should be re-corded, including the type of investigationdone (i.e., shovel testing, probing, screen-ing, animal disturbance) and the exact lo-cation of any investigation or animal dis-turbance on the plan view/floor map.

130

14. Rock art. The rock art and its locationwithin the site should be briefly described,including number of figures, how manypetroglyphs and pictographs, number ofpartial figures, number of complete figures,and total size of decorated surface. Infor-mation on each figure should be included,such as size, type, and design. An opinionas to the degree of preservation (excellent,good, fair, poor) also should be included.

15. Photography. Records should be kept onthe number of shots taken and type of filmused (slide, B/W, infrared, ultraviolet), witha list of subjects. Any videorecordingshould be noted.

16. Maps and drawings. The number ofmaps and drawings done should be re-corded, with a list of the subjects.

Mapping the SiteA general map of the site is essential. For acave, rockshelter, or bluff face, a planview/floor map should be prepared. This mapshould include the dimensions of the site, thelocation of any disturbance on the floor, andthe location of the figures on the surroundingwalls. Too often this is not done, making relo-cation of the figures difficult or impossible. Itis important to remember that future visits tothe site may find that figures have been de-stroyed by natural or human disturbance; asmuch information as possible should be re-corded on the initial visit.

It is also essential to map the walls that containrock art figures, keeping the figures in context.A scale drawing of each wall with figuresscaled to size, orientation, and location isstrongly recommended. Natural (e.g., exfolia-tion) and human (e.g., graffiti) disturbance tothe walls should be included.

For petroform sites, all the rocks in a desig-nated area should be mapped, not just thosethat constitute the boulder outline. Rock den-sities in the area, as well as places where rockappears to have been cleared, are importantdata.

Recording Rock Art Figures

Current rock art recording techniques havebenefited from the experimental technologyused in the past. There are a number of tech-niques that can be employed, as well as anumber of techniques that cannot be em-ployed, on rock art in Wisconsin.

Photography and drawings complement eachother. Each technique has the potential to re-veal information on rock art figures that is notrevealed by the other. For example, lightingassociated with different photographic settingscan reveal faint portions of figures not visibleto the eye alone. Drawings that include meas-urements of carvings can add to the growingdata on tools and techniques that may aid indating the panels. It is essential that both pho-tography and measured drawings be under-taken in documentation projects.

Still PhotographyExtensive photography of the site, walls, pan-els, individual figures, and boulder outlines isessential. Black-and-white and color slidephotography is imperative for all rock art fig-ures. Additional infrared and ultraviolet (ifpossible) photography is recommended forpictographs. For best results, the first shot ofeach black-and-white roll should include agray scale. For best results in color match forslides, a chromatic scale should be the firstshot. Both scales can be purchased in mostphoto stores. It is important to tell the photoprocessing lab to process shots using the scaleat the beginning of the roll. At least one shotof each subject should include a measuringdevice such as a meter stick or ruler.

Petroglyphs and pictographs should be photo-graphed from a position directly in front of thefigure, not from an angle. Since rock art fig-ures can be difficult to photograph, experi-mentation with meter settings, depth of field,and external lighting is required. A light cloudcover is ideal for photographing exposed fig-ures. It is important that an experienced pho-tographer (a professional, if possible) producethe photographs. In caves and dark shelters,flash photography using 400 ASI film is rec-ommended for the sharpest pictures. A whiteumbrella or sheet of white paper provides backlight for better shots. Frames should be over-lapped for stereographic viewing, keeping the

131

distance constant for scale. It may be helpfulto include a directional arrow for “north” inall photos and a notation for “up” on verticalfaces where there may be some doubt as to thedirection. Additional photographic techniquesare described in Wainwright (1991).

Faint petroglyphs and pictographs can bedarkened by spraying them with a light mist ofdistilled water. This is the only acceptedmethod of preparation permitted for Wiscon-sin rock art. Chalking, color enhancement, re-carving, growth removal, and brushing are notpermitted.

Video PhotographyVideo photography, in addition to but not inplace of still photography, is highly recom-mended. Panning the video camera is an idealway to document figures in context. Video canalso be shot successfully in dark places.Again, a color scale and a meter stick/rulershould be used in panel and figure shots.

