A Geoarchaeological Overview of South Dakota and Preliminary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT State Year Deep Testing Utah, DOT 2010 need acknowledged Vermont 2007 limited guidance Virginia 2009 detailed guidance Washington 2010 limited guidance West Virginia n.d. detailed guidance Wisconsin 1997 detailed guidance Wyoming BLM 2003 detailed guidance Table 6. Summary of State Guidelines for Subsurface Testing. Methods Mentioned Size, Depth, Subsurface Shovel Auger Test Back- Remote Intervals, during Test Test Pits hoe Cores Sensing Screening Survey no specific methods given X X X X X X X X 38 Specialist Involvement X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Total Count by Method 38 27 24 35 26 19 17 31
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Of the 43 documents that mention subsurface testing, a slight majority (25 of 43) do not provide specifications for the placement, size, depth, or screening of tests. Of the 18 that do offer such specifications, most refer only or primarily to shovel testing and other near surface methods. Even these 18 documents, however, leave the field archaeologists with much discretion in conducting subsurface testing. Thirteen documents state that an earth science specialist may be brought into a project as part of deep testing efforts. Twelve of these 13 documents offer at least limited guidance in deep testing strategies. A total of 30 documents consider deep testing as an activity that may be undertaken as part of the initial effort to discover previously unknown sites, prior to site testing and evaluation. Of these 30 documents, 24 documents are ones that provide guidance for deep testing. The preceding discussion suggests that near-surface testing, primarily shovel testing, is a routine part of archaeological practice in the United States. The existence of contexts such as valley alluvium where sites may be deeply buried is also widely acknowledged, along with a need for specialist expertise. Specific guidance for searching for buried sites, however, is offered less often. Documents that offer specific guidance typically state that deep testing should be undertaken as part of the effort to find archaeological sites. The ten documents that provide detailed guidance for deep testing at the equivalent of South Dakota’s Level III survey are as follows: Indiana (Division of Historic Preservation: 2007); Iowa (Association of Iowa Archaeologists 1993); Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (Anfinson 2005); Minnesota Department of Transportation (Monaghan et al. 2005); Pennsylvania (Bureau of Historic Preservation 2008); South Carolina (Schuldenrein 2005); Virginia (Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2009); West Virginia (Trader n.d.); Wisconsin (Kolb 1997); Wyoming (Bureau of Land Management 2003). DETAILED STATE GUIDELINES The purpose of the present project is to develop relatively detailed, deep testing guidelines for South Dakota. It is useful, therefore, to review examples of the general approaches and methods used in other states. The following sections summarize the guidelines developed for Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota. These provide the most extensive guidance and cover virtually all the concepts, considerations, and methodologies laid out in the guidelines from other states cited above. Indiana In Indiana, Phase I is equivalent to South Dakota’s Level III survey, and deep testing for buried sites is referred to as Phase Ic. Phase Ic guidelines (Division of Historic Preservation 2007) state, “Subsurface reconnaissance is required in areas where archaeological remains are likely to be buried in alluvial, colluvial, or aeolian landforms. This level of reconnaissance may require the use of small excavations, including trenches, to discover, define and assess the nature of buried deposits…. The subsurface reconnaissance attempts to find sites in both their vertical and horizontal exposures. Prior to the initiation of a subsurface reconnaissance, a plan must be submitted to the DHPA for approval…. Further, in extremely complex depositional situations, such as the large floodplains of the Ohio, Wabash or White Rivers, or alluvial/colluvial fans, the work must be supervised by a qualified professional with demonstrated ability in identifying and interpreting buried soil horizons and landforms. These 39
Page 1 and 2: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT A Geoarchaeologic
Page 3 and 4: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Table of Contents
Page 5 and 6: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT A geoarchaeologic
Page 7 and 8: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Similar situation
Page 9 and 10: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T
Page 11 and 12: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Of the 82 reviewe
Page 13 and 14: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Figure 3. Eastern
Page 15 and 16: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT The Big Sioux, Ve
Page 17 and 18: Figure 5. Quaternary map units in t
Page 19 and 20: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Figure 6. Distrib
Page 21 and 22: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Quaternary Landsl
Page 23 and 24: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Generally speakin
Page 25 and 26: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Table 4. Landform
Page 27 and 28: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Table 5. Unique L
Page 29 and 30: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT highly significan
Page 31 and 32: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Regional Overview
Page 33 and 34: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT South Fork Cheyen
Page 35 and 36: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Hughes, Lyman, St
Page 37 and 38: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Lower Big Sioux W
Page 39 and 40: Figure 7. Map showing states for wh
Page 41: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Table 6. Summary
Page 45 and 46: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT deposits are not
Page 47 and 48: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT intervals, in lan
Page 49 and 50: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Table 7. Criteria
Page 51 and 52: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT recorded. These p
Page 53 and 54: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT OTHER SUBSURFACE
Page 55 and 56: Figure 9. Representative stratigrap
Page 57 and 58: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Figure 11 is a st
Page 59 and 60: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Figure 12. Locati
Page 61 and 62: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Figure 13. Screen
Page 63 and 64: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Table 8. Common K
Page 65 and 66: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PART IV: PRELIMIN
Page 67 and 68: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT If buried deeper
Page 69 and 70: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT QUALIFICATIONS By
Page 71 and 72: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT The method used f
Page 73 and 74: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT PART V: CONCLUSIO
Page 75 and 76: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT if present, that
Page 77 and 78: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT A considerable am
Page 79 and 80: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Artz, Joe Alan 19
Page 81 and 82: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Byrne, Daniel 199
Page 83 and 84: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Hannus, L. Adrien
Page 85 and 86: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Martin, James E.,
Page 87 and 88: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Stafford, C. R. a
Page 89 and 90: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT White, T. E., and
Page 91 and 92: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Step 3. Draw your
Page 93 and 94:
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Step 6: Downloadi
Page 95 and 96:
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Archaeological Re
show all

A Geoarchaeological Overview of South Dakota and Preliminary

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?