ARCHAEOL10GICAL SITE FILE MANAGEMENT: A SOUTHEASTERN PERSPECTIVE
Sites per Sq. Mile D o.cxn 10 0.1 D 0.101 to 0.2 • 0.201 to 0.4 • 0.401 to 36.036 The Readings in Archeological Resource Protection Series, published by the Interagency Archeological Services Division, is an outgrowth of the "Coping With Site Looting: Southeastern Perspectives" symposium held during the 54th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.
Since the inception of the series in 1990, it has had the support and cooperation of many individuals who have contributed their time and resources. The Site File Management Workshop, held in March 1995, and this publication, were made possible, in part, with special funding provided by the National Park Service through its Partnerships in Cultural Resources Training Initiative.
Cover map courtesy Anne Gisiger, Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas.
READINGS IN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION SERIES
No. 1 Coping With Site Looting: Southeastern Perspectives - Iohn E. Ehrenhard, Editor No. 2 Site Destruction in Georgia and the Carolinas - David G. Anderson and Virginia Horak, Editors No. 3 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective - David G. Anderson and Virginia Horak, Editors ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILE MANAGEMENT
A SOUTHEASTERN PERSPECTIVE
David G. Anderson and Virginia Horak Editors
Readings in Archeological Resource Protection Series - No. 3 Interagency Archeological Services Division Atlanta, Georgia
1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION > David G. Anderson and Virginia Horak ...... • . . . . . • .• , . 3
THE SITE FILE AS A RESEARCH DATABASE: THE ALABAMA EXPERIENCE > Eugene M. Futato ...... , .... 6
COMPUTERIZED SITE FILES IN ARKANSAS: UTILIZING NEW TECHNOLOGIES > Lela Donat ...... , ...... , , ...... 10
SITE FILE IN THE SUNSHINE: THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE > Marion F. Smith, Jr...... , , , , . , ...... 18
THE GEORGIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES AND GIS: A USEFUL BEGJNNING > Mark Williams ...... , • , ...... 29
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILE USERS OF ALL KINDS: A VIEWPOINT FROM 'KENTUCKY > R. Berle Clay ...... , , , , , ...... 34
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY IN LoUISIANA. > Philip G.· Rivet ...... , ...... , , ...... 38
THE UTILI1Y AND POTENTIAL OF THE MISSISSIPPI ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILE > Keith A. Baca and Joseph A. Giliberti ...... 54
THE MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES IN NORTH CAROLINA > Almeta Rowland and Dolores A. Hall ...... , , ...... 62
SITE FILE MANAGEMENT IN PUERTO RICO > Miguel A. Bonini ...... 66
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT WITHIN SCIAA: A SOUTH CAROLINA PERSPECTIVE > Keith Derting and Jonathan Leader ...... 72
1 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective
IMPROVING SITE RECORDING ACCURACY IN A GIS: A SOl.J1H CAROLINA EXAMPLE > James D. Scurry and Ruth E. Carlson ...... 82
SITE FILE MANAGEMENT IN 1HE ELECTRONIC AGE: FuTIJRE DIRECTIONS IN TENNESSEE > Suzanne D. Hoyal and Kevin E. Smith ...... 88
EXCERPTS FROM WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS • . . . . . • • • . . . • . . . • • . • . . . • • • . • ...... • . . . . 95
SITE FILE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: MYIHS, ILLUSIONS, AND REALITIES > l,ee Tippett ...... 103
MANAGING AND EXCHANGING INFORMATION ABOUT ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN 1HE ELECTRONIC AGE > S. Terry Childs .. : ...... 107
SITE RECORDS IN 1HE SOU1HEAST: AN OVERVIEW OF PRESERVATION EFFORTs AND CHALLENGES > Michael Trinkley ...... 114
SITE FILE MANAGEMENT IN 1HE SOU1HEAST > David G. Anderson ...... 120
CON'IRIBUTORS • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • . • • • . . . . . • • ...... • . • • ...... • . . • • • . . . . . 138
2 INTRODUCTION
David G. Anderson and Virginia Horak
The articles in this volume derive from a work Atlanta, and from Michael Auer, Sylvia Rose shop of southeastern site file managers that took Augustus, and Rowland Bowers in the Wash place March 22-23, 1995, at the GIS laboratory ington Preservation Assistance Division. in the Department of Anthropology at the Uni This volume is the third in the Readings in versity of Georgia, Athens. The workshop was Archeological Resource Protection Series pub jointly sponsored by the National Park Service's lished by IASD. It serves as a companion to Interagency Archeological Services Division earlier volumes dealing with site looting (Ehren (IASD), the Lamar Institute, and the Department hard 1990) and site destruction (Anderson and of Anthropology at the University of Georgia. Horak 1993). Funding for the workshop and this resulting publication came, in part, from a fiscal year 1995 grant from the National Park Service's PROJECT OBJECTIVES Partnerships in Cultural Resources Training Initiative. As of early 1995, over 180,000 historic and pre The workshop participants were: David G. historic archaeological sites have been recorded Anderson, Keith Baca, Miguel (Mickey) Bonini, in the Southeast-a figure that is growing at a Terry Childs, Berle Clay, Keith Derting, Lela rate of almost 10,000 sites a year. Site files are Donat, Eugene Futato, Joe Giliberti, Dolores a critical aspect of our nation's cultural heritage, Hall, Virginia Horak, Suzanne Hoyal, Sharon the primary and, in many cases, only records Pekrul, Philip (Duke) Rivet, Almeta Rowland, documenting the location, content, and condition Kevin Smith, Marion Smith, Lee Tippett, and of cultural resources in an area. The ability to Mark Williams. Their addresses are included in access and use this information efficiently is the Contributors section at the end of this critical to the effective management of cultural volume. David J. Hally, Steve Kowalewski, and resources in the region. Furthermore, when sub Robert Rhoades, all from the Department of ject to technical analysis, these site file records Anthropology at the University of Georgia, also are capable of providing important insights attended part of the workshop. about where past human populations lived and Most of the workshop participants con where significant, yet currently unrecorded, cul tributed papers for this volume. Jim Scurry and tural resources may be found. Michael Trinkley, both of whom had been The March 1995 workshop and this sub invited to attend but had other commitments, sequent publication are intended to foster com also provided articles. The workshop was organ munication between southeastern site file man ized by Anderson and Horak. Mark Williams of agers and their data providers. The ultimate goal the Lamar Institute and LaBau Bryan of the is to help improve the regional database. Department of Anthropology at the University Another related purpose is to present infor of Georgia assisted with local arrangements. In mation on the state of archaeological site file producing this volume, Anderson handled tech management in the Southeast to a broad na nical coordination while Horak assumed primary tional audience. The articles herein illustrate responsibility for copyediting and manuscript current information management practices in the assembly. Assistance from within the National region; strengths and weaknesses of the systems Park Service in completing this project was that are in use; and some of the solutions that provided by John E. Ehrenhard, Chief, IASD in have been devised to deal with specific records
3 Archaeologkal Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective management problems. The articles also high ingly, could help foster both a greater awareness light the importance of site file data for both of the approaches employed in each state and cultural resource management and research. better communication between the people re Other subjects that are touched on include sponsible for maintaining these systems. This the importance of site file data to successful could lead, over time, to the site file data from review and compliance; the need to maintain state to state becoming more comparable and accurate and up-to-date information (and how to accessible and, as a result, more useful for re do this); ways in which site file data is being search and resource management purposes. integrated into geographic information systems In mid-1994, the editors of this volume (GIS); and the degree of accessibility of site file submitted a proposal entitled Site File Manage data. Appreciable attention is directed to press ment and the Technical Review Process: Inven ing concerns facing site file managers, such as torying Cultural Resources at the State and maintaining accurate data, dealing with massive Federal Level to the National Park Service's backlogs, and properly utilizing staff resources. Partnerships in Cultural Resources Training Increased awareness of the importance of site Initiative program. The proposal was accepted file data should, we believe, lead to an im in late 1994, leading to the ensuing workshop provement in the forms being submitted by and this publication in March and September professionals and avocationals, as well as to an 1995, respectively. increased support for these systems. We also The workshop was a combination round hope this volume will help information man table and symposium, with informal presenta agers around the country justify greater effort tions by representatives of each organization, on behalf of the professional and lay public to followed by open discussions. The meeting carefully record and update information on opened with welcoming remarks by Dr. Robert archaeological and historic sites. Southeastern Rhoades, Chairman of the Department of An archaeologists have long taken pride in the qual thropology, University of Georgia, who noted ity of their primary records and collections. the important role that archaeology and site file While it may be presumptuous, we are proud of data linked to GIS technology can play in the work on site file management that has been exploring global and regional patterns of change done here in the Southeast and would like to in environment and ecology. He also brought up think that the information in this volume will be the practical question of how state site files of value and interest wherever people are trying should be financed, based on the situation in to compile and work with site file data. Georgia, where minimal funding is available. Mark Williams, Georgia Site File Director, then offered his own welcome to the group, PROJECT IDSTORY giving a brief history of the University of Geor gia campus and the GIS laboratory. Steve Ongoing research exploring large-scale site and Kowalewski, an archaeologist in the Department settlement distributions had resulted in archae of Anthropology, offered a number of remarks ologists from IASD regularly contacting the re about the importance of systematic collections gion's site file managers in recent years (as and records management for resolving large reported in Anderson 1990, 1991, 1996). The scale patterning and explanation. Once the pref data they graciously provided, when combined atory remarks were completed, attention shifted and plotted at large scale, revealed patterns of to individual presentations. Over the next day past land use that had never been seen before. and a half, each participant gave a brief (fifteen Working with data from across the Southeast, to thirty-minute) verbal presentation on the his however, also led to the realization that records tory of site file management in their state or management practices varied widely. Bringing locality, followed by a review of conditions and the regbn's site file managers together, accord- strengths and weaknesses of the current system.
4 Introduction
Each presentation was followed by another ten The conference participants had an opportunity to fifteen minutes of open discussion. A great to see the Georgia Site Files/GIS mapping sys deal of informal discussion also took place dur tem; an example of multimedia records manage ing coffee breaks, which were held about every ment prepared by the University of Alabama hour. The final two hours of the workshop were (including on-line film clips of excavations in devoted to an open and somewhat freewheeling progress and images of individual artifacts, discussion. Opportunity for further interaction maps, and field notes); the National Archeo was facilitated by a banquet held Wednesday logical Database (NADB); and various World night at the hotel where most of the participants Wide Web (WWW) home-page sites, such as were staying. The Lamar Institute helped handle the one posted by the Center for Advanced local arrangements, providing coffee and re Spatial Technologies (CAST), University of Ar freshments throughout the workshop and setting kansas, where NADB and many other cultural up the dinner meeting. resources data reside. The entire meeting was Holding the workshop in a GIS lab per video filmed, and the tapes are curated at the mitted several on-line demonstrations, which National Park Service's Southeastern Archeo were interspersed amid the state presentations. logical Center in Tallahassee, Florida.
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by Barry Isaac and Kenneth Tankersley, pp. 163-216. Journal of Economic Anthropology Sup plement 5.
1991 Examining Prehistoric Settlement Distribution in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 19:1-22.
1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In The Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson. University Presses of Florida (In Press).
Anderson, David G., and Virginia Horak (editors) 1993 Site Destruction in Georgia and the Carolinas. Readings in Archeological Resource Protection Series, No. 2. Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Ehrenhard, John E. (editor) 1990 Coping with Site Looting: Southeastern Perspectives. Readings in Archeological Resource Protection Series, No. 1. Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta.
5 THE SITE FILE AS A RESEARCH DATABASE: THE ALABAMA EXPERIENCE
Eugene M. Futato
INTRODUCTION has always been seen as a research tool. This is not incompatible with cultural resource manage Q: I'm working on a paper about regional ment, however. The file is structured to provide Middle Archaic settlement patterns. Can the data necessary for cultural resource manage you give me a breakdown for Alabama of ment, and the very reason we manage archaeo recorded Middle Archaic sites in riverine logical resources is for their research value. settings as opposed to the uplands? Perhaps this just indicates a slightly different perspective and emphasis. A: I can give you Middle Archaic sites in Several considerations went into the 1988 alluvial valleys versus uplands. creation of the present site file database. Our foremost concern was to create a true database. Q: I'm really most interested in Morrow The ability to conduct somewhat sophisticated Mountain. Can you give me information for queries and analyses was seen as crucial. Use of just the Morrow Mountain sites? a word processor, which would permit data input and output with only rudimentary search A: Sure. capacity, was deemed insufficient. Ease of file modification and data revision was a second Q: Also, I'm focusing on the interior South major consideration. east, can you leave out sites in the Coastal We also believed that the entire site form, Plain? except the map, should be entered. Moreover, the entry should be in a file structure that A: So, you want the number of Morrow maximized the amount of data suitable for Mountain sites in alluvial valleys versus the query. For ease of use, all data was to be un uplands, excluding all sites in the Coastal coded. For example, drainage basins would be Plain? entered as ALABAMA, COOSA, or CHATTA HOOCHEE, not 1, 2, or 3. Each of these Q: Can you do that? considerations resulted in a larger file. At this time, the file contains 17,715 records com A: Yes. prising just over 26 megabytes. But the truth is that today even a fairly modest PC has no Q: How long will this take? Should I call you trouble handling this much data. back in a couple of days; will you mail me Another important consideration was data the answer; or what? reliability on several levels, from data entry and editing to acceptance of data for entry, to A: I'm running the two queries now. They'll verification of data using additional sources. take about a minute and a half each. Handling redundant site numbers for a single site or the duplication of a number for multiple Since its inception in July 1931, the Alabama sites was another concern. Standardization of State Site File, as it is now called, has been data was also important. managed by research archaeologists at the The scope of a site file is broad but not University of Alabama. As a result, the site file very deep. Site files contain information about
6 The Site File As a Research Database: The Alabama Experience many sites over a large area, but generally do A number of fields describing the site's not contain a great deal of information about environmental setting come next. These include any one site. As such, the natural focus of a site the topographic setting; the physiographic dis file is somewhat geographical. Site files may be trict (and from this the physiographic section); seen as registers of places containing selected the nearest water source type, distance, and information about those places. This is how the direction; drainage basin; ground cover; and soil Alabama file is viewed. The most crucial data type and texture. Soil type and texture are about a site is location. Where is this site in separate fields, again to facilitate queries. They both legal and environmental terms? The second are followed by a checklist of some twenty-two set of data concerns significant site characteris selected site characteristics and/or site types, tics, for example, preservation, midden, mounds, each as a separate field. glyphs, and human remains. Another set of data The majority of the fields, about 150 of the deals with components present. The file also total 241, are for component data. Component includes fields for National Register of Historic data is entered by individual phase or horizon, Places (NRHP) status, date recorded, and if available, but in an upwardly hierarchical recorder, along with text fields for site de manner. For example, if the phase MOUND scription, comments, and additional component VII.3 is entered, then LATEMISS, ANYMISS, information. The final fields, many of which do and ANYABO are also entered. Where specific not appear on the site form, concern data phases or horizons cannot be identified, data is reliability and status of the computer record. as specific as possible. If the only diagnostic artifact is a limestone tempered cord-marked sherd, which may be Middle Woodland or Late THE DATABASE Woodland, UNIDWOOD, ANYWOOD, and ANYABO are entered. A few residual fields are The database for the Alabama State Site File is also provided for horizon markers that are maintained in dBase. Each record has 241 fields important but more vague. Included in these are comprising 608 bytes, plus text. The number of unidentified ceramics, small triangular points, fields seems excessive to some people but is and steatite or sandstone bowl sherds. A final necessary to perform the level of queries we option is UNKNOWNABO. Nonaboriginal sites desire, such as the number of sites with Morrow are broken down by century, sixteenth through Mountain components located in alluvial valleys twentieth, and by date range. This data is also outside of the Coastal Plain. coded for historic aboriginal sites. Each record begins with the site number Next are two memo fields, COMPONENTS and name. Site numbers are actually entered and COMMENTS. The former provides the data twice, as SITENO and as COUNTY and NUM to support the checklist, while the latter is for BER. SITENO is an index field and is used for comments, site description, references, and other various report forms. The individual entries un text. They are followed by the date the site was der COUNTY and NUMBER facilitate identi recorded, the type and identity of the recording fying blocks of site data. individual, agency, or institution, and the date The next section of data is for site size and the computer record was last revised. location. Fields specify the site location by quadrangle map, UTM coordinates, and town ship and range. Data on elevation and site DATA MANAGEMENT length, width, and depth follow. Site impacts and percent of destruction are next. NRHP As noted in the introduction, we believe it is eligibility is listed in this section. After this important for the database to be reliable and to come fields concerning the level of archaeo include information on the status of data col logical investigation of the site. lection and verification. This is done through a
7 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective series of special codes in standard fields, as well and SOILDATE indicate that just those sections as through a series of special tracking fields. of the form are complete and checked-subtasks Two key fields for this are STATUS and that are often done separately. EDITED. Office staff enter newly received Dealing with synonyms is an important forms onto diskettes as they are received. Data aspect of data control. Some sites have more on the form is entered as is; blank fields are left than one number, some numbers have been used blank. At the end of each calendrical quarter, all more than once. These relationships are handled new records are processed into the database, at through a FLAG field. A blank field or a C which time some basic cleanup is performed. indicates that the number is clear. No other site Staff looks for problems, such as spelling has been given this number; no other number errors; incomplete, illogical or inconsistent data; has been given to this site. If a site has been unsubstantiated component assignments; or given multiple numbers, one is called the master impossible U1M coordinates. At this time X is number or M in the FLAG field. The other entered into the EDITED field and N, for new, number is reduced to a synonym, S in the field. into the STATUS field. For synonymous records, only the site number, As resources permit, additional verification flag, revision date, and comments are filled. of the site form or the collection of missing data Other character fields are filled with dashes, all may be undertaken. Most often this work is numeric fields are filled with -9, and the date supported by matching grants for site file up recorded is 11/11/1111. The appropriate cross dates from the Alabama Historical Commission. references are described in the comments. An alternate funding source is project specific Synonymous records do not carry other data funding, such as agency sponsored literature because counting the same site twice in a query search, overview, or database projects. would skew the result. If two sites have been The process of data verification and col assigned the same number, one is given a new lection is generally broken down into two tasks, number, the cross references are added to the map search and literature search. The map comments, and both numbers are considered search collects or verifies all geographic data master numbers. available from such sources as quadrangle In another attempt to reduce skewed data, a sheets, county soil surveys, and geologic maps. number of sites were reduced to synonyms The literature search collects whatever other when the database was initially created. It was information can be obtained from available re common practice in Alabama in the 1930s and ports on the site. During these searches, all 1940s to assign separate site numbers to each relevant fields are filled. If data is unavailable individual mound at multimound sites; to sep for a character field, UNAVAILABLE-or as arate areas of shell midden within a larger much of the word as fits-is entered into the village midden, as they were called; or to field. The code -1 serves the same purpose for mound and village pairs. We have since com numeric fields. For yes/no fields, such as bined many of these and will likely combine components, a period(.) is used to indicate that others as we continue to update the database. A the field does not apply. At the end of this mound and village are one site, not two. process, an M, to indicate map data, or a T for text data, is entered into the field EDITED to indicate that the verification has been com ENHANCEMENTS pleted. When both the supplemental map and literature searches are complete and all fields A few simple dBase applications have been have been accounted for, F for final is entered written to supplement the database. One is into the EDITED and STATUS fields. called ADDSITES. This is a simple sorting A few other special codes and fields indi routine provided to the Alabama Historical cate form status. For example, COMPSDONE Commission. Each quarter, all new or revised
8 The Site File As a Research Database: The Alabama Experience
records are sent to the Commission for entry has been obtained specifically for use with the into their copy of the database. ADDSITES site file. We chose Atlas for a number of locates records with the same site number, reasons, including its relative simplicity, easy eliminates the oldest one, and recompiles the interface with dBase, and demonstrated utility file and associated indexes. with site file data at the University of Georgia Two other programs, also provided to the (see Williams, this volume). Alabama Historical Commission, were written Another option under consideration is the to search the file for sites within defined areas. development of a multimedia site file database. CIRCLES first asks for a centroid, as a site The Office of Archaeological Services is al number or UTM coordinate. Search options are ready developing several multimedia databases for all sites within any specified radius of the in conjunction with the Advanced Technology centroid, or for the nearest sites with the num Group from the University of Alabama Seebeck ber of sites specified by the user. Sites within a Computer Center. This is being done for several specified radius are listed as encountered. teaching, research, and collections management Nearest sites are listed in rank order from 1 to needs, including the Dust Cave project, the n, with the site number and distance in meters Moundville site, and our inventory for compli provided. BOXES operates in a similar fashion. ance with the Native American Graves Protec The box may be drawn by providing four UTM tion and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). A multi boundaries--north, south, east, and west. Alter media site file could include all the existing nately, a centroid may be provided as in data, plus maps, photographs, plans and profiles, CIRCLES, and a distance north, south, east, and along with a multimedia front end to simplify west of the centroid specified. Sites are listed in the system's use. the order encountered. Either program may be As technologies for information manage tailored for sites meeting specific criteria by ment improve at an ever accelerating rate it is setting a filter on the file prior to running the difficult to guess what the Alabama State Site application. Also, the results for each may be File will be like in ten years, or even five years. sent to the printer or screen. Will site files, with appropriate safeguards, be available on the World Wide Web? Will there be a national site database? Form is hard to SOME FINAL CONSIDERATIONS predict. But whatever its form, we hope there is no change in the substance of the Alabama What are the future options for the Alabama State Site File. We hope the Alabama State Site State Site File database? Interface with Geo File is, and remains, a useful information source graphic Information System software is one for researchers and managers concerned with direction in which we are moving. Atlas GIS the archaeological resources of Alabama.
>>>
9 COMPUTERIZED SITE FILES IN ARKANSAS: UTILIZING NEW TECHNOLOGIES Lela Donat
PART I -A GIS ENHANCED CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM*
INTRODUCTION ning needs. This was accomplished by the re cent technological advances in telecommunica In May 1993, the Arkansas Archeological Sur tions and networking. vey entered into a cooperative agreement with the Department of Arkansas Heritage (DAH) to PROJECT PURPOSE develop an integrated digital information infra structure. This project combined innovative data Section 106 of the National Historic Preser management technologies, long-distance net vation Act requires federal agencies and state working potentials, and extensive statewide agencies using federal money to assess the archeological and environmental data. The inte effects of their projects on archeological and grated system was designed to enable govern historic properties. Agencies must determine if ment agencies and other organizations to use archeological and historic properties exist within computer-based mapping and analytical tools for their project right-of-ways and consult with the management, planning, and research activities State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), within the state of Arkansas. The project was which is part of the DAH. The SHPO and the made possible in large part by an Intermodal requesting agency decide if new or additional Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) archeological investigations are necessary before grant from the Department of Transportation, a project is initiated. It was a time-consuming and administered by the Mack-Blackwell Na process to determine where archeological proj tional Rural Transportation Study Center, Uni ects had been undertaken in the state prior to versity of Arkansas, Fayetteville. the development of this archeological project database and GIS. Having this information readily available will save state and federal PROJECT OBJECTIVE agencies time and money, and allow for more meaningful consultations between the SHPO The primary objective of the GIS Enhanced and other agencies. Cultural Resource Management System project The developed integrated system was de was the development of a computer-based geo signed to augment the existing information sys graphic information system (GIS) map layer and tem created and operated by the Survey. A key an associated digital database containing com component of that original system is the Auto prehensive information on all archeological mated Management of Archeological Site Data projects, surveys, and excavations in Arkansas. in Arkansas (AMASDA) database. (See Part II A second objective was to provide accessibility of this article for more information on tracking to other decision making agencies for their plan- projects with AMASDA.) This computerized
* Adapted from a technical report of the same name written by Thomas J. Green, Lela Donat, Jerry Hilliard, and Jami J. Lockhart. Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1995.
10 Computerized Site Files in Arkansas: Utilizing New Technologies relational database management system consists the environmental and cultural characteristics of over 130 separate fields of information associated with the presence or absenc~ of sites. relating to each of the approximately 30,000 archeological sites in Arkansas (May 1995). AMASDA is coupled to a Geographic Re PROJECT STEPS sources Analysis Support System, or GRASS based fully functional GIS, that provides the Five steps were involved in the development ability to digitize locational information, and to and implementation of the archeological project import existing digital data, such as digital line GIS and accompanying relational database. graphs, digital elevation models, and satellite imagery. Data can be manipulated, analyzed, > The first step was the creation of a project and displayed as either color images, hard copy database schema. The schema is the digital maps, or tabular information once it has been structure or framework designed to contain entered into the system. The Survey currently and manage the information. Decisions has a number of statewide GIS data layers on about the types of information to be includ line. These include archeological, cultural and ed in the database were made in consulta socioeconomic data themes, TIGER census data, tion with archeologists from the SHPO, transportation, hydrography, elevation, soils, and since they are principal users of the system. geology. Information encoded into the system in The AMASDA database standing alone was cludes the project name and AMASDA extremely useful in finding out where archeo number, the name of the archeologist who logical sites were recorded. It could not provide performed the survey, the project dates, and information about where archeologists had the project's sponsor. The database also in looked for sites and found nothing. The Survey cludes information on the project's size and has compiled information on more than 3,265 location and the type of project, whether it archeological project reports statewide (May is an intensive survey, archeological testing, 1995). These archeological reports contain in or extensive excavation. Information on the formation on the location and extent of archeo field conditions, constraints, and subsurface logical investigations, even if no archeological indicators of archeological deposits allow sites were found. Knowing what areas have reviewers to judge the adequacy of the been surveyed for cultural resources and how investigation without imposing a judgmen the surveys were conducted are as important as tal confidence-level rating system. Along determining the location of known archeological with the development of the database sites during the developmental planning process schema, an encoding sheet was designed. for highway construction, timber sales, or the These forms mirror the database, thus re placement of sewage treatment facilities. An ducing encoding errors (Figure 1). agency may or may not be requested by the SHPO to do additional archeological work be > The second step was to gather all the fore construction begins. This depends on the reports of archeological projects completed type of surveys performed along with the infor in the state. Most of these were located in mation recorded about the project the Survey's archives. Approximately 350 The integrated GIS relational database can reports not on file with the Survey were at display the locations and boundaries of these the SHPO in Little Rock. projects. This has the potential to greatly reduce redundant archeological investigations within > Next, eight students from the Department the same location. Meaningful predictive models of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, of archeological site location can be developed Fayetteville were hired to convert the infor by using the existing information pertaining to mation from written reports into digital
11 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective
ARKANSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT AREA DATABASE
AMASDA Project No: ____ (to be assigned by AAS Registrar)
Project Name:
Report Available: yes __ no Submitted to AAS: yes __ no
Year of Project:
Archeologist(s):
Investigating Entity:
Sponsor/Client:
Purpose of Project: Compliance __, Research __, Rescue __
Type of Project: Judgmental Survey __, Intensive/Systematic Survey __, Field Survey with Site Testing __, Site(s) Testing Only __, Extensive Excavation __, Mitigation __, Remote sensing __, Nautical Excavation
County(s):
USGS 7.5' Map Name(s) within Project Area: ------
(please attach xerox of USGS map(s) with project boundary outlined)
Project Size: Total Hectares _____ No. Hectares Surveyed ------~ If linear or segmented project area use Total length in Kilometers and Total width of right-of-way in Meters . (For sewer or other projects where a portion of the project is described as a unit of hectares/acres and the remainder of the project area is linear, enter all data as noted above.)
Archeological Sites Investigated/Recorded During This Project:
Total Number of Sites Recorded/Investigated:
Number of sites determined by Principal Investigator to be potentially Eligible for inclusion in the National Register · Not eligible · Undetermined/unknown as to Eligibility __
Figure 1 - The Arkansas Archaeological Project Area Database form (page 1 of 2).
12 I Computerized Site Files in Arkansas: Utifizing New Technologies
Number of Crew Persons: Number of Field Days:
Project Area Ground Cover: (check appropriate categories below)
Wooded __ , Pasture __, plowed/disced __, planted field __ , recently harvested field __, rice field __ , secondary undergrowth vegetation __, urban built environment __, not reported/unknown __
Restraints: (check appropriate categories below)
No major restraints __, Flooding __, Extreme slope __, Secondary vegetation/ undergrowth __ , Hazardous materials __
Subsurface Testing: (check appropriate categories below)
No subsurface testing __, Shovel Tests __, Auger Tests , Core Tests Maximum Test Interval (in meters) Screened Unscreened
Controlled Excavation Units
Size of Unit: meters x __meters, No. of units ____
meters x __meters, No. of units---- meters x __meters, No. of units ____ meters x __meters, No. of units ____
Feature Unit Excavation Only: ___ No. of Features Excavated:
Backhoe Trench( es): __ No. of Trenches __ Maximum Depth __ (in meters)
Remote Sensing
Name Type: Total Sq. meters Surveyed
Human Remains Reported: Yes No (includes historic cemeteries)
Figure 1 (cont.) - The Arkansas Archaeological Project Area Database form (page 2 of 2).
13 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective
form. This was the most labor-intensive layers for display and, more importantly, and time-consuming part of this project. for analysis. First, each project was plotted on 7.5-min ute USGS quadrangle maps. On the aver > The final step was the connection of the age, it took one hour per project to plot the Survey and the SHPO to the Internet. The boundaries and to extract project informa SHPO has a computer that can function as tion from the report. Archeological excava a GIS terminal (Figure 2). This computer tions could be mapped relatively quickly, connects via Internet to the Survey com while right-of-way surveys for highways, puter running the integrated data manage power lines, pipelines, and large surveys ment system. Survey personnel not only took more time to interpolate and plot. provide on-site demonstrations and training, Once plotted on USGS maps, the project they maintain continuous communication boundaries were digitized into the GIS. and technical support for the SHPO staff. Information for each project was encoded into the database. As of May 1995, there The staff of the Registrar's Office and the have been 3,263 projects entered into the Computing Services Program of the Survey system. maintain and update the project database. Access to add or delete information is restricted > The fourth step involved the conversion of to these offices. Authorized on-line users are U.S. Census TIGER data to a digital format given a password to access the system. Cur for use in the Survey's integrated data rently, the primary user of the GIS component management environment. The Center of of the database system is the SHPO. Other Advance Spatial Technology at the Uni agencies with access to the on-line project versity of Arkansas, Fayetteville, in co database include the Arkansas Highway and operation with the Survey and DAH, sup Transportation Department, the U.S. Forest Ser plied the raw TIGER files and programs to vice, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, be used in the data conversion process. The Little Rock District. Each of these agencies TIGER data contains modem community must have an archeologist on staff. Archeolo boundaries, up-to-date highway maps, hy gists not on line can request information about drographical coverage, and traditional cen previous projects through the Registrar's Office. sus data. Knowledge of the modern envi Hard copies of the archeological reports, site ronment is essential to the SHPO in making forms, site-related information, a list of all proj informed decisions concerning the need for ects in the database, and two sets of 7.5-minute archeological investigations prior to a proj quadrangles maps--one with archeological proj ect. These data layers provide the capability ects plotted and one with sites plotted-are also to cartographically overlay archeological available in the Registrar's Office for anyone project boundaries onto modern digital map with a demonstrated need to know.
14 Computerized Site Files in Arkansas: Utilizing New Technologies
GflASS 4 .1 - Molli tor: lit cmdtool (CONSOLE) - /bin/csh PERFORM: Next Previous View Add Update Remove Table Screen ..• Searches the active database table. u 1: p_main table** SurVt>Yd,'Proj t'f·ltl in the
oe--.."' AAS PROJECTS DB *u F'ayettevi1le, AR Arr-a
""*AMASDA HO: fWllJ
Project name [Highwa~1 71 Fa·,..etteville to A1rna
Project M [--) CllJtSifl8 Ff [------) ' Archaeologists: !Ill Mi11er. J.E. III Vear [!mil tt Vrs
Investig.Entity [Ar\.;,ansas Highway & Transport.at1on Dep;:ntment
Prine.Sponsor. [AHTD
.!=1 =ro=w=(s=)=f;;;ou;;;nd======'"-~J ,,!._L GllASS 4.1 ·~Monitor:· xz •
Hove pointer to label location BUTTOll 11£ANS Left Place label here Right No fllO!'e labels Mapset
Figure 2 - An example of a computer screen depicting the Grass program using AMASDA.
PART II - TRACKING ARCHEOLOGICAL PROJECTS
HISTORY OF TRACKING SCREEN It was evident as more and more archeo logical projects were undertaken that a method The Arkansas Archeological Survey currently for keeping track of the progress of each project manages the records of approximately 30,000 was needed. In response to this need, the archeological sites (May 1995). In the late tracking screen was developed in the mid-1980s 1970s, a relational database, the Automated by Jerry Hilliard and Robert Harris. Management of Archeological Site Data in The primary purpose of the tracking screen Arkansas (AMASDA), was developed to handle is to follow the progress of a project, along with site information more efficiently. This database the associated records and artifacts, from its allows the linkage of such information as site conception to its completion. This database en name to state site number, black and white ables the Registrar's Office to determine the photographs to specific projects or sites, and status of any project at any given time. archeological projects to project related sites.
15 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective
PROCESS OF TRACKING PROJECTS tracked through each of the databases. The tracking screen has proved invaluable All site and site related information is entered in searching for a specific project and all the into the AMASDA database. Each archeological associated records pertaining to that project. project is given a unique number called the Cultural resource managers, researchers, and AMASDA number. This number allows the graduate students can easily access the database tracking of a project through the project data and find pertinent information. Our office has base, the site form, and the tracking screen used the tracking screen to locate forms, photo databases. graphs, slides, and maps for gathering informa The Arkansas Archeological Survey's track tion for our Native American Graves Protection ing screen is written in Informix. A similar and Repatriation project. The number of artifact tracking screen can be developed in any rela boxes from a project has been useful in plan tional database, such as Paradox or Lotus 123. ning future curation space. The key to the success of this tracking system is The following table shows the fields in the the number assigned to each archeological tracking screen along with a brief explanation of project. This number allows the project to be the information recorded.
TRACKING SCREEN - AMASDA No. [641]
DATE RECORDS CK [01/03/94] Check of archeological sites and reports in a project specific area. DATE SITE FORM RECV [03/05/94] Date site forms are received in our office.
DATE SITE NO ASGN [03/09/94] Date site forms given permanent state site numbers.
ACCEPT/NO-ACCEPT [Y] Were site forms accepted? Yes/no.
DATE CURATION AGR [02/03/94] Date curation agreement signed. PROP SUBMIT COLLECT [06/30/95] Approximate date that artifacts will be submitted for review. ACCESSION YEAR [1994] Year artifacts will be accessioned under.
ACCESSION NO BEGIN [325] First accession number for this project
ACCESSION NO END [341] Ending accession number for this project. DATE REPORT RECV [*] Date report received for comment. DATE DRAFI' COMMENT [*] Date of comments. TE COLLECT RECV [02/05/95] Date artifact collection submitted.
COLLECT ACCEPTED [Y] Collection accepted? Yes/no.
16 Computerized Site Files in Arkansas: Utilizing New Technologies
TRACKING SCREEN (cont.) - AMASDA No. [641]
DATE COLLECT ACCEPT [03/05/95] Date artifact collection accepted. PROJE FILE EXTENSION [Y] Is additional information about this project stored in project file extension? Yes/no. This information is stored in numbered document boxes.
SITE FILE EXTENSION [N] Is additional information regarding the sites investigated stored in the site file extension? Yes/no. PHOTO YEAR [1994] Year of black and white photos. PHOTO NO BEGIN [3130] Beginning number of photos. PHOTO NO END [3202] Ending number of photos.