Measured Line DrawingsPanels, figures, and petroforms should also bedrawn to scale. In some areas of the state, my-lar sheets, tissue paper, rice paper, or tracingpaper laid over the petroglyph and pictographcan be used. However, only those persons ex-perienced in rock art recording and veryknowledgeable of bedrock conditions at thesite should attempt this recording method. Ifthere is any possibility that physical contactwill damage the figure, tracing methods cannotbe used. Caution should be used when tracingon any form of plastic, as reflected sunlightmay obscure or distort the figure.

Rubbings are not permitted on any sites inWisconsin. Plaster casting as a method toproduce full-scale replicas has been found toproduce damage over time and is not permit-ted. Plaster casting leaves a residue that hasobscured faint figures in at least one site. Theresidue is difficult or impossible to removewithout damaging the site. Casting also de-stroys evidence of panel preparation. Clay andplastic casting are not permitted for much thesame reasons.

Measured or scale drawings should includewhole-panel drawings to document the figuresin context. For petroglyphs, drawings shouldinclude notations on depth and size of carvingsand a cross section of the carved line. This lastmeasurement is instrumental in identifying theshape of the tool used to carve the petroglyph.Care must be taken when drawing overlappingfigures. If possible, notations should be madeindicating the oldest and youngest figure. Fig-ures should be drawn using their original ori-entations and their relationships to other fig-ures in the panel. Notations on type of figure(petroglyph or pictograph) should be made.The floor and ceiling should also be drawninto each panel to aid in locating the panel inthe future. Munsell color notations for picto-graphs are optional but recommended. Mod-ern and historic graffiti and natural damageshould also be incorporated into the drawing.When the figure drawings are finalized, allphotos should be scrutinized to be sure that allfaint portions of the figure or panel have beenrecorded.

Measured drawings of petroforms should in-clude all boulders in the immediate vicinity.Notations should be made for those bouldersthat appear to have been recently moved.

Drawings from SlidesIn some site situations, rock art figures are be-yond the reach of the investigator or in suchpoor condition that any physical contact wouldbe detrimental. In those cases, measureddrawings in the field may not be the best tech-nique, and tracings would not be permitted.Instead, color slides with rulers or meter stickscan be projected on a drawing board and ad-justed to exact size or scaled to whatever sizeis appropriate for the drawings. Drawingsdone by slide projection can then be takenback to the site and compared with the originalfor proper detail. This method can also beused in cases of inclement weather or poorlighting.

Site InterpretationRock art site interpretation in Wisconsin is inits infancy. Interpretation is currently beingconducted on a site-by-site basis. Some inter-

132

pretation has also begun for selected motifsand themes. Dating and cultural affiliation de-terminations are difficult for most sites in thestate. Few petroglyph and pictograph siteshave been excavated, and many sites lack floordeposits. Sites with multiple occupations pre-sent difficulties in interpreting the rock art onthe walls. Time indicators such as the bow andarrow and the horse are present at a few sites.None of the recorded petroform sites has beenexcavated.

Current rock art interpretation efforts includeresearch into Native American customs andculture. As stated above, many Native Ameri-can tribes consider rock art sites sacred places.Insight and assistance from local tribes andthose who inhabited an area historically is es-sential to interpreting rock art sites. It is alsoessential that research into the literature of Na-tive American culture, custom, and mythologybe a part of any site report. References on theattached list are examples of studies thatshould be consulted when writing reports onrock art sites.

Report PreparationReports on rock art sites should be prepared inthe format developed for other archeologicalsites considered in these guidelines. Rock artsite reports should also include the results ofresearch into Native American culture, custom,and mythology.

Rock Art Site PreservationNo preservation techniques have been tried asyet on rock art sites in Wisconsin. Studies intopermanent lichen removal, graffiti removal, re-pair of site damage, and reversible chemicalpreservatives are a few of the topics for futureresearch. Any chemical preservative must betried on rock faces without rock art and stud-ied for a number of years before applicationon a rock art site. Rock art removal is not per-mitted as a preservation technique. Attempts atremoval would most likely cause the panel tocrack, exfoliate, or fall before the block couldbe removed.

