CORRESPONDENCE - 75A SEXLINGER FARMHOUSE

Home Browse Search

In an attempt to add consistency to the process of cultural resource management, many State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) have offered specific statements on the characteristics of archeological sites. For SHPOs, the definition of archeo- logical site is often tied to the process of completing an archeological site form, which forces the regulators to standardize terms and provide guidance for just what is and what is not a site. For example, Virginia's guidelines for archeological survey provide one definition of a site: In general terms, an archeological site is defined as the physical remains of any area of human activity greater than 50 years of age for which a boundary can be established. Examples of such resources would include the following: domestic /habitation sites, industrial sites, earthworks, mounds, quarries, canals, roads, shipwrecks, etc. Under the general definition, a broad range of site types would qualify as archeological sites without the identifica- tion of any artifacts (VDHR 1996:1). All archeological sites have some form of physical expression, either through the presence of artifacts or other evidence of modification of the natural world through human agents. It is difficult to think of an archeologi- cal site that would have no surviving physical remains. In fact, the Na- tional Register generally does not list archeological sites that have been fully excavated, that is, where no physical remains of the site survive, because of the loss of integrity. The theoretical construct of "site" plays a fundamental role in the ways archeologists view past societies. Concepts regarding archeological sites can be expressed through four phrases: 1. Methodology Mechanics. The methods used by archeologists to look for sites influences the sites that are identified. This concept reinforces the traditional scientific and archeological premise that methods and theory fundamentally influence the nature of the recovered information. Thus, a clear definition of how to define the location and boundaries of sites must be an essential part of every archeologist's theoretical and method- ological tool kit. 2. Artifact Axiom. An archeological site must have some physical evi- dence of occupation, use, or tranSfOr- mation. This evidence is usually in the form of artifacts, but also includes human alterations to the landscape. Without some form of physical presence it is impossible to define boundaries to archeological sites. 3. Density Dilemma. Is the center of the site the place with the most artifacts? The boundary of archeologi- cal sites should not be defined solely on the basis of artifact density re- vealed in an archeological survey. As the remains of past human activities, archeological sites may contain areas where artifact density is relatively low, separating two portions of the same site. In addition, various cultural and natural transformations have fundamentally altered the condition of readily apparent archeo- logical sites. Through time, vegeta- tion may obscure artifacts, plowed areas may blanket subsurface fea- tures, and soil movement by a variety of processes may have buried sites. The definition of a site's boundary must consider the land use history of the site as well as artifact density. 4. Present vs. Past. How certain are the limits of a prehistoric or historic period site? Obviously, the definition of an archeological site's boundaries is a judgment made in the present. It is molded by the archeologist's training, education, and view of the past. Care should be given to consider how the site may have been perceived in the past. Historic boundaries, if they can be defined or modeled, should be given primacy over modern bound- aries. III. DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES While defining boundaries usually requires some limited excavation, it is also often possible to use nondestruc- tive methods prior to archeological fieldwork to identify the location and extent of suspected subsurface features within archeological proper- ties. Over the years, archeologists have adapted a variety of methods from other disciplines to see beneath the earth. Geophysical prospecting techniques most commonly used by archeologists include electrical resistivity and conductivity (including metal detectors), ground - penetrating radar (GPR), and magnetic prospect- ing. Analysis of soil chemistry also has been used successfully to identify sites and activity areas within sites. Aerial photography is a well -known technique used extensively to identify sites. Although some types of remote sensing can be executed by archeolo- gists trained in their use, it is common to hire specialists because the tech- niques and technologies of remote sensing change rapidly. Advantages to geophysical meth- ods are that they are nondestructive (or minimally destructive) and are relatively fast. However, geophysics is an indirect science which detects "anomalies' which then usually require some level of sub - surface testing to verify as archeological resources. Remote sensing is particularly useful in underwater archeological endeavors. In the case of one recently listed shipwreck along the eastern seaboard, the site was identified using a towed -array proton precision magnetometer as part of a state - sponsored survey. The 30- by 40- meter boundary of the site was identified by using metal detector survey as well as test excavations. Clearly, as new technologies and methodologies are adapted to the needs of archeological investigations, these techniques can be used to help define boundaries of National Regis- ter properties. Whether using new technologies or old, the level of effort to define boundaries should be an explicit part of research designs for archeological surveys designed to identify all potentially National Register eligible sites. In addition, the principles for demarcating the limits of archeologi- cal sites should also be explicitly stated in the survey methodology. Once defined, this methodology should be consistently applied to each potential archeological site identified in a survey. National Register boundaries distinguish, from their surrounding environment, archeological sites meeting the National Register criteria for evaluation either individually or as contributing elements in an archeo- logical district. Site boundaries often are reasonable distinctions that may not always reflect the spatial concepts implicit in certain theoretical perspec- tives, notably those of "nonsite" 51