SLIDE YEAR [1994] Year of slides. .. SLIDE NO BEGIN [25] Beginning slide number. SLIDE NO END [56] Ending slide number. FIELD BOOK NO [342] Field book number. MAP NO [MP 321] These maps are stored either in a map case or, if the map is very large, it is left rolled and assigned a map position within the storage area.
DATE FINAL REP [04/05/95] Date of final archeological report.
NUM SITES INVEST [58] Total number of sites investigated during this project.
PROJECT AREA [40 HA] Size of project area in hectares. NUMBER OF BOXES [6] Total number of artifact storage containers. DATE CLOSEOUT [04/05/95] Date the project was closed out * The State Archeologist reviewed archeological reports for compliance until 1987. These fields are no longer used.
>>>
17 SITE FILE IN THE SUNSHINE: THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE
Marion F. Smith. Jr.
The state of Florida maintains the Florida site data and accession information for museum Master Site File (FMSF) in Tallahassee as its collections. The inventory was started as official inventory of cultural resources (archaeo Florida's Master Site File in Tallahassee by the logical sites and standing historical structures). Division of Archives, History, and Records The Site File is administered by the State His Management, predecessor of the current Divi toric Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Director sion of Historical Resources. By 1973, under of the Division of Historical Resources under Frank Fryman, the Site File was documenting the Florida Department of State. Primarily, the not only prehistoric and historic archaeological FMSF is a clearinghouse for standardized infor sites, including shipwrecks, but also historic mation, unique in the Southeast in providing properties, especially buildings, engineering "one-stop shopping" for architectural and ar structures, and districts (Fryman 1973). By the chaeological records. end of the 1970s, the FMSF was also main The staff of the Site File currently consists taining files on the "gray literature" of Florida of two career service and six temporary em archaeology, especially field survey reports from ployees who maintain 100,000 files on sites, cultural resource management activities. structures, and survey projects; who enter about The first fifteen years of the Site File were 9,000 new files every year; and who service notable for a continuous increase in information more than 2,500 information requests annually. curated (Figure 1) and for farsighted work to apply computer technology to the Site File's task (Fryman 1975). Early computer work at the A SHORT IDSTORY OF FLORIDA'S FMSF was handicapped by the limited main SITE FILE frame hardware and software technology of the day, as well as the location of computers at Inception and Early Years, 1972-1985 Florida State University two miles distant. While Fryman's ambitious plans were never The recording system that became the FMSF fully realized, his successor M. Katherine Jones began in the 1940s as a card file on archaeo used the Site File's first desktop computers in logical sites kept by University of Florida auxiliary roles and continued to enter site and archaeologists, especially John Goggin. In 1950, structure data on the mainframe. Data accumu Goggin suggested splitting responsibility for lated by Fryman and Jones formed the core of controlling Florida records geographically be later computer databases at the Site File. tween the University of Florida-including the Department of Anthropology and the Florida Recent Developments, 1986-1995 State Museum (now the Florida Museum of Natural History)-and Florida State University As at many other governmental institutions, a (Goggin 1950). Until 1972, these institutions recent theme at the Florida Master Site File has and, to a lesser degree, the Fort Walton Temple been coping with fast-growing work by apply Mound Museum in Fort Walton Beach main ing slow-growing resources to technological tained regional site files (Fryman 1973). solutions. During the later 1980s, the pace of In the fall of 1971, the Florida legislature operations leaped forward at the Site File. funded systematization and automation of both Accelerating the input of new information, the
18 Site File in the Sunshine: The Florida Master Site File
RECORDS ON THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE
100000
90000
80000
70000 - - - Archaeological sites 60000 --•All cultural resources ---Historical structures 50000
40000
30000
20000 _____ ,,, _...... ---- / ------· 10000 ------"" 0 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996
Figure 1 - Number of completely processed records on cultural resources. Files on hand but not processed are excluded (see Figure 4). Detailed figures were kept regularly starting in 1990; breakdowns by resource type are not available for the years preceding 1983. state started a program to provide historic pre logical projects are received. servation grants for public and nonprofit institu Not only maintenance but use of the Site tion planning preservation projects. One of the File drastically expanded in the late 1980s, due most important grant categories, "survey and largely to two factors. First, the state imple registration" grants, matched funds for surveys mented a revised local government comprehen proposed to record previously unknown cultural sive planning process that required roughly 500 resources. This source of money has made a governmental entities to regularly query the Site lasting change in the rate at which cultural File regarding cultural resources. Another factor resources, especially historical structures, are in expanding use of the file has been Florida's recorded in Florida. This is reflected in Figure 1 rapid economic growth. This has tied in with as a dramatically steeper slope for cumulative increased development, leading, in turn, to more resources. From 1973 to 1986, about 1,500 new impact evaluations and more use of the file. resource records were added yearly; from 1986 How has Site File workload been affected to 1995, the annual rate climbed to nearly by user needs? While records were not kept 8,500. Unfortunately, as Figure 1 also suggests, before 1991, weekly inquiries in 1987 averaged the Site File has been boosted much less by about ten per week and rose fairly steadily over archaeological than architectural recordings, the next few years. Figure 2 shows user in partly because fewer applications for archaeo- quiries or "consultations" per working week
19 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective with detailed records for the last four years. The in 1987, to between six and seven in 1993-and contrast is stark. We average as many infor the pride that FMSF staff have always taken in mation requests now per day as we did per providing quality assistance. week less than a decade ago. Figure 2 shows With the advent of powerful and cheap how this arose, from an early 1990s buildup desktop computers in the 1980s, Jim Miller, peaking in 1993, falling off sharply, and then Chief of the Bureau of Archaeological Resourc stabilizing or starting to edge up. The temporary es, decided to emphasize local computer solu drop-off is probably explained by policy chang tions for some FMSF problems. Marion Smith es at the Site File, which were announced in was brought in as supervisor in June 1986. His mid-1993. These were designed to cut staff time initial assignment was to oversee the conversion spent assisting users. However, the much publi of Site File databases from mainframe databases cized implementation of the second round of at Florida State University to dBASE III data tightening in mid-1994 had little effect on bases running on a local IBM PC-compatible workload. We expect use-related workload to computer. The first desktop system used by resume the upsurge of the early 1990s. Smith was a single IBM XT-compatible com Another measure of pressure on staff re puter with 512 kilobytes of memory and ten sources is offered by Figure 3, average staff megabytes of hard disk storage, used by a time per consultation. The almost steady drop maximum of two persons. By 1991, five com (the spike in 1995 reflects a single unusual puters ranging from an XT-compatible to a 386- consultation) may be another indicator of in class machine were in use by as many as five creasing workload. Overall, time per request employees. Yet the master computer files were decreased from twenty-five to ten minutes over still accessible only on the central computer a span of three years and held there, despite an station. This created an intolerable bottleneck. increase in staffing-from between one and two All global operations, including appending new
WEEKLY INQUIRIES
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Figure 2 - Average weekly number of user inquiries requiring substantial staff assistance. Inquiries handled at once were excluded. Because the number of workdays per week was not recorded for the entire period, some weeks reflect as little as three workdays, helping to explain the correlation of "valleys" with the tum of the year. Figures have been smoothed by applying a sliding average: the figure used for week i is the average for weeks i-~ i, and i+l. Detailed records on inquiries were not recorded periodically before 1991.
20 Site File in the Sunshine: The Florida Master Sile File
WEEKLY AVERAGES OF STAFF TIME PER INQUIRY, IN MINUTES I 30 -.-~~~----,-----~---,-~-~~--.-~------r~~-~----i
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Figure 3 - Average duration of FMSF staff labor on user inquiries over a one-week period. The units are in minutes. Inquiries handled at once were not included. Figures have been smoothed by applying a sliding average: the figure used · for week i is the average for weeks i-l, ~ and i+l. Estimates of staff time were not regularly kept before 1991. records, editing old records, reorganizing data, services-have filled the gap, ranging in searching, and reporting, had to be done at one number from one in 1986 to a recent peak of station. To allow simultaneous access from mul eleven in 1993. Since 1990, the average number tiple stations, a LAN or Local Area (Computer) of OPS employees has been about five. Network was set up at the Florida Site File in Compared to the archaeological records of February 1993. The master files became avail many other southeastern states, Florida's site able through any of the machines on the files have been consistently supported. How network, although physically located on the ever, two factors have reduced the progress fileserver-the central machine dedicated to made with archaeological records. First, a large network operations. By 1995, the Site File and growing preponderance of resources has network had been expanded to seven stations been allocated to maintain files on historical and had been connected, like other computers of properties. In the Tallahassee files, historical the Division of Historical Resources, to the properties outnumber archaeological sites in a Department of State1s Tallahassee area computer ratio that has risen from three to one in 1986 to network. Experimental access to the Internet and five to one in 1995. It is still rising. Second, to the World Wide Web is now available. dependence on rapidly turning over temporary For more than a decade, one person-Jones staff has sapped Site File efficiency. During one or Smith-has constituted the entire permanent recent year, .every one of four temporary posi-. preservation staff of the FMSF. In late 1994, a tions turned over-and three of these four computer expert was added, but much of his turned over twice. Temporaries as individuals attention was devoted to assisting other offices have done a superb job, but their average tenure of the Division of Historical Resources. Tem has been just over one year-a laughably porary staff without fringe benefits-called OPS insufficient period of time to learn the convo in Florida, which is short for other personal lutions of a Site File suddenly grown high tech.
21 Arch TALLAHASSEE TODAY: CURRENT dated sites and historical shipwrecks; (2) his STATUS AND PROBLEMS OF THE FMSF torical properties, especially buildings and engi neered structures, like bridges; and (3) multiple Philosophy resource areas, like historic and archaeological districts. Cultural resources of all these types are The corporate ideology of an institution is both filed in a single sequence according to the cause and effect of the institution's official Smithsonian system for identifying sites: the mission and of its daily performance. Floridians prefix "8" for Florida, the county abbreviated as who operate and who use the Master Site File two letters, a serial number of accession within tend to regard it as a glorified checklist. Its the county, and an optional letter suffix nor nominal mission is to serve neither as a local mally used for differentiating spatially or func National Register, nor as an archive of such tionally related resources assigned the same scope and reliability as to support stand-alone serial number. For example, the Leon County research. house-occupied from 1933 to 1941 by John Thus the FMSF is not an inventory of W. Martin, Florida's twenty-third governor-is Florida properties of historical or scientific recorded as 8LE00853A on an architectural significance-though many such properties are recording form. In order, the elements of that included-but a laundry list of sites and prop file number indicate the state of Florida, Leon erties that appear old enough to deserve con County's 853rd recorded cultural resource, and sideration when affected by modern activities. the fact that this is one of two related resources. This perception recognizes both the impracti There is a separate folder identified as cality of evaluating 9,000 properties annually 8LE00853B, documenting the archaeological and the volatility of evaluations of significance. remains of de Soto's winter encampment of Compared to some other site files of the 1539-1540; the folder was identified with a region, Florida's is oriented more toward plan number differing only in suffix because the site ning and management of cultural resources than spatially overlapped the lot on which the Martin toward academic research. Context and history house was later built. surely have factored· into this, since the FMSF Following the checklist philosophy, cultural has always been an integral part of mainline resources need not meet any specific standard of state government in Tallahassee, directly under historical or scientific significance, but are the SHPO and with archival responsibility for eligible if age and documentation standards are historic properties and Cultural Resource Man met. As to age, the FMSF applies the fifty-year agement (CRM) literature, as well as for archae standard suggested by the National Register, ological sites. This orientation was furthered by however, the supervisor makes exceptions at his Florida's "Government in the Sunshine Law," discretion. Normal requirements for documen which designated that state documents are fully tation include a completed standardized form, a public unless specifically exempted. Records on plot of site boundaries or structure locations on cultural resources have never been so exempted. a 24,000-scale topographic map, and, for struc tures, a photograph. Scope of Records: Cultural Resources and Tallahassee's gray literature consists pri Gray Literature marily of documents reporting original archaeo logical, architectural, and historical research in Primarily, the Florida Master Site File maintains Florida, especially, but not always, CRM re information on cultural resources and on the search. The Site File maintains hard copies of gray literature of preservati<;m, especially un these documents along with bibliographic and published reports of CRM fieldwork. Cultural project information, which has been recorded resources include: (1) prehistoric and historic preferably by the field surveyor on a standard archaeological sites on land, as well as inun- ized form called a Survey Log Sheet. Gray 22 Site File in the Sunshine: The Florida Master Site File literature manuscripts are filed and referenced Master Site File cannot be restricted. A maxi by the Site File's statewide serial number, which mum photocopying charge of fifteen cents per is assigned in order of receipt at Tallahassee. page is fixed by Florida statute, and this is the fee charged by the FMSF for all copies if more Information Media than 100 pages are copied by a user in a day. Staff of the FMSF help users as time permits, As of 1995, the Florida Master Site File keeps but are encouraged to apply a nominal limit of information on four different media: paper text fifteen minutes of help to routine inquiries. in manila file folders, site maps, survey maps, Visits in person or contacts by fax or letter are and computer records--mainly text data, both encouraged instead of telephone calls. We nor uncoded and coded, in database form. Paper text mally ask users to allow two weeks for constitutes the primary and most complete infor responses. So far, the average time to answer mation. One file room and part of the main Site inquiries has been less than one week. File room are required to hold more than 96,000 resource folders on open library shelving. In addition, more than 3,900 foldered manuscripts INVESTING IN "FILE FUTURES" - are similarly filed in the main room. The GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR boundaries of archaeological sites and signif FMSF DEVELOPMENT icant historical properties (properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register) are Any site file has three main tasks. Two of these kept in eight map cabinets on 1,040 USGS are related to maintenance, keeping the current topographic maps (1:24,000 scale). The areas system going. Maintenance input refers to the covered by field surveys, which relate to reports procedures needed to enter new documents and of gray literature fieldwork, are plotted on about updates to previously recorded properties in the eighty sheets of county highway maps, FMSF. Maintenance output relates to getting organized in a tabletop shelving unit. information to the many users of the Site File. Electronic media of the Site File in Talla The third task is development of the FMSF. hassee carry partial information on cultural re Only through compounding improvements in all sources and manuscripts in database files using areas of the Site File can continuing increases in a dBASE IV/Clipper format. Over the last de the input and output be accommodated without cade, the proportion of total information com unreasonable leaps in funding. puterized for new records has climbed from 15 Since most of the problems faced by the to 40 percent, although labor shortages have Florida Master Site File are common to all large usually prevented newly defined computer fields and dynamic archaeological databases, I will from being filled in for "old" records. A reor outline the major problems that darken the ganized database system will soon make it horizon of the Site File, together with measures possible to computerize 100 percent of text in being taken to meet them. formation. Since Site File computers share data bases and programs on an office network linked Improving Efficiency: Workload and Staffing to a larger departmental network, resource and manuscript data can theoretically be searched, The work expected of the Site File has strained listed, or manipulated from any networked com available staff. Figure 4 shows one aspect of puter of the Florida Department of State. this trend-the recent history of the Site File's backlog of unprocessed forms. Note that labor Access and Poh·cies shortfalls are reflected in a persistent backlog over the last decade at the FMSF. However, the As a tax-supported state office falling under the Site File's mission has been trimmed over the Sunshine Law, public access to the Florida same period, for example, by decreasing staff 23 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective BACKLOG OF UNPROCESSED FORMS 1oooor-~~~r-~~--J-~~-t~~--+~~--+---~+-~-~-l-ll------i--n1+-~--1 8000 -t-i~r-'t---t----t----+----+--+--l--+-i-:L..::::+-l\f-=+-;;;1--~+----1 6000 4-+-~--"--l------+-----1-----+----l--z~~-,>.,...J...._J_N---l-----1 4000++-~-~-'ri~~~~+--~~-t--~~-+-~~-+-[7~-r---+~~~~~~-+-~~~ 2000+-~~~~L'i~-~,-----if--~~-+~~~-+~~---=i::::.__~~-l-~~~-l---~+-~~--I ~ O+-~~-l-~-'--==__,~i------1~~~-1-~~--1~~~-l-~~~~~~~~~~+-~~--1 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Figure 4 Archaeological and historical property forms on hand but not processed for the period over which records are available-backlog data was not regularly recorded before 1993. To put the graph in administrative context, the time required for processing a single form has ranged between fifteen and thirty minutes. time devoted to helping users (see Figure 3). as it slows normal automated and manual opera Further reductions in the mission might unduly tions, increases staff training needs and error impede the management of cultural resources. rates, and complicates the task of changing the Coping with a mismatch between mission and system. Site File staff have thoroughly rede resources in Florida will involve raising work signed data structures to take full advantage of force efficiency or size-yet staff increases are parallelisms in the data for different types of hard to win and impossible to plan upon. cultural resources. The new data structures will The efficiency of the Site File must be also afford other opportunities: (1) to reduce increased so that Florida's information needs can labor and error rates by partly automating now be met by a stable staff despite stable or in manual operations, such as the creation of new creasing input workloads, and despite remorse- records and the assignment and confirmation of 1ess increases in the number and complexity of new file numbers; (2) to computerize 100 per information requests. In the long run, more cent of information requested on paper forms in expertise in information management and longer such a way that the integrity of individual tenures for staff are needed so that best ad recording forms is always preserved (informa vantage is taken of technological developments. tion is attributable to a specific recorder); and One important way to improve efficiency, then, (3) to refine the Data Dictionary. is to replace high-turnover temporary positions The Data Dictionary of the Florida Master with career service jobs. Site File is itself a database, a set of interrelated data files in the format of dBASE IV. The Improving Efficiency: common theme of dictionary files is the de Reorganizing Computer Data scription of each and every computer variable or field that is a part of the FMSF computer The current organization of computer data in system. The dictionary defines parameters for a Tallahassee is far from ideal. Rather, it is a host of everyday operations at the Site File, as palimpsest reflecting several episodes of super well as smart recording forms, semi-automated imposed partial changes. Oumsiness in data manuals describing the operations of the Site organization has subtle but large consequences, File and the completion of forms, regular semi- 24 Site File in the Sunshine: The Florida Master Site File automated data checks, and general help func > be capable of printing one, several selected, tions for in-house and external users. Levels of or all forms from a file using any ten-pitch the computer Site File that are described by the dot-matrix printer, but taking advantage of Data Dictionary include databases, files, and f ea tu res of better printers when they are standardized and custom forms for input and present; and output. The reorganization is being implemented > run on any 386-class, or better, DOS gradually, as the staff's other responsibilities compatible computer. permit. For the sake of the Site File, smart forms Improving Input: Smart Forms should: Another step toward input efficiency will be the > eliminate the need for paper forms or file completion of computer programs that act like space for their storage (hard copies of maps "smart" standardized forms. These forms have and photographs will still have to be undergone two rounds of testing, and an opera submitted and filed manually); tional version will be distributed by the end of 1995. Programs implementing smart forms will > minimize input errors by checking data and run on any DOS-compatible computer and will instantly warning the user about errors; assist field surveyors in entering, checking, and printing information corresponding to standard > greatly reduce FMSF work by encouraging Site File paper forms. compatible data entry by the surveyors What standards should such interactive (they will still type information just once, forms meet? For the user, several qualities but now directly into the smart form data would be helpful. Smart forms should: base rather than onto a dumb paper form); and > be friendly, with logical menus, context sensitive help, and helpful error messages; > when designed to use a central Data Dictionary, handle new forms and changes > incorporate detailed descriptions of the in to old forms with no reprogramming. formation requested, which can be called up with one keystroke if needed; Other state site files or any archaeological archives with large volumes of data from out > automatically check data as it is entered, side sources may be interested in modifying the and optionally at any time desired; programs making up the smart forms package for their own use. Some expertise in dBASE IV > allow lengthy narratives, continuations, and and Clipper would be necessary, since the supplements, so that noteworthy aspects of system is still under development and is not the resources can be documented free of especially friendly behind the scenes. arbitrary space or topical constraints; Improving Output and Efficiency: > produce output files compatible with the Electronic Document Management FMSF system so that FMSF staff don't have to retype data and inadvertently intro Paper records suffer from being paper, which is duce transcription errors; so bulky that the Site File is running out of I filing space for organizing all the paper file > be developed and packaged so that the folders. This event reinforces staff efforts to FMSF can distribute them free or nearly so; research, plan, and implement electronic storage 25 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective of Site File documents (often called EDM or is large, so is the payoff-partly in terms of Electronic Document Management). Electronic eliminating the burgeoning towers of unfilable storage will take vastly less space than the forms sprouting on the Gray Building's fourth current open library shelves and will permit floor. In the long run, of course, an even greater indefinite increases of stored information with payoff may be the progress toward converting out enlarged floor space. This gets us off the all Site File information to digital format, with "Tallahassee treadmill," whereby about two new its virtues of compactness, low-cost storage and library shelving units have to be added each duplication, and transmissibility. year to accommodate new folders. Paper has drawbacks other than bulk, Improving Output: GIS Technology notably lack of transmissibility, lack of porta bility, and difficulty of making backups to safe A Geographic Information System, or GIS, is a guard the data. Our file folders can be used only sort of flexible electronic atlas, one that can not by one person at a time and, obviously, only in only be used as a digital map of cultural Tallahassee-either costing heavy users signifi resources, but that can be superimposed on cant travel or costing the Site File extremely maps of other relevant cultural and natural scarce staff time for transmission via slow and features. Further, a GIS uses detailed database expensive photocopying and mailing. Another information about mapped features to select, consideration is that backing up paper periodi process, and display them-all under the user's cally requires repeated copying via photocopier, control. For example, all archaeological sites, all microfilm, or computer scanner. All of these are prehistoric sites, or just those prehistoric sites costly due to necessary manual handling, indeed attributed to agricultural peoples, might be so costly that primary paper records have never mapped with soil types superimposed. Finally, been backed up in Tallahassee. By contrast, the utility of the GIS is vastly increased by its after the expensive manual step of preparing digital nature. GIS data can be transmitted over and scanning paper files, an EDM system could phone lines or computer networks, or carried be backed up at reasonable expense using media about in portable media like computer diskettes. such as recordable compact disks. The power and utility of GIS promise to Thus an EDM system would solve the make it easy for the Site File and other space, transmission, portability, and backup appropriate public and private organizations (1) problems now associated with approximately to conduct traditional research and (2) to plan 1.5 million paper documents. Since each one of for and manage cultural resources. To illustrate 1.5 million pages needs to be scanned, indexed its utility for planning, consider the early stages for retrieval, held in a large storage device, and of a major residential development. A GIS for searched and displayed by expensive computer cultural resources would make it easy to see software at multiple computer stations, develop known sites together with soils, vegetation, ing an EDM is a project certain to cost hun topography, and alternative street layouts. Such dreds of thousands of dollars. Maintaining such a representation would make it much easer to a system will of course require substantial on plan greenspace for site preservation and to going investments for staff payroll and training, keep roads and houses off them. The value of as well as for computer hardware and software. GIS to the preservation and management of With in-house resources, the Site File has cultural resources goes beyond the preservation been researching the EDM field over the last community. GIS is now the dominant way of two years. A request for seed money for serious organizing and presenting data for public development was denied by the Florida Legis agencies with concerns in land management. lature in spring 1995, but the request will be Full implementation of a GIS at the Site File renewed next year. Other outside funding will encourage the dissemination of our data to sources will also be explored. If the investment the "guys in white bats" as nothing has ever 26 Site File in the Sunshine: The Florida Master Site File done in the past. state agencies for computer data in order to Initial development of a Florida Cultural recover the cost of building and maintaining Resources GIS is undetway in Tallahassee, their system. How much should be charged, if starting with archaeological sites. Early develop anything? The 1994 and 1995 Florida Legis ment is being supported by a Transportation latures have debated, though not settled, Enhancement grant administered by the Florida questions of public access and access fees for Department of Transportation for the federal computer archives developed with taxpayer !STEA program. Funding to further develop the dollars. GIS is being sought, with special emphasis being placed on (1) acquisition of a fast UNIX workstation and suitable GIS software to manip COOPERATION, THE FLOWING TIDE ulate records on over 100,000 properties state RAISING ALL BOATS wide; (2) digitization of the locations of his torical buildings, other historic properties, and State site files are important but scattered and field surveys; (3) improved electronic access by small institutions. In these times of fiscal public agencies and others with a need to know; stringency for site files and of great hazard for and ( 4) staff training to ensure that the complex cultural resources, "doing more with less" and system can be properly maintained as well as "working smart" are more than annoying used. clicbes. In Florida, we hope that our experience can guide others working with similar problems Improving Output: Wires and Webs in similar settings; certainly we have learned much from colleagues in similar settings. Yet Soon state site file managers seeking staff effi calling for cooperation, without elaboration, ciency and user convenience will put in place seems inadequate. Taking active steps to foster the electronic transmission of ordinary database cooperation could make a great difference for and GIS information and perhaps digital images site file managers and users, both within and of forms, maps and photographs. The takeover across state lines. of the Internet and the World Wide Web by Indeed, there are at least two spheres in ordinary citizens in 1994 and 1995 suggests that which cooperation should be actively sought. these systems may become the preferred ave Within a state, the user community-the raison nues for digital information. If the system d'etre of the site file--can define its needs better includes interactive programs, outside users than anyone else. Its members can also give could conduct their own searches and download moral, technical, and even political support to the specific information desired. the central repository. In April 1995, the FMSF In this area, ethical and political factors helped organize a roundtable discussion among will be harder to address than technical issues. users and maintainers of Florida archaeological No responsible person wants to set up a system databases, with emphasis on defining shared whereby vandals of archaeological sites could problems and concerns and on starting to download, with a few keystrokes, locations of address them cooperatively. The session, held in archaeological sites. It would likely be almost as conjunction with the annual meeting of the easy to download information on all of a state's Florida Anthropological Society, culminated in sites as it would be for one site. Yet Florida's a consensus that such meetings should be held Sunshine Law opens all agency records to the every year. public if they are not specifically exempted by Extending this pattern to the regional and statute. There is currently no such exemption national levels would repay all players in the for sensitive preservation information, such as game of big archaeological archives. Regular the precise location of archaeological sites and meetings of maintainers and users of site files shipwrecks. Another issue is fees charged by and other databases (for example, federal 27 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective databases associated with regional offices of the only one part of the rationale, of course; many National Park Service) might be held in con research questions show an inconvenient ten junction with archaeological meetings already dency to ignore today's political boundaries. attended by many players. Certainly there is no For users and maintainers of large data question of the benefit to Florida that accrued bases, a program of active cooperation will put from participation in the workshop that cli little more at risk than the chains of parochi maxed in this volume. Technical cooperation is alism and isolation. REFERENCES CITED Fryman, Frank B., Jr. 1973 Florida's Computerized Master Site File. Photocopy of handwritten notes dated March 16, 1973. On file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. 1975 Florida's Historical Resource Data Management System-1975: A Report of Evaluation for the National Park Service. Unpublished manuscript on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Goggin, John M. 1950 The State-Wide Archeological Site Recording System. Laboratory Notes 1, Anthropology Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville. On file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. >>> 28 THE GEORGIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES AND GIS: A USEFUL BEGINNING Mark Williams BACKGROUND 10,000 sites in the database. Unfortunately, this system was handicapped by several problems. The Georgia Archaeological Site Files have First, communicating with the mainframe was been located in Athens at the Department of extremely arcane and difficult for users. Second, Anthropology since their formal inception in the the annual costs for keeping the data on the mid 1970s. At that time, data was gathered from mainframe were high. Finally, not all the data the archaeologists and institutions in the state to had yet been coded for all the sites, thus the create the state's first central archaeological site data was incomplete. By 1985, we abandoned file. In addition to addressing the usual the mainframe approach for a microcomputer problems of eliminating redundancies in site environment, as personal computers became numbers and resolving vague locations, we more available and affordable. One of the immediately began a project to computerize the happiest days of my life was when I down files. A set of about sixty variables-generally loaded the data to the microcomputer (an IBM reflecting the information on the site forms PC), deleted our mainframe account, and (single page, front and back)-was defined, jettisoned the large magnetic tapes! codes selected, and coding of the information The growing site file database was then set onto old-fashioned Code Sheets was initiated. up using the Paradox database (from Borland) At intervals, the data on the code sheets was in the PC environment, and this forms our typed onto punched cards, three cards per site. primary database environment even at the This system was set up by the late Donald present time. I found Paradox much easier to Graybill, then on the Anthropology Department use than dBASE at that time, and am still quite faculty, with input from Mike Baker, then a happy with it. The current program is the DOS graduate student, and David Hally, also a version 4.5. Compared to the DOS product, the faculty member. The goal was toward unspe Paradox Windows product is slow and clumsy, cified computerization of the files, and this was and we do not use it. Four backup copies of the vaguely defined as a good thing to do. data are maintained at all times, with at least I became involved with the Georgia two of the copies kept outside of the Site Files Archaeological Site Files around 1981. At that office. The data is kept in compressed format time, punched cards were available for some using the program PKZIP. The current size of 5,000 sites. None of the cards had ever been the Paradox file is some 7.8 megabytes, which read into the mainframe computer at the compresses to about 1.3 megabytes and still fits university for any purpose, not even to be on a single high-density 3.5-inch floppy disk. transferred to a magnetic tape. With help from The file presently includes some 25,245 sites Doug McLeod, building computer "guru," I was and grows. by about 1,500 sites per year. able to upload all these cards to the IBM Virtually all data comes, of course, from CRM mainframe and write a Fortran program to per studies. Despite our consistently low funding, mit very simple examination of the data. By resulting in lack of staff, we were finally able to about 1983, I had implemented a system that catch up on database entry for the first time in allowed users from across the state to call the the spring of 1994. Since then, we have strug computer remotely by modem and examine the gled, but have generally been able to stay data. By that time, there were approximately caught up. 29 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective I have developed a Paradox macro program would be on the order of one-half mile across that permits the low-level user to examine the an unacceptably large value. database to a limited degree in a user-friendly Although Arclnfo may be a better long-run environment. The program welcomes the user choice, I decided to begin with Atlas GIS and has a menu structure that permits one to because of its availability, its ease of learning, conduct a few simple data queries. It does not, and its cost advantages. I began attempts to of course, give the user the power of the normal import the existing Paradox database into Atlas query mode of the full Paradox program. GIS (DOS Version 2.1) in late 1993, and, with the help of Tom Foster, currently a graduate student at Penn State University, was successful GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION after several frustrating weeks and many phone SYSTEMS (GIS) calls. With the fifty-three-step procedure deter mined, it currently takes about two hours to I have no formal training in GIS, but have used import the data each time we update it in Atlas a few of the currently available programs, GIS. learning them through their documentation and Briefly, to import the file, (1) the Paradox my own experimentation. I should add that I data files must be converted to dBASE files, have used and programmed (Fortran, Basic, and (2) the sites in the two separate UTM Pascal, C++) computers since 1974, and thus Zones for the state must initially be imported feel quite comfortable with them. separately into a new Geographic File within In 1993, at the request of Robert Rhoades, Atlas GIS. Incidentally, those states that are head of the Department of Anthropology, the wholly in a single UTM Zone are quite University of Georgia essentially gave a GIS fortunate in this light! The initial importing is laboratory to the department. This laboratory necessary to read the UTM locations per site in included a wide variety of hardware and the Paradox database and create points in the software for GIS application in Anthropology. Atlas GIS file that correspond to each UTM site The platforms provided included PC, Macintosh, location. The entire Paradox file (again con and Sun Unix, all with adequate speed and verted to a dBASE file) is then reimported as an storage. Digitizers and plotters were also Attribute File in Atlas GIS, so all the data can included. The software included Atlas GIS, be tied to each appropriate point (site) in the Idrisi, and Grass. Arclnfo will hopefully be resulting Geographic File. installed in late 1995. One of the most immediate advantages of Atlas GIS (and Arclnfo) are vector-based importing the site file data into a GIS is that programs, while Grass and Idrisi are primarily gross errors in site UTMs in the database are raster-based programs. My strong preference for graphically revealed. In the Georgia case, for site file use is a vector-based program. While example, some sites were scattered from the both systems are capable of yielding similar Caribbean all the way to Pennsylvania! By analytical results, the aesthetics of a map selecting these sites within the program, their derived from zooming-in using a vector-based site numbers can be immediately determined program are far better than those from a raster and the cause of the errors found by going back based program. This is not an insignificant to both the original Paradox database file and factor since publishable maps form a real part the paper records for such mislocated sites. of the advantage of a GIS for site file use. Most of the errors, perhaps 70 percent, were Grass could serve as a state site file GIS, but it derived from data entry into the computer, is quite difficult to install and clumsy to use. while the remainder were from errors on the site ldrisi cannot serve as a state site file GIS since forms themselves. Once all the sites were the maximum cell limitation in the program brought back to within Georgia, I checked site would mean that, for Georgia, the smallest cell distribution by each of the 159 counties in the 30 The Georgia Archaeological Site Files and GIS: A Useful Beginning state to discover those sites that were not States putting extra effort into extensive located within the proper county (Figure 1). checking of site forms before computer entry Digitized county outline data for the entire should be aware that many errors will still be United States comes as part of the Atlas GIS present due to the unavoidable data-entry errors. package itself. Again, most of these outside-the I have found it much easier to locate and correct-county errors were data-entry errors, correct errors of all sorts in the data through its while only a few were errors on the site form examination via GIS, than through a straight itself. checking of the database file information itself. Figure 1 All recorded archaeological sites in Georgia, with the county boundaries. 31 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective It has been suggested that we could main dollar price range, down from its earlier price of tain all the site file information within the Atlas several thousand dollars. On the downside, GIS program from now on, and indeed this is Atlas GIS has little or no statistical capabilities. possible. In the short run, however, there are I don't consider this a major detraction at our several good reasons for continuing to maintain initial level of development, however. The geo it within Paradox. Perhaps the most important is graphic files can be exported (with difficulty) that users of the data in our state are comfort into a format compatible with other GIS soft able with the Paradox format and, as yet, know ware, so one is not permanently locked into this little of Atlas GIS. Another reason is the data particular program. Atlas GIS runs well on size. The Paradox file is about 7.8 megabytes, medium-speed machines in todayts PC market while the Atlas GIS file (admittedly with ( 486-66 MHz) and takes under 10 megabytes of several other data layers) is now over 30 mega hard disk space. It is relatively easy to learn, bytes in length. Finally, the data-entry and and there is a growing community of GIS users editing tools of Atlas GIS are much cruder that familiar with it. those within Paradox. Arclnfo and Grass are programs that permit I have obtained many other layers for our far greater possibilities for analysis, particularly Atlas GIS Geographic File from a variety of on the statistical level, but each has significant sources. To date, these layers include: rivers and drawbacks compared to Atlas GIS. Arclnfo is streams, man-made lakes, river valley outlines, very expensive (in the twenty thousand dollar major roads, county outlines, USGS 1:24000 range) and has a slow learning curve. Grass, quadrangle map outlines, physiographic prov although provided free by the Corps of Engi inces, geological zones, soil series, and resource neers, is a cumbersome assortment of programs areas. Many of these were supplied in Arclnfo that collectively are limited in their display format by the Georgia Department of Natural characteristics and time-consuming to learn. Resources. I digitized a few directly from The Both programs must run in a Unix environment Atlas of Georgia (Hodler and Schretter 1986). to take advantage of their extra power. This We also augmented the river layer by adding alone can be expensive, running easily over many small streams through the digitizing pro twenty thousand dollars (and up-up-up). cess. Our GIS file became quite viable by the Most site file coordinators are now aware spring of 1994, and it has been used for several of the possibilities of GIS systems. My experi projects since then. A summary paper on the ence has shown that they need not wait for that distribution of sites in Georgia by time period ideal system of Arclnfo on a Unix-based and physiographic province was published in machine-,a total investment, including soft the fall of 1994 (Williams 1994). This was done ware, hardware, and training and/or personnel, entirely with the Atlas GIS data file, and would of perhaps well over fifty thousand dollars. have been next to impossible otherwise. In With an investment of perhaps under one thou recent months, much work has gone into a sand dollars, they can accomplish many of their project using the file to look at the distribution goals now. This is a more effective and perfect of sites by soil series within Georgia ly rational short-term strategy for archaeological site file GIS development and management. The new possibilities for research and CONCLUSION management of our site file data using GIS are just beginning to be envisioned, and the future I have found Atlas GIS to be an excellent is bright indeed. Both research and data man beginning GIS program for site file use. Most agement have been made significantly easier in of what, I believe, we presently want and need Georgia through its use, and we are committed can be accomplished with the 3.0 Windows to this, the most important new tool in archae version, which is currently in the five hundred ology since the invention of Carbon-14 analysis. 