Until physical preservation techniques are de-veloped, archival preservation will be used toprovide data for researchers on Wisconsinrock art. The Office of the State Archaeologistis the official repository of rock art archives.Copies of reports and information gathered onrock art sites must be submitted to this office.Copies of photographs, slides, and videos aswell as maps, drawings, and notes should besubmitted with the reports.

Site stewardship programs with landownercooperation, public education opportunities,and site management plans for long-term pres-ervation are encouraged. Some sites may bepreserved by the construction of a barrier suchas a fence or platform to discourage graffiti.Rock art exposed to the elements may be pro-tected by the construction of an overhang tominimize erosion.

ReferencesAmerican Rock Art Research Association1988 Conservation Guidelines of the Ameri-

can Rock Art Research Association.Prepared by the Conservation andProtection Committee of ARARA forthe Purpose of Assisting in Recogni-tion and Reporting of Threatened Ex-amples of the Rock Art Heritage. SanMiguel, California.

Anati, Emmanuel1977 Methods of Recording and Analyzing

Rock Engravings. Studi Camuni 7. It-aly.

Barnouw, Victor1977 Wisconsin Chippewa Myths and

Tales. University of Wisconsin Press,Madison.

Birmingham, Robert1995 Native American Rock Art Task Force

Recommendations. Copy on file, StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin,Madison

Birmingham, Robert and William Green,(editors)1986 Wisconsin Rock Art. The Wisconsin

Archeologist 68(4).

133

Blair, Emma H., editor1911 The Indian Tribes of the Upper Mis-

sissippi Valley and Region of GreatLakes, as Described by Nicolas Per-rot, French Commandant in theNorthwest; Bacqueville de la Potherie,French Royal Commission to Canada,Morrell Marston, American Army Of-ficer; and Thomas Forsyth, US agentat Fort Armstrong, 2 volumes. ArthurH. Clark, Cleveland.

Blessing, Fred K. Jr.1977 The Ojibway Indians Observed. Occi-

dental Publications in Minnesota An-thropology No. 1. Minnesota Ar-chaeological Society, St. Paul.

Boreson, Keo1994 Documentation of Pictographs at Sites

45OK82, 45OK392, and 45OK603,Okanogan National Forest, Washing-ton. Prepared for Okanogan NationalForest, Washington.

Boszhardt, Robert F.1995 Rock Art Research in Western Wis-

consin 1994–1995. Reports of Investi-gations No. 201. Mississippi ValleyArchaeology Center, University ofWisconsin–La Crosse.

Childers, Beverly Booth1994 Long-term Lichen-removal Experi-

ments and Petroglyph Conservation.Rock Art Research 11(2):102–12.

Dean, J. Claire1994 Assessment of the Conservation Needs

of Samuel’s Cave (47LC5), La CrosseCounty, Wisconsin. Prepared for StateHistorical Society of Wisconsin andMississippi Valley Archaeology Cen-ter. Copy on file with State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin.

Densmore, Frances1974 How Indians Use Wild Plants for

Food, Medicine and Crafts. Dover,New York.

1979 Chippewa Customs. Minnesota His-torical Society Press, St. Paul.

Edmunds, R. David

1978 The Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire.University of Oklahoma Press, Nor-man.

Hagan, William T.1958 The Sac and Fox Indians. University

of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Henderson, A. Gwynn1989 The Kentucky Archaeological Regis-

try: Landowner Participation in SitePreservation. Archaeological Assis-tance Program Technical Brief No. 6.US Department of the Interior, Na-tional Park Service.

Hickerson, Harold1970 The Chippewa and Their Neighbors:

An Ethnohistory. Waveland Press,Prospect Heights, Illinois.

Hoffman, Walter1891 The Midewiwin or Grand Medicine

Society of the Ojibwa. Seventh AnnualReport of the Bureau of AmericanEthnology for the Years 1885–1886.Washington, D. C.

1896 The Menominee Indians. FourteenthAnnual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology for the Years1892–1893. Washington, D. C.

Keesing, Felix M.1987 The Menominee Indians of Wisconsin:

A Study of Three Centuries of CulturalContact and Change. University ofWisconsin Press, Madison.

Kinietz, W. Vernon1965 The Indians of the Western Great

Lakes 1615–1760. University ofMichigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Kohl, Johann Georg1985 Kitchmi-gami: Life among the Lake

Superior Ojibway. Minnesota Histori-cal Society Press, St. Paul.

