No one-size-fits-all data recovery project design exists. Archeologists must determine the methods for data recovery based on an individual site's characteristics, the purposes of the project, and the available resources. Data recovery projects differ greatly in their scope, size, duration, and cost. However, the same general methods, tools and procedures are used for the majority of data recovery projects.
Record keeping: In archeology, provenience is everything. Throughout data recovery archeologists carefully record information regarding artifact and ecofact provenience, soil characteristics, features, stratigraphy, field conditions, and personnel. Because data recovery destroys the site, field records are crucial in documenting how work was conducted. Field records contain notes and drawings of unit profiles and stratum surfaces as well as photographs. The records generated during data recovery are as important to the analysis and interpretation of the site as the recovered materials are. They become part of the project collections curated at a designated repository.
Site mapping: Throughout the excavation archeologists photograph and draw updated maps of unit profiles, stratum surfaces, and features. This process ensures that the data recovery analysis will accurately reflect the location of units, features, artifacts, ecofacts, and other physical phenomena important to the site's interpretation. In some cases archeologists will use gis or GPS to map a site.
Artifact processing and analysis: For artifacts and ecofacts, processing consists of proper cleaning, conservation, labeling by provenience, and sorting into basic categories for later analysis. Information about each artifact is entered into a database of some sort to be used in later analyses. In some cases only a representative sample of recovered artifacts is retained, conserved, and stored. Processing is usually done during fieldwork so the archeologist can evaluate the data as they are recovered and can continue to formulate and modify working hypotheses for testing while data recovery is underway (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:111). The collection's long-term care and management should be a priority during artifact processing and analysis (Childs and Corcoran 2000:VI).
This report represents the results of data recovery at six sites in advance of the installation of a proposed fiber optic line that passes through 26 National Register-eligible, or potentially eligible, sites as identified during the survey.
The procedures employed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Louis District, Curation and Archives Analysis Branch, Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections to rehouse the archaeological material from Vicksburg District are discussed below. Upon completion of this curation management project, the Vicksburg District collection will be sent to Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University for permanent curation.
The first step in the rehousing process is to obtain copies of cultural resource reports, artifact catalog sheets, and field notes pertaining to the collections from the St. Louis District archivist processing the archival collection. The analytical techniques employed by the Center for Archaeological Research to recover and process the collections were reviewed to gain familiarity with the previous archaeological work that had been conducted on the site.
DOI
doi:10.6067/XCV8446612 tDAR ID
446612 About News Our Team Organization Contact Us History Current Version of tDAR Use Guides to Good Practice Help & Tutorials Policies Contributing Resources to tDAR Pricing Compliance Contact comments@tdar.org Follow @DigArcRec on twitter Follow tDAR on Facebook Follow @digitalantiquity on Instagram Subscribe to Digital Antiquity on Youtube Start Digging Explore Browse Start a project & add data Log In Sign Up tDAR (the Digital Archaeological Record) is the digital repository of the Center for Digital Antiquity, a collaborative organization and university Center at Arizona State University. Digital Antiquity extends our knowledge of the human past and improves the management of our cultural heritage by permanently preserving digital archaeological data and supporting their discovery, access, and reuse. Digital Antiquity and tDAR are and have been supported by a number of organizations, including the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. A more complete set of acknowledgements are provided here.
This five-volume, 2,000-page study presents the results of the Fence Lake Project located in a spectacular but challenging region that straddles the Arizona-New Mexico line some 40 miles south of the Zuni reservation. The archaeology and history of the region are explored in scholarly articles on ancient farming practices, paleoclimatic reconstruction, the struggles of Hispanic ranchers in territorial times, the unexpected discovery of maize dating to 2000 b.c., and other topics. These volumes offer specialists and general readers alike a glimpse into the lives of the diverse peoples that settled the region from Paleoindian times to the twentieth century. Shedding new light on the vivid cultural landscapes of this region, the volumes offer readers the opportunity to share in the excitement of archaeological discovery and provides a glimpse into the lives of the diverse cultural and ethnic groups that lived in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico.
The Phase III data recovery program is a mitigative effort to document a significant archaeological site so that important cultural information can be sufficiently recorded prior to impact or destruction by a development project.
When sites are determined to be significant and eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) based on the criteria set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service (see National Register Bulletin 16A:35-51), they are afforded a status warranting protection under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Most of the cultural resources which successfully complete the NHRP nomination and registration process are standing historic structures, districts of historic buildings, or other monumental structures and landscape features, largely because of a greater visible presence in a given community. Limitations in government funding have thus far prohibited any reasonable expectation of completing the registration process for the vast number of eligible archaeological sites, a problem that the professional archaeological community is addressing through federal and state lobbying efforts. Nevertheless, the mere identification of an archaeological site as eligible for inclusion in the NHRP has resulted in the protection of significant archaeological resources by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) throughout the United States.
Besides public visibility, another difference between archaeological and historic architectural resources lies in an emphasis on the value of anthropological data. In other words, the principal importance of most archaeological sites is deemed to stem from the information provided regarding patterns of past cultural behavior rather than an inherent value in the recovered objects or artifacts. While these items do offer the potential to create important educational displays and allow future researchers to conduct important studies of material culture, much of their value lies in the depositional context in relation to other artifacts and features which help archaeologists reconstruct past lifeways. Given this emphasis, the destruction of an important archaeological site is mitigated if a data recovery program or Phase III archaeological evaluation records enough information so that its complete or partial destruction will not result in the loss of a significant amount of archaeological data. Thus a Phase III data recovery program provides a viable alternative for the final disposition of an archaeological site even if it is deemed significant enough to be included in the NRHP.
The above list provides examples of past projects where the directors of ACS engaged in successful data recovery programs of endangered sites. The need for data recovery can arise from a number of situations other than a legitimate sequence of phased archaeological studies as mandated by a governmental regulatory review process, including emergency salvage operations where there is evidence of looting, or cases where the determination for a need of cultural resource evaluation is not made until well into the construction or development process.
The Archaeology Branch maintains a listing of State of Hawaii permitted archaeological firms annually. Permitted firms may be contracted to provide archaeological services for private individuals and public agencies. Firms are responsible for submitting updated permits with the accompanying fee for each calendar year. The Archaeology Branch reviews each permit to ensure individuals and companies seeking permits meet the minimum standards for professional qualifications outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 13-281.
38c6e68cf9