32 The Georgia Archaeological Site Files and GJS: A Useful Beginning REFERENCES CITED Hodler, Thomas W., and Howard A. Schretter 1986 The Atlas of Georgia. Institute of Community and Area Development, University of Georgia, Athens. Williams, Mark 1994 Archaeological Site Distributions in Georgia: 1994. Early Georgia 22(1):35-76. 33 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILE USERS OF ALL KINDS: A VIEWPOINT FROM KENTUCKY R Berle Clay Site file information is compiled to be used, yet ficult individuals to please. Above all, these file many factors conspire against this use. Often a users need a road map to the system and a cumbersome file system itself defies general hands-off attitude from the file manager. My use. Or the files may be overprotected by an advice, make the file system explicit and as archaeological bowerbird in a well-meaning but user-friendly as possible. obstructive attempt to shield the data from those It goes without saying that the file must be who might misuse it. At the worst, its use can maintained in a computerized form and that the be badly inhibited by official policy leading to researchers must know how to use it, for they, self-defeating extremes. The real problem is among all users, will primarily put the power of how to persuade individuals and agencies to a database to good use. This is a big order, for produce and use site information-hopefully beyond providing file access, they must recog without abusing the resource, but importantly to nize the potential of the database and be willing use it. The fear that site data will be misused is to make the effort to learn how to use it. The greatly overblown. opposite generally occurs; the files are ignored, A major stumbling block is that those who important as they may be to research. desire information have various agendas. To get By contrast, th~e users are generally ill them to use site data, the file manager needs to equipped to provide site information back to the treat them differently. Let's sketch several site manager. Their research is not funded to fill well-kllown users, how I interpret their needs out a site form, and they seemingly have a hard and interests, and the pitfalls that exist in time associating a state site number with a spe dealing with them. cific site. They opt for the more palatable site names honoring, for example, the owner. Why THE TRADITIONAL RESEARCHER call 15Bn22 by its Smithsonian designation when it can justifiably be called the Jewell Site Traditionalists are self-motivated in their re after its owner? Traditional researchers may be search and, in fact, may have no well-defined so focused that they may work a lifetime at problem in mind or may simply be in search of their site and never see the need for completing one. They may be driven by the need to get a site form or updating the existing form to tenure at an institution of higher learning or to reflect their intensive research. The file manager advance their agency career; they may be sim gleans few crumbs in the interaction, although ply following intellectual interests, for whatever this should not impede the relationship. reason, or trying to wring palpable research State site files often stem from beginnings results from a large data set from their latest within an academic context, if they are not actu CRM project. They need access to site survey ally within an academic department or museum, files at various stages. as in Kentucky. These are the files that tradi Traditional researchers, in particular, must tional, academic-bound researchers remember. paddle through files over and over, testing the Too often, the academically based state site file quality of data against specific research ques has been maintained as the chattel property of a tions. Quite literally, their success as researchers particular institution of higher learning. The file can be measured by how many times they fail. was generally ignored because its maintenance Unless familiar with the system, they are dif- was never adequately funded. It was consigned, 34 Archaeological Site File Users of All Kinds: A Viewpoint from Kentucky at best, to a jealously guarded card file system cherished and nurtured. It is a matter of strategy inherited from WPA days. While such dated to develop this type person into an informed systems are of historical interest, things must recorder, but it is very difficult for the file change. Strange as it may seem, the academi manager to accomplish this without help. cally based archaeologist may often have little Unfortunately the avocational's interest lags comprehension of the location of the present when faced with the "professional" site form. database and its power. The file manager's task The rewards for completing it pale when the is to demonstrate this. actuarial drudgery becomes apparent. More should be done to develop a simplified short THE AVOCATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST form for such contingencies. In my own state, the professional site form (eight pages with a Avocational archaeologists pose the apparent Xerox of the topographic sheet) takes about exception to the rule that site files are meant to forty-five minutes to fill out completely and be used by all concerned. Most site files are carefully. Layman and professional eyes alike protected by state "sunshine" laws; the grounds glass over when it is produced. exist for denying the non-professional-indeed But there is a downside to the short form in anyone--access to the information they contain. a loss of information. Herein lies an interesting To actually do so in the case of avocationals paradox. Much of the day-to-day preservation can be decidedly unfair reinforcing their worst archaeology involves the identification and re fears about the exclusiveness of the archaeo cording of the "minimal" site. Because of lack logical profession. I have no problems in allow of experience, the incidental collector tends to ing the non-professional to look over the quad recognize a site only when the data are over sheets in my state. But, with the exception of whelming. When the collector walks through landowners who wish to know about sites that the file manager's door with news of a find, it have already been recorded on their property, I generally indicates that there is a very signif balk at letting avocationals transpose site loca icant site out there. A simplified short form tions to their own maps. Any access, further simply won't do in this case, and, when com more, is accompanied by a stiff lecture on the pleted, it is often painfully obvious that the evils of collecting from private property without truth is still out there. So the volunteered site landowner permission. report may represent the most significant site The threat that the collector will visit a site you will encounter for many a month. But, short in the files without first asking permission is of visiting the site itself, which you may not be somewhat overblown. I find students and others financed to do, it is difficult to do it justice with in the academic context as guilty of this breach the avocational's information. of etiquette as the avocational, in part because If there is one paramount rule when dealing they tend to have free and unlimited access to with anyone who reports a site, and perhaps site information. As a guide, know your person, most importantly the non-professional, it is that and if you do not, err on the side of restricting all deserve a site number as soon as possible, site information, from avocationals, students, preferably on the spot. This in itself is a con and professionals alike. siderable reward for the layperson, which makes The avocational takes many forms, perhaps the visit to the site file office worthwhile. With mainly the incidental collector-a sympathetic a little careful explanation, this collector will and interested layman-rarely the dyed-in-the label the artifacts with the site number. Score a wool collector, and hardly ever the truly de point for archaeological science! structive pothunter. Incidental collectors who Serious collectors, walkers, or diggers tend want to record their finds with the state site file, to shun the state site file office for two reasons. perhaps motivated by a stimulating statewide First, they believe that their record of site archaeological week, are individuals to be locations, in whatever part of the state that 35 Archaeological Site File Mana.gement: A Southeastern Perspective interests them, is far better than any public that they can digest within their project's time record-and they are probably right. Then, like frame. In Kentucky, an archaeologist working all too many professional colleagues, they on a project will be presented with a computer would like to keep their information out of the listing of the sites in the relevant area, a list of public record so that others cannot use it. Both bibliographic resources, and whatever data the professionals and avocationals are concerned comes off the databases that are maintained in with their pet sites. Possibly on their death bed, the Office of State Archaeology. To make it they would unload exquisitely recorded site really usable, they are given this information as information on the latest 7.5-minute quadrangle an ASOI file ready to read and incorporate into sheets-most likely not. If the file manager is to their report. Few-perhaps only those who have get extensive data from the serious collector, it not gotten their computing skills beyond bare will involve work. bones word processing--can resist the tempta tion to streamline report preparation. Recapping, THE CRM ARCHAEOLOGIST give them data in machine readable form as fast as possible, and they will beat a path to your The most consistent and predictable site file door. Fail to do so and you eliminate one of the client should be the journeyman CRM archae most important file user types--and, as a result, ologist If not, the site file manager has a seri the preservation process suffers. ous problem; the system is not being used prop There remains a running problem in CRM erly! There are some clear parameters that con archaeology, which is a fascinating but thorny tribute to a stable relationship between site file one. Twenty-five years of CRM archaeology managers. and CRM archaeologists. Firstly, have seen dramatic changes in our conception CRM research is a task to complete, a given. It of a site, and things are not over yet. Literally, is not generated from within the archaeologist in what was not considered important ten years a burst of anthropological creativity. Secondly, ago may now be considered not only a site, but CRM archaeologists must document their work a significant one. The file manager deals with in a manner that meets a level of acceptability this dynamic situation from the front trenches, established by the preservation process. Thirdly, before it reaches the State Historic Preservation time is money to the CRM archaeologist, and Officer (SHPO), before the traditional researcher this necessitates competence in completing site has even thought about it. Faced with a shifting forms and gleaning relevant site file information target-the archaeological site-good site file for a particular project. If this competence does managers, like good bird bunters, must "lead the not manifest itself, if the most routine visit to target" with their site file policies. The best way the state site files does not consistently produce is to keep abreast of the definition problems as the desired results (site numbers for new sites; they arise. For example, on an average, how information on recorded sites), the CRM archae many flakes are being reported per site, or, how ologist is soon out of work! many rural farmsteads can actually be docu In my state, I insist that a site number be mented as fifty years of age or older, or is this a granted only when a completed site form is problem? Above all the site file manager should presented. As long as this is well understood, it push the site recorder to justify calling some causes no problems to the CRM archaeologist. thing a site, not simply acquiesce to the plea What is meant by a completed site form must that a site may exist. In the best of all possible be very explicit. From the standpoint of site worlds, the site file manager should probably data, business archaeology involves a product; host a yearly roundtable discussion, perhaps in there should be no confusion over what that connection with the state professional organi product involves. zation meeting. Bring problems of definition CRM archaeologists can also be willing into the open, seek a consensus if it can be users of site data, if they can get at it in a form obtained. 36 Archaeological Site File Users of All Kinds: A Viewpoint from Kentucky THE AGENCY department in a state university, the updated files are cloned as needed to agencies able to Some government agencies manage land, some use the information. What agencies do with the do not. They tend to view site files differently. site data is up to them. Among archaeologists, For example, the Forest Service directly man there is a lingering fear that agencies will use ages land while the Corps of Engineers, with existing site data to write off controversial the exception of some specific responsibilities, projects. They are entitled to do so, just as does not. State Historic Preservation Offices archaeologists are entitled to use this same data classically do not manage land, although they to demand an archaeological survey. Let the may be embedded in historical societies that do. review process handle this largely phantom As a rule, agencies that manage land are far problem, not site file access policy. more concerned than non-land-managing agen The SHPO is one agency official that cies with recording archaeological sites and certainly needs site information. In many states, keeping relatively precise records of the sites the SHPO actually manages the state site file, under their purview. Depending upon their man often because the academic world has demon dates, both should be using site file information. strated that it cannot manage it by itself. How Land managers generally have their own ever, because the SHPO generally does not policies concerning archaeological site informa manage sites personally, the SHPO is often not tion. Many maintain their own site files; the the best person to maintain an archaeological sites are their mandated responsibilities. State site data file. It goes without saying that the file site file managers must adapt to the needs of manager, if not employed by the SHPO, should land managers and, hopeftilly, stay on good make sure that the SHPO has unlimited and up terms with them so that the aims and policies of to-date access to the files. My SHPO and I send both remain the same. I can quote examples of a portable hard drive back and forth between open warfare, which need not have happened. In our offices with the latest version of the site file the worst of all worlds, the agency and the state on it. The system seems to work. One day I will file manager maintain separate site numbering get the file system on-line. This will make the systems, out of no more than mutual suspicion. problem of communication much easier. At the The confusion can be incalculable. same time, it will raise other problems, which I Many agencies are concerned with much have yet to face. more than archaeology. Thus they have data management systems that include archaeological CLOSING data, but also many other things. Archaeological site file managers must keep this in mind, We have come a long way from the premodern remembering that while archaeological data may era in state-level archaeology prior to the be their chief concern, the agency views the National Historic Preservation Act. As under same data as one part of a larger and infinitely funded and thankless as the task of maintaining more complex data world. Patience, combined site files may seem, the order and accessibility with a real willingness to assist the agency in of a well-managed site file is essential to managing its archaeological data files, when contemporary archaeology of all sorts. But users requested, is clearly called for. have different interests, and the site file Needless to say, there must be close coop manager, often with little direction, must deal eration between the state site file manager and with these. As a site file manager, keep the agency, any agency, for it is the agencies reminding yourself that the interests of file users that have the most power to affect archaeo vary greatly. This will make your task much logical sites. They need the data for planning easier. When a client walks in the door, ask purposes. In Kentucky, where the state site files how can I help you? and not, secretly, what do are maintained as an adjunct of an anthropology you want? 37 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY IN LOUISIANA Philip G. Rivet Ironically, the beginnings of a statewide archae material and site data from the same part of the ological site survey in Louisiana can be traced state in which he had initially worked. Office to the neighboring state of Mississippi. In 1927, space was made available at LSU by Fred B. Moreau B. Chambers and James A Ford, under Kniffen, and two winters of laboratory work the auspices of the Mississippi Department of and analysis followed (Ford 1936:3). During Archives and History, initiated fieldwork in this same time, Ford wrote two seminal articles west-central Mississippi, which consisted of on Louisiana archaeology, both of which were making surface collections and excavating sites published in the Louisiana Conservation Review that year and the following two years. Chambers in 1935. One was entitled "An Introduction to carried on the site survey work in Mississippi in Louisiana Archaeology" (1935b), the other the summers of 1930, 1932, 1933, and 1935, "Outline of Louisiana and Mississippi Pottery during which period he examined a large part of Horizons" (1935c). In the following year, the the southern half of that state (Ford 1936:1). results of Ford's fieldwork in Louisiana and In 1933, a member of the original Missis Mississippi were published as Analysis of Indian sippi survey team, James A Ford, received a Village Site Collections from Louisiana and grant-in-aid from the National Research Council Mississippi (1936). and extended the survey work he had begun From an examination of the archaeological earlier with Moreau B. Chambers into the site survey files currently housed at the Museum Mississippi River Valley area of northern and of Natural Science at LSU, it was evidently central Louisiana (Ford 1936:1). In addition to around this time that the first archaeological site surface collecting a large number of sites, Ford record cards (in a five-by-eight-inch format) conducted excavations at the Peck Village site were developed and utilized. One of these is (16CT1) in Catahoula Parish during that first illustrated as Figure 1. These mimeographed season of fieldwork. This resulted in the publi forms were initiated by James Ford (William G. cation two years later of A Ceramic Decoration Haag, personal communication 1995). Sequence at an Old Indian Village Site near Two sets of the original quadrangle maps Sicily Island, Louisiana (1935a). Also in 1933, used in the site recording process during this Ford worked with Frank M. Setzler of the early period are presently curated with the state Smithsonian Institution at the Marksville site site files in the Louisiana Division of Ar (16AV1)-a Federal Emergency Relief Admin chaeology, Baton Rouge. Site locations from istration (FERA) project. According to William these early days of site recordation are shown, G. Haag (personal communication 1995), this as are site names and numbers penciled in the was the first federal archaeological project in margins by James Ford and others. Also dating the United States that used relief labor. The year to this period is a third volume of quadrangle 1933, then, can be viewed as an important mile maps for archaeological sites recorded in the stone in the systematic recordation of archaeo Mississippi River Valley in Arkansas and logical sites in the state of Louisiana on a Mississippi. professional level. In addition to seeing the beginnings of Two years later, sponsored by Louisiana systematic site recordation, the 1930s was an State University (LSU), Ford continued his sur important decade in the history of Louisiana ar vey work in Louisiana. He collected additional chaeology for other reasons. On the state level, 38 A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana Card / • IOOI.SIANA JIRCHEOLOGICAL SURvE.Y • State: a. SITE IlIDEX CARD "A" Cor11 lex: E'arish:ST lli rn man.!;L,.. _ca_t_.-.,-N_o_._,0"'-:/~.....,....---=,--- _P_ho"""t_o~N_o..c...._,_.,,_-----~ Site No.sr-LQuad. -&;;;;~ ..... g= ,.sc;.o DESGBIPTION OF MATERIAL: (NUClerical Count) POTTERY ANALYSIS Total Pct.~ STONE SP~IAL~A~ I I J!litv_ I I ~e L BONE I I Bone Artifact l Teeth j SHELL Shell Artifact I COPPER Contact Art. I O'lBER MISC. _;t_O Total Spec. Art. TOTAL / Date Classified: TOTALS --;s_,_ 'roTAL SF!EP.DS ICollector: GRAlID TOTAL li Date: Notes: ! .:.Z.3-: ~t I ~ant Address ~ 3 owner (11 Owner•s repres.(2 Tenant (3 Previous Owner (4: Addresses (5 2 Cooperative ? (6 FURIBER SITE DESCRIPTION; NOTES· 1 0 l 2 3 Scale: Explanation: • • - Figure 1 (top and bottom) - Original Louisiana Archaeological Survey site card (circa 1935). Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective the 1930s witnessed the establishment of the logical sites, and Doran conducted a brief field School of Geology at LSU, within which was reconnaissance for sites in Acadia, Calcasieu, housed the Department of Geography and An Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, and Vermilion thropology. This was also the decade in which Parishes (Lyon 1996; Neuman 1984:45-46). the Louisiana Geological Survey was created. WPA archaeology in Louisiana ended in 1941. The Survey began publishing the Geological The next important development in the his Bulletin series; several of the studies incorpo tory of site recordation in Louisiana occurred in rated archaeological data, which aided in the the winter of 1939-1940, when Philip Phillips, interpretation of the geomorphology of the state. James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin formulated The Survey also published The Louisiana Con plans for the Lower Mississippi Survey (LMS). servation Review, which contained reports and They originally intended to cover the Missis illustrations of archaeological excavations and sippi Valley from the mouth of the Ohio River artifact classification (Neuman 1984:47). south to the area around Vicksburg, Mississippi, On the federal level, this was the decade of where their work was to tie into the earlier FERA (Federal Emergency Relief Administra survey work done by Ford and his associates in tion) and WPA (Works Progress Administra Louisiana and Mississippi. They envisioned a tion) archaeology in Louisiana. After a hiatus of three-prong approach: (1) preliminary site sur four years, following the original FERA project vey and analysis of surface collections, (2) strat at the Marksville site in 1933, James Ford igraphic testing of a large number of sites, and managed a small WPA project in Concordia (3) small-scale excavation of key sites based on Parish in 1937, until the project was disrupted the results of the first two phases. These initial by a flood. That same summer, Ford decided to investigations covered the period from 1940 to organize a statewide WP A project in Louisiana, 1947 (Phillips et al. 1951:5, 40). the details of which were worked out the While the original LMS work did not make following summer. The Louisiana WP A archae it into Louisiana, follow-up work by the LMS ological project, one of the most important was conducted in Mississippi's Yazoo Basin archaeological projects of the Great Depression, from 1949 to 1955. As part of these investi received final approval from WPA officials in gations, Phillips did some survey work in the September 1938 (Lyon 1996). It was actually a Tensas Basin of Louisiana in 1954. The Tensas coordinated LSU-WPA program, established at survey was eventually completed by Stephen LSU .under the direction of Fred B. Kniffen. Williams in the two summer seasons of 1963 The archaeologists Ford selected for his staff and 1964. In the preface of the two-volume included Edwin B. Doran Jr., Preston Holder, report written by Phillips on the investigations, Arden R. King, William T. Mulloy, Robert S. he states: "In the spring of 1956, Mrs. Phillips Neitzel, George I. Quimby Jr., Carlyle S. Smith, and I, with the generous consent and assistance and Gordon R. Willey (Neuman 1984:45). of Dr. William G. Haag, extended the survey In Louisiana, during the WP A days, exca into the files and storage rooms of the School of vations were conducted in Avoyelles Parish Geology, Louisiana State University" (Phillips (Marksville 16AVl, Greenhouse 16AV2, Philip 1970:viii). Over the years, the LMS work in Nick Place 16AV4, Philip Nick Farm 16AV22, Louisiana has resulted in a substantial number and Baptiste 16AV25); Iberville Parish (Bayou of sites being added to the state site files. Goula 16IV11); LaSalle Parish (Crooks 16LA3); Interestingly, however, there are still some LMS Orleans Parish (Little Woods 160R1-5 and Big sites that have yet to be incorporated into the Oak Island 160R6); St. Martin Parish (Coulee state site files. Rouge 16SM17); St Tammany Parish (Tche Another important date in the history of the funcie 16ST1); and West Baton Rouge Parish archaeological site survey in Louisiana is 1952, (Medora 16WBR1). In addition to this work, when LSU hired William G. Haag. While his Neitzel surveyed Avoyelles Parish for archaeo- main responsibility at LSU was teaching, he 40 A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana also managed the Department of Geography and ologist, under the direction of the Louisiana Anthropology's archaeological collections and Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commis its associated site data. In the words of Haag, sion. Subsection 1607(5) established the "central "One of the first things I did was buy a little State archaeological survey files" to be main printing press (one of those Mystics-remember tained in the office of the State Archaeologist. those?)" With the aid of the Mystic, he printed The first State Archaeologist was William G. the second version of the Louisiana Archaeo Haag, who held that position until 1977, when it logical Survey card (William G. Haag, personal was assumed by Alan Toth, who had previously communication 1995) (Figure 2). This card, in been Assistant State Archaeologist. tum, was superseded by the McBee Keysort site Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Rules and card (Figure 3) in 1960. According to Haag, Regulations of the Louisiana Archaeological however, "The computer looming on the hori Survey and Antiquities Commission, which zon made this system obsolete" (William G. were adopted on September 2, 1975, specifically Haag, personal communication 1995). The site detailed the content of the files: card system utilized by Ford, Haag, and "others of my vintage," according to Dr. Haag, was The central State archaeological survey taught at the University of Chicago's Field files shall include all available information School at the Kincaid site in Illinois (William on known historic and prehistoric sites lo G. Haag, personal communication 1995). cated within the State of Louisiana. Such During Dr. Haag's tenure at LSU (which information may include geographical ref ended with his retirement in 1978), the need erences, site descriptions, field notes, maps, was recognized for a faculty member to conduct drawings, photographs, and related docu archaeological fieldwork in the state and curate ments of every description. the anthropological collections housed in the Department of Geography and Anthropology. In Pursuant to this, a new "consolidated" site July 1967, LSU hired Robert W. Neuman as record form was instituted (Figure 5). For the Curator of Anthropology for this purpose. first time, spaces were provided for the UTM Shortly after assuming his new duties, coordinates and the name of the 15-minute Neuman instituted a new archaeological survey USGS quadrangle on which the site location record form (Figure 4). In addition to a change was plotted. Space was also provided on the in format (from a five-by-eight-inch card to an back of the form for the portion of the USGS eight-and-a-half-by-eleven-inch sheet of stan map that showed the location of the site record dard paper), the new form provided more space ed. These forms were kept in manila folders and for site recordation data. Neuman also began an filed by parish (county) in file drawers. extensive color slide and black and white print This form was eventually superseded by the and photographic collection of sites recorded site record form (Figure 6) currently in use in and investigated during his tenure at LSU, the Louisiana Division of Archaeology. This which continued until his retirement in 1994. In was the site recordation system in place when 1969, with Lanier Simmons, he also resumed the need to computerize the site files was publication of the Louisiana Geological Survey's recognized. Kathleen M. Byrd, who was State Anthropological Study Series with Study No. 4, Archaeologist from 1979 to 1993, was instru A Bibliography Relative to Indians of the State mental in making arrangements for the initial of Louisiana. computerization of the state site files in the The next milestone in the history of the mid-1980s. This project was begun in 1986 and archaeological site survey in Louisiana occurred completed two years later. Its completion was in 1974 with the passage of the Archaeological greatly assisted by funding from both the New Treasures Act (RS. 41:1601-1613). This act Orleans and Vicksburg Districts of the U.S. established the Office of the State Archae- Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps chose to 41 Archaeological Site File Mana.gement: A Southeastern Perspective c14 dates on baak LOUISIANA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Cat. No. 58-566, 5144, 52-27, SO, 51 Parish ST No. l Site Name Tctaruncto 0it• Coll. Location: :iap 31 P located in tha marsh at 4! dga or the dry lund, and consaqu,sntlJ at th• 111dg• or thli WDOds,on the N short11 or L. Pontchartrain, alJ:.;ut 4 mi E or Mandevill~. 1/2 mi or 3alt sepa~atos it from tha pr~s0nt 3horn Quad. Covington s. 1~2 T8s ~2E 1 11 0 Geogr. Coard. 30°19 45 N. It. 9c 01 1 3. 5" w. Ig. Prev. Investigation Doran 1941, Ford 1945 Preservation poor Type of Site Association beach ridge Johnson axcavat•d in 1939 Owner · Informant r Stat11 or La., St:it• Park:1 GJmmission Size:. H. £"-'I W. L. Photo: RI. No. Aerial /J7;J -L$, 11. Date 7;52 Tl?• - LI 1 2 - 1i Investigator Sauci'ir 1 Description: Area: 150'xl0C & 250' x 100 1 • Do1nse vegatation ob11cur11:i sito. Two elongated oval midden15, their long axi:1 running NE-SW, naarly parallel to pre8ent ahor~lin~. E:ii!St rai :aan larga3t. Compoi!!~d of brackish water clam, Rangia c4naata. Partiall~ axcavat:d Not visitad in 52. <\>-J\vQ. ~ o-U. (~ c14 dates: Chicago Lab C-150 633"!::150 B.P. U. or Chicago Lab C-151 1233±250 B.P. Humble Lab 0-30 220~±110 B.P. HuJTJble Lab Q-42 800-100 13.P. t_af. ()os /&5TI - I 'fhru /'-/ Figure 2 (top and bottom) - Second version of the Louisiana Archaeological Survey site card (circa 1952). 42 A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana - .• ., Site St. Tammany, ST-1 Name 1'chefuncte Site e: Locationlocated in the marsh at edge of the dry~c1Elnd 1 and consequently at tri7 edg x o:f' tho wooes, on the N shoreof Lake .t'ontchrrtraih, abt 4 mi E of iiiendeville. "21lfi o • "' ~ Elevation Ecology beech rid;;.e/ salt seporatea it fr • - : - ' the present shore... > oe Geog. Coord.30019~4511N - 90°01• 35ttff Map Covington Quad. s 42, T es, R 12& ... .J me .. < OwnerState of Louisilma, StAte J:'orks Comr.lissiGn :i: "~ Doran, 1941 f!Xcavated. > oe ...... a: Previous Ford, 19451 J.939, Johnsff\formant I Area Depth Height 5'to 6• • - ::l &J.~~~g~, z .N Vegetationaense vegetetion mRkes site difficult to find oaks and willow x e.. Water lekkei hSoil Cultivation Erosion ~rac s • "' Des<;:ription Tv10 eJ.ongated oval shell middens, their long axes rwming i:>IE-SW, near • ~ pare.J.lel to present shoreline. E3st midden largest. Composed of brackish water cl ~R~ngia cuneatE\. Poor preservation, parti3lly excev~ted. Not visited in 52. See 1 • :i ..~ ca-calog nos. 58-566, 5J.44, 52-V, 50, 51., ' ""' ·- ~,? • ::ill ~ Invest. Saucier 7-52 014 dates on baok • ft M~U KC\'.llOl'rr U. a. f"'AT. MO. l,tfJ,to1 X 3 0 N I J.. :'.) 3 );I I Q .,t!t!!!tt!!!!t""""""~~~~~~~~~ +• A••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • •• • • •••• • • • • • •• •• • • • • • • • .. .. • • ••• • • • Culture type • • Features • •Burials • • References • State • • Artifact summary 1 clay, J2 sherds Johnson, of Park Service, 1939 • c14 dates: Chicago Lab c-150 633:;150 B. P. • • U. of Chicago Lab 0~151 1233~250 B.P • • • Humble Lab - 0-30 2200:!:llO B.P. • • Humble Lab 0-42 8oO:!:lOO B.P. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •. • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• • ••• • • .,. Figure 3 (top and bottom) - Third version of the Louisiana Archaeological Survey site card (circa 1960); 43 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHAEJLOGICAL SURVEY BR~AP LA:l><~ $1"1-E Reservoir______Site No·-~''=>~-'e..,.....~/_'f _ _,,_(2---'-5":_--'-I<_-_ .....):...... __ ClJ State Lou 1~1 ttN A Parish_ _,l..-"t:.::;A.1;.:....:S""t!"'-"$______""~ 7'12' 3EltlE.S: GRE.'l"NA ~i<:EN Im 1. Map reference Ff' lE~1~s: L!'.:>(µff Q1P6oE 2. Ty:pe of site Ml>t.tJJF.>'S f v'1t.L.A-'3-li 3. Cultural affiliation CO(..C:S C..RS.£K I PLt1©.yEM1..vg 1 4. Location 6 MtL& ::ii<'H.TH oi; :5W rie at:- BRt>ftt> l.!f=KF-j 1h_ M1< .. € &t::r 6 ~ t..1nq; CHoLDT"-.l B'dY~'ij 'f.3 i\tlL.&S 5W Of MA-YfLpw1u~,. t../L ______sec. Na T. /1 R. / o 5. Owner and address NcRrtt &1rru.AJ: Vp1t-se.t W14£'fj 5cyrH fieno..J: h?dwi::£... fuNCCW ~ 6. Previous owners------~~ 7. '< a. Informants e+11.1P B. Wa-r.1¢Nj .TR·, :fr.. J655p>4, I.a. 713'21P "[E.L 76(. - 32.3 j 9. Previous designations for site_~IV~o:::..;;...;A>~€"------~ 10. Site description 5" .$MPrl.t... Nlc1..u..1 Q'S /1-N i> fl-Z>J1t(!€..vr v11,~ ,._l?i:A · A ;;,....-ti 11. Position of site and surroundings o~ NftTUIUlL Rn><::rs. Wtttctt 'bR:.f>:s. J?esme.yc.rz 5eR1N6= 1971 7Q ~N.r.. tt.J t!l..'1> 1>RflttJtT6r§ 16. Material collected ;}IM\l.L ;"}Ul\'Fi'rt:'E C.01-t...SC.nDN (Ptt.t.. Too D~Y foR. §acl:? C/'l.... 17. Material observed Ccu;:.-s CREEK .f P~Atr.w..E.M1Jo..JE. C<:.tU>rM1c.~ fT lb 18. Material reported and owner £A=Rc:rE. ¢bu..ecn9.\J .RY f;r1.1.1P 1..A.JR-r:HN C4AJrn1..vs 2 0 fl.ALL.. RtwG-€. OF G?tl!!.-1 CRe:e:k' f P484!MEMtNE- cr;~ic.s PLU1 L{rhc lliHntA'J.1<1'.. 19. Recommendations for fu....""ther work:....------ fuenti;'.f: c:!oLl,.EC.1'1llN (,OJQS€ MO!?( EftY0€ftSLE CAN'i>trlc~s .Mui> MOB£" !>erA-1 t.E]> mPrl' p,,.;¢r; WA-,...:loA>'s c:o£.t..£C,."Ht>N s,,;~'-' ... z:; d'E. h<.bPEPLt MA.l. Y?JQ? 20. Photograph Nos·----~------~--~--~~----~-- 21. Maps of site·------...... ,....------Recorded by Ula... fcfl.. Date Nqy I G, 1971 Figure 4 - The Louisiana State University Archaeological Survey site record form (page 1) (circa 1967). 44 A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana Site N0. ___l_&;__Ti,;::.E._1'f ______Map?ed by__ Tt."'-=o..:.r....;H...:._ ___ Date Nav I~ 1'171 N I~ ( I l I~ Loi..J LAIVD\ ~ J>RoPs S1MRPLY Tl:> Lit1 Scale I 1.v~H ~ loo Fe.e.r (l+f'PRt>X/MA-'17=.) When entire square represents a section, l" 1000' 22. Approach to site: S'rT"E, l:S b1F1"1C ..... LT" re hN!) 1\--5 TffE ll+AJJ> IS N~L."f OPSAJE.t> ~" ~PP~o~ Ro~s VO NC.I rf-p PE.A-R Ckl Jl-VrHL.A-13Li:'. i1.tA-P'S. w~ "'~'-l> A- Figure 4 (cont.)- The Louisiana State University Archaeological Survey site record form (page 2) (circa 1967). 45 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective CONSOLIDATED SITE RECORD LOUISIANA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Site Name: Cattle Bone House State Survey No: 16 EBR 37 SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 46, Township 8 South, Range 1 East USGS Quads: 15 min: Baton Rouge ZJ.11._: UTM Coordinates: Geog: Site Location and Approach: Drive south from Baton Rouge on LA 30 until reach Bayou Manchac. Site is approximately 500 meters east of LA 30 and approximately 15 meters north of Bayou Manchac. Physical Setting: Mississippi River floodplain and backslope of natural levee of Bayou Manchac. Presently area is plowed field. One large hickory tree near site. Originally mixed hardwood forest; soil type Corrmerce Loam. Site Description: Scatter of historic artifacts and many bones and bone fragments of cattle. No structural remains visible on the surface; probably is an old house site. Another probable house site (represented by a few artifacts) is located about 150 meters west of this one. Present Condition: In plowed field, no structural remains visible. Size and Depth of Midden: Undetermined. Previous Investigations: None. Previous Collections and Availability: None. 01-mer and Address: See Dave Walker, Commercial Securities - 293-5900. Tenant and Address: Larry Courville. Informants None. Cultural Affiliation: Late historic (early 19th century - Civil Hareand pre-Ci vi 1 War. Recorded By: Toth and Hoodiel Date: Julyl,1976 Collections: LASAC Catalog Numbers 459-461 (see attached page 66r itemized list) Remarks: Structural remains and other artifacts may exist below the surface since this area was surely flooded in the past by Bayou Manchac and the Mississippi River. Site Name: Cattle Bone House State Survey No: 16 EBR 37 Not to scale Figure 5 - The Louisiana Archaeological Survey consolidated site record (circa 1976). (Condensed from two pages.) 46 A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana STATE OFLOIBSIANA SITE RECORD FORM Site Name. ______State Site Number______Other Site Designations. ______Instructions for Reaching Site______ ______Parish ______USGS Quadrangle: (name, date series) ______ ----~l~/4~of the 1/4 of Section ____Township ____Range ___ _ UTM Coordinates: Zone____ Eastin~ ______Northin~------Geographical Coordinates: Latitude Longitude______PHYSICAL SETTING Land Form Geologic Processes. ______Elevation Slope ______Site Position with Respect to Terrain ______Nearest Water______Floodin.o-______Soil Characteristics______Floral Communities. ______Faunal Communities______Other Potential Resources. ______Nearest Known Site______SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size. ______Plan. ______Orientation Stratigraphy______ Artifact Density______Artifact Distribution.______Cultural Features______ Cultural Affiliation ______Presumed Function ______COLLECTIONS Surveyl'vlethod______Assessment of Collecting Conditions______Description ofl'vlaterial.______ CONDITION Present Use ______Erosion or Disturbance______Probable Future Destruction. ______ Figure 6 - The Louisiana Division of Archaeology site record form (page 1 of 2) (circa 1979). 47 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective SITE EVALUATION State or National Register .i.;u w•uuy ______5 Recommendations. ______ USG$ 7.5' QUADRANGLE MAP OF SITE AREA RECORDS Ownerandn~cui•o~~------Tenant and Previous Investigations______ Previous Collections and n.vam1w•'".Y.------ Figure 6 (cont.) - The Louisiana Division of Archaeology site record form (page 2 of 2) (circa 1979). 48 A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana provide funding assistance because it is the for each site is now required on all site record most frequent user of the Louisiana Compre forms submitted to the Division of Archaeology. hensive Archaeological Data Base (LACAD) The next step in updating the archaeolog (Lyon et al. 1992:34). An example of the ical database will consist of computer mapping LACAD coding sheet is illustrated as Figure 7. (digitizing) site locations, which will take place Today, the state's archaeological site files in the near future. Automated Mapping and represent an accumulation of site data spanning Facilities Management software will be used for a period of over sixty years. At present, the this project rather than a Geographic In.forma Division of Archaeology is "cleaning up" the tion System (GIS). This will avoid the high cost site files as part of a project to archive original of applications, which initially will not be use!;l record forms. All original site forms will be by the Division, and the expensive hardware re curated in the Division's archaeological curation quired to support the GIS software. However, facility in Baton Rouge. A working copy of the the Division is ultimately interested in inter site files will be housed in the main offices of facing with GIS programs in operation within the Division. other state agencies. At this time, almost 13,000 archaeological The obvious benefit of digitizing site sites have been entered into the Division's location data, in addition to more expeditious computerized database (LACAD). In the ten data retrieval, will be the increased ease of year period from 1985 to 1994, a total of 5,424 access to this information by qualified research sites bad been recorded, representing 42 percent ers and authorized state and federal agencies. of the sites on file. Of the 5,424 sites recorded The Division of Archaeology will continue to during that period, 3,716, or 68.5 percent were maintain this database and will be responsible generated as a result of the Section 106 review for its accuracy and tbe security of the data. and compliance process (Figure 8). Concerning the latter, it bas been aptly stated In addition to the site records on file at the that "It is exactly the computer records most Division, there are currently 1,900 reports on pronounced benefits, the ease of manipulating file, most of which have been written as a result and accessing massive quantities of data, which of the Section 106 review and compliance proc pose the gravest risk of compromise" (Lyon et ess. Plans are currently underway to archive a al. 1992:36). copy of each report at the archaeological cura In summary, the management of Louisi tion facility and keep one copy in the main ana's archaeological survey files has come a offices of the Division for research use. long way since the early days of James Ford Within the past year, all site location data and his associates. With the completion of sev bas been transferred from the original 15-minute eral on-going projects i,n the Division, the future USGS quadrangle maps used by the Division to looks bright for the efficient and successful use a complete set of new 7.5-minute USGS quad of this large database in botb protecting and rangle maps. A copy of the appropriate portion enhancing our knowledge of the valuable of these maps and accurate UTM coordinates resources it represents. 49 Arcluieological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective State Site Number ______ LACAD CODING FORM Landform (1 Entry) kn Knoll sd Saltdome bea Beach nrs Nat Relic Scar rid Ridge swa Swamp udw Undexwater bat Bature bn Bench bsw Backswamp nal Natural Levee ot Other, see form pm Pimple Mound msh Marsh chr Chenier Soil Area (1 Entry) cp Coastal Plain fw Flatwoods ral Recent Alluvium cpr Coastal Prairies cmr Costal Marsh mtl Miss. Terrace, Loessial Hills Soil Series Number ______ Cultural Features ( 4 Entries) sar Single Artifact psc Prehistoric Scatter ls Lithic Scatter mdl Mound/Earthwork hsc Historic Scatter bu Burials md2 Mounds/Earthwork hst Hist. Sheet Midden SS Standing Structure her Historic Earthwork shm Shell Midden du Dump ote Other Earthwork erm Earth Midden hr Historic Ruins sw Shipwrecks remarks (C.F.) ------ Cultural Affiliation (7 Entries) pu Prehistoric (Unknown) tc Tchefuncte ms Mississippian bu Historic (Unknown) mar Marksville cad Caddo ph Prehistoric & Historic (Unk.) is Issaquena hi Historic Indian Contact pal Paleo-Indian ha Baytown ex Historic Exploration 1541-1803 mi Meso-Indian/Archaic tro Troyville ant Antebellum 1803-1860 ni N eo-Indian (Unknown) cc Coles Creek war War&Aftnn 1860-1890 po Poverty Point pq Plaquemine in Industrial & Modem 1890- Remarks (C.A) Site Function (3 Entries) pu Prehistoric (Unknown) fa Farmstead ci Commercial/Service Cen. bu Historic (Unknown) wt W atercra:ft P &H it Institution (Rel. & Ed.) ch Chipping Station pt Plantation gv Governmental cam Camp hs Hist. TownNill. id Industrial el Extraction Locale ur Urban du Dump ha HamletNillage er Cemetery (Mort.) ml Military cer Ceremonial Center ht Hist. Transport. Remarks (S.F.) Figure 7 The Louisiana Division of Archaeology Computerized Archaeological Database (LACAD) form (circa 1986). so A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana Description of Material ( 6 Entries) era Ceramics, Aboriginal she Shell wb Worked Bone he Ceramics, Historic ppo PPO's ub Unmodified Bone (Fauna) cs Chipped Stone gl Glass . , fl Flora pp Projectile Points me Metal J wo Wood gs Ground Stone cmt Construption Material (Brick, Wattle & Daub) hb Human Bone Remarks (D.M.) ------1------I Method of Investigation at Site (3 Entries) I gra Grab Surface Collection au Auger Testing rs Remote Sensing sy Systematic Collection tu Test urlits dv Diver Investigations sht Shovel Testing exc Excavation otr Other, see site form Disturbance Agent/Present Use (3 Entries) I unk Unknown ti Timber Industry cw Construction, Water pd Potted nat Natural cto Construction, Other nn None di Dev. (Urban) uw Underwater ag Agriculture (Plowing) otd Other, see site form Disturbance Degree (I Entry) unk Unknown mp Minor Impact dt Destroyed nn None mj Major Impact in Inundated Remarks (D.D.) ______ National Register Status ( 1 Entry) unk Unknown Id Listed ps Potential Significant ne Not Eligible de Declared Elig. nd National Landmark References (4 Entries) 1, _____ Figure 7 (cont.) The Louisiana Division of Archaeology Computerized Archaeological Database (LACAD) form (circa 1986). 