Landes, Ruth1963 Potawatomi Medicine. Transactions of

the Kansas Academy of Science66(4):553–99.

1968 Ojibwa Religion and Midewiwin. Uni-versity of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

134

Lee, Georgia1991 Rock Art and Cultural Resource Man-

agement. Wormswood Press, Calaba-sas, California.

Loubser, Johannes H.1994 The Recordation and Status of Petro-

glyphs and Pictographs at Samuel’sCave (47LC5), La Crosse County,Wisconsin. Reports of InvestigationsNo. 185. Mississippi Valley Archae-ology Center, University of Wiscon-sin–La Crosse.

1995 The Tale of Two Shelters: Recordationand Conservation Status of Bell Cou-lee Cave and Fleming #1, La CrosseCounty, Wisconsin. InRock Art Re-search in Western Wisconsin1994–1995, by Robert F. Boszhardt.Reports of Investigations No. 201.Mississippi Valley Archaeology Cen-ter, University of Wisconsin–LaCrosse.

Lurie, Nancy O.1960 Winnebago Protohistory. In Culture

and History: Essays in Honor of PaulRadin, edited by Stanley Diamond.Columbia University Press, New York.

1961 Mountain Wolf Woman: The Autobi-ography of a Winnebago Indian. Uni-versity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Mallery, Garrick1886 Pictographs of the North American

Indians. Fourth Annual Report of theBureau of Ethnology 1882–1883.Washington, D. C.

1893 Picture-writing of the American Indi-ans. Tenth Annual Report of the Bu-reau of Ethnology 1888–1889.Washington, D C.

Mason, Carol I.1988 Introduction to Wisconsin Indians:

Prehistory to Statehood. SheffieldPublishing, Salem, Wisconsin.

McLaughlin, Marie1990 Myths and Legends of the Sioux. Uni-

versity of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Pond, Samuel

1986 The Dakota or Sioux in Minnesota asThey Were in 1934. Minnesota His-torical Society Press, St. Paul.

Radin, Paul1923 The Winnebago Tribe. Thirty-Seventh

Annual Report of the Bureau of AmericanEthnology for the Years 1915-1916, Wash-ington, D.C.

1926 The Trickster Cycle of the Winnebago.Primitive Culture 1:8–86.

1948 Winnebago Hero Cycles: A System inAboriginal Literature. Indiana UniversityPublications in Anthropology and Linguis-tics, Memoir 1. Bloomington.

1949 Culture of the Winnebago: As Described byThemselves. Indiana University Publicationsin Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 2.Bloomington.

Ryan, Brucen.d. The Application of Lichenometry to

Archaeology. Unpublished manuscript.Copy on file with Okanogan National For-est, Washington.

Skinner, Alanson B.1913 Social Life and Ceremonial Bundles of the

Menominee Indians. Anthropological Pa-pers of the American Museum of NaturalHistory 13(1):1–165.

1915 Associations and Ceremonies of theMenominee Indians. Anthropological Pa-pers of the American Museum of NaturalHistory 13(2):167–215, Part 2.

1924 The Mascouten or Prairie Potawatomi.Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City ofMilwaukee 6(1-3).

Skinner, Alanson, and John V. Satterlee1915 Folklore of the Menominee Indians.

Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History 13(3):217–546,Part 2.

Spindler, George, and Louise Spindler1971 Dreamers with Power: The Menomi-

nee. Waveland Press, ProspectHeights, Illinois.

Steinbring, Jack

135

1994 The Need for a Method and Theory inRock Art Conservation. American In-dian Rock Art 13–14:23–26.

Tanner, Helen Hornbeck1992 The Ojibwa. Chelsea House, New

York.

Trigger, Bruce, ed.1978 Northeast. Handbook of North Ameri-

can Indians, Vol. 15. Smithsonian In-stitution, Washington, DC.

Vennum, Thomas, Jr.1988 Wild Rice and the Ojibway People.

Minnesota Historical Society Press, St.Paul.

Wainwright, Ian1990 Rock Painting and Petroglyph Re-

cording Projects in Canada. Associa-tion for Preservation Technology Bul-letin 22(1–2).

Warren, William W.1984 History of the Ojibway People. Min-

nesota Historical Society Press, St.Paul.

136

137