51 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective 1000 600 400 I I 19&5 19&6 198? 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 I TOTAL SITES ~ SECTION 106 SITES Figure 8 - Archaeological sites recorded with the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, 1985-1994. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is an expanded version of an earlier article that I prepared for a forthcoming volume to be pub lished in Louisiana Archaeology in honor of Dr. William G. Haag (Rivet 1995). I would like to thank Dr. Haag for his interview prior to my writing the first version of this paper. I would also like to thank Mr. Robert W. Neuman, whom I also interviewed, for his input concerning his tenure as Curator of Anthropology at Louisiana State University. Dr. Edwin M. Lyon of the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, provided constructive comments on a draft of this paper, and Dr. Kathleen M. Byrd of Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, Louisiana, assisted in recalling events that transpired while she was State Archaeologist. Also, I wish to thank Dr. Rebecca Saunders at Louisiana State University for making the original site survey cards available for photocopying. 52 A Brief History of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana REFERENCES CITED Ford, James A. 193Sa A Ceramic Decoration Sequence at an Old Indian Village Site near Sicily Island, Louisiana. Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, Anthropological Study No. 1, New Orleans. 193Sb An Introduction to Louisiana Archaeology. Louisiana Conservation Review 4:8-11. 193Sc Outline of Louisiana and Mississippi Pottery Horizons. Louisiana Conservation Review 4:33-38. 1936 Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Anthropological Study No. 2, Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, New Orleans. Lyon, Edwin A 1996 A New Deal for Southeastern Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, in press. Lyon, Edwin A, Michael Stout, and Van Button 1992 Archaeological Databases in the New Orleans District. In Automation Tools for Cultural Resource Managers, edited by Frederick L. Briuer, pp. 33-40. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg. Neuman, Robert W. 1984 An Introduction to Louisiana Archaeology. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Phillips, Philip 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949-1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 60. Harvard University, Cambridge. Phillips, Philip, James A Ford, and James B. Griffin 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 25. Harvard University, Cambridge. Rivet, Philip G. 1995 A Brief History of the Early Years of the Archaeological Site Survey in Louisiana. In And Stuff Like That There: Essays and Anecdotes in Honor of William G. Haag, edited by Jon L. Gibson, Richard A Weinstein, and Robert W. Neuman. Louisiana Archaeology No. 18. Louisiana Archaeological Society, Lafayette. · >>> 53 THE UTILITY AND POTENTIAL OF THE MISSISSIPPI ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILE Keith A. Baca and Joseph A. Giliberti INTRODUCTION by the ·Committee. The success of the Commit tee's attempts to encourage systematic, represen The information contained in centralized, com tative survey coverage on a nationwide basis prehensive archaeological site files is crucially was uneven (Dunnell 1990:15); but in Mis important for the effective management, pres sissippi, at least, definite positive influence of ervation, and scientific study of the nation's this guidance is discernible. This is reflected in archaeological resources. Despite a wide range the fact that a broader range of sites was of site file variability among the southeastern recorded than ever before, importantly including states in terms of institutional custody, historical village/habitation sites as well as mounds, the origins, and scope of data emphasis and detail, a latter having overwhelmingly preoccupied ear certain degree of commonality exists, which has lier investigators. Descriptions of a number of facilitated recent initial attempts at regional notable sites recorded during these Ford synthesis (e.g., Anderson 1993; Anderson et al. Chambers field investigations were presented in 1992). This brief overview of the Mississippi the pioneering volume Analysis of Indian Vil archaeological site file reviews the history, lage Site Collections from Louisiana and Mis present status, and future prospects of this vital sissippi (Ford 1936). In addition, site survey corpus of information, highlighting the utility, information available in the few earlier pub limitations, and potential of both the paper lished works on Mississippi archaeology (e.g., document files and the associated computerized Brown 1926; Thomas 1894) was incorporated database. Many of the problems presented by into the state file. the Mississippi site file system are similar to This initial burst of site recording by those faced by other states, and so the suggested MDAH was sustained until the late 1930s, when solutions have interstate applicability. survey activity slowed drastically following an administrative decision to curtail archaeological investigations. MDAH survey work and site file HISTORICAL BACKGROUND maintenance were suspended altogether follow ing the United State's entry into World War II Compilation of the Mississippi archaeological due to the resulting wartime staff shortages. By site file was initiated in 1927 by the Mississippi the eve of the war, approximately 500 sites had Department of Archives and History (MDAH). been recorded in 68 of the state's 82 counties An outgrowth of a statewide MDAH-sponsored (Works Projects Administration 1940). archaeological survey and excavation program Following the war, the state site file laid begun by James A. Ford and Moreau B. Cham dormant for over two decades in the absence of bers, the early state site records were generated an archaeological program and staff at MDAH. following standards promulgated and dissemi However, postwar site recording activity was nated during the late 1920s by the National soon resumed by other organizations, most nota Research Council's Committee on State Archae bly the Lower Mississippi Survey (LMS), a ological Surveys (Guthe 1930). The systematic research consortium of the Peabody Museum of organization of the site file was enhanced Harvard University, the University of Michigan, through the use of standardized site survey and the American Museum of Natural History. record forms based on a format recommended LMS survey activity in the state was extensive 54 The Utility and Potential of the Mississippi Archaeological Site File during the late 1940s and early 1950s, and circumstances. As summarized by Galloway lasted sporadically as late as the 1980s. Much of (1994:48), chief variables influencing recorded the site survey information generated by the site abundance or scarcity include whether or LMS between 1940 and 1955 was published in not a given area has a nearby university or gov a series of volumes (Phillips 1970; Phillips et ernment agency with an archaeological program; al. 1951), but most of the LMS site inventory is the scene of major federal land alteration data was not incorporated into the Mississippi projects requiring Section 106 site inventory site file until the late 1960s, when the statewide (e.g., The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Na MDAH archaeological program was revived. tional Forest units, etc.); or is subjected to The catalyst leading to the resumption of large-scale row-crop agriculture (which greatly active maintenance of the state site file was the increases site visibility). The resulting geo passage of the National Historic Preservation graphical bias (Figure 1) poses obvious pitfalls Act of 1966. Under the provisions of Section in employing site file data in statewide and 106 of the Act, the Mississippi Department of panregional settlement system analysis; how Archives and History was designated the State ever, such efforts are beginning to be made Historic Preservation Office, with authorization (Anderson 1993; Galloway 1994). to review and comment upon the potential In 1968, the Mississippi Department of impact of federally funded or licensed land Archives and History became the official agen development projects on cultural resources listed cy responsible for assigning each recorded site a in or eligible for the National Register of unique identification code. At this time, MDAH Historic Places. As a result, inventory data gen instituted the use of the Smithsonian trinomial erated by Section 106 compliance surveys now site designation system to bring the Mississippi account for the vast majority of site records site file into conformity with the national prac incorporated into the state site file, far sur tice. The initial unit of each trinomial desig- passing noncompliance site information sub mitted by university-based archaeologists and amateur informants. The drastically increased Table 1 - Archaeological sites reported to submission of site data in recent years is largely Mississippi Department of Archives and His attributable to /intensified Section 106-driven YEAR No. OF SITES survey work m~derwritten by the U.S. Forest Service and thel U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1984 507 (Table I). This :pharp recent growth of the state 1985 site file is illustrated by the fact that the total 331 number of recc~rded sites almost doubled be 1986 137 tween 1982 and, 1995. Thus, in the past decade, about as many sites were added to the state 1987 627 inventory as had been registered in the previous 1988 236 fifty years. Currently (May 31, 1995), the Mississippi archaeological site file contains 1989 230 records for 15,699 sites. 1990 398 1991 403 STATE INVENTORY SAMPLE, FORMAT, AND CONTROL 1992 1,239 1993 931 In Mississippi, as in all states, survey coverage as represented by the distribution of recorded 1994 1,885 sites is quite uneven due to multiple artificial 55 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective from the national convention somewhat by beginning each county inventory with the number 500 instead of the usual num ber 1. As an example, 22Ad500 is the first site in the Adams County inventory, not the five-hundredth. The rationale for this format was to eliminate the possibil ity of confusion resulting from duplica tion of any new county sequence num bers with old numbers assigned to dif ferent sites (Penman 1977:9). State trinomial codes are assigned to all archaeological sites predating about 1900. Although post-1900 sites encoun tered during cultural resource manage ment surveys must be . recorded and reported to MDAH for Section 106 significance evaluation, they are not as signed state site numbers. The arbitrary 1900 cutoff date was chosen to avoid inflating the site file with overwhelm ingly abundant and ubiquitous twentieth century sites. The position of MDAH is that tracking the ongoing explosive pro liferation of modern sites yields rapidly diminishing returns in useful knowledge + .. + when the costs in staff time expended on incorporating such data into the state file are considered, especially in view of an increasingly burdensome records process ing backlog. This policy has been criti cized by a number of historical archae ologists; however, perennial understaffing of the MDAH archaeology office bas Figure 1 - GIS map of Mississippi archaeological sites with recorded imposed practical constraints in records UTM data, May 95 (n=7,732). processing capacity. As such, aboriginal and pre-twentieth-century historic-period nation consists of a number representing the sites must take priority to maintain site file alphabetical-numerical position of Mississippi in manageability. the list of the lower forty-eight states (22), Under MDAH guidelines, the minimal site followed by a two-letter county abbreviation, definition simply consists of any artifact loca then by a sequential accession number. All tion. This inclusive standard has increased the previously recorded sites were reassigned tri representation of comparatively ephemeral sites nomials to supersede the original numbers. This in the state inventory and has served to coun resolved the management confusion inherent in teract the former bias resulting from the fre the former practice of each institution assigning quent dismissal of small, but not necessarily sites numbers according to its own idiosyncratic insignificant, occupation loci-such as sparse system. The MDAH trinomial system deviates scatters and isolated finds-as not worth re- 56 The Utility and Potential of the Mississippi Archaeological Site File cording. However, the practice of assigning tronic files, do contain most of the same kinds trinomial codes to single-artifact finds is re of essential information required by other states. stricted to chronologically diagnostic artifacts Thus, Mississippi site file data are fairly useful only (e.g., ceramic sherds and projectile points). for interstate analysis, especially in the crucial This prevents the expenditure of scarce MDAH locational and gross chronological categories. staff time on the processing of a sizable amount A longstanding data quality problem stems of relatively trivial isolated find data (i.e., one from the unfortunate fact that even the compar flake sites). atively abbreviated format of the Mississippi The preferred (but not yet required) tri archaeological site form is not sufficient to nomial assignment procedure is for the site encourage detailed completion of all specified recorder to submit completed state archaeologi data categories. Even the simple check-off cal site forms to MDAH prior to issuance of spaces are often ignored by professional archae state site numbers, so that the site data may be ologists and amateur recorders alike. Perhaps incorporated into the state inventory without the most abuse is evident in the carelessness of delay. The recorder is then notified of the state site form submitters when completing the chro number(s), the use of which is required in nology section. Spaces designating various cul reports submitted to the State Historic Preser tural periods are often checked with no sup vation Officer for review. MDAH is increas porting diagnostic artifact information supplied ingly reluctant to assign site numbers prior to in the corresponding space on the form. One receiving the site forms. This courtesy has been particularly deleterious effect of the frequent granted for the convenience of site recorders; misidentification of site chronology was the however, the practice is being curtailed and may former erroneous inflation of the number of soon be eliminated altogether due to the in generic Archaic sites in the state inventory. This creasingly common failure of site recorders to flaw, which has been corrected, is symptomatic submit site forms promptly. of a negligent tendency of site recorders to The master site file documents consist of misuse Archaic as a catchall category for poorly eight-by-five-inch file card forms. Currently, identified aceramic sites. Such inattention in only hard copy forms are accepted. Following chronological classification has been counter receipt, the data on the paper forms are entered acted through the institution of the now-routine into an electronic database (see section on Site procedure of carefully verifying all information File Computerization and GJS). Data categories on site forms during initial processing rather include the state site number, location, size, de than accepting them at face value, as was too scription, physiographic region, chronology/cul often the tendency in the past. tural affiliation, diagnostic materials, ownership, For many years, one of the greatest short landform setting, number and types of mounds comings of the Mississippi site records involved (if any), integrity, National Register eligibility, the lack of precision in site location data. Pri and report references, among others. The Mis mary location information was expressed in sissippi site form is minimalistic compared to terms of part-section/township/range, but was the multipage forms used by other southeastern only rarely better than the quarter-quarter sec states. However, the site cards are not intended tion level of specificity. MDAH maintains a set to comprise a comprehensive record. Instead, of 7.5-minute quadrangle maps covering the they are index forms containing condensed data, entire state upon which all recorded sites are which direct users to additional information cu plotted as precisely as possible; however, site rated at MDAH or other repositories (Schlundt location maps were not consistently supplied to 1982:58). Associated sources include reports, MDAH until the 1970s. This causes difficulty in publications, field records, photographs, maps, relocating less conspicuous sites recorded many and artifact collections. Nevertheless, the site years ago. The addition of the Universal Trans forms themselves, as well as the associated elec- verse Mercator (UTM) coordinate data category 57 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective to the new site record form, introduced in 1980, localized project areas. In both cases, site sur resulted in a tremendous improvement in site vey information is supplied by the MDAH ar location database . precision and, fortuitously, chaeological staff free of charge, provided that helped preadapt the site file for the recent im the time involved is not excessive. Otherwise, plementation of geographic information system the investigator must visit the MDAH site file (GIS) applications (see next section). office in Jackson to obtain the data. Unrestricted Despite the high degree of precision inher access to the files is allowed to outside inves ent in the UTM location system, the accuracy of tigators, ·under the supervision of an MDAH UTM information as recorded on the site forms archaeologist. MDAH is currently considering sometimes leaves much to be desired. Dis the possibility of providing read-only, remote crepancies of hundreds and even thousands of on-line access to the computerized site database meters are often noted between the UTM as a means of enhancing the overall utility of coordinates recorded and the actual location of the site file. In the event on-line access is made the site as plotted on the USGS quadrangle available, it will be restricted to certain author section copies attached to the site forms. When ized users, such as universities and land man these discrepancies are corrected during site agement agencies, for site security reasons. In form processing, the site locations as mapped this respect, site file information is provided to on the forms must take priority as the most nonarchaeologists only on a need-to-know authoritative source. However, it is quite evident basis-for example, landowners or agency plan that map reading and orienteering skills are ners who must have access to such information highly variable among archaeologists, not to in order to prevent or mitigate adverse effects of mention amateur recorders. Even infrequent ran development projects on known sites. With the dom field checking of mapped locational data exception of those sites open for public visita can suggest the significant extent of the prob tion, site file data is not provided to the merely lem. Hopefully, this dilemma will abate in the curious. This prevents the circulation of site future as global positioning system (GPS) tech location information to potential looters. This nology comes into more widespread use. policy has legal -backing through an exemption In light of the above-outlined problems, it from the state open records law. is apparent that submitters of site forms tend to view them as being of secondary importance and, as a result, all too often treat them as an SITE FILE COMPUTERIZATION AND GIS afterthought. In order to impress the importance of carefully recorded site information, site file The computerized version of the archaeological managers should strive to communicate to field site file, established by MDAH in the mid- investigators that when a site form is filled out, 1980s, was developed in a standard Informix a primary scientific and historical document is RDBMS, tailored for a Unix operating system. created that may stand for decades to come as a The database is currently about 14 megabytes in major, and in some cases the only, source of size and is maintained on an AT&T 3B2 vital site data. minicomputer housed off-site from the archae This discussion has touched upon the role ology office in the main MDAH building. of providers of site information, but what of the Access to the system is via AT&T 4410 ter needs of site file data consumers? As mentioned minals, which are connected to a separate previously, the site file has begun to be con AT&T 3B2/310 minicomputer in the archae sulted as a resource for geographically broad ology office, which in turn is hard-lined to the scale research; however, the most frequent off-site main system. requests by archaeologists for state site file data The database record fields are structured consist of background record inquiries to check similarly to the categories on the state site for previously recorded sites and surveys in cards. New and updated site information is en- 58 The Utility and Potential of the Mississippi Archaeological Site File tered in text form. Although standard abbre tion with the MARIS workstation. Future devel viations and :spellings were established for use opments will include the addition of linear fea in data entry, the former lack of close super tures and polygons to the application capability, vision over the clerical personnel by staff as well as adding new sites and site information archaeologists has resulted in many inconsis updates. tencies and errors in the site file. Specifically, There has been some internal disagreement information was sometimes entered into wrong and debate at MDAH concerning the future of data fields or misspelled, and random typo the state's computerized site file. The MDAH graphical errors and eccentric, cryptic abbre staff archaeologists have been of the opinion viations are abundant. Consequently, the results that the present system should be exchanged for of data queries are often severely incomplete a PC-driven database, such as those employed and, in many cases, not useful. Efforts are under by the states of Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, way to clean up the current data and prevent and Georgia. This would allow for independent, such deficiencies in the future. To this end, the in-house operation of the system by archaeolo key quality-control measure consists of the gists. The off-site housing and control of the designation of a specific staff archaeologist for system have greatly complicated data queries by all data entry, instead of the former use of non the archaeological staff and have caused diffi professional clerical staff and student interns. culties and long delays during the aforemen This has greatly improved site data consistency tioned GIS project. In effect, the computerized and accuracy. Restrictive codes are being writ site file has been little more than a backup ten into fields, as well, to help prevent the input repository of information already available in of incorrect data. paper form. Its effectiveness as a management Recently, the Mississippi Automated Re and research tool has been severely restricted by sources Information Service (MARIS) was con computer maintenance problems, access limita tracted to develop a GIS menu interface with a tions, and the complexity of the Informix customized application capability for use with database itself. Converting the site file to a PC the computerized site file. The interface between based system would give those who utilize and the two files is based on a single point location generate the data direct access to its manage from the estimated center of each recorded ment and operation. Further, it would relieve the archaeological site. Site locations are recorded technical support staff of the burden of main as x-y values in accordance with UTM format. taining the site file in the problem-prone and As of May 31, 1995, there were 7,732 sites, or antiquated minicomputer. The technical support 49.25 percent of the inventory total, with UTM staff, however, has shown resistance to this idea coordinates specified, which enables their repre and has suggested that a PC-based system could sentation in the GIS (see Figure 1). Efforts will not perform as many tasks as effectively as the soon be initiated to add UTM data to earlier site current system. records that now lack them. Selected nonspatial Recently, work on the National Park Ser attributes of the sites have been linked to the vice's Ancient Indian Architecture/Earthwork point data, including site number, cultural affil study--currently being conducted as part of the iation, and National Register eligibility. The federal Lower Mississippi Delta Region Initia GIS utilizes Arclnfo software running on a Sun tives project-has helped prove that PC-based Sparc20 workstation housed at the MARIS fa systems are the most desirable format for main cility in Jackson, with linkage between MDAH taining an automated site database. Requests and MARIS via modem. The MDAH archae from both the Southeast Archeological Center ology office utilizes an IBM-compatible 486-66 (SEAC) of the National Park Service and the MHz PC with a 19-inch monitor and 16 MB University of Mississippi for comprehensive ar RAM. The MDAH PC uses the Tektronix chaeological site file information specified the Emulation Package EM4105 to enable integra- need for PC-compatible data. Since these were 59 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective not available, Guy Prentice of SEAC and Jay is apparent that many of the problems involved Johnson of the University of Mississippi have in its management have arisen from the past kindly converted ASCII-formatted data sets of lack of sufficient scrutiny of site data for the MDAH site file into PC databases. SEAC reliability at the front end of the records pro utilized Microsoft Access, while the University cessing stream, as well as the failure to regu of Mississippi used the program Paradox. By larly update site information as more knowledge adapting these converted files, the MDAH ar accumulates. Such problems are by no means chaeological staff has successfully created a PC unique to Mississippi: it has been pointed out based version of the site file in dBase for that among southeastern states in general "site Windows 5.0. This PC database has already forms all too typically appear to be filled out proved easier to use. Further customization and (and then forgotten) early in the research refinement are now underway, and the resulting process ... " (Anderson 1993:15). In Mississippi, improved accessibility of the computerized site this situation is now being rectified through data will make large-scale regional studies far systematic site data proofing and updating by more practical. the site file management staff. A decade of site file computerization and the more recent imple mentation of GIS have forcefully demonstrated CONCLUSIONS the importance of "clean" site files now that automated data manipulation and retrieval have Although the Mississippi archaeological site file become an indispensable part of archaeological is on the whole a reasonably efficient system, it management and research. REFERENCES CITED Anderson, David G. 1993 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. Paper presented in the symposium "Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast," organized by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina. Anderson, David G., Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Christopher Judge (editors) 1992 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia. Brown, Calvin S. 1926 Archeology of Mis$issippi. Mississippi Geological Survey, University. Dunnell, Robert C. 1990 The Role of the Sou.theast in American Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 9(1)11-22. Ford, James A 1936 Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Anthropological Study No. 2, Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, New Orleans. 60 The Utility and Potential of the Mississippi Arthaeological Site File Galloway, Patricia 1994 Prehistoric Population of Mississippi: A First Approximation. Mississippi Archaeology 29(2):44-71. Guthe, Carl E. 1930 Guide Leaflet for Amateur Archaeologists. Reprint and Circular Series of the National Research Council No. 93. Washington, D.C. Penman, John T. 1977 Archaeological Survey in Mississippi, 1974-1975. Mississippi Department of Archives and History Archaeological Report No. 2. Jackson. Phillips, Philip 1970 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississipp~ 1949-1955. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 60, Harvard University, Cambridge. Phillips, Philip, James A. Ford, and James B. Griffin 1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 25, Harvard University, Cambridge. Schlundt, Zada Law 1982 The Mississippi Archaeological Site File. Mississippi Archaeology 17(2):57-60. Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Works Projects Administration 1940 Indian Mounds and Sites in Mississippi (2 vols.) Unpublished typescript on file at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. >>> 61 THE MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES IN NORTH CAROLINA Almeta Rowland and Dolores A. Hall BACKGROUND computerized one-page form for recording iso lated finds; and a one-page, two-sided form for As the official custodian of the North Carolina site recording by amateurs--which we later archaeological site files, the Office of State transfer to a computerized form. While the Archaeology (OSA) has certain legal obligations eleven-page form may be daunting, it contains regarding their maintenance and disposition. many multiple-choice fields and includes envi This paper offers a brief overview of the North ronmental, cultural, management, and biblio Carolina system for site file management as graphic information categories. Although our well as some of the issues affecting the system. site files have been computerized since 1979 in Working within the confines of limited staff, a Prime Information 4150 mainframe computer, funding, and technology, our primary goal has only about half of the 27,000 recorded sites are been to provide accurate data to a variety of currently in the computer system. users. The majority of site forms are submitted by The North Carolina OSA is a branch of the professional archaeologists as a result of com State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Our pliance investigations. Permanent site numbers main office is in Raleigh. We have one archae are assigned and sites are mapped on USGS ologist in the Western Office of Archives and topographic quadrangle maps in our office History in Asheville and three archaeologists in before the forms and reports are submitted to our Underwater Archaeology Unit (UAU) at us. In this way, duplicate numbers for the same Kure Beach. In 1981, we accepted responsibility site and the confusion of temporary instead of from the Research Laboratories of Anthropology permanent site numbers in reports are avoided. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Site forms with permanent numbers are sub Hill for maintaining the state's centralized site mitted at the same time as the compliance numbering system. Our site files contain records reports. The bibliographic number assigned each of both prehistoric- and historic-period archaeo report as it is data entered is noted on the site logical sites. As of May 31, 1995, there were form. Tracking numbers keyed to any compli 27,045 archaeological sites recorded in the state ance project related to the report are also added of North Carolina. Information on standing to the site forms for cross-reference. structures is maintained by our sister branch, the Quality control of archaeological site data Survey and Planning Branch in Raleigh, and is a primary concern. Since we obtain site data shipwreck files are maintained by the UAU at from a number of sources, it varies in accuracy Kure Beach. Since 1989 it has been our policy and level of detail. Several steps are taken to to record noncommercial cemeteries as archaeo ensure consistency and completeness whenever logical sites if they appear abandoned or ne possible. An accurate location for each site is glected or if the last interment was more than paramount. We maintain all site locations and fifteen years ago. This information is also for surveyed areas on standard 7.5-minute USGS warded to the North Carolina Abandoned Ceme topographic maps. All plotted locations, UTM tery Project staff for inclusion in their files. coordinates, and environmental information are We use an eleven-page computerized site checked against the information on the site form form for recording both prehistoric and historic before being entered into the computer system. archaeological sites, including cemeteries; a Each site location is assigned an accuracy rating 62 The Management of Archaeological Site Files in North Carolina based on the consistency of the information. incumbent upon the OSA to protect both the If the site was recorded for compliance pur archaeological resource and its associated rec poses, the cultural and management information ords and to maintain the distinction between on the form is checked by the staff archaeolo public ownership of records and public access gist during report review to maintain consis to those records. Striking the appropriate bal tency. After the site information is entered into ance is not always a simple task. the computer system, a printout is made and The OSA site files are utilized daily by proofed for errors by a different individual. The staff archaeologists, federal and other state original form, along with the printout and other agency archaeologists, archaeological consul supporting data, such as sketch maps or artifact tants, and, less frequently, university archae inventories, are prepared for microfilming. ologists and their students. Requests for com Site forms are among the many records puter queries for archaeological data concerning converted to microfilm on a regular basis as specific counties, time periods, environmental part of the OSA's official Records Retention and situations, and soil types are common. The Disposition Schedule, mandated by law. This professional archaeological community is only practice allows us to store large quantities of one of our constituencies, however. While we data in small spaces and, more importantly, a do not open our files to the general public and copy of the microfiche is placed in the fireproof have refused access to site information to those vault of the North Carolina State Archives. individuals looking for "a good place to dig," Most of the archaeological data concerning we do recognize a number of situations where North Carolina are unpublished and scattered non-archaeologists have a legitimate "need to across the state. As the central repository for know." much of this information, we have an obligation Site information is routinely sent to state to protect and preserve the records as well as and federal agencies and their applicants during the artifacts. In addition to site forms, we the compliance process as part of our official microfilm archaeological reports, field notes, SHPO comments. Environmental firms con artifact inventories, compliance project docu ducting background assessments for their clients mentation, and other site information, as well as are given access to certain information. Increas an assortment of administrative records. We do ingly, city and county planning departments are have the on-site capability to convert the micro attempting to incorporate consideration of ar fiche back to paper. The microfiche is always chaeological resources into their environmental checked for legibility prior to destruction of the studies and ordinances. Local historic preserva original paper records. tion commissions, certified local government boards, and tribal organizations are also legit imate users of archaeological information. ACCESSIBILITY Decisions regarding how much and whattype of information to make available are made on a The policies of the OSA regarding accessibility case-by-case basis. Once approved, a recipient of archaeological information are prescribed in of this data must in tum agree to share the part by the North Carolina public records law. information only with colleagues who "need to Archaeological site files are included in the know." definition of "public records" found in North While we are aware of the dangers of Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 132-1 and increasing accessibility to site data, archaeo must therefore be collected and maintained to logical resources cannot be protected or pre certain standards. Public access to information served unless those groups or individuals concerning archaeological site locations is re responsible for decisions that will affect these stricted by the provisions of NCGS 70-18 to resources have access to the appropriate infor protect the sites from a risk of harm. It is mation. In an age of dwindling resources and 63 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective regulations, it is difficult, if not impossible, to we started plotting surveyed areas on USGS convince people to consider the effects of their maps in the mid-1980s, approximately twenty actions upon archaeological resources without years of surveys had not been plotted. There telling them where these resources are located was a massive backlog of site forms to be map and why they are important. checked and entered into the computer system. We also had mapped site locations for which we had no site forms or other information. NEW AND CURRENT SYSTEMS Beginning with the Abbottsburg quadrangle and proceeding in an alphabetical sequence, we Electronic access to site data is also becoming began checking reports and files to ensure that an issue. The North Carolina Department of sites and surveyed areas are plotted accurately Transportation (NCD01) has contracted with and completely and that all site forms are the North Carolina Center for Geographic complete, consistent, and entered into the Information and Analysis (NCCGIA) to develop computer system. We also make sure that the a geographic information system (GIS) for use bibliographic and management information for in the highway planning process. This system is each archaeological report is included in the to include a number of data sets, such as bibliographic program. In the process, we are wetlands, soil types, endangered species, hy compiling an inventory by quadrangle map of drology, topography, prime farmland, historic counties depicted on the map; sites recorded on structures, and archaeological sites. These data the map; archaeological reports that include data layers, once compiled, will be held by NCCGIA on these sites and/or areas; and sites listed or and used in the development of a North Caro determined eligible for listing in the National lina on-line geographic data source directory. Register of Historic Places, or placed on the This project could engender both problems and state study list for possible future listing. This opportunities. inventory is available--on diskette when The problems involve the control of access requested-for staff and consultant use. to site information and information updates. Once complete, the maps are digitized by Any agency or group requesting maps or data an NCCGIA technician, and we are provided layers of archaeological site information must with a mylar overlay of archaeological sites and have written approval from the State Archae surveyed areas. Nonspatial data will be down ologist. Once data layers are released by loaded to the NCCGIA system in the near NCCGIA, however, our control of access is, for future. After about a year, we were able to all practical purposes, lost. In addition, the data obtain a full-time NCCGIA employee to work can become outdated quickly, both in terms of in our office updating maps, plotting surveyed specific site status and recommendations and in areas, and doing data entry for the project. the number of recorded sites in any specific When the new staff person joined our team, we study area. shifted our focus for six months to provide On the other hand, the NCCGIA project NCCGIA with information on a statewide basis offers us an opportunity to organize and update of National Register listed, determined eligible, our archaeological site files and take a closer and study list properties. With the completion of look at how we organize our data. At the that data layer, we have returned to a initiation of the project we were faced with map-by-map progress, although it is likely that supplying NCCGIA with the site information we may have to shift focus again based on without benefit of additional staff or funding NCDOT or NCCGIA priorities. The result of and without specific guidance on how to or this project will be the elimination of backlogs ganize the data. We decided that the USGS 7.5- and incomplete data and the creation of a minute quadrangle map was the most practical well-organized and inventoried set of reliable format on which to provide the data. Although site files. 64 The Mana.gement of Archaeological Site Files in North Carolina. Much has been accomplished since The team works jointly once a month on September 1994, when we reorganized our staff projects, such as expanding and updating the and instituted a team approach to records site database, correcting map problems, adding management. Our team consists of (1) a records bibliographic entries in our computerized data retention and disposition manager, (2) a GIS base, and plotting surveyed areas. The records technician, (3) two compliance review coordina manager and the site registrar meet weekly to tors (each of whom also have other records develop solutions to specific problems and to responsibilities), and ( 4) the site registrar/office guide the team's progress. All team members Cultural Resources Evaluation Program (CREP) are encouraged to keep abreast of any backlogs data coordinator. While each team member has and to explore new ways of maintaining a many other responsibilities not associated with viable system of site file management. Creative the records project, specific periods of time are approaches to problems and the team concept reserved for teamwork. So far the team has have allowed us to complete a number of tasks proofed for legibility about 12,000 microfiche well in advance of the target da.~ set for and paper site records, updated bibliographic completion by single individuals, We have a entries for five counties, transferred site data to better appreciation and understiw.ding of the about twenty revised USGS maps, and prepared responsibilities of each team member and offer three years of compliance project documentation both the archaeological community and the for microfilming. public a higher stan<;l&d of service. >>> 65 SITE FILE MANAGEMENT IN PUERTO RICO Miguel A. Bonini Site file management is of fundamental impor it. Files can be up-to-date and easily accessible, tance to any successful archaeology program. but if the information is limited to just the name The Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation of the site, its general location, and whether it is Office, though lacking in personnel, has strived historic or prehistoric, a researcher does not to maintain its files as up-to-date as its re have much to go on. The goal in site file sources will permit. This situation, we are sure, management is not just to have readily is consistent with that of the states on the retrievable site files, but to insure that those mainland, which are also faced with a volume files contain information beyond general loca of information that greatly outweighs the re tion and cultural affiliation. sources available to adequately manage them. One advantage Puerto Rico has compared Though included administratively in the to most of the states of the Union is that its Southeast Region of the National Park Service, database is relatively small, so it takes less Puerto Rico is quite distinct culturally, both his resources to manage it The amount of archival torically and prehistorically speaking, from the space or computer space to store this informa other states in this region. Interest in the island's tion is probably a fraction of that which is archaeology dates back to the late nineteenth needed for any of the other states in the Union. century (Carbone 1980). Among the early schol Unfortunately, we are painfully aware that our ars were Agustin Stahl (1889), A1fonse Pinart files greatly underrepresent the number of sites (1893), and Cayetano Colly Toste (1907). Their exiting in the island. When the funding to early investigations, roughly contemporary to adequately manage and expand this database is the pioneering investigations in the continental nonexistent, an unsatisfactory situation exists. United States, reflect the insurgent worldwide The Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation interest in prehistory in the last century. Office (PRSHPO), which is part of the Office of After the island's change of sovereignty in the Governor, maintains their site files with the 1898, American archaeologists and anthropolo Filemaker Pro database program on a Macintosh gists began to conduct investigations in Puerto LC III computer. Most of this computer file was Rico. Among them were Jesse Walter Fewkes originally taken from the old, paper site forms (1907), Samuel K Lothrop (n.d.), Franz Boas, and processed by the Consejo para la Protecci6n J. A1den Mason (1941), Robert T. Aitken (1917, del Patrimonio Arqueol6gico Terrestre de Puerto 1918), Froelich Rainey (1940), and Irving Rico (Council for the Protection of the Ar Rouse. One of the most extensive surveys was chaeological Land Patrimony of Puerto Rico, or Rouse's in the late 1930s (1952, 1992). Consejo). Puerto Rico has never been subjected to a The PRSHPO and Consejo site file forms systematic islandwide survey (WPA archaeology are divided into five broad parts (see Figure 1 at also missed Puerto Rico). As a result, the the end of this article): number of recorded sites is relatively low, totaling only about 1,000. Of these sites, only a Part I: Identification. Basically the name, site small percentage have information describing number, location in UTM or latitude the areal extent or even cultural affiliation and longitude, municipality, USGS (beyond prehistoric or historic). This severely quadrangle, owner and use of terrain. limits the utility of the file. After all, a site file is only as good as the information contained in 66 Site File Management in Puerto Rico Part II: Environment. The type of terrain, Terrestrial Archaeology's computer site file vegetation, soil erosion, and soil format, incorporating into this the additional classification. information available in our records. This com monality allows for easier sharing of infor Part III: Archaeology. The type of site (pre mation, albeit not through computer link (we historic, historic, or multicomponent), still can't surf the net) but through sharing cultural association area, depth, type floppy disks. of material (ceramic, lithic, shell, pet None of the agencies in Puerto Rico have roglyph, ballcourt, etc.), and previous any personnel dedicated exclusively to the task excavations. of site file management. It is, in fact, a col lateral duty dealt with on the rare occasions Part IV: Architecture. Basically, visible archi when time permits. Nevertheless, in terms of the tectural elements, material used, and information available to our office for process function of structures. ing, we are practically up-to-date. We do not have a backlog of files to process. Part V: General Infonnation. A catch all. Currently, our Office maintains two sets of Bibliographic references, graphic m USGS 7.5-minute series topographic maps cov formation, and commentaries. ering the entire island, as well as the islands of Vieques, Culebra, and Mona, which comprise A brief overview of the agencies that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Archaeo regulate archaeology on the island is in order. logical sites are marked on the maps with a Puerto Rico has enacted two state archaeology hollow red triangle with the designation written laws: the Protection, Conservation and Study of next to it. Areas that have been surveyed are Underwater Archaeological Sites and Resou.rces highlighted in orange. These invariably are areas Act of 1987 and the Protection of the Archaeo surveyed under Section 106 compliance of the logical Land Patrimony of Puerto Rico Act of NHP A. Over the years, however, several spu 1988. These laws created the Consejos (Coun rious marks, drawn in pencil, have been added cils) of Underwater and Terrestrial Archaeology. to the maps. Local archaeologists call or stop by Though impressive on paper, the implementa the PRSHPO and mark the general area where tion of these laws, particularly the one concern they found a site or were told a site was ing land archaeology, has been problematic. located. We lack the personnel to field verify Among other things, these two laws fail to these. The net result is that we have more sites consider the legal requirements imposed on fed marked on our maps than site forms. eral agencies by the National Historic Preserva tion Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended-particu larly Section 106 compliance. This sometimes RECOMMENDATIONS causes jurisdictional conflicts for cultural re sources compliance in construction projects that The way the government of Puerto Rico man are determined to be federal undertakings. ages its archaeological resources needs to be The net effect of these various agencies or streamlined and consolidated. The precious few offices having legal responsibilities for ensuring resources that are available are spread too thin, compliance with archaeology laws, both state and we must avoid duplicating each other's and federal, is an overlapping of responsibilities efforts. The number of sites recorded on the and (you guessed it) multiple site files. In an Island is certainly at a manageable level in effort to create a uniform site file database and, terms of maintaining a site file. The question is, at the same time, be computer compatible, the do these files represent an accurate picture of PRSHPO, in 1993, purchased a Macintosh LC the resources that are out there? This is the III computer and adopted the Consejo of major weakness here. The paucity of informa- 67 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective tion known about the vast majority of these only be rectified through field verification and sites severely limits the file's utility. This can limited testing. ' INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS ARQUEOLOGICOS OFICINA EST AT AL DE PRESERVACION H!STOR!CA, OFICINA DEL GOBERNADOR Parte I - IDENTIFICACION 1) Nombre(s) del Yacimiento: 2) Codigo de ldentificacion: 3) Coordenadas (UTM 6 GCS): 4) Descripcion de acceso al lugar: 5) Cuadrangulo USGS: 6) Uso de Terreno: 7) Municipio: 8) Bar'rio/Sector: 9) Dueno (direcci6n): Parte II - ECOAMBIENTE 10) Rasgos Morfologicos: 11) Erosion: 12) Tipo de Vegetacion: llano - montaiia _severa 13) Agua: rfo _ laguna _ quebrada - valle _mogote moderada mar mangle _ manantial - islote colina _minima _Iago _pozo _otro - costa _· _ cueva/refugio ninguna vega sumidero Oistancia (mts.): 14) Suelos: Munsell: 15) Elevacion (mts.): Clasificaci6n: 16) Declive ( 0-90°): 17) Comentarios: Parte Ill - ARQUEOLOGIA 18) Tipo de Recurso: 21) Relacion de material arqueol6gico superficial: _ arqueol6gico/prehist6rico _ arqueol6gico/hist6rico 22) Periodo y/o asociaci6n cultural: _ arquitectonico _ multicomponente _ otro (explique) 23) lndicios de saqueo/vandalismo: _sf _no 19) Area (mts.): Explique: 20) Profundidad (mts.): 24) Muestreo: Recolecci6n de superficie: _Si _no Pozos de prueba: _sf _no Material recolectado: Figure 1 - The Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office and G:msejo site file form. 68 Site File Management in Puerto Rico INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS ARQUEOLOGICOS OFICINA EST AT AL DE PRESERVACION HIST ORICA, OFICINA DEL GOBERNADOR 25) Composici6n del yacimiento: restos alimenticios _ ceramica(P) residuario metal _ campamento estructura(s) hist6rica(s) _ ceramica(H) conchero cristal pictograffa mat's./zona de cultivo plaza/batey _ petroglffo If tic a enterramiento _ maquinaria agrfcola cantera/taller montfculo hueso _ caracol 26) Excavaciones previas: 27) Relacion de Yacimientos Adyacentes y/o Cercanos: 28) Comentarios: Parte IV - ARQUITECTURA 29) Material estructural: 30) Materiales de elaboraci6n: 31) Elementos de valor arquitect6nico: _cal y canto zinc azulejos _ puertas _ relieves/murales ladrillo marmol mad eras escalera cistern a/bodega mad era terrazo losa criolla _ cornisas contrafuertes acero/hierro _tejas losa canaria b6vedas _ columnas _ hormig6n _yeso hormig6n(1) rejas chi men ea _bloque otros( explique): areas cimientos _ mamposterfa vigas _ventanas argamasa pisos otro(s): _ paredes 32) Estructura(s): central azucarera tren jamaiquino maquinaria portuario _ -puente faro _ casa de hacienda _ ingenio/trapiche _ alcantarilla vivienda fuerte poza _ iglesia/convento sistema irrigaci6n ferroviario almacen mo lino otra 33) Tipologia: Figure 1 (cont.) - The Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office and Consejo site file form. . 69 Archa,eological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS ARQUEOLOGICOS OFICINA EST AT AL DE PRESERVACION HISTORICA, OFICINA DEL GOBERNADOR Parte V • INFORMACION GENERAL 35) Referencias Bibliograficas: 36) lnformaci6n Grafica: a) fotograffas b) pianos c) _dibujos nurn.(f): _____ num.(p): ______nurn.(d): ______tamafio(f): __ x tarnafio(p): __ x __ tamafio(d): __ x __ medio(f): ______medio(p): ______rnedio(d): ______archivado(f): ____ archivado(p): ____ archivado(d): ____ 37) Comentarios: 38) Fecha de lnspecci6n de Campo: 39) Realizado por: Figure 1 (cont.) The Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office and Consejo site file form. REFERENCES CITED Aitken, Robert T. 1917 Puerto Rican Burial Caves. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Congress of Americanists, pp. 224-228. Washington. 1918 A Porto Rican Burial Cave. American Anthropologist 20:296-309. Carbone, Victor A. 1980 Puerto Rico Prehistory: An Outline. Appendix A in A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Five Projects in Puerto Rico. Report on file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. 70 Site File Management in Puerto Rico Coll y Toste, Cayetano 1907 Prehistoria de Puerto Rico. San Juan. Fewkes, J. Walter 1907 The Aborigines of Porto Rico and Neighboring Islands. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 25:1-220. Lothrop, Samuel K n.d. Archaeological Sites in Puerto Rico. Ms. in the Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven. Mason, J. Alden 1941 A Large Archaeological Site at Capa, Utuado, with Notes on Other Porto Rican Sites Visited in 1914-1915. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18, part 2. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. Pinart, Alfonse L. 1893 Note sur les Petroglyphs et Antiquites des Grandes et Petites Antilles. In Picture Writing of the American Indians, by Garrick Mallery, pp. 136-137. Tenth Annual Report of the . Bureau of American Ethnology for 1888-1889. Washington. Rainey, Froelich 1940 Porto Rican Archaeology. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18, part 1. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. Rouse, Irving 1952 Porto Rican Prehistory. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18, parts 3, 4. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. 1992 The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale University Press, New Haven. Stahl, Agustin 1889 Los Indios Borinquenos, Estudios Etnograficos. Puerto Rico. >>> 71 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT WITHIN SCIAA: A SOUTH CAROLINA PERSPECTIVE Keith Derting and Jonathan Leader INTRODUCTION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The South Carolina Institute of Archaeology For the purposes of this discussion, we will and Anthropology (SCIAA) was founded by focus on the site files as they function as a part state law in 1963. This enabling act made the of the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA). housing and management of South Carolina's The head of OSA is the Deputy State Archae site inventory files and collections a primary ologist. Besides the advisory role of the office duty of SCIAA. Over the past thirty-two years, in terms of federal and state laws and public several different individuals have overseen the outreach, the deputy coordinates and oversees site files and left their marks. Between 1963 and the activities and policies of the Information 1984, five different individuals with widely var Management Division (IMD), as well as the ying levels of competency oversaw the running Curation, Conservation, and Publications Divi of the site files. Only two of the five were full sions. The site files are located in the IMD. time employees. Since 1984, the site files have Regulations and policies for each of the divi been organized and run by a single full-time sions of OSA derive from the applicable stan manager. This brief article provides a founda dards of the profession and their specific needs tion for understanding the present circumstances and constraints. IMD is no exception, and a of the South Carolina Site File and where we policy and procedures manual has been in place expect to go from here. since 1988 (with revisions). Several topics will It should be noted that SCIAA is not the be briefly discussed herein. They are the general State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This management of the site files, including a brief latter agency, which' is housed separately, over history; present conditions of the site files; sees compliance-related activities, maintains the computerization and GIS; and related concerns. National Register of Historic Places, and is As previously mentioned, prior to 1984 the site advised through memorandum of agreement by files were inadequately supported. Major chang SCIAA. For obvious reasons, we act as sister es occurred when a new SCIAA director was agencies with mutual support whenever possi hired in 1984. By 1985, the precursor position ble. Nonetheless, the site files and subsidiary to the Information Manager, called the Labora documentation are the sole responsibility of tory Manager, was made permanent. In 1987, SCIAA. the Laboratory Manager became known as the SCIAA is composed of six divisions: the Information Manager and the position of Cura Administrative Division, the Office of the State tor was made permanent. Curation, which had Archaeologist, the Research Division, the Un also been under the direction of the Laboratory deiwater Archaeology Division, the Cultural Re Manager, became a separate division in 1988. sources Consulting Division, and the Savannah These changes were a direct result of the River Archaeological Research Project. These professional commitment by SCIAA to the divisions are, in part, tied to the 1963 enabling coordination and management of the site files· act and, in part, the result of additional legis and archaeological collections, and the related lation-such as the 1982 (revised 1991) South increase in a recognized outside client base Carolina Undeiwater Antiquities Act-and a (Appendix 1). Initially, SCIAA site files and unique contract with the Department of Energy. collections were seen as simple supporting ad- 72 Information Management within SCIAA: A South Carolina Perspective juncts to in-house research. The heavy reliance nonstandardized field survey and site report on site file and curation services by non-SCIAA maps, the sloppy and inaccurate location data, clients caused a reappraisal of the connections and the all but nonexistent supporting field between the site files, curation, and the other notes, documents, and publications resulted in a divisions of SCIAA (Appendix 2) (Figure 1). serious mess. It is an understatement to say that The realization that the majority of people at least 60 percent of the files have problems. producing and using site data were from outside While the procedures and processes detailed SCIAA required a rethinking of access, security, in the appendices met and corrected a number and procedural issues to meet perceived user of current and anticipated future problems, they needs (Appendix 3). This culminated in a re did not address the already corrupted files. To vision of the site file form; the production of a that end, the site file manager sought and re site file form handbook; the revision of informal ceived assistance from the National Park Ser and formal procedures; the introduction of a six vice and the South Carolina Department of step quality-assurance and quality-control pro Archives and History. The Site Files Upgrade gram, starting in the field and following the Project of 1988--1989, funded by two successive project to its culmination; and the production of Survey and Planning Grants, allowed the site an exhaustive policy and procedures manual. files to be verified and corrected following a Concurrent with this process, the site file six-step process. While this brought many of the manager rapidly identified serious problems site files to a minimal level of accuracy, it soon with the data. During the site files' early days, became clear that some files were intractable to insufficient funding and staffing had taken a correction. serious toll. The lack of quality control, the use An unforeseen benefit of this corrective of rudimentary forms improperly filled out, the work was the production of basal data that as- 1400 \0 r- Cf') .-; 1200 1000 ...."' loi 200 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Year Figure 1 - Total sites submitted between 1985 and 1994. 73 Archaeological Site File Mamigement: A Southeastern Perspective sisted in the successful completion of the South been done to an appropriate minimal standard, Carolina Bibliography Project of 1989-1990. GIS and computerization are proceeding apace. This project, funded by a Survey and Planning At the time of the March 1995 workshop, two Grant, was undertaken by the site file manager thirds of the site files had been digitized for as a means to support both the National Park GIS with the invaluable help of James D. Service National Archaeological Database and Scurry of the Department of Natural Resources to clear up residual problems of identifying pri (Scurry 'and Carlson, this volume). In addition mary sources for the site files. This interplay to the Cooperative Agreement between the two resulted in the recapture of significant docu agencies, legally binding user's licenses for both ments and the creation of site file forms for private and public entities have been produced, previously unreported sites. The resulting refer standardized, and used at the federal, state, and ence book, entitled A Comprehensive Bibliogra local levels. Other computerization formats and phy of South Carolina Archaeology, received a protocols are currently being explored, and coveted Notable State Document Award from SCIAA has an interactive Homepage on the the State Library in 1992. World Wide Web. All of these activities have increased the Present and future concerns revolve around accuracy, usefulness, and worth of the site files security issues, public outreach, minority em and, by extension, the collections and other powerment, ethical stewardship, and relevance documents under the control of the curator. As to the users. This is no different from what one would expect, useful resources get used (see other disciplines are experiencing. Nonetheless, Figure 1). Both the site file manager and the in terms of site files and information manage curator have had a geometric rise in demand for ment, we cannot lose sight of where our their services. Unfortunately, there has not been responsibilities lie. a related rise in the level of support or staffing. As is often the case where fiscal constraints im pinge upon dedicated services, the staff attempts SUMMARY to make up for the lack of support and buffer the end user from the harsh realities. The IMD of SOAA has met the needs of its Computerization and GIS have been touted changing client base through the wise appli by many researchers and managers as a panacea cation of professional standards, a clear under for low staffing and other problems. While this standing of its mission, and a willingness to in is clearly not the case, the benefits of GIS and corporate changes and suggestions from a varie computerization at whatever level are real. Un ty of sources. No change occurs without risk. fortunately, many states made the serious error Accepting risk as necessary for growth, and of leaping on the automation bandwagon before keeping it within appropriate levels, is a serious their databases were sufficiently accurate and challenge to site file managers. Incredible pres coherentto support their envisioned usages. The sure is placed on the professionals who under Latin phrase, purgumentum init, purgumentum take this task for "quick fixes." It is hoped that exeunt, is apt. IMD insisted on getting its paper, ~ article demonstrates the ultimate benefits of manual system in order first Now that this has a more temperate and considered approach. 74 Information Management within SCIAA: A South Carolina Perspective APPENDIX 1 - IMD AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY, 1995 Pursuant to South Carolina Code of Laws 60-13-210, the Information Management Division (IMD) of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) provides archaeological site information and support to professional archaeologists, cultural resource managers, environmental scientists, academic researchers, and other local, state, and federal agencies conducting archaeological investigations and cultural resource management in the state of South Carolina. STATE SITE FILES • Process documentation (site forms, maps, field notes, etc.) for newly reported sites. • Process updated/revisited site records, making corrections to files and master maps as needed. • Solve "inherent" and newly discovered problems concerning site files, site maps, site locations, etc. • Support in-office use of and/or access to resources (retrieve and replace site files, maps, publications, etc.). • Provide site file information via telephone and letter requests to professional archaeologists, local, state, and federal agencies, and other entities. • Conduct Environmental Site Assessments for environmental consulting firms. • Work in cooperation with agencies, organizations, and individual researchers on "special projects" involving the archaeological site files, cartographic files, publication files, etc. • Compile various summaries and reports describing the "state" of the IMD, the archaeological site files, special assignments, etc. PUBLICATION FILES • Process newly received publications, compile bibliographic inventory, and maintain all South Carolina archaeological publications. • Maintain the computerized bibliography both in conjunction with the site files and, per agreement, with the National Park Service's National Archeological Database (NPS/NADB). • Support research requests and bibliographic searches concerning archaeological publications via office visits, telephone, and letter correspondence. 75 Arcluieological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective APPENDIX 1 (cont.) POUCIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES • Maintain the IMD's Policies and Procedures Manual, compiling updates as needed based on developing responsibilities, newly emerging or assigned tasks, etc. • Develop, distribute, and enforce policies and procedures related to all aspects of IMD areas of responsibility, to include site files, cartographic files, publication files, computer files, records management, user access and restriction policies, etc. • Enforce and abide by all internally established procedures for operation of the IMD, to include the processing of archaeological site documentation, maintenance of master maps, etc. • Develop and establish policies and procedures, and memoranda of agreement or under standing regarding site file access, use, and restriction, in cooperation with other state and federal agencies, as the need arises. GENERAL INFORMATION AND PUBUC EDUCATION • Provide general information via letter, telephone, and office lectures/tours concerning South Carolina archaeology, archaeological record keeping, IMD functions, SCIAA functions in general, etc. • Work in cooperation with internship programs, mentorship programs, talented and gifted student programs, and volunteer programs in teaching archaeological record keeping, site file management, etc. • Prepare and maintain displays on record keeping and/or recording archaeological sites for presentation to the general public and special interest groups. • Work with SCIAA Curator on joint projects involving resources, primarily archaeological project records, for which responsibility is shared by both Curation and IMD. • Assist Curator on an as needed basis with operation of the SCIAA Curation Facility and other collections-related tasks. RELATED PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS AND/OR DUTIES • Serve as an affiliate member of the South Carolina State Mapping Advisory Committee (SMAC). • Serve as the designated Records Manager for SCIAA, per the South Carolina Public Records Act. 76 Information Management within SCIAA: A South Carolina Perspective APPENDIX 2 - TYPICAL SITE FILE USERS (IN OFFICE), 1990-1994* AGENCY/ORGANIZATION NAME No. OF VISITS SCIAA Research and Contracting Divisions ...... 115 Savannah River Archaeological Project (DOE) ...... 72 Underwater Division ...... 70 University of South Carolina Departments Anthropology ...... 33 Geography ...... 1 Geology ...... 2 History ...... 3 Other ...... •...... 20 South Carolina State Agencies Department of Archives and History (General) ...... 32 Department of Transportation ...... 155 State Historic Preservation Office (of SCDAH) ...... 56 Wildlife and Marine (Division)/Heritage Trust Program ...... 83 Water Resources Commission/NRDSS ...... 31 Parks, Recreation and Tourism ...... 1 Department of Health and Environmental Control ...... 1 Other state agencies ...... 1 Federal Agencies National Park Service ...... 4 Anny Corps of Engineers ...... 6 Soil Conservation Service ...... 2 Forest Service ...... 2 Utility Companies Duke Power Company ...... 8 South Carolina Electric & Gas ...... 10 Environmental Consulting Finns (Private Sector) Atlanta Testing & Engineering ...... 2 LPA Group ...... 1 Lockwood Green ...... 1 S & ME, Inc...... 1 Wilbur Smith Associates ...... 4 77 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective APPENDIX 2 (cont.) Archaeological Consulting Firms (Private Sector) AF Consultants ...... 20 Brockington & Associates, Atlanta ...... 20 Brockington & Associates, Charleston ...... 45 Chicora Foundation, Inc...... 41 Diachronic Research Foundation, Inc...... 55 EBASCO, Inc...... 1 Engineering Sciences, Inc...... 3 Goodwin & Associates, Inc...... 1 Garrow & Associates, Inc...... 9 Law Environmental, Inc...... 5 Louis Berger & Associates, Inc...... 12 New South Associates, Irmo ...... 57 Panamerican Consultants, Inc...... 7 Southeastern Archaeological Services ...... 7 Tidewater Archaeological Research, Inc...... 2 Robert S. Webb & Associates, Inc...... 2 Museums Museum of Hilton Head Island ...... 1 Museum of York County ...... 1 Other Research (Academic, Personal, Grant) Archaeological Society of South Carolina, Inc...... 1 Clemson University ...... - . . . 1 Columbia University ...... :. . 1 East Carolina University ...... 1 University of Georgia ...... ~ ... ·. . 1 Heritage Preservation Association ...... ·.. ·. . . 1 Lamar Institution ...... 1 Palmetto Trust ...... 10 Smithsonian Institute ...... 1 Wofford College ...... ; ...... 1 Other ...... 5 TOTAL OFFICE VISITS 1,030 * Numbers are based on tallies taken from sign-in sheets maintained in the Information Management Division (IMP). It should be noted that these figures are low due, in part, to failure of users to consistently sign in properly. 78 Information Management within SCIAA: A South Carolina Perspective APPENDIX 3 - IMD SITE FILES PROCEDURES, OCTOBER 1993 To maintain the South Carolina Statewide Archaeological Site Inventory and to insure the adequacy and consistency of archaeological site documentation in South Carolina (pursuant to S.C. Code of Laws 60-13-210), the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) requires the proper use and timely submission of the Site Inventory Record Form (68- 1 Rev. 85) and site locational maps for each archaeological site discovered in South Carolina. The procedures for submission of Site Inventory Record Forms, and also for utilization of the State Archaeological Site Files and related resources are as follows: 1) Site Inventory Record Forms and locational maps must be completed and submitted to the Information Management Division (IMD) at SCIAA as quickly as possible after site discovery. Forms must not be withheld pending results of additional investigations (testing, data recovery, etc.). It is also recommended that each site be given a temporary field name or number to serve as an identifier until it can be assigned a state number. 2) State site numbers will be assigned only when complete correct site forms and locational maps are submitted to and accepted by IMD. Site numbers will not be assigned by telephone prior to receipt of completed site forms. Furthermore, IMD will not assign numbers to site forms and maps transmitted by FAX machine. Computer generated forms are acceptable provided they are formatted to match the official site form (68-1 Rev. 85) with no additions or deletions. 3) Locational maps submitted with each Site Inventory Record Form must include an 8:\6-by- 11-inch photocopy of a USGS topography map (7.5-minute series preferred) and an s;.z-by- 11-inch photocopy of the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transpor tation General Highway Map (county road map). Archaeological site location and temporary field name or number must be clearly marked on each map. In addition, site sketch maps noting major features, placement of test units, artifact concentrations, etc., are highly recommended. Site boundaries must be clearly marked on all submitted maps, and map scales must be included, especially on topography or county road map copies that have been enlarged or reduced. 4) Documentation for underwater archaeological sites must include, in addition to Site Inventory Record Forms and appropriate maps, a completed SCIAA Division of Underwater Archaeology Supplementary Data Sheet (Form 87-49). 5) Any additional information that is submitted with the Site Inventory Record Form, such as field notes, drawings, photographs, etc., must be clearly marked and appropriately labeled (e.g., project name, temporary field name or number, contractor). If these categories of documentation are submitted after a state site number has been assigned, their labeling must include the state number. 79 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective APPENDIX 3 (cont.) 6) State site numbers must be used in reports submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) per their Guidelines and Standards for Archaeological Investigations.* It is therefore necessary to file site forms and receive state numbers from SCIAA prior to sub mission of draft and final reports to the SHPO for review. All compliance-related projects must adhere to the SHPO guidelines, and it is strongly suggested that non-compliance, privately funded, academic, and/or research-oriented projects adhere to them as well to insure a minimum standard for archaeological fieldwork and reporting in South Carolina. 7) Copies of final reports must be submitted to IMD as soon as possible after project/report completion. The reports supplement the information recorded in the State Archaeological Site Files and are used extensively for background research. 8) Site form updates must be submitted whenever archaeological sites are revisited, re collected, or when additional fieldwork of any kind is conducted. Updates must be recorded on the Site Inventory Record Form with all categories of information completed, and they must include revised site maps (topography, county road, and sketch). SCIAA no longer accepts artifact collections for curation that are recovered during site revisits and/or multiple-phase field investigations without submission of update documentation to IMD. Further, the SHPO will no longer review project reports concerning sites for which update information has not been submitted. 9) Artifact inventory lists must be included with site forms and site form updates. A summary statement of cultural and functional types may be submitted if artifact analysis is still ongoing, but must be followed by complete inventories as soon as they are available. IMD now tracks every project for which state site numbers have been assigned in order to follow through on the status of outstanding site forms, site form updates, artifact inventories, and final reports. 10) Site forms and all accompanying documentation must be reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and clarity before submission to IMD. Principal Investigators must make certain that crew persons filling out site forms are thoroughly schooled in form completion, and that they have access to and have read the Handbook to the Site Inventory Form.** IMD reserves the right to return all incomplete, incorrect site forms to their originators for corrections prior to assigning a state site number. If the site forms were sent via express mail, they will be returned via express mail at the expense of the originator. Furthermore, IMD now requires two full work days to review submitted site forms and to assign state site numbers. All submissions must be planned accordingly. 11) SCIAA's Curator must be contacted regarding curation standards and fees as early as possible in the project planning stages and no later than the time of site form submission to IMD if ultimate disposition of the recovered materials will be at SCIAA. The current charge is $68 per cubic foot of materials to be curated. 80 Information Management within SCIAA: A South Carolina Perspective APPENDIX 3 (cont.) 12) It is expected that all fieldwork be preceded by background research at the State Archaeo logical Site Files (IMD/SCIAA) and at the SHPO, South Carolina Department of Archives and History. If for any reason site forms are submitted prior to conducting this background research, they must be accompanied by a letter so stating. 13) IMD requires appointments to be set up at least 24 hours in advance of in-house visits, and reserves the right to deny use of the site files to individuals arriving without an appoint ment. Office hours are 8:30 to 11:30 A.M. and 1:00 to 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. 14) All site files, maps, reports, and other informational resources requested for research must be pulled and refiled by IMD staff only. These resources must be used in an assigned work space in the IMD office. They may only be removed for purposes of duplication at the SCIAA photocopy machine, and only when permission is granted by IMD staff. The photocopy fee is 5 cents per page for the first 50 copies, and 15 cents per page for all copies thereafter. Master archaeological site location maps (USGS topography and county road) may not be photocopied. Site locations, if needed, must be transferred to clean maps by hand. * State Historic Preservation Office n.d. Guidelines and Standards for Archaeological Investigations. State Historic Preserva tion Office, Review and Compliance Branch, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia. ** South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 1985 Handbook to the Site Inventory Form (68-1 Rev. 85). South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. >>> 81 IMPROVING SITE RECORDING ACCURACY IN A GIS: A SOUTH CAROLINA EXAMPLE James D. Scuny and Ruth E. Carlson INTRODUCTION PROJECT STATUS Establishing accurate site location is critical for The South Carolina Department of Natural both cultural resource management and archaeo Resources (DNR), Water Resources Division logical research. The procedures for site record (WRD), has been developing a GIS to support ing and its subsequent spatial representation can watershed-based natural and cultural resource have a tremendous impact on the validity and evaluations by providing critical spatial and integrity of data relationships and associations tabular data and through implementation of inferred by correlating site location with envi standardized evaluation criterion and analytical ronmental or other variables. Traditionally, on procedures (Hale et al. 1991). The GIS database site recording of variables or extraction of contains more than thirty layers-including wet critical information by visual inspection of site lands, soils, land use, hydrography (stream net files and maps have been the primary spatial works), hypsography (contours), transportation analysis techniques. This often is followed by networks, and significant natural areas for South statistical data analysis using one of several Carolina-at 1:24,000 scale, georeferenced to commercially available software systems. the 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) The development of geographic information topographic map (Figure 1). Currently, approxi systems (GIS) over the past two decades--and mately 500 of the 570, 7.5-minute quadrangles especially their proliferation over the past are either completed or being digitized for these decade-have provided the capability to capture, primary layers. Other data, such as threatened store, analyze, and display large volumes of site and endangered species locations, National information to identify distributional patterns. Register sites and districts, fisheries, and various Combined with advanced multivariate analytical environmental permits, have been obtained and spatial statistical analysis techniques, these statewide from numerous state and federal systems also have facilitated complex data anal regulatory and resource management agencies as yses, including the development of predictive hardcopy or digital tabular files. These files site location models and hypothesis formulation have been converted to spatial coverages and and testing (Allen et al. 1990; Scurry 1989). encoded into the database. This article will outline current efforts in In 1991, the WRD entered into a coopera South Carolina to incorporate archaeological site tive agreement with the South Carolina Institute data into a statewide GIS. It will identify some of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) at problems and issues that affect site location and the University of South Carolina to develop a plotting accuracy and will recommend proce digital database of archaeological site locations dures for improving accuracy and avoiding for inclusion into the system. Initially, digiti future problems. Finally, it will also present an zation of site locations was limited to specific overview of a planned GIS infrastructure and basins and watersheds scheduled for resource delineate the opportunities such a system pre evaluation projects. This phase of the database sents for long-term archaeological research and development was completed in 1993. In mid- data management in South Carolina. 1995, the digitization project was expanded to 82 Improving Site Recording Accuracy in a GIS: A South Carolina Example Figure 1 - Natural resources decision support system data layers, available on a 7.5-minute quadrangle at a scale of 1:24,000. incorporate the rest of the state and to update DATABASE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL previously digitized quadrangles with new sites. SOLUTIONS About two-thirds of the state's more than 18,000 sites have been digitized, with comple In designing the digital database, issues of site tion of the project anticipated by June 1996. In definition and spatial representation, data type, addition to the site locations, SCIAA staff are scal_e, resolution, and accuracy had to be re compiling site numbers, National Register sta solved prior to digitization. Failure to resolve tus, and specific cultural affiliation information these issues generally results in a database that (indicated as presence/absence or unknown) into contains incompatible information, which could tables. These data are being encoded into the adversely impact management or research re INFO relational database management system sults. Because many of the sites were recorded software by the WRD. Eventually, all will be over three previous decades, some issues, such linked to the spatial data file. as map scale and data resolution, were accepted 83 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective without consideration. Similarly, many site defi nition problems could not be resolved abso lutely. Solutions were devised using the best information available from the site files, and variances from mapped site delineation were in accordance with current SCIAA procedures. The DNR/WRD submitted all questions and modifi cations to the SCIAA site file manager for final resolution and approval. Site Definition and Spatial Representation Questions of site definition have plagued archaeologists for decades, and there is no clear cut definition of what comprises a site or how to delineate its boundaries without total expo sure or excavation. Although such a definition is beyond the purpose of this article, the method of spatial representation should be considered when recording a site. Field archaeologists should be trained in database procedures and recording standards before submitting a site to Figure 2a - Sites on the Pelion West quadrangle. the inventory, and site forms and delineation should be compliant with current site definition requirements and accuracy standards. In South Carolina, archaeological sites are stored in hardcopy site files containing loca tional and site characteristic information. Sites are plotted on 7.5-minute topographic quadran gles and maintained in a map library. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the standard pro cedure for representing sites on the maps was to plot triangles, presumably at site centroids. Subsequent site locations were identified by a series of symbols ranging from various sized dots, circles, ellipses, diamonds, squares, and free-form polygons or other geometric designs (Figure 2a). In addition, some symbols were solid filled or hatched while others were left unfilled. While many different symbol sizes and (!J'-77 configurations are evident on any given map, there is no procedural manual and, often, no C:'J18 indication in the site files as to the significance (if any) of the various shapes and sizes. In several instances entire coastal islands, incorporating hundreds to thousands of acres, have been considered a single site, although the Figure 2b - Digitized site configurations on the Pelion cultural components and spatial disaggregation West quadrangle. 84 Improving Site Recording Accuracy in a GIS: A South Carolina Example of individual loci indicate separate and unrelated the maps without resolving common edge node activities. Similarly, a survey of one county re mismatches. In order to preserve the site deline corded numerous multiple loci as single sites ation and topological integrity, the site bounda even though the loci were separated by one-half ries had to be physically edgematched. While to one mile of discontinuous occupation. In most common edge nodes were within 30 me most cases, no documentation was presented to ters, several were misregistered by more than support a relationship between the loci and their 200 meters. Relatively close edge nodes were classification as a single site. adjusted manually during digitizing using site Current SCIAA site file manager, Keith form/situation, majority allocation, and digitiz Derting, has dedicated considerable staff re ing sequence criteria to determine which node sources to correct many of these problems. Fol required adjustment. Sites with edge nodes sepa lowing the current SQAA mapping practices rated by more than 30 meters were corrected and the GIS data structure and digitizing op and replotted by the SCIAA site file manager tions, specific rules and procedures were devel using the site files to determine the appropriate oped to convert the site data from hardcopy to adjustment. Potential edgematching errors can digital formats. The decision was made to cap be avoided by using a light table to co-register ture all features as polygons since the Arclnfo or an engineering scale for accurate measure GIS does not support multiple data types within ment when plotting sites across map boundaries. a single map file. This resulted in the digitizing of dots, triangles, and other point features as Map Scale, Resolution, and Accuracy small polygons. If necessary, centroids or label points can be extracted from each site polygon Map scale is the ratio between the on-ground for point pattern analyses. and on-map units of measurement (Antenucci et The circle became the primary polygonal al. 1991:104). A 1:24,000-scale map indicates feature geometry for sites that approximate cir that one inch on the map represents 24,000 cles or dots or where there was no clear indica inches on the ground. A 1: 100,000-scale map tion that actual site boundaries were delineated represents 100,000 inches of ground measure on the maps. This included the triangles and ment on the same one inch of map space. As diamonds and many of the squares and ellipses such, a 1:24,000-scale map is a larger scale map (Figure 2b). Use of the circular polygon has than the 1:100,000-scale map. The larger the greatly facilitated digitization because the map scale, the higher the resolution and accu Arclnfo software allows circle generation by racy that can be achieved. cursor input of a centroid and a single radius Most sites at SCIAA have been plotted on definition point. The software automatically 1:24,000-scale topographic maps. In areas where builds the circle using a user-defined grain size these maps have only recently become available, for vertex placement (ESRI 1989). For noncir sites were plotted on 15-minute, 1:62,500-scale cular polygons, shapes as close as possible to maps. All sites were transferred from 15-minute those on the maps have been duplicated. A stan to 7.5-minute maps prior to digitization. dard architectural drafting template was used to Associated with map scale is the concept of evaluate uncertain site shapes, and, occasionally map resolution. Resolution is the smallest fea as a quality-control measure, sites were digitized ture that can be mapped or sampled (Burrough as both circles and polygons to determine which 1986:182). More detail can be shown on a geometry best suited the site definition. 1:24,000-scale map than on a 1:100,000-scale map, therefore the map resolution is higher. For Edgematching example, a standard USGS 1:100,000-scale, 1- degree by 30-minute map (measuring 36 by Often sites extended across quadrangle bounda 21.75 inches) displays the same geographic area ries. In many cases, these sites were plotted on as 32 individual 1:24,000-scale, 7.5-minute 85 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective topographic maps (each measuring 19.5 by midity and repeated use. 22.75 inches). Generally, an area (polygon) of The Arcinfo GIS software provides a Root ten acres is the minimum that can be repre Mean Square (RMS) error statistic during set-up sented on a 1:100,000-scale map, whereas of the map for digitization, which estimates the polygons of less than one acre can be shown accuracy of the map to earth transformation effectively on a 1:24,000-scale map. (ESRI 1989). Generally, a RMS of 0.009, the With the precision of modem computers, maximum acceptable error before reregistration, polygons of infinitely small dimensions can be is required. In digitizing the sites for South stored and maintained in the GIS database. For Carolina, 0.003 was the target RMS, with the South Carolina data, no minimum resolution ranges from 0.003 to 0.006 most common. was necessary. Data were digitized as they were represented on the maps and in accordance with Potential Solutions and Recommendations the rules and procedures discussed above. Accuracy refers to the variation between There are numerous ways in which archaeo the observed and actual position of a feature or logical site data can be improved. set of features. It may be relative or absolute. Relative accuracy refers to the relationship of a > First, archaeologists should work through single map feature to other features on the map. professional organizations to develop a data Absolute accuracy is a measure of a map fea dictionary and standards that establish pro ture location to its actual position on the earth cedures for site definition and recording. (Antenucci et al. 1991:102). The data dictionary should identify critical The U.S. Bureau of Standards has estab elements that must be recorded for each lished acceptable standards of accuracy referred site with definitions of acceptable attributes to as National Map Accuracy Standards. For for those elements. This is critical for es large-scale maps of 1:20,000 or larger, not more tablishing a standardized database that can than 10 percent of the planimetric or well be maintained long term. defined points can exceed 1/30 of an inch; for > Second, regional archaeologists should be maps smaller than 1:20,000, the limit is 1/50 of trained-through workshops and other me an inch each measured on the publication scale chanisms-in established site recording and (Antenucci et al. 1991:103). For a 1:24,000- database procedures, including site delinea scale map, this equates to +/- 40 feet; for tion and reporting requirements. As part of 1:100,000-scale maps, +/- 166 feet. As a result, it is best not to mix data of different map the database quality-assurance/control pro scales. Although each layer may comply with grams, site file managers should reject data National Map Accuracy Standards, relative ac that is not compliant with these standards. curacy errors may occur from their combination. > Third, global positioning systems (GPS) Because of the nature of archaeological site technologies should be required for site de data, most site delineations do not comply with lineation. These systems use a constellation National Map Accuracy Standards. Many of the of orbiting satellites to fix accurate posi site boundaries are not well defined but are tions on the earth's surface, and, with dif approximations based on surface collection or ferential and post-processing capabilities, limited subsurface testing. However, additional they can locate sites to within two to five error may be introduced during the digitization meters (Puterski et al. 1992:12-14). GPS process because of improper map registration. units, like all computer technology, are in The primary source of potential map registration creasing in sophistication while decreasing error is the use of nonstable base source maps, in price. Standard, hand-held units can be such as paper topographic maps. Paper maps are obtained for $300 to $1,000 depending on susceptible to shrinking and warping from bu- optional features and enhancements. 86 Improving Site Recording Accuracy in a GIS: A South Carolina Example FUTURE PLANS AND PROSPECTS staff, however, a public access server will be installed in early 1996, providing access to The DNR/WRD GIS configuration is composed soils, wetlands, land use, digital line graph, and of an IBM RS/6000, Model 970 file server and other data. Archaeological site locations and ten RS/6000 workstations. Arclnfo is the pri other sensitive information not managed by the mary GIS software, including the Triangulated DNR will not be placed on this system unless Irregular Network (TIN), NETWORK, Coordi requested by the source agency. It is anticipated nate Geometry (COGO), and GRID subsystems. that SCIAA will work through the university to In addition, the ERDAS image-processing sys install Arclnfo or ArcView on resident compu tem and the SAS statistical analysis software ters and maintain the archaeological site data in provide satellite data processing and statistical house when initial digitization is completed. support. A Calcomp digitizing tablet and numer This configuration will allow archaeologists to ous pen, thermal wax, and electrostatic plot de maintain the site data and to access and vices provide data input and graphic production download available natural resource information capabilities. through the Internet for cultural resource man Currently, data access is limited to DNR agement and research. REFERENCES Allen, Kathleen M. S., Stanton W. Green, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow (editors) 1990 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, Bristol, Pennsylvania. Antenucci, John C., Kay Brown, Peter L. Croswell, and Michael J. Kevany, with Hugh Archer 1991 Geographic Information Systems: A Guide to the Technology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Burrough, P. A. 1986 Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 1989 Arcedit User Guide. ESRI, Redlands, California. Hale, Anne Marie, William D. Marshall, and James D. Scurry 1991 GIS Plus Policy Research: South Carolina's Natural Resource Decision Support System. GeoinfoSystems, June. Puterski, Robert, Jerome A. Carter, Mason J. Hewitt III, Heather F. Stone, Lawrence T. Fisher, and E. Terrence Slonecker 1992 GIS Technical Memorandum 3: Global Positioning Systems Technology and Its Application in Environmental Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. Scurry, James D. 1989 The Design and Testing of a Geographic-Based Information System for Archaeological Resources in South Carolina. Master's thesis, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 87 SITE FILE MANAGEMENT IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE: FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN TENNESSEE Suzanne D. Hoyal and Kevin E. Smith INTRODUCTION of the initial recording project. A brief history of site recording in Tennessee illustrates the In Tennessee, the Division of Archaeology man scope of the problem prior to 1992. ages information on more than fifteen thousand The first direct ancestors of the contem archaeological sites on public and private lands. porary Site Survey Record emerged as a result The Tennessee Site Information Files encom of the federal relief programs in the 1930s. pass an incredible diversity of materials, includ Large-scale reservoir impoundment surveys ing maps; published and unpublished manu sponsored by the Tennessee Valley Authority scripts, articles, reports, correspondence, and and the University of Tennessee (UT) produced books; photographs and negatives; artifacts; and the first sets of site records in a simplistic card numerous miscellaneous types of documents. format. Between 1933 and 1941, archaeologists The most frequently accessed subset of the recorded the locations and basic descriptive Site Information Files is the Tennessee Site information on hundreds of archaeological sites Survey Record-the individual record forms and along the Tennessee River and its major tribu USGS topographic survey maps containing taries. With the termination of this program in basic information on known archaeological 1942, responsibility for site recording fell to UT sites. Both public and private sector archaeol Knoxville. ogists access the Site Survey Record daily in Archaeologists at UT Knoxville maintained the review of more than three thousand pro the primary site file repository until the estab posed construction projects annually. The most lishment of an archaeology program at Memphis frequent users of these files focus on project State University. With the tremendous increase specific regulatory obligations under state and in archaeological research in the 1960s, the federal statutes. Clients of consulting archaeolo Chucalissa Museum at Memphis State Univer gists primarily seek answers to questions about sity assumed responsibility for archaeological factors that might affect proposed project costs, site information in West Tennessee. The such as site location, size, and cultural charac Mcclung Museum at UT Knoxville remained teristics. Prior to computerization of the Site the repository for site information in Middle and Survey Record, initiated in 1992, these basic East Tennessee. While a shared responsibility questions were becoming difficult to answer due eased the burden of site recording, the lack of a to an overwhelming mass of paper forms. centralized repository resulted in the occasional assignment of duplicate numbers, the presence of large blocks of unassigned numbers, and EVOLUTION OF THE TENNESSEE similar management difficulties. SITE SURVEY RECORDS As a result of the lobbying efforts of avocational and professional archaeologists, the The Site Survey Record represents a consoli Tennessee General Assembly created the Divi dation of over sixty years of archaeological sion of Archaeology in 1971. The first legis survey efforts by several agencies and institu lated responsibility of the Division was "to tions. As a result, site records show tremendous survey the state to identify and record archaeo variability in the quality and quantity of specific logical sites" (Tennessee Code Annotated 11-6- information depending on the age and purpose 101). As a result, one initial objective of the 88 Site File Management in the Electronic Age: Future Directions in Tennessee Division was to develop and administer a 1979 and 1990, efforts to standardize informa centralized statewide site survey file. In 1975, tion and meet growing regulatory demands archaeologists at Memphis State University and resulted in several substantial revisions to the UT Knoxville agreed to help create a central reporting format. The form increased from the ized statewide site survey file (Tennessee initial two-page format to a seven-page format Anthropological Association 1976a). Effective requiring a complex manual to complete. The in 1977, the Site File Curator assumed formal complexity of the format resulted from attempts responsibility to "maintain the statewide archae to address the diverse needs of clientele. ological site survey files and assign permanent Regulatory users want information on site loca site numbers upon receipt of a completed site tion and the potential significance of sites form" (Tennessee Anthropological Association within project areas. Scholars want information 1976b:2). The responsibilities of this position on regional patterns of settlement for specific included the creation, maintenance, and revision time periods or for specific regions over long of the Site Information Files. periods of time. While these goals are by no The Site Survey Records of the late 1970s means mutually exclusive, governmental man incorporated photocopies of forms from both dates increasingly focus on regulatory needs at Chucalissa and the McClung Museum. Assign the expense of research needs. ment of new site numbers required the submittal Since the late 1970s, the Site Survey of a relatively simple two-page form (Tennessee Record increased by over five hundred sites Anthropological Association 1979). Between annually (Figure 1). The constant growth in 4000 -0 Q.) -0 "- 8 3000 - Q.) a::: ff) 2 2000 Cf) '+- 0 "- (].) ..0 1000 E z:::J oL~I •• -L~ 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 5-year increments, 1930-95 Figure 1-Number of sites recorded in Tennessee between 1930 and 1995. 89 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective regulatory demands stymies systematic efforts to lections database (primarily for the purpose of revise and check antiquated records for errors, tracking the storage location of artifact collec although resurveys of some sites provide up tions). Another partially implemented compo dated information in an unsystematic fashion. nent of this system is an electronic bibliographic By the year 2000, the authors estimate that the database containing information on archaeolog Site Survey Record will contain well over ical reports and other primary research material twenty thousand entries. through 1989. Creation of the database was a cooperative effort between the Division and the National Park Service's National Archeological THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL Database project. In addition, the system also INFORMATION MANAGEMENT contains links by state site number to databases SYSTEM of maps and photographic media. Current staff ing and funding levels do not permit full In order to cope with the growing demand for implementation of the system, but the search for site numbers, Kevin Smith (Federal Programs additional funding sources continues. Archaeologist and Interim Site File Curator) Simplistic error-checking routines permitted proposed a comprehensive Information Manage the identification and correction of some signif ment Computerization Initiative in 1992 (Ten icant problems in the more antiquated Site nessee Division of Archaeology 1992a). Phase I Survey Record information. Other problems and of this initiative proceeded using federal His errors were beyond the scope of the allocated toric Preservation Funds, administered by the funds and the abilities of interns with limited Tennessee Historical Commission, between archaeological background. In our opinion, the 1991 and 1993. The grant resulted in the crea decision to "computerize first and ask questions tion of a Site Survey Record database in dBase later" proved correct. High-speed manipulation III+ format currently containing basic informa of the electronic data readily exposed errors and tion on over fifteen thousand sites (1995). The problems hidden within the mass of fifteen long-term plan for the system will incorporate thousand hard-copy paper forms. Certainly, the all of the various forms and formats of inadequacies of the existing electronic Site archaeological information held by the Division Survey Record are no greater than those con of Archaeology. tained within the existing paper version. While Phase I computerization of the Site Survey implementation proceeds and many aspects of Record accomplished the following immediate the initfa.tive remain incomplete, the existing goals: (1) revision of various sections of the database files have ·already proven useful for State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan; both regulatory and research purposes. (2) identification of gaps in survey coverage throughout the state; (3) provision of quantified Regulatory Uses information on site distributions by various criteria to the National Park Service, U.S. Army From a regulatory perspective, computerization Corps of Engineers, and other requesting agen simplifies the use of the Site Survey Record. cies; and (4) simplification of the review and The immediate production of a list of sites compliance process under both state and federal within a specific drainage basin, county, physio statutes. Subsequent phases of the Information graphic region, or other area allows the con Management System address the curation crisis sultant to spend more time on the synthesis of experienced by virtually every facility in the regional data, analysis, and writing. The once United States (Childs 1995) through the pro onerous task of examining hundreds or thou vision of linked databases. sands of forms prompted many regulators to The central Site Survey Record database view consultation of the Site Survey Record as links by state site number to an Artifact Col- unproductive. The rapid results generated by 90 Site File Management in the Electronic Age: Future Directions in Tennessee initial computerization have encouraged some Site Survey Record included only a small municipal and county planning commissions to percentage of known sites in Cherokee National view consultation as an asset in their con Forest. Furthermore, the Division of Archaeolo sideration of zoning changes and construction gy, State Historic Preservation Office, and the projects. Computerization also makes it possible Southeast Archeological Center of the National for the Division of Archaeology to participate Park Service are working cooperatively to re more readily in statewide planning efforts. For cord sites within the Big South Fork National example, Division personnel provided detailed River and Recreation Area. When completed, archaeological information (by topographic this project will record approximately two thou quadrangle map) for inclusion in the Tennessee sand additional archaeological sites. Scenic Rivers Assessment-a planning project These same types of cooperative efforts are that prioritizes land acquisition and other proj also possible within the context of academic ects along Tennessee· s scenic rivers. As a result research. For example, the Middle Cumberland of computerization, archaeological sites are now Mississippian Survey is systematically relocat a part of this prioritization process. ing approximately one thousand sites identified by an early statewide survey (Myer 1923a, Research Uses 1923b; Smith 1995). Conducted around 1915 by William Edward Myer, a self-trained archaeolo From a research perspective, the primary ad gist employed by the Smithsonian Institution, vantage of the electronic Site Survey Record is this survey was the first systematic statewide the production of site lists by various criteria. survey of archaeological sites. With the support For example, an independent study project on of Governor Thomas C. Rye, Myer sent Early Archaic settlement patterns conducted by questionnaires to: a student from Middle Tennessee State Univer sity required identification of all Early Archaic leading Tennessee educators, local anti sites in approximately twenty counties along the quarians, judges and other court officials, Cumberland River. Prior to computerization, ... civil engineers employed by the State generating the list of sites with an Early Archaic Highway Department and by the leading component required two months of perusing railroads... and to the county superintendent several thousand site forms. After computeriza of public instruction in each of the ninety tion, the system generates the same list in less six counties in Tennessee ... using the school than five minutes. Recent research also demon children and teachers in their respective strates the potential of electronic site informa counties as aids in securing as much tion for modeling larger-scale regional settle information as possible. (1923a) ment patterns (Anderson 1990, 1993; Smith and Moore 1993). Unfortunately, Myer's untimely death in 1923 left around fifteen hundred manuscript pages of Cooperative ComputeriztZtion Projects site information in relative anonymity. The current project, in addition to meeting very Cooperative projects can help meet the goals of specific research goals, also incorporates the both regulators and researchers. The United filing of new or revised site forms in coopera States Forest Service, the Division of Archae tion with the Division of Archaeology. ology, and the State Historic Preservation Office conducted a jointly funded project to comput erize and synthesize information on about fif FUTURE GOALS AND CONSIDERATIONS teen hundred sites in Cherokee National Forest (Tennessee Division of Archaeology 1992b). The future nature and functions of the Tennes Prior to completion of the project in 1994, the see Site Survey Record and Site Information 91 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective Files depend largely upon two factors: (1) the Archaeology computerization initiative for some already demonstrated needs of regulatory users; years to come. This primary mandate will guide and (2) the efforts and interests of researchers future goals for computerization of the Site and scholars to assist the Division of Archae Survey Records. At the time of this writing, the ology in providing services they desire in the Division of Archaeology Information Manage future. Law mandates ready access to site ment System is in a state of rapid flux. A locational information. Future access to other revised proposal for computerization goals types of information requires that scholars and includes: (1) creation of an electronic site form researchers share the burden of responsibility to for submittal of newly recorded data; (b) trans demonstrate that useful and productive research lation of the existing database for use with a can be conducted using Site Survey Records geographic information system (GIS); and (c) and Site Information Files. simplification of the Site Survey Record form to In the electronic age, many researchers remove information available in GIS data layers. desire gratification by the instantaneous produc Slow progress towards system implemen tion of site lists, appropriate reports, and loca tation in Tennessee mirror a larger national tions of field notes, photographs, and artifact crisis in long-term preservation of collections, collections. The current state of computerization records, and reports. As noted by Francis P. of the Site Survey Records cannot meet these McManamon (1995:2), "too few archeologists idealized goals. However, these goals can prob spend enough time and effort considering the ably be realized within a decade with appropri long-term preservation and use of collections, ate support and assistance from the professional records, and reports-which is all that remains archaeological community, the interested public, of the archeological record after a site has been and regulatory users. Initial stages of computeri excavated." Management of the archaeological zation created an opportunity for researchers to site information held by the Division of manipulate data in ways that were impossible Archaeology faces a critical point in its evolu less than half a decade ago. However, funding tion. For the first two decades of its existence, for further progress requires more substantive the Division of Archaeology has accumulated and directed efforts on the part of the academic and maintained records, but removing the and consulting archaeologists who are the backlog of over a century of archaeological primary users of the Site Information Files. investigations in Tennessee necessitates substan Regulatory concerns and the provision of tial long-term planning, allocation of staff and site locational information will remain the focus funds, and cooperative efforts by the larger of staffing and funding for the Division of archaeological community. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first Site File Curator for the state of Tennessee was Ms. Patricia Coats, who served as an employee from 1972 until her untimely death in 1991. Her dedication and devotion to the Site Survey Records provided a solid foundation for the initiatives described herein. 92 Site File Management in the Electronic Age: Future Directions in Tennessee REFERENCES Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by Barry Isaac and Kenneth Tankersley, pp. 163-216. Journal of Economic Anthropology Sup plement 5. Greenwich. 1993 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Middle and Late Archaic Southeast. Paper presented in the symposium Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, organized by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh. Childs, S. Terry 1995 The Curation Crisis. Federal Archeology 7(4):11-15. National Park Service Departmental Consulting Archeologist and Archeological Assistance Program, Washington, D.C. McManamon, Francis P. 1995 A Crumbling House of Knowledge: The Vanishing Record of the Archeological Record. Federal Archeology 7(4):2. National Park Service Departmental Consulting Archeologist and Archeological Assistance Program, Washington, D.C. Myer, William Edward 1923a Catalogue of Prehistoric Remains in Tennessee. Unpublished draft manuscript on file, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Copies on file, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville and Middle Cumberland Mississippian Survey, Murfreesboro. 1923b Stone Age Man in the Middle South. Unpublished draft manuscript on file, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Copies on file, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville and Middle Cumberland Mississippian Survey, Murfreesboro. Smith, Kevin E. 1995 The Archaeological Reports of William Edward Myer. Draft manuscript in preparation. Copy on file, Middle Cumberland Mississippian Survey, Murfreesboro. Smith, Kevin E., and Michael C. Moore 1993 The Middle Cumberland Mississippian Survey Project: A Summary of Recent Investi gations. Paper presented at the SOth Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh. Tennessee Anthropological Association 1976a Division of Archaeology Report Newsletter 1(2):11. Knoxville. 1976b Division of Archaeology Report. Newsletter 1(6):2. Knoxville. 1979 Tennessee Division of Archaeology. Recording and Reporting Archaeological Sites in Tennessee. Newsletter 4(6). Knoxville. 93 Archaeological Site File Mana.gement: A Southeastern Perspective Tennessee Division of Archaeology 1992a Tennessee Division of Archaeology Information Management System. Memoranda on file, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville. 1992b Cherokee National Forest Archaeological Site File Computerization and Synthesis. Proposal on file, Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville. >>> 94 EXCERPTS FROM WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS An appreciable part of the workshop time was isolated find, many don't want to fill the whole given over to open and somewhat free-wheeling form out. We don't try to enforce "thou shalt discussion among the participants on a wide have two or four or six artifacts." We have range of topics. Some of this commentary made always felt it was the archaeologists prerogative its way into the various articles presented in this rather than our prerogative to make this call. volume; other subjects were left unaddressed, although they might be considered for future pa > Clay: pers and meetings. Lightly edited excerpts from In Kentucky, the SHPO has a big influence on some of the discussion sessions are presented to what is a site or not. My experience is that de give the reader an appreciation for the com fining sites is not self-correcting; contractors do plexity of some of the topics discussed, and for not automatically limit themselves. Perhaps in the spirit of the meeting. our state, because of a highly active review and compliance program, the contractor is tempted to over-record to reduce any possible criticism MINIMAL SITE DEFINITION AND SITE of their fieldwork. There is a whole subcurrent FILE MANAGEMENT POLICIES of bickering among archaeologists: "Oh some body doesn't find archaeological sites." The way > Clay: you protect yourself from this criticism is to Site file managers probably set a lot of the report everything. existing policies having to do with site files, or are in a position to set such policy, and should > Futato: exercise it. The whole question of minimum We don't have a minimum number of artifacts. sites, how little, how minimum material one We try to balance minimum numbers of arti must have to have a site bothers me, because I facts versus ground cover, terrain, and so on. So sense we are going through a lot of data/site file three flakes scattered over 20 hectares of cul inflation in the CRM period, the addition of a tivated field would probably not get a site lot of low information archaeological sites to number. We do not report isolated finds, but our database. Many people, and certainly some then we have this sort of vague concept that we of our research colleagues, view some of our occasionally use of multiple isolated finds, data files as so corrupted by this minimum site which sounds like an oxymoron. On the other data that our files are not worth funding. So this hand, if you have three flakes from two shovel problem of minimum sites impinges upon the tests in the pine woods, we would take that. support we get down the road to maintain the site files. I'd like to know what the minimum > Clay: site definition is that the various states accept, How many times do you, second guess archae or do you have a minimum? I've had this ologists and not give them site numbers? continual tug of war. In Kentucky, I've tried to come down for two different artifacts, and I've > Futato: had to fight to get that. Not very often, simply because most of the people who work in Alabama have worked > Williams: there a long time and know what we do, and In Georgia, we take what they give us without sometimes they call us and ask for advice. One trying to force anything on them. This means of the main things we have noticed from CRM that there is a range. What I see is that the firms whose main offices are in other states is contractors self-rule themselves. If they find an that they tend to go by that state's general 95 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective practice. We don't have a consistent definition, context or whether the materials are culturally but we try to take whatever people provide. or naturally modified. We don't have Ph.D. archaeologists defining sites, we have people >Hoyal: that are paid by the hour. Tennessee's policy is basically the same as Alabama's. .> Williams: Some of those guys can find more sites than > Futato: any Ph.D.! We are willing to negotiate this with people. If someone calls us up and says, "I really think .> Futato: you ought to give this a site number, and here's Let's turn the whole question around and ask why," and they've got a reasonable argument... what is a maximum site definition? Urban archaeology ... what do you do about that? What » Clay: about plantations? What about sections of the I'm in pretty much the same situation. Tennessee River Valley, where (as the old saw goes) there may in effect only be two sites, the >Baca: north and south banks? What do you do in these For many years, we did not give site numbers situations? In an urban situation, if it is a house to most single-find sites. Well, what happened lot or a complex, such as the University of is that we were assigning site numbers to Alabama main campus, that gets one site isolated Clovis points. What do you do with number. At the university, for example, we use that data? Do you shove it in the back of the abbreviations after the site number that indicate file as a separate category? How do you track subareas or buildings, like JH for Jefferson Hall. it? Recently we adopted a policy of assigning These are negotiated with the archaeologist. On site numbers to isolated finds to avoid bias that plantations we try to give the central nucleated occurs when numbers are assigned to Clovis zone, however that is defined, a single site points but not to single flakes, which is hard to number with different tags for the various justify. The word has gone out that site forms separate structures and areas, and then if there is will be filled out for single finds made while something a half mile away, we give that a shovel testing; chances are there are going to be separate number. In terms of continuous pre more artifacts that you don't see. Unfortunately historic scatters, those tend to be more of a some investigators have been sending in finds problem. They tend to be long linear scatters, of artifacts found on logging trails where the and a lot of times we use what we recognize as material could have rolled in on a tire. absolutely arbitrary breaks by little drainages and topographic features, and places where the » Giliberti: scatter thins out to what we consider, at least You've got to trust the archaeologist to have for that region, background noise. good sense and judgment about what a site is and whether isolated finds are in good context. .>Derting: We have to be on the realistic side of data In South Carolina, we more or less leave the management, though, and don't want to record site definition up to the discretion of the ar every beer can or every ffake that has been chaeologist. We weren't in the field with them washed down the stream. and didn't see what they found. We assume they know what a site is. We have, however, been > Clay: burned a number of times when we have found In a CRM context, in some cases, the person out later that site numbers probably shouldn't defining the site may be the least qualified to have been assigned. determine whether the materials are in good 96 Excerpts from Workshop Discussions >Clay: » Clay: The numbers of isolated or low information In Kentucky, if you find isolated finds, they go scatters are getting to be a very high frequency in your report-what they are and where they in my files. As a regional data crusher, David, are. They don't necessarily get a site number. does this vast difference in information from one site to another bother you? » Williams: The problem with this is that you've got to read >Anderson: the report to get that information. From a re No, because I try to standardize the data using search point of view, that information is lost if values such as the percentage of all sites re it is not part of the files. What do we lose by corded by county or state. There are differences reporting a few hundred isolated artifacts as in equivalency from state to state, and, accord sites each year? I claim we don't lose anything. ingly, you always have to have caveats about the quality and limitations of the data you are »Anderson: working with. One of the things I do when I go Some isolated finds, when you revisit them, turn out and do survey is to collect and report on out to be worthless and in disturbed context; every nonmodem artifact found in undisturbed others turn out to be the tip of the iceberg. In context Some states want an isolated find form, Louisiana, we know that some San Patrice sites others a site form, still others to note their are buried 60 to 80 centimeters down, at least in location and content in the report. As an aside, the sandhills of west-central Louisiana. You can in many areas where CRM survey is done, most walk across the surface and not see anything or of us are happy to find anything at all. I feel it maybe see a flake or two. If your shovel tests is important to encourage people to record go down deep enough, though, its like opening undisturbed nonmodem artifacts of the prehis a blackberry pie. If you write off your isolated toric and historic periods, so that we don't get in finds, you are writing off potential site loca the habit of walking over stuff and saying "Oh, tions. You folks have to make this call, but I I only see one thing here so I'll just keep on would urge you to consider making people walking" instead of taking the time to deal with record them in their reports. Remember, if they it, to learn what is really there. Any Clovis are in the report, they are not really lost as long point in undisturbed context, as far as I am as there are copies of that report in existence. concerned, should be recorded as a site, and Through programs like NADB, somebody in the probably any diagnostic or isolated point or tool future will be able to make use of this data. as well, because they are some aspect of the settlement/resource procurement system we are > Clay: trying to understand. Now whether you as the That single flake is still a problem ... site file curator call them an isolated find or an archaeological site, or whatever, is your busi ness. It's up to you to set the standards in your CURATION AND DE-ACCESSIONING state. What I would encourage you to do is set COLLECTIONS the standards so that the archaeological record does not get ripped off by people who might »Donat: otherwise simply walk over possible sites. We need to develop procedures about how to Remember, 25 years ago sites were defined in deal with de-accessioning collections, both for some states by whether or not they contained NAGPRA and in general. double handfuls of artifacts ... read the Cache River report by Schiffer and House if you won > Childs: der about this. Remember, standards change. Curation training is critical. All of you have 97 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective been talking about some of your problems with Until we are forced by a lack of space, which I site file and records management-you're hope never happens, we will keep the material ... getting so much material, your buildings are full or in danger of collapsing! I think we are > Childs: beginning to see that we have a terrible crisis in We have several states here that have said they terms of space, or lack of space. I know we have no space. have all grown up with a philosophy of keeping everything, but if we keep two tons of fire > Williams: cracked rock, our buildings may break. Down You have to put in compression shelving like the line, we've got to start thinking about we are doing here at the University of Georgia. sampling and really careful consideration of what we're collecting as we do our fieldwork, >Derting: and the various stages at which culling can This still brings up the problem at the other occur. What do we do with existing collections? end, though, with the archaeologist in the field. I think the most important thing is that you If you've got an early nineteenth-century brick track your de-accessioning. Always consider kiln, how many bricks do you need to bring in? that down the line you've got to know what you Two truck loads? There's got to be a way to had and where it went, whether it went to a figure out how to control what's brought in if garbage dump or has been reburied, or was sent you've got a real redundant artifact category. to another repository. It is really critical that you document where your material has gone. > Futato: To a degree, cost itself will have a breaking > Futato: effect. If a project is done for an agency, they This idea of sampling existing collections scares commonly ask us what they should do about me... this idea that at some point we are going to curation. For example, they ask us if they have to sample our existing collections and cull should send us 100 boxes of shell. I'd ask them out a bunch of stuff. To put on my Pl's hat for "Do you really want to pay us to keep all of a minute, on a big project we are working on this stuff?" At the same time, I think that in the now, we are counting, size grading, weighing, grand scheme of things, curation space, good and tossing the fire-cracked rock, except from curation space, is really not all that expensive if controlled column samples, features, and con you look at it as additional cost per box of texts like that. I agree there is no reason to put materials added to this whole process. Mark, ten tons of fire-cracked rock and mussel shell in you said you were fixing up your facility here. the repository. But, putting on my curator's hat, What is it going to cost? by the time that material gets to the repository, it's already been sampled sb<, eight, nine, or ten > Williams: times. You've got a sample of the reservoir area, One hundred twenty thousand dollars. We've you've got a sample of the sites in the reservoir, got a 2,500 square foot area. Right now we can you select a sample of those sites, you've ex get 4,000 boxes in there. When the work is cavated a sample of the area within each one of done, we'll be able to get 8,000 boxes in there. those sites, and you've recovered only a sample That $125,000 is also going to include a bar of the material within that area, and you retain code system and software to track everything only a sample of that. So, by the time the col and create inventories. That should certainly lection gets to me as a curator, it is already a keep us for a few years into the next century, if sample of a sample of a sample of a sample of not more than that. a sample of a sample. And if I have to sample it again, I'm going to go "Oh my lord!" Now, that > Futato: aside, I know we have to deal with the issue. So that's 8,000. boxes for $120,000. Your 98 Excerpts from Workshop Discussions looking at $15 a box, and by the time you go quality researchers to work on those collections; through the cost of the whole mitigation process it produces lots of publications on those collec that produced those boxes, $15 more per box at tions. We are providing a service by having this the end is not that great a cost. facility available and these collections available for people who need it. It provides thesis proj » Childs: ects, dissertation projects, undergraduate student 36CFR79 is requiring archaeologists on federal projects; it provides funding for graduate assis projects to identify a curatorial repository before tantships. It does all of these things. It is not a the project starts and also budget for curation. I storage building, it is an integral part of the think that another critical key at the state level, university teaching and research mission, and or any level, is that you start mandating that the university sees it this way. curation is put in as part of your projects. For years and years, archaeologists never put cura >Baca: tion costs into their research budget. In Mississippi, all of our collections are in a temporary building that is a fire hazard. We » Clay: don't ask where collections are going, because In some cases, the basic facilities for curation we can't accept them. don't even exist or are being closed down. Cura tion facilities require a lot of capital investment, » Fulato: and universities hate to build storage space. The thing about it is that 36CFR79 puts the burden on the agency. The responsibility is not > Childs: on the university, the SHPO, or the state No, they don't like to do that. And, again, that archaeologist....it is on the agency, and if the is the importance of showing the use of our agency is not providing appropriate curation, collections and our site files, and demonstrating they are out of compliance. It is not your that it is valuable information. You can use problem, it is their problem. collections and the information in the site files for a variety of purposes that make it valuable. » Baca: This is the only way I can see that we are going What about work done by a private contractor to get the resources to build these facilities. At for a COE permit? another meeting, I heard about a state getting an ISTEA grant to renovate a historic building as a » Childs: curation facility. Arrangements for curation should be m their contract with the COE. » Williams: Another way, one that we have used » Fulato: successfully, is to play the card that if a better The SHPO needs to be kicking the agencies' facility is not built, our heritage is going to go butts about this. to Alabama. If you yell loud enough to the right places, perhaps they'll change their tune. .> Baca: You're saying the SHPO needs to be telling the » FuJato: agency, but we are saying that the agencies We in Alabama might have something to say should be aware of this themselves. about that! Seriously, our curation facility has many selling points. Our university's mission is » Childs: specifically teaching, research, and service. Our We are trying to get as many federal agencies facility brings in excellent valuable, documented as possible to understand the requirements of research collections; it attracts excellent high- 36CFR79. We do the best we can. If you 99 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective understand and they come to you, you can offer > Childs: the proper advice. The enforcement of these There are a variety of strategies, and we are regulations is a problem; we don't have a police willing to help you as best we can. Accessibility force that can go out and nab them! means the material gets used, which means it is '·! ''()' more important. The more data we collect that > Baca: ,,>,.~ shows that the collections are used, the more SHPOs are typically under a great deal of likely we are to get support from our institu political pressure, so it should be the federal tions, colleagues, and federal agencies. agency's responsibility to deal with this, and not push it off on the SHPO. HOW DO WE GET BETTER DATA FROM >Anderson: OUR DATA PROVIDERS? These problems are slowly being resolved. The St. Louis Corps of Engineers, for example, >Derting: contracts itself out to various agencies, such as We are finding that primary information on site the Fish and Wildlife Service, to handle cura locations and dimensions submitted on site tion. They find where collections are, and if forms may differ appreciably from what appears they are not in suitable repositories, they in the final report. We believe some of this is recommend sending them elsewhere. That's due to people turning in site forms quickly to what we are going to see happen more and get numbers, without fully evaluating the data more; it has already started, and its going to they have collected. Often times, the most continue. junior people are assigned to preparing the site forms, something reflected in their quality. We > Childs: are finding sites misplotted or mislabeled, as They have done several major reports, with well. That is, site numbers are not where they photographs, showing the deplorable conditions were plotted when the form was submitted. and stating exactly where these things are hap pening. You don't want those kinds of things >Anderson: going out to your superiors. One of the things I have a similar problem with some of the that has happened is that the St. Louis COE reports that I review. When I add up the artifact District is now the Center of Expertise for the numbers in the text, in the report tables, and on Curation and Management of Archaeological the site forms, I sometimes note serious discrep Collections. They are responsible for all Corps ancies. This review strategy comes from some curation for the entire country. So if you are thing Dr. James B. Griffin told me a long time having any problems with the COE locally ago .. .if someone's numbers don't add up, there about collections, call the St. Louis District. are probably a number of other things about their report that won't add up. So it's not just >Anderson: locations that may be a problem, but also basic To reiterate, if there are any COE-generated assemblage data. collections anywhere in the country that you are familiar with, that you feel are being abused by .>Hall: the way they are curated, let the St. Louis COE The way we deal with this is to review the know, and they may be able to get them pulled report and the site forms at the same time as and put into a decent repository. And if that part of the formal review process. The appro happens enough, once the governors of these priate time to conduct the review is when the states start hearing about t~eir heritage going collections, report, and site form data are all in off, you may get some action.···" hand. Until we get a resolution of problems, we do not sign off on the reports. 100 Excerpts from Workshop Discussions > Anderson: . . . 1 >Anderson: When they burn down! lust joking, }USt }Oking. Many sites are reexamined down the line, and the collections are reanalyzed. The component identifications, however, often bear little re > Clay: semblance to what is in the site files. When How do other states deal with standing struc professionals reexamine collections, it would be tures? nice if they let the site file curators know what they found, so the site records themselves can .> Donat: be updated. That rarely happens at the present. In Arkansas, the SHPO's office maintains a sep arate database, which we ·hope will be tied .>Rowland: together . People must have an appreciation for what is done with the site form data, and how it is used. » M. Smith: In Florida, if there is an archaeological site in .> Derting: the yard, we use the SO-year rule of thumb, and We have learned the hard way that we need to they should fill out a site form. If there is a require site forms before giving out numbers. standing structure--and I've gone as far as to allow that to be defined on the basis of a single > K. Smith: wall-then they are supposed to fill out a stand In Tennessee, if we do not get the site forms, ing structure form. I guess I am in a different we do not sign off on the report. position from anyone else in the room since I am responsible for both of these files, and that's .> Futato: an advantage. In our case, we apply a unitary Most people submitting forms are not data Smithsonian trinomial number to each. It really managers, and don't understand the implications is one-stop shopping. There are technical prob of and problems created by sloppy work. We lems integrating the two; obviously, the infor obviously have widely differing philosophies mation is very different, but that's what we do. about what our site files are and what they should contain. All our basic data is indexed by > Clay: the site number, but whether all kinds of data I am moving, in Kentucky, possibly toward should be maintained in the site files is a merging these data. question. >Hall: .> Anderson: We do the same thing on a case-by-case basis. What some of us would like to see is everything If an archaeologist has been there and there is linked together in some way. an archaeological component, it gets an archaeo logical site number, but otherwise... no. >Rowland: We used to keep our data in separate categories, .> Williams: now we tie all this information together. That's what we do too, except we are starting to get some pressure from historic archaeologists within the state to give numbers to all buildings. HISTORIC STRUCTURES, CEMETERIES, It's scary. AND SITE FILE MANAGEMENT >Clay: > Clay: At least 50 percent of the sites now being re When do standing structures over 50 years old corded in Kentucky are historic sites as opposed get state archaeological site numbers? to prehistoric sites. Fifteen years ago, 5 percent 101 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective of the sites were historic. Historic sites have sources. A problem is just how we record them. suddenly become visible in the whole preserva We are concerned about having to deal with tion system. Also, what do we do with historic another massive database. Cemeteries do suffer cemeteries? What we do is, if there are a small from benign neglect. I've recently worked with number of tombstones with names, it gets a historical geographers interested in cemeteries to number, or if there is a cemetery with unmarked develop a form for historic cemeteries, but we graves, it gets a site number. I balk at giving haven't developed a new database for them. site numbers to every city cemetery. Instead they are recorded as archaeological sites. >Hall: >Baca: In North Carolina, we have an abandoned ceme In Mississippi, it must have a dated tombstone tery survey that's part of Archives and History before 1900 before it is typically recorded as an but not part of our office. Their legal definition archaeological site. of an abandoned cemetery is one in which there bas not been an interment for the past 15 years, > Clay: and we've adopted that We will record marked Do we record the whole cemetery or just the and unmarked cemeteries that have not had an part that dates back to the nineteenth century? interment for at least 15 years, but not munici pal cemeteries or commercial cemeteries. >Derting: It hasn't become a serious problem yet. We > Futato: haven't had anyone systematically recording We do it the same way we do houses. There is cemeteries in South Carolina. a cemetery register in the Department of Ar chives and History in Alabama, and, like a >Anderson: standing structure, we assume that the cemetery I record cemeteries as part of my projects, but has an archaeological component. But unless it then I'm extremely compulsive. is subject to archaeological investigation, we don't give it a site number. > Futato: Well, they should be reported as part of the > Clay: background, but that doesn't necessarily mean More and more cemeteries are being examined they should receive archaeological site numbers. and moved by archaeologists, so we are facing this issue of approaching modern cemeteries as > Williams: archaeological sites. They should be recorded because this is impor tant information local people should know > M. Smith: about. Does anyone here routinely record historical cemeteries, say those 50 years or older, as ar >Hoyal: chaeological sites? We've been trying to record Cemeteries are listed as historic sites in them because we regard them as cultural re- Tennessee. >>> 102 SITE FILE INFORMATION MANAGEMENf: MYfHS, ILLUSIONS, AND RE..ALffiES Lee Tippett Electronic access to information rich databases produce a cascading effect of public support for is rapidly becoming as American as credit card programs important to archaeology. Grassroots debt, MTV, and roller blades. Significant com support for archaeology in the countryside petitive advantages accrue to those who have translates into voter constituencies with real access to value laden information. Individuals, political clout. institutions, and nations recognize that informa Archaeologists have become skilled at re tion resources are vital to their interests. It porting the effects of pothunting on the resource should come as no surprise that serious conflict base (e.g., Hutt et al. 1992; King 1991; over the control of information resources looms McAllister 1991). But, we have failed to ade on the horizon. quately explore the folk culture that structures The national debate over information how archaeological sites are perceived and used control and distribution provides a context for by the general public. For example, we do not evaluating some of the issues surrounding understand the channels along which archae public access to site file infonnation. Fortu ological site infonnation flows at the local nately, conflict between archaeologists with community. opposing viewpoints on this subject will not Because we do not know bow this sensitive trigger the fall of nation-states or disrupt inter information travels, it is impossible to assess to national economic systems. Nevertheless, the what degree pothunters would use site file in outcome of this debate is important because it formation for personal gain. And, while looting touches on the politically sensitive nature of our is a concern, is it our only concern? What about relationship with the general public (Pokotylo empowering the public to educate themselves and Mason 1991). about archaeological resources through on-line In this article, I take the position that access to site file inform;-tion? Should we ig archaeology pays dearly for policies that restrict nore the obvious educati01.al and political public access to site file infonnation. Policies benefits of such access because of a fear that that restrict the free flow of information about may be unfounded? the location and content of archaeological sites Arguments about the nonrenewable charac are not only unwise but also unnecessary. These ter of archaeological resources are suspect As policies are unwise because they send a nega we all know, but are afraid to admit, archaeo tive message to the public. The message is one logical deposits are created and reorganized by of exclusion based on mistrust and intellectual human beings on a global scale as part of their arrogance. This message is highly counterpro everyday activities. I am confident that there ductive at a time when archaeology desperately will be plenty of resources available for study needs to increase its base of political support. by future generations of archaeologists as long It does not take a rocket scientist to know as our species maintains a presence on this that current lobbying efforts by the Society for planet. American Archaeology, the Society of Profes Archaeological site file information is a sional Archaeologists, and others will be to no valuable commodity that should not be monop avail if we are regarded by Congress as just olized by a privileged few. It is a form of pub another special interest group out for ourselves. lic property, and, as such, archaeologists have Increased public access to site inventories would no inherent right to restrict its distribution or 103 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective use. I find many of the arguments against the The "archaeologists only" club mentality of free flow of site file information to be little many site file managers bas led to absurd in more than self-serving myths. consistencies in information management policy. The patronizing 11 father knows best" atti For example, anthropology students may use the tude, which typifies much of the discourse site files for research papers. At the same time, surrounding site file management, erodes public public officials with vast regulatory and plan support by sending a message that is composed ning responsibilities are given limited access or of two parts. Unfortunately, both parts are as no access at all. negative as they are unnecessary. The position that only archaeologists should The first part clearly implies that the public make management decisions that affect archaeo cannot be trusted with information about the logical sites is untenable. As a practical matter, location and contents of archaeological sites. there are not enough competent archaeologists Legitimate concerns about looting are used as available to review even a tiny fraction of the an excuse to exclude the public from informa · municipal, county, state, and federal under tion that is gathered, assembled, and housed at takings that have the potential to affect the their expense. For the sake of argument, I resource base. would contend that there is no evidence of a Across the country, State Historic Preser relationship between open site files and in vation Offices are flooded with requests for creased looting of archaeological sites. It is information as part of the federal Section 106 likely that a serious study of professional pot process. Because most federal undertakings hunters would reveal an information network receive some level of review, many assume that that is local, oral and often familial. In other the same process occurs at the local level. This words, looters do not need to go to the site files false assumption produces what I call the illu to find the commercially productive sites. sion of cultural resource management. Everyday The second part of the message expresses local government officials make thousands of contempt for the general public by suggesting decisions, each one of which has the potential to that site file information is of no use to them adversely affect historic properties. These deci intellectually. It supports the argument that it is sions are usually made with no information beyond the capacity of the average citizen to about the archaeological sites located within comprehend the complexities of our "science." their jurisdictions. We are kidding ourselves if It is probably true that few people are we think these people are going to take the time interested in the opaque jargon that passes for to call us on a case-by-case basis. archaeological information by way of proces The solution to this problem is empower sualism. However, many of our citizens may ment. Site file information provided to local still believe that archaeology can instruct about o(ficials for use in a geographic information the historical evolution of ideas, social organi system (GIS) will not only save sites but also zation, and technology. provide an impetus for local archaeological I would argue that, at this point in the ordinances (Carr 1990). Grassroots empower development of North American archaeology, ment to manage archaeological resources impor some of the best ideas about the past may come tant to the community will protect sites and from the fertile imaginations of school children, build constituencies for archaeological site man bus drivers, waitresses, and others who have not agement and research programs (Judge 1993; haµ the 11 benefit 11 of formal training by the Williamson and Blackbum 1990). academic elite. Also, the descendents of those I would like to conclude by restating the we study may have insights into the past that main points of this paper. are not based on western scientific tradition. These people are ill-served by current site file > First, there are hidden costs embedded in management policy. policies that limit public access to state 104 Site File Information Management: Myths, Illusions, and Realities maintained site files. These can be summed > Fourth, restrictive site file policies send a up in terms of lost political support for our negative message to the general public. programs. These policies exclude the public from participation in the exchange of ideas about > Second, arguments stating that open site the past. Intellectual arrogance is repaid files are an invitation to looters have not with political indifference when programs been substantiated. Looters have their own important to archaeologists are threatened. sources of information. They do not need the site files. > Finally, many are willing to pretend that archaeological resources are being taken > Third, archaeologists are attracted to the into account by local government planners. highly successful environmental movement They are not. Decisions are being made in with its aura of scientific correctness. As an information vacuum of our own devis sertions about the nonrenewable character ing. Local communities should be empow of archaeological resources reflect a desire ered to manage resources by accessing site for acceptance and scientific legitimacy. file information through GIS technology. REFERENCES Carr, Robert S. 1990 The Decline of Site Vandalism in Dade County, Florida. In Coping with Site Looting: Southeastern Perspectives, edited by John E. Ehrenhard, pp. 1-3. Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta. Hutt, Sherry, Elwood W. Jones, and Martin E. McAllister 1992 Archaeological Resource Protection. The Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. Judge, Christopher 1993 A View of Site Destruction: The South Carolina Heritage Trust Program. In Site Destruction in Georgia and the Carolinas, edited by David G. Anderson and Virginia Horak, pp. 77-86. Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta. King, Thomas F. 1991 Some Dimensions of the Pothunting Problem. In Protecting the Past, edited by George S. Smith and John E. Ehrenhard, pp. 83-92. CRC Press, Boca Raton. McAllister, Martin E. 1991 Looting and Vandalism of Archaeological Resources on Federal and Indian Lands in the United States. In Protecting the Past, edited by George S. Smith and John E. Ehrenhard, pp. 93-99. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 105 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective Pokotylo, David, and Andrew R. Mason 1991 Public Attitudes Towards Archaeological Resources and Their Management. In Protecting the Past, edited by George S. Smith and John E. Ehrenhard, pp. 9-18. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Williamson, Ray A., and Fred M. Blackburn 1990 An Approach to Vandalism of Archeological Resources. In Coping with Site Looting: Southeastern Perspectives, edited by John E. Ehrenhard, pp. 49-57. Interagency Archeo logical Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta. >>> 106 MANAGING AND EXCHANGING INFORMATION ABOUT ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE S. Terry Childs INTRODUCTION American development of electronic databases of state archeological sites, besides the ever Arcbeological sites are often complex entities present problem of limited and varied resources, that, individually, can yield a tremendous is conceptual-understanding that data on each amount of information and collectively, by site do not have to be individualized and made region or theme, can be overwhelming. Indi static by being stored in paper files or on cards vidual arcbeologists, recognizing the potential hidden in file folders. They can be components range of their data sources-geographic, cul of dynamic, queriable, automated systems that tural, topographic, vegetational, temporal, are capable of massaging much more data into administrative-have become increasingly de useful information than the human brain can pendent on electronic databases to record, store, alone. Perhaps there needs to be a name change and manage bits of data. Automation bas made away from state site "files." the collection and storage of data faster and There are several other key factors that more efficient. It also promotes greater accuracy state site data managers must always consider if since data entry errors can be more easily they want to try electronic media or change tracked. Automation has the other advantage 'of their electronic capabilities in the future. It providing a vehicle to transform those bits of became apparent during the Site File Manage data into new information through queries or ment Workshop that audience, needs and goals statistical manipulation of the data to answer of the audience, accessibility, and available re particular questions (Limp 1992). This allows sources were important to any decision-making goals of interpretation, education, and long-term process about electronic databases. This essay site management and preservation to be attained. examines these factors and how they might Whereas many individual archeologists influence possible future goals of communi understand the potential of electronic appli cation between states for site management and cations to archeological data and information, preservation, as well as research. It also larger institutions and organizations have not considers a national-level electronic database been as quick to take advantage of emerging system, the National Archeological Database technologies. State archeological site file data, (NADB). This system provides a useful model for example, is a logical candidate for manage for states on the benefits and problems asso ment by electronic media. Many states have ciated with data collection from many different successfully taken the step to "go electronic" providers for various uses, as well as data with their site file data, but others have not. dispersal and use. Why is this? What factors and decisions are involved in· deciding whether or not to "go electronic?" What site data should be collected AUDIENCE/USERS AND THEIR NEEDS in this medium? What are the future trajectories of these efforts for archeological site databases? Critical influences on the design and long-term The Site File Management Workshop of the maintenance of a database, whether electronic or southeastern states and nearby territories offered in paper files, include a careful examination and some interesting perspectives on such questions. understanding of who the users are, the nature Perhaps a fundamental inhibitor to the Pan- of their needs, and how their changing needs 107 Archa.eological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective affect a database over time. primarily located in s•11te government buildings, There are three discrete groups of arche often have restricted access, and their research ological site data users. One group consists of potential is poorly presented in archeology researchers whose needs relate to their research graduate school programs. questions. Given the potential breadth and varia Given the various needs of the archeologi tion of information they seek, they might de cal site data users, there are several advantages mand, as well as offer to collect, the greatest to collecting such data in an electronic system. range of data. A second group includes federal, state, and local cultural resource managers, em > First, the forms can be made available on ployees of private archeological and engineering diskettes to facilitate data entry, to increase contracting firms, and business people, such as accuracy, and to minimize the amount of land developers, who have specific planning or data verification that must be done by the research questions to ask, usually in association data managers. with compliance to federal and/or state law. Their data needs are generally limited to ful > Second, once a database is operational, it filling legal requirements. These two groups can be set up for more than one user at a must be seen as both data users and data time, either in an office or through remote providers. Their participation and coordination connections. as data providers is essential to the long-term viability of any archeological site database. > Finally, electronic databases can be linked The final group of users are the state em to and interact with other databases. Thus, ployees, such as the state site data managers and databases on associated archeological col state historic preservation officers and staff, who lections or associated documentation, such manage and protect the states' archeological as site and laboratory reports--both ex sites. Not only do they have to make sure that tremely important for site management and the members of the first two groups provide the protection--can be related directly to the data required by law, but they need to admin primary site data. ister, validate, and monitor pertinent admin istrative information. Success at their jobs re These databases do not have to be created at the quires that accurate data is received and entered same time as the main site database, but can be into a data system in a timely fashion. developed as related modules, over time, as The audience or users of a database can resources permit (Canouts 1992). Arkansas, and will change. Some flexibility, therefore, Tennessee, and Massachusetts provide excellent should be built into a system to accommodate examples of such integrated systems. Long-term any new data fields that arise due to changing planning for such relationships, however, is user needs or requirements. For example, many critical. of the first compilers and users of site-oriented data were university researchers with regional interestS in settlement and land-use patterns. AVAILABLE RESOURCES With the enactment of various federal and state laws on historic preservation, .beginning in the In choosing what archeological site data to 1970s, the majority of site data users are now collect, .an attempt should be made to accom associated with cultural resource management. modate all the potential users' needs. However, Pieces of data never recorded •.by university this is dependent on the resources available for researchers are now important for cultural the collection and management of the data. It is resource management. Today's generations of clear that state commitment to staffing and researchers often do not even know that funding for archeological site information man databases of state sites exist, since they are agement fluctuates. Sometimes, in good times, 108 Managing and Exchanging Information about Archeological Sites in the Electronic Age increased resources may encourage the overhaul database. It is becoming increasingly difficult to of the site inventory form or the addition of justify the collection and storage of information new data fields to a database; or it may provide that can benefit a sizeable portion of the public, support to "go electronic." In bad times, a yet is relatively inaccessible to that public. reduction of data fields or the accumulation of a Paper files typically must be handled on an terrible backlog of site data may ensue. individual basis at their storage location. This In general, states have not been able to significantly limits their accessibility and use~ secure adequate staffing or financial backing for For those who do gain access, the sensitive effective management of archeological site data. information remains visible in those files. As a result, large backlogs in data collection, Electronic databases, on the other hand, have entry, and verification do exist. There seems to the potential to sharply increase accessibility to be only a couple of solutions to these problems. the data while simultaneously restricting some In the most dire situations, perhaps only a bare users to sensitive data. This can be done by minimum of data can and should be collected assigning user accessibility levels so that some and managed in order to minimize backlogs and data fields do not appear to some users. Further other stresses on the staff. Another solution more, electronic databases can be accessed would be to closely coordinate with the data remotely so that potential users do not have to providers to furnish accurate and timely data in travel to the office in which the information is an electronic format. Perhaps the combined stored. A database can be made available by a forces of federal archeologists and land man modem hook-up between a person's personal agers, state site data managers, private cultural computer and telephone, or over the Internet. resource management firms, business people, When data are compiled and stored elec and researchers can work together to obtain tronically, another accessibility factor is facili funding for the construction or enhancement of tated. This is the degree to which the data can workable and accessible electronic databases for be standardized and shared among a wider everyone's needs. public across arbitrary boundaries, such as state lines. Each state presently requires somewhat different data from their providers due to dif ACCESSIBILITY ferences in state laws and priorities or funding and staffing limitations. With automation of The other important factor in designing and databases and agreement on some of the same managing a database is the degree to which it is data fields by at least some states, these data made accessible. Some of the most important can be more widely shared and used to tackle information compiled on sites, such as loca regionally-oriented and, perhaps in the future, tional data (i.e., UTM coordinates), is highly national-level management and research prob sensitive and, in order to protect sites, should lems. It will always be critical to keep sight of not be made public. It is becoming increasingly individual states' database goals, which empha apparent that dedicated collectors and pothunters size locally-relevant information needs, during already know where the sites are, but such attempts to standardize data categories (Canouts information also needs to be restricted from the 1992). The ability to share some data, however, casual public. will be of great benefit in some instances. What about the rest of the data that is high ly useful for research and management decision making? A study of the information needs for NATIONAL ARCHEOLOGICAL the social sciences identified that archeologists DATABASE AS AN EXAMPLE and anthropologists would benefit from new ways to share field data (Gould and Handler Many of the issues associated with developing 1989), such as through an accessible site an electronic database on the archeological sites 109 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective within a state-coordinating data providers, Until very recently, five National Park S~r having a broad audience with a range of needs, vice (NPS) regional coordinators collected and careful management of resources, accessibility, compiled the Reports electronic records from the advantages of a modular and relational data the states in their jurisdiction for an annual base structure, and long-term planning-have update of the database. They then sent these been dealt with during the development and regional ·records to the national coordinator in implementation of the National Archeological the Archeological Assistance Division (AAD) of Database (NADB), and continue to be ad the NPS in Washington. This individual assem dressed. NADB provides a potential model of bled the data in a master database and checked electronic data acquisition and distribution for for duplication of records. The NPS is currently those considering the development of or up undergoing significant reorganization. The AAD grading to a similar system for site and related is now called the Archeology and Ethnography data management. Ironically, NADB was first Program and the ten former regions are now envisioned as a modular system of databases, seven field directorates. This will affect the including one on archeological projects. The future assembly of Reports data and offer a implementation of the latter module for the good example of how changes in the infra entire country, however, proved to be very dif structure of a data collection system can affect ficult in the mid-1980s. the overall viability of a database unless some NADB presently consists of two modules flexibility is built into it. Reports and Native American Graves Protection The distribution of the Reports data has and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and a Map been and will continue to be handled by another Library. Another module, Permits, will soon be partner, the Center for Advanced Spatial Tech accessible to the public and will be related or nologies (CAST) at the University of Arkansas. linked to the Reports module. Each of these CAST makes the database available on the modules have been made available for public Internet and via modem for querying and down use in stages after considerable planning and loading the results to a personal computer. (The coordination to gather the necessary data. They Department of Defense has also cooperated in are now accessible through a telnet session on facilitating data dissemination.) This requires the Internet or by modem. As recently as Octo special expertise and electronic hardware, al ber 1994, NADB was also placed on the World though the latter is rapidly decreasing in cost. Wide Web, a graphics-based interface on the Many states have made similar kinds of queri Internet that is very user-friendly. (Appendix I, able databases accessible to their public and, at the end of this article, provides access therefore, have at least some of the appropriate information.) resources. Now all they might have to contend The effectiveness of Reports-a biblio with are the traffic jams on the Information graphical database that presently contains ap Super Highway and telephone lines. proximately 120,000 records, largely from the A second module, NAGPRA, allows Native U.S. archeological gray literature--depends on a Americans, museum professionals, government well-organized system for data collection, as agency personnel, archeologists, and others to well as data distribution. Bibliographic data are access documents pertinent to the Native Amer most commonly collected from the State His ican Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. toric Preservation Offices around· the country, These are often difficult to find elsewhere. The who submit their data in electronic form. These module provides the full text of the act, a con offices receive and review copies of the tact list for Indian tribes and federal agencies, archeological site reports from projects con guidance on the regulations, notices of inven ducted in their states and, therefore, are natural tory and repatriation activities, and information partners in this national endeavor (Canouts and about the NAGPRA review committee meetings. McManamon 1991). All of these documents can be downloaded to a 110 Managing and Exchanging Information about Archeological Sites in the Electronic Age personal computer. In the near future, the Indian gram using the archival records housed by the and federal agency contact list will be queriable. program and at the National Anthropological The NAGPRA documents and database are com Archives, Smithsonian Institution. Public access piled and continually updated by the NPS's to this data will be provided by CAST. recently reorganized Archeology and Ethnog raphy Program, in cooperation with CAST. The Map Library of NADB, constructed by CONCLUSIONS CAST using the Arcinfo and GRASS GIS sys tems, is only available on the World Wide Web The Electronic Age is here to stay; more and interface of the Internet because of its graphics more people and organizations are taking ad capabilities. Presently, a number of national vantage of the increased efficiency afforded by level maps are available for viewing and down electronic databases and the ability to access al loading into a personal computer: SHPO arche most unlimited information through the Internet ological site counts and densities, National and other information systems. Since archeo Register of Historic Places (NRHP) property logical projects generate a tremendous amount and site densities, NADB citation counts and of data that is well served by such media, many densities, fluted point density, and a series of states, which use and manage site data, have map layers relating to the effects of agriculture taken advantage of the new technologies. The on U.S. cultural resources. These maps display rest are preparing to do so. It is hoped that as data compiled only to the level of the state and those latter states "go electronic," they will county for security reasons-to prevent public consider some of the issues outlined herein. access to individual site location information. In Probably the most pressing matters for the the near future, a new module--1':1A.PS (Multi future management and use of state site data is ple Attribute Presentation System)-will allow the degree to which the data will be made the user to query the data and download the fre accessible to the public and made compatible quency information by county, which can be with neighboring states for regional and, per used to generate maps around particular re haps, national uses. Key to the latter, as already search or management questions. Such graphics mentioned, is coordination among the interested capabilities will be useful for statewide and states in the standardization of at least a mini regional planning, as well as general research. mum of useful data categories. Most states with Permits is a database that now contains electronic databases do not use the same about 3,500 electronic records of permits issued hardware or software, and there is considerable for archeological and paleontological work con disparity in the breadth of their electronic capa ducted on federal lands between 1906 and 1984. bilities (Wood 1990). These realities were a The Permits module will be added to the serious liability to data sharing in the recent NADB on-line system in early 1996, and will past. It is becoming increasingly easy, however, allow users to query such topics as the issuing to convert standardized data from one system to agency, the permittee, locational information another. It is also becoming increasingly easy to (UTM coordinates will not be available to the access data on different servers for gathering public), location and types of collections, comparable data. Perhaps once states get their NAGPRA-related objects, and resulting reports. site data entered into electronic databases, fully Data entry has been conducted by the recently validate it, and clear their backlogs, these mat reorganized Archeology and Ethnography Pro- ters will become priorities. 111 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective REFERENCES Canouts, Veletta 1992 Computerized Information Exchange on the Local and National Levels in USA. In Sites and Monuments, National Archaeological Records, edited by Carsten U. Larsen. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Canouts, Veletta, and Francis P. McManamon 1991 "The Development and Use of the Reports Portion of the National Archeological Database. In Automation Tools for Cultural Resource Management, edited by Fredrick Briuer. Technical Report EL-92-11, WES Miscellaneous Papers. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Gould, Constance, and Mark Handler 1989 Information Needs in the Social Sciences: An Assessment. Prepared for the Program for Research Information Management of the Research Libraries Group, Inc., Stanford, California. Limp, W. Fredrick 1992 The Challenge of Automated Systems in Archeology. Federal Archeology Report 5(3):1, 5-6. Wood, Noriko 1990 Computer Use in State Historic Preservation Offices. Interagency Resources Division, Cultural Resources Management Series, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 112 Managing and Exchanging Information about Archeological Sites in the Electronic Age APPENDIX I - HOW TO ACCESS NADB The on-line NADB network is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. NADB runs on a SunOS UNIX system at the University of Arkansas, where it is maintained and operated through a cooperative agreement between the NPS and the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST, UArk). NADB-a full-screen application-is user-friendly, highly suitable for PC users with low-cost terminal emulation software. Menus, on-line help, and informative query screens assist in firi.ding information. The CAST server, which houses the NADB network, can be reached by the following routes. >Via Modem If your computer has a communications package and the ability to download files, dial this commercial number on your modem: (501)-575-2021 Suggested modem set-ups are: Parity-None; Data bits-8; Stop bits-1; Duplex-Full At the login prompt, type nadb in lowercase letters and follow the prompts. .>Via Internet, Telnet If you have an Internet account, simply key in this address: telnet cast.uark.edu or telnet 130.184. 75.44 At the login prompt, type nadb in lowercase letters and follow the prompts. Note: NADB requires full-screen display for input and response. Accessing NADB via a telnet session on the Internet has been difficult for users at terminal-based systems linked to malnfrn.me C9mputers with single llne protocols. This problem will not affect most Internet users of NADB . .> Via Internet, World Wide Web If you have a Mosaic or Netscape browser on your PC, you can access NADB on the World Wide Web (WWW). Simply key in this URL address: http://www.cast.uark/d.cast/nadb.html 113 SITE RECORDS IN THE SOUTHEAST: AN OVERVIEW OF PRESERVATION EFFORTS AND CHALLENGES Michael Trinldey Five years ago Chicora Foundation sent a records from either natural or man-made detailed, six-page questionnaire regarding the disasters. Only two states were using acid-free, preservation of site forms, field records, and or permanent, papers. Most of the site forms photographic materials to seventeen institutions were evaluated as having a life expectancy of in ten southeastern states. Sixteen institutions, fifty years or less. representing all ten states, responded, including Photographic collections, including both nine of the "official" repositories for site data. color transparencies and black and white nega This survey formed the basis of the first (and, tives, were exposed to equally hazardous con as far I know, only) evaluation of preservation ditions-improper enclosures, fluctuating tem efforts in the southeastern archaeological com perature and relative humidity, lack of du munity (Trinkley 1990). Based on the findings plicates, and unstable processing. Non-site form of this 1990 study, a simplified four-page ques records were perhaps even less well preserved, tionnaire was designed to follow-up on previ with many collections inadequately filed, lo ously identified issues. It was distributed to the cated in unsuitable facilities, and consisting of eleven states and territories participating in the unstable materials. Only a quarter of the insti National Park Service's Site Files Management tutions had any policy regarding regular inspec Workshop in Athens, Georgia. Seven of the tion of their paper holdings, so most couldn't eleven states (64 percent) responded to the evaluate how bad conditions might be. questionnaire. Before continuing, I want to I remarked at the time that it was clear the thank those who took the time and effort to archaeological record in the Southeast was in participate in both studies and bare their col jeopardy. Simply put, very few of the site lective souls for scrutiny. records-which contain the basic information of each state's cultural heritage and on which our science is based-were likely to survive to the THE 1990 FINDINGS IN BRIEF year 2030. Some items would likely not survive even another twenty years of benign neglect. The 1990 study found, for example, that only I suspect that this hardly came as news to about a third of the repositories maintained site records managers, who are typically under duplicate records either on- or off-site. The re staffed and underfunded by agency heads who maining institutions had no procedures to back see little glamour in "archival" or "library" up these irreplaceable records. Only one of the work. Regardless, there was an ethical imper institutions was using acid-free enclosures. None ative for professionals and institutions to ade required the use of exclusively "archival" writ quately fund, and implement, preservation pro ing media. Only 22 percent reported any grams. I suggested that if archaeologists would consistent environmental controls, with some devote as little as 1 percent of their budgets-a institutions reporting relative humidity readings very modest sum-to the preservation of their in their paper and photographic storage areas as records and documents for future researchers, high as 75 percent RH (well within the range some of the current crisis could be resolved. associated with mold and insect infestation). Coupled with this, however, I suggested that None of the institutions had developed any repositories must begin lobbying for more disaster plans to insure the protection of their satisfactory physical plants, and that, from the 114 Site Records in the Southeast: An Overview of Preservation Efforts and Challenges top down, those responsible for these records ing still use paper site forms as their primary must begin to better understand basic preser site identification record. Of these, three insti vation issues. tutions (43 percent) are not using permanent Certainly the issue was being clearly for (pH neutral, alkaline buffered) paper, and one mulated by others in the profession at the same (14 percent) isn't sure what kind of paper is time. Following what might be described as the being used. Two institutions using permanent groundbreaking work of Mary Anne Kenworthy paper actually test the product and can confirm and her colleagues at the University of Penn that it meets minimal preservation standards. sylvania (Kenworthy et al. 1985), every archae Only three of the seven responding institutions ologist had access to simple, concise, and ( 43 percent) have any backup of the paper accurate information on preservation issues. The copies. While in all three cases the backups are same year as our study, colleagues in the United stored off-site, duplicate copies are usually Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Archae made less often than monthly, suggesting that ology Section, published the equally concise losses could still be significant. As earlier Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation stated, there is still no real effort to require that Archives for Long-Term Storage (Walker 1990). forms be completed using an archival media, and a broad range of writing instruments are allowed. Four institutions still use highly acidic THE CURRENT STUDY commercial office folders for site form storage, one uses binders, one didn't specify how forms Certainly the issue of preservation continues to were stored, and a third reported a novel pres be at least occasionally discussed in archaeo ervation approach using tyvek envelopes. logical circles. Just this year, the Wenner-Gren Four of the seven states or territories re Foundation for Anthropological Research pub ported some degree of site form computeriza lished an overview on preservation issues (Sil tion, which provides very mixed blessings. The verman and Parezo 1995), offering it free to percent of forms computerized varies from 100 those interested. Chicora Foundation publishes a percent to something in the range of 50 to 74 free preservation newsletter. And preservation percent. Two use personal computers as their literature has significantly increased over the platform, while one uses UNIX (the fourth did last five years. There are, for example, exciting not provide this information). The records them new techniques for calculating to what extent a selves are on floppies, tape, and hard drives, collection's lifespan will be shortened by and the records use both proprietary and in improper storage and environmental controls house programs. Backups of the files range (Reilly 1993; Sebera 1994). from daily to monthly. The three institutions With this in mind, how has the condition of responding reveal that these backups are main the Southeast's field records and site forms tained off-site. Two of the three specify that changed in the last five years? Has there even there is at least one person on staff specifically been a change? Is there a greater awareness of responsible for system security (including au preservation needs? thorization of use, protection from viruses, and To discover the answer to these and other debugging). One institution, however, had no questions, I developed a simplified four-page one assigned to system continuity and disaster questionnaire, which was distributed to the recovery, certainly one of the weakest chains in eleven states and territories participating in the computer use. Site Files Management Workshop (sponsored by Five of the seven institutions report that the National Park Service in March 1995). Sev they have no constant (24-hour, year-round) en en of the eleven states (64 percent) responded to vironmental control in their site form storage the questionnaire. area. One, which reports consistent environ The study found that all of those respond- mental controls, actually monitors the conditions 115 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective using a recording hygrothermograph, while the used). None of the responding institutions other relies only on a thermostat. Other environ checks black and white negatives for proper mental controls, such as restrictions on eating, "archival" processing, and only one reports that drinking, and smoking, seem to be consistently prints are processed to permanent standards specified and enforced. (although even that institution couldn't specify In the last five years, two of the seven what sort of test was being used to confirm the institutions have apparently developed programs archival processing). In only three cases are to periodically examine their paper records. Yet negatives and prints stored separately, and in only one of the seven has a disaster plan that only one case are duplicates stored off-site. incorporates the site files. The remaining col Storage enclosures for color transparencies are lections are at risk of everything ranging from also generally satisfactory, although one insti hurricanes to earthquakes to fires. The one tution is using vinyl pages, well known for their disaster plan reported was written more than a damage to slides. No institution has established year ago, and there is no known provision for requirements on the type of film to be used to either updating the plan or testing it. maximize preservation, and six institutions have Four of the seven institutions have no fire no policy on the use (i.e., light exposure) of detection system at all, two have smoke slides in their collection. In all cases the envi detectors, and one has only heat detectors ronmental controls, fire safety, and security for (which are hardly better than nothing at all). photographic materials was identical to those of Two, or 29 percent, report having sprinkler the paper collection. systems-dearly the most appropriate fire sup This survey also requested information on pression device available--while two others the amount of funds used on the preservation of report only portable fire extinguishers. These, of site forms and associated records. Only three of course, are only of use if the fire occurs during the seven reported any direct expenditures (al the building's occupancy and if the staff is though clearly all funds either serve to foster, or trained to use them successfully. Although none hinder, preservation efforts). One institution of those responding had used an extinguisher in reports spending less than $1000 a year, while the past year, two did report some form of two others report spending less than $500. training. However, one individual scoffed at Clearly preservation is not a big ticket item for training, comparing it to the use of a pencil. I most site file managers. One institution candidly can only point out that however true this may remarked that "processing and maintaining be in principal, in practice the National Fire originals is only a primary issue due to [our} Protection Association has found that a trained lack of manpower." individual can extinguish two and a half times This study reveals that there are positive more fire with an extinguisher than an untrained changes: the number of institutions using per person. This may be the difference between manent paper has increased; the number main containing a fire or having it destroy the site taining backup copies has increased; and several files. Institutions are little better secured with institutions are beginning to periodically ex only two reporting any form of intrusion amine their files for inventory and preservation detection. purposes. Computerization, when appropriately Photographic collections are stored in very backed up, is also another significant step to much the same conditions as the paper records. ensure that records will be not simply more Typically, the storage enclosures for black and accessible, but safer. white negatives are good, with four of the seven In other areas, however, there is virtually institutions using inert materials, such as mylar no change. For example, still less than a third of or polyester. Three, however, are still using the repositories have appropriate environmental paper envelopes, which may or may not be controls, and only one is actively monitoring its appropriate (depending on design and the paper conditions. There has been virtually no change 116 Site Records in the Southeast: An Overview of Preservation Efforts and Challenges in disaster planning-in spite of Hurricanes security, and fire detection and suppression Hugo and Andrew. There has been no substan systems. Coupled with this, site file man tive improvement in protection against fire-the agers must be provided with the resources single greatest threat to these collections. Secu to operate their sections in a manner that is rity-an increasing concern focusing on the consistent with good preservation skills. entire spectrum from terrorism to disgruntled While the claim will always be made that staff to random vandalism-is still largely funds are in short supply, those available ignored. must be better allocated, even if this means "doing" less archaeology in order to take care of that which has already "been done." THE NEAR FUTURE > Institutions must also allocate reasonable There is compelling evidence that preservation, budgets to the maintenance of site files. while gradually improving, is still underfunded, Reliance on improper paper, commercial understaffed, and, to some degree, misunder folder stock, and cheap housing only cre stood. ates an even worse "preservation time Considering the funds that have flowed into bomb." It will be less expensive to main archaeology, it is difficult to understand why tain a reasonable level of preservation site records have not received a much more procedures initially than it will be to take significant allocation of available resources. It is corrective action later. This is another area absolutely essential that in archaeology-as in where the National Park Service might museums, archives, and libraries-support for wisely devote planning and seed money. preservation begins at the top. There must be institutional support manifested in the allocation It should come as no surprise that all three of reasonable resources. There can be no excuse of these recommendations revolve around the for the failure to provide appropriate care and central issue of funding. In 1993 A Report of preservation of primary archaeological site data. the Task Forces on Archival Selection to the This survey has identified several broad Commission on Preservation and Access offered areas of concern, which both the local agency very similar recommendations and noted that: and the National Park Service can help address: The intent of these recommendations is not ::. There is a need for additional preservation to request increased funding ... rather, their training opportunities. Site file managers, purpose is to suggest a better use of scarce most typically archaeologists, must also be resources through a more balanced alloca come preservationists. They need to have tion of existing funds. Funding would there the opportunity to understand environmen fore reflect the value of all information and tal controls and monitoring, the principles result in more consistent policies and of integrated pest management, fire safety stronger and clearer requirements on re techniques, disaster planning and recovery positories. (1993:5) methods, photographic preservation, and ar chival accessioning. Funds for such training must be either provided by the institutions THE LONG TERM or made available by the National Park Service. There are many new preservation possibilities on the horizon, but not all that is new is good > Institutions must aggressively pursue the or even worthy of being considered. acquisition of appropriate physical plants Both the Canadian Conservation Institute buildings with adequate HVAC systems, and the Commission on Preservation and Access 117 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective are exploring mass deacidification processes that more wishful than realistic. For institutions with can potentially buy additional life for acidic pa chronic budget problems and limited political pers using commonly available systems, such as clout, it seems overly simplistic to suggest that Akzo-DEZ, Wei T'o, and FMC-MG3. Early re new hardware be purchased and old digital ma sults are promising, yet it is also clear that not terials be periodically converted to the new all materials are equally suitable. In addition, technology. In addition, while the copying proc the deacidified collection must still be protected ess is not necessarily difficult and can frequent from insects, fire, and other preservation threats. ly be accomplished flawlessly, there remain lin New forms of microfiche, including color gering concerns over intentional tampering with fiche, are being explored, and there is some data during the conversion process. indication that they will have a role in pres Many agencies, such as the National ervation efforts. In general, however, fiche Endowment for the Humanities' Division of remains a second choice to microfilm for long Preservation and Access, do not accept digital term preservation and reliability. formatting as archival. They point out that the Most commonly discussed are various various disks are known to deteriorate over forms of digital technology-such as optical time; that they are subject to pollution ( espe WORM and CD-ROM. This is an area where cially dust) and storage environments (especially suppliers gush the virtues of their specific temperature and relative humidity); and that if technology-low cost, ease of use, wonderful they are damaged the entire corpus of informa access, and so on. What is rarely discussed, tion is lost and cannot be retrieved with the however, is the archival stability of the media or currently available technology. the technology. It is essential to understand that Even those who are more generous to digi when we are speaking of an archival media, we tal imagining, such as the Cornell and Xerox are talking about long-term retention of infor study, admit that this technique will replace mation, typically for several hundred years. traditional approaches, such as microfilming, but Digital technology is new. Its long-term only "in the future" (italics added) (Kenney and stability is unknown and will vary by materials Personius 1992:35). The studies acknowledge used and by manufacturer. There is no industry that there are still concerns. standard, and there has been no adequate test In general, we should realize that the future ing. There are no commonly accepted standards relies not nearly as much on new technologies for archival storage. Digital formats are not as it does on a fuller understanding of preser human readable, but rather require a hardware vation goals and techniques. When preservation system. This hardware system may have a quality microfilming with a known track record significantly shorter lifespan as either an indi costs around ten cents a page, and digital scan vidual piece of equipment or as a technology ning with no assurance of long-term preserva than the disk itself. Virtually all of the digital tion costs upwards of thirty cents a page, there market is consumer driven-new equipment or is ample reason to wonder whether new tech replacement parts will only be available if a nology is truly the future. With limited funds market exists. It is unlikely that the archival and even more limited staffs, there is greater community alone will be capable of providing need for simple preservation initiatives than manufacturers or retailers with a viable market. there is for major technological tests. More significant than wearing out equipment It is essential, however, for directors of will be format obsolescence. The technology is agencies responsible for site file management to rapidly changing, and new formats are constant understand the importance of these records and ly being developed. They may, or may not, last. take the steps necessary for their preservation. If While the most common approach to many we are cavalier in our efforts to preserve these of these problems is to periodically convert old data, how can we expect the public to be data to new formats prior to problems, this is sympathetic to our pleas for site preservation? 118 Site Records in the Southeast: An Overview of Preservation Efforts and Challenges REFERENCES CITED Commission on Preservation and Access 1993 The Preservation ofArchival Materials: A Report of the Task Forces on Archival Selection to the Commission on Preservation and Access. Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, D.C. Kenney, Anne R., and Lynne K Personius 1992 Study in Digital Preservation, Phase I: A Report to the Commission on Preservation and Access. Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, D.C. Kenworthy, Mary Anne, Eleanor M. King, Mary Elizabeth Rowell, and Trudy Van Houten 1985 Preserving Field Records: Archival Techniques for Archaeologists and Anthropologists. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Reilly, James M. 1993 JP! Storage Guide for Acetate Film. Image Permanence Institute, Rochester. Sebera, Donald K 1994 Isoperms: An Environmental Management Tool. Commission on Preservation and Access, Washington, D.C. Silverman, Sydel, and Nancy J. Parezo (editors) 1995 Preserving the Anthropological Record. Second Edition. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, New York. Trinkley, Michael 1990 The Preservation of Archaeological Field Records: Is There a Future for the Past? Formulating Ethics and Standards in Archaeology, edited by Patricia A. Cridlebaugh, pp. 49-65. Research Series 19. Chicora Foundation, Columbia. Walker, Kirsten 1990 Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archives for Long-Term Storage. UKIC Archaeology Section, London. 119 SITE FILE MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST David G. Anderson INTRODUCTION compiling and safeguarding the primary evi dence about the archaeological record that will The articles in this volume offer a good be passed on to future generations. introduction to site file management in the The Southeast has witnessed a tremendous Southeast. As we have seen, archaeologists in amount of archaeological field research in the Southeast, as in other parts of the country, recent years, much of it the result of federal are working to improve the quality of their site environmental legislation and the ongoing phe file data in order to facilitate research and nomenal growth and development of the region. resource management goals. The March 1995 Information management in the region has workshop highlighted the importance of and grown and improved apace, and the site files in need for regular interaction between the region's each state are increasingly perceived as valuable site file managers. The interaction that took resources by land managers and scholars alike. place at the meeting led to a better awareness of Unlike the situation ten to fifteen years ago, each state's approaches, problems, and solutions, when site file data were often spread among a and has already resulted in minor changes in number of repositories, this information is now several of the programs. In this article, which maintained in centralized files in every state. complements the very fine summaries produced Site file data exist or are being placed in elec by Childs and Trinkley, I examine a number of tronic format across the region and, in several the general themes explored at the workshop states, are being incorporated into geographic and in the articles derived from it. information system (GIS) formats. Southeastern Site file management has a long and dis archaeology's increasing maturity and sophisti tinguished history in the Southeast, dating back cation in information management can be seen to the 1920s and 1930s when National Research in the changing data collection forms used Council directives on state archaeological sur through the years, as illustrated in Rivet's article veys influenced the initiation of site files in describing the Louisiana situation. From card several states. Jam es A. Ford, an inspiration to files to computerized coding forms, the develop four generations of southeastern archaeologists ment of site recording in Louisiana, and across for his extensive field and reporting efforts, the Southeast in general, parallels developments helped get site file systems started in Louisiana in American archaeology. Already starting to and Mississippi. The site files that exist in most work together as a regional community, south of the other states in the region are likewise a eastern information managers are striving to testament to the activities of now near legendary bring some measure of compatibility to their early archaeologists, such as Joffre Coe in North data; an effort that should facilitate improved Carolina, William S. Webb in Kentucky, and research and resource management at ever David DeJamette in Alabama. Their modem-day larger and more inclusive scales in the future. direct descendants deserve no less praise, since they work to bring order and accuracy to vast amounts of information, often with little more THE IMPORTANCE OF SITE FILE DATA support than existed when the files were started fifty or more years ago. Site file managers in The importance of archaeological site file data the Southeast and beyond are, I believe, truly to both research and resource management can unsung heroes of the archaeological profession, not be overstated. As Baca and Giliberti elo- 120 Site File Management in the Southeast quently stated in their article, in an observation rose or fell, and how environmental or techno that bears repeating, "when a site form is filled logical change affected settlement over large out, a primary scientific and historical document areas (e.g., Galloway 1994; Sassaman and is created that may stand for decades to come as Anderson 1994; Williams 1994). For the last a major, and in some cases the only, source of several years, for example, using data provided vital site data." This sentiment should be held by the other contributors to this volume, I have close to the heart of every archaeologist because been exploring prehistoric settlement in the ten it underscores the need to take care and pride in states comprising the lower Southeast (Anderson the completion and curation of our records, not 1990, 1991, 1996; Sassaman and Anderson the least of which are site forms. Site records 1994). The map in Figure 1 exemplifies this and their associated collections are our profes research. Illustrating the distribution of Early sion's primary data, the only information that Archaic (10,000 to 8000 B.P.) sites over the remains after fieldwork is completed (McMana region, the map is based on the incidence of mon 1995:2). As several of the participants in just over 7,000 sites with Early Archaic the workshop observed, working with site file components within a total regional sample of data should be encouraged early in an archae approximately 180,000 sites. ologist's career because it teaches the impor From this map, it is evident that Early tance of primary data and the complete and Archaic sites are widely but unevenly distrib accurate recording of information. uted over the regional landscape, with concen As Futato noted in his article, we manage trations along and near the Fall Line across the archaeological data for its research value, for Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains and along or what it can tell us about the past As is evident near major river systems. A number of these from all of our contributors, site file data in the concentrations correspond to the locations of Southeast are overwhelmingly generated and major lithic raw material source areas, indicat used by cultural resource management (CRM) ing that quarries were important foci for these personnel as part of environmental protection populations. These distributions also offer some actions. State site files are, at present, most support to riverine-oriented settlement models commonly used to provide information about advanced for the period, with at least some of the kinds of cultural resources and the level of the observed concentrations likely reflecting archaeological survey that has occurred in a areas where aggregation loci, seasonal camps, or given area. The data are typically used to quarries could have been located (e.g., Anderson provide summaries of the past occupation of a and Hanson 1988; Kimball 1992; Morse and project area and generate expectations about the Morse 1983). Appreciable population concentra kinds of resources likely to be encountered. tions appear to have been present in some areas Research considerations, accordingly, are an that may represent the centers of macroband intrinsic part of the environmental protection systems. This kind of analysis illustrates that to process (Butler 1987). This is evident in the more fully understand past occupation in any National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for one area, we must have an appreciation for the which the most typically used criteria to deter much larger regional picture. Site file data can mine significant archaeological sites is whether be extremely useful toward this end. or not the sites "have yielded, or may be likely Finally, besides assisting in CRM and to yield, information important in prehistory or research, site file data can help us explore the history." effectiveness of past fieldwork. It is a simple Besides playing a major role in resource matter to examine site density and discovery management, site file data are also increasingly rates, for example, in order to evaluate whether being used to explore important research ques appropriate field strategies are being employed, tions, such as where peoples were distributed on where important resources are likely to occur, the landscape, how rapidly population levels and the effectiveness of individuals and organ- 121 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective Incidence of Early Archaic Components in the Southeastern United States D 0.00 to 2.00 E!!ll~ • 2.01 to 5.00 5.01 to 10.00 •· 10.01 to 100.00 Figure 1 - The occurrence of sites with Early Archaic components in the lower Southeast as a percentage of all sites (prehistoric and historic) recorded in each county. izations. Surveys of clear-cut tracts, which are SITE FILE MANAGEMENT conducted after timber harvesting has occurred, IN CYBERSPACE for example, can document the kinds of infor mation missed by pre-harvest surveys (e.g., Fish Given the vast numbers of sites recorded in the and Gresham 1990; Krakker et al. 1983). As Southeast in recent years and the importance of site file data increasingly become public infor this data for resource management/research, mation in the years to come, I expect it will efficiently compiling and accessing site file data lead not only to better research and more effec has proven to be one of the most critical tive fieldwork but to a far greater understanding challenges facing the regional archaeological of the past occupation of our region. community. Increasingly, computerization, or 122 Site File Management in the Southeast the electronic storage and retrieval of informa avoided using site file data when it was cum tion in digital format, has been seen as the bersome and time-consuming to access the files solution to problems of information overload. In (at least until they were literally forced to do so every state in the Southeast, and in Puerto Rico as part of the environmental protection process). and the U.S. Virgin Islands (administratively In these states, site file data are now used in part of the National Park Service's Southeast advance of construction or legislative mandates Field Area), site file data has been or is being to help plan actions and alternatives. As Tippett placed on-line. Much of the rest of this article noted in his article, this is precisely the way examines how this process is likely to proceed. archaeological data must be used if the pro As many of the articles in this volume fession is to have any hope of maintaining its testify, computerization has resulted in appre public constituency. Computerization, by easing ciable benefits to both research and resource access, has meant that information mangers and management The most important benefits have regulators alike can effectively use site file data resulted from increased ease of access to the and devote their attention to their jobs instead data, vastly faster search times, and an ability to of to shuffling through masses of paper. The provide the data in a range of output formats. other side of the coin, however, has been that as Data that formerly required shelves or rooms_ to site file systems become more efficient, their store can now be maintained on a desktop and use tends to go up, increasing staff workload. quickly accessed, analyzed and explored, and downloaded onto maps or as text, tables, or The Kind of System to Use summary statistics. Perhaps the most miraculous aspect of computerization is the speed with One of the first questions asked in electronic which queries can be addressed. This is force data management is how the data should be fully documented in the articles by Futato and maintained, that is, what hardware/software Hoyal and Smith describing records searches in should be in place. The consensus of the work Tennessee and Alabama. Simple questions, such shop participants was that, regardless of the as the number of Middle Archaic sites repre kind of equipment used in the past (i.e., main sented in the files, can be answered in minutes frames, minicomputers), site file data should in states where such data is on-line. In Ala reside in or, minimally, be accessible from bama, as Futato points out, the site file manger desktop computers, or PCs. The system's soft is able to answer these kinds of questions while ware should have mapping capabilities-ideally on the phone with the person making the query! through linkage with a GIS. It should also Collecting this same kind of data by hand took require a fairly short learning curve to maximize weeks of full-time effort during a recent historic user access. Finally, the system should be context project undertaken in South Carolina secure, but also accessible by remote users (i.e., (where file data are not on-line). The resulting it should be on-line but password protected). synthesis marked the only use, to date, of the The ability to access site file data on PCs, entire site file records for research or manage where it could receive the widest possible use, ment purposes (Sassaman and Anderson 1994). was apparent to everyone at the workshop. Data Several of the articles illustrate that along can, after all, always be exported to more with increased access to site file data comes in complex or sophisticated systems. In those cases creased use-to the betterment of both research where site file information is maintained on and resource management. Planners in federal, high-end platforms (e.g., Arkansas), the primary state, county, and local governments now data can be downloaded as text files into PCs. routinely use site file data in states where the The primary site file data from most south data are on-line and easy to query (i.e., Arkan eastern states typically occupies no more than sas, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee). These same 10 to 20 megabytes, if that, and can be placed people, the site file mangers testify, typically on a few diskettes. For example, last year, to 123 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective carry out my own research, several site file highlighting the importance and relevance link managers from across the region sent me their ing GIS and site file data. GIS applications complete databases--information that currently permit the manipulation and graphic display of resides quite comfortably in my Mac (although information that can be of critical importance to it must be emphasized that, given the rate at research/resource management projects (see also which new sites are being recorded, such infor Allen et al. 1990; Briuer 1992; Kvamme 1989). mation rapidly becomes obsolete). The downside of this technology is that it can Site file data should minimally encompass be extremely expensive and labor intensive to locational, assemblage, and management charac develop, and, in some cases, it employs soft teristics (i.e., UTM coordinates, presence or ware that has a steep learning curve, requiring absence of components, condition, NRHP status, appreciable effort to master. Fortunately there collection/records location and content, and are ways to overcome these obstacles. A wide bibliographic references, to list the more obvi array of data layers have been developed in ous kinds of data that should be entered). In many parts of the country, and many are al every state component/assemblage data is in ready integrated into state or local systems (see cluded in summary format, and in several states Scurry and Carlson, this volume). Most military complete artifact lists are either attached to site bases and national forests are also developing or forms or maintained in linked files. Ideally, site already have in place GIS data layers, including file data should be linked with collections, for cultural resources. The lessons learned dur primary records, and bibliographic data files. ing these projects may prove invaluable on a Some states use National Archeological Data larger scale, such as in the development of base (NADB) report citation numbers on their statewide systems (e.g., Warnecke 1990; Wood site forms, facilitating the linkage of these data 1990). (see Childs, this volume, for a discussion of As an alternative to massive GIS system NADB). Of particular importance, the data need development, inexpensive GIS software that can to be maintained in a relational database so. as run on PCs is now available and capable of to facilitate queries and analyses. addressing many current research/resource man Most approaches to computerization in the agement needs. Such systems, as Williams region have been pragmatic-working with demonstrates in his article (this volume) on the what was available to get something on-line, Georgia approach, can offer a good, mid-range rather than waiting for ideal systems or tech solution until more sophisticated systems and nologies to emerge. As a result, most states data layers come on-line. Ideally, as new sys have a decade or more of experience with tems are adopted, the digitized and coded data computerized information management. Al will be readily transferable. Wherever and how though almost every state system uses different ever GIS development occurs, if it includes software ( dBase is the only program used in cultural resources data, it must be closely coor more than one state), the kind of basic site data dinated with site file managers and with the being recorded is quite similar across the region. local professional archaeological community. Future research/resource management efforts Some state systems and research organi employing large regional datasets are thus likely zations have already developed appreciable to proceed smoothly, especially as the ground expertise in the linkage of cultural resources work for standardization is being laid through data into GIS systems. They may prove to be workshops and publications. valuable sources of advice and expertise. Organizations in the Southeast with extensive GIS Development experience in the integration of cultural re sources data into GIS include the Center for As Futato noted during the workshop, "the Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST) and the natural focus of a site file is geographical," Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) at the 124 Site File Management in the Southeast University of Arkansas, the Corps of Engineers ble, wide-ranging discussion during the March Construction Engineering Research Laboratories 1995 workshop. One thing everyone agreed in Champaign, Illinois, and the Corps of needed emphasis was the amount of trouble Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in incomplete or careless recording efforts created, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Several southeastern for site file managers and site file users alike. states, including Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Inconsistencies or errors in locational data, North Carolina, and South Carolina, have high assemblage content, or component identification end GIS systems under development that incor are typically extremely difficult to resolve and, porate cultural resources data. In North Carolina if undetected, can lead to serious problems and South Carolina, a state agency other than when later investigators try to relocate the site the one managing the site files is providing or work with data collected from it. Location funding for the development of the cultural was considered the single most critical variable resources data layer (see Rowland and Hall; to determine precisely, and the workshop par Scurry and Carlson, this volume). In two other ticipants unanimously agreed that if a site could states, Arkansas and Florida, cultural resources not be accurately located, it would not be data layers are being prepared using federal assigned a state number. funding, specifically !STEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) grants admin Documenting Survey Areas and Intensity istered by each state's department of transpor tation (see Donat; M. Smith, this volume). Knowing where past investigation has occurred Of course, when using GIS data layers (for is as critical to effective research/resource man example, for soil, slope elevation, or water agement as knowing where and what kind of courses), it behooves the archaeological user to sites were actually found. An important part of learn the scale or resolution of the data and to Section 106 review is determining whether sur control for possible sources of error when vey work had occurred in a given area and if interpreting output. That is, the analyst must any sites were found. Unless we know whether have some knowledge of how the data layers an area has been examined in the past, it is are put together. A final problem, discussed in impossible to know whether sites might be several of the articles in this volume, as well as present if none are recorded. Project fo,:;ational at some length herein, centered on access to site information is systematically recorded in most file and locational data incorporated into on-line southeastern states, although in only two states, systems, particularly those developed by agen Arkansas and North Carolina, is this informa cies other than those managing the archaeo tion maintained as a GIS data layer (see Donat; logical files. Concerns about how access to site Rowland and Hall, this volume). In most other file data would be controlled has hampered the states, survey areas are hand plotted on USGS integration of cultural resources data into GIS quadrangle sheets. In North Carolina, a record and other on-line systems in several southeast of areas that undergo State Historic Preservation ern states. Most of these concerns have been Office (SHPO) review is also maintained, solved by making access contingent on having whether a survey occurred there or not. formal written permission from the site file Reporting coverage intensity-whether or manager and/or user-specific passwords. not shovel testing occurred, at what intervals tests were placed, whether they were screened or not, what kinds of surface collection pro STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING cedures were used, and so on-is as critical as SITE FILE MANAGEMENT documenting coverage area, since this is the only way we have at present to evaluate the How we can improve site file data across the effectiveness and hence reliability of the survey. Southeast was a subject that received apprecia- Usually older research is characterized by less 125 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective intensive coverage and lower reliability. As dates, stratigraphy, etc.), but this practice is Futato noted during the workshop, in the old comparatively recent and by no means univer days researchers for the most part spent their sal. Criteria by which components are to be time looking for "good" sites and were unlikely assigned to a particular period or phase need to to record isolated finds or small scatters. It is be made explicit, and references to or illustra only with the onset of CRM archaeology that tions of diagnostics should be included with the systematic coverage and the recording of a wide form to justify these assignments. Several states range of sites has occurred, giving us a more request (but none require) that photocopies of accurate picture of past settlement and land-use diagnostic artifacts be attached to site forms to practices. To effectively evaluate coverage, ar facilitate accurate component identification. chaeologists must provide data in their reports How period assignments are made also and on their site forms about the number, size, needs greater thought and refinement. Aceramic and depth of shovel tests or test pits opened, the sites (i.e., where no pottery occurs) are not kind of surface collection strategies employed, necessarily preceramic (i.e., Paleoindian or Ar the time spent in collecting data, and so on. chaic in age, before pottery appeared), but this Coverage intensity categories must be developed is how they are sometimes classified. Adopting and incorporated into maps showing survey explicit, formal criteria for component and areas. period assignments will help to ensure data Ground cover and depositional conditions comparability from state to state, and will help (i.e., erosion, alluviation, disturbance factors, overcome the "state-line effect" of type names vegetation), must also be controlled if research changing as state lines are crossed. That is, even ers or resource managers are to effectively if Daltons are assigned to the Early Archaic interpret site file data. Sites, quite simply, are period in one state and the Late Paleoindian more readily detected in plowed fields than in period in another, knowing this is the case will woods or pasture, and more readily encountered facilitate standardization. Having pictures of the if they are on or near the surface rather than Dalton artifacts from a site attached to the deeply buried. It is thus crucial to record in appropriate form, furthermore, will allow sub formation about survey conditions and ground sequent investigators to determine if these cover on site forms and in reports. Finally, in classifications are accurate, or, at least, how interpreting site file data, consideration must be they fit in with their own classification systems. paid to how thoroughly individual sites have As Futato emphasizes in his article, having been examined. Avocationals are likely to be of open-ended yet hierarchical component and appreciable value in documenting site assem period classifications permits the addition of blages because they may have the opportunity new categories (i.e., diagnostics, periods, or to make repeated visits and accumulate substan phases), while simultaneously permitting data to tial collections from sites that professional ar be recombined as necessary to accommodate chaeologists may only see once or a few times. changes brought about by new research. Having this flexibility greatly augments the value of site Documenting Components and file data and facilitates queries of all kind. Period Assignments Site forms are often filled out early in the research process, and care must also be taken to The classification and recording of cultural ensure that the data in the final report is in components on site forms needs appreciable agreement with that found on the form, which refinement and standardization in the Southeast. may well have included preliminary results or In some states, people submitting site forms are even been incomplete when originally sub required to justify period or component assign mitted. The site form may require updating or ments through reference to or illustration of spe revision once the final report is completed. In cific artifact types or other data (radiocarbon North Carolina, SHPO report review is done in 126 Site File Management in the Southeast conjunction with an inspection of the site forms to paper records. This point effectively counters and the artifact inventory, and all of these data arguments that it is essential to clean up paper must be in acceptable condition and mutually records before computerizing site file data-the consistent before agency concurrence is given. reason SCIAA gave for their reluctance to move In every state, the site file mangers either edit in this direction until quite recently, as noted by and correct incomplete forms as best they can Derting and Leader, this volume. (I emphati when they get them in, or else send them back cally disagree with this position; in fact, if it as inadequate. weren't for the leadership of another state agen There is also a need to incorporate data cy-the Department of Natural Resources-the generated by general research projects into state South Carolina site files would still reside solely site files. The examination of old collections on paper.) No state site files will ever be occurs continually in archaeology, resulting in perfect, but the general consensus was that refinement of our understanding of site occu electronic files are far easier to clean and pational histories. Typically, however, little of manage than those on paper. As Kevin Smith this information is relayed to site file managers said during the workshop, Tennessee's decision to update the primary records. In some states, to "computerize first and ask questions later" primary data for many early sites is still only proved invaluable to correcting both sets of found at the institutions that discovered and records. examined them; this information also needs to Error checking routines or smart files are be used to update site records. In this volume, built into many state systems. Quite simply, Hoyal and Smith illustrate how even work with entry of bad data, such as a UTM coordinate very old collections can add appreciably to our that has too many digits, is not permitted, and knowledge of an area. Finally, we must have the machine generates a signal telling the oper better data in our files on the kinds of assem ator that a mistake has been made. Some sys blages present on a site, so that we may be able tems have menus enabling the operator to select to assess whether identified components reflect from a list of choices (for county names, phys isolated artifacts or dense middens. Use of pri iographic region, period or component assign mary descriptive data (i.e., measures of site size, ment, etc.), reducing the possibility of spelling artifact density, descriptions of associated mistakes. Data standardization, such as the features) rather than qualitative or intuitive consistent recording of quadrangle names or classifications should be used wherever possible. period or component identifications, has proven Intuitive constructs like "campsite" or "village" to be a major chore, although the use of smart should be avoided unless these can be justified files and menus is helping overcome this prob through reference to excavation or analysis lem. Where appropriate, menu lists should be results. left open-ended to facilitate new entries. Having fields specifying when editing or Error Checking Routines updating occurred is critical in order to both avoid overwriting records and track quality A number of procedures for cleaning site file assurance procedures. Having codes identifying data were discussed during the workshop; most the institution doing the work and the person were directed to computerized site file data. In responsible for completing and submitting the Louisiana, as Rivet's article indicates, people are form is also important, both in the event required to submit a completed coding form questions arise and also to evaluate the work along with the site form to facilitate data con itself. Care in specifying the appropriate scale version and entry. Some states allow investi was seen as the best way to avoid confusing gators to submit site data in electronic as well English and metric units-a common problem. as paper format. Everyone agreed that it is far (For example, site elevations are commonly easier to proof and correct electronic as opposed recorded in feet, while site dimensions are 127 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective commonly recorded in meters; these are often hand-held GPS units are now available for a confused.) Finally, in Mississippi, as Baca and few hundred dollars and are easy to use. Mini Giliberti noted at the workshop, when profes mally, the use of GPS should be required for sional archaeologists entered the site data into cultural resources investigations undertaken as the computer files, there were far fewer errors part of the environmental protection process. At and more complete information than when un least one GPS measurement should be taken trained students, interns, or temporary workers from the center of the site and, where the site is carried out this task. Marion Smith's discussion large enough, from a number of points on its of the high costs associated with temporary perimeter as well. As Rowland said at the work employee turnover reinforces this point. In the shop, "if you can get them back to the center of long run, it appears that it is more cost effective the site, they can't really miss it." Wherever to have a permanent, well-trained staff member possible, corrected GPS data should be used to enter site file data (among other duties) than to compensate for the Defense Department's built rely on part-time assistance. in error (which renders the data accurate to within no more than about 100 meters). It is Cleaning UTM Data currently possible to get correction factors for most military installations, and more precise Some discussion during the workshop centered GPS data may well be available to the public at on UTM coordinate accuracy. Most of the site some point in the near future. file managers reported finding error rates of 2 or 3 percent to 20 percent or more in submitted Updating Site Records UTM coordinates. Clearly, better training in map use is needed, something that is also indi When old, already recorded sites are revisited, cated by inconsistencies in locational data (i.e., or collections from them are examined, it is where sites are plotted and their size) between important that this data is used to update the site forms and final reports. One clever proce site form. Some states in the Southeast require dure used to check UTM coordinate accuracy in the completion of a new or special update form Georgia involves plotting sites statewide and when old sites are revisited. The South Carolina then by county. By examining the site dots that Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology fall outside of the appropriate boundaries, ob (SCIAA), in fact, refuses to accept collections viously erroneous coordinates can be detected. into their curation facility until site forms are Digitizing site locations from USGS and other updated. Mechanisms also need to be developed map formats directly into GIS data layers is, of for the regular submission of data to state site course, the best way to eliminate this problem. files from older research projects, as well as However, care must be taken to ensure that the from more recent CRM studies. As Futato noted maps are properly registered when entering the during the workshop, some pretty famous south data. Once their accuracy has been verified, the eastern mound groups are less well documented UTM coordinates generated during the digiti in the files than many recent lithic scatters! zation process can replace those previously de Site forms are often filled out early in the termined by hand. Ensuring that site size, shape, research/resource management process, necessi and location is plotted accurately on quadrangle tating some revision when final reports are or other base maps is, of course, crucial because completed. NRHP status, for example, is often these serve as a basis for digitization (see not known for sure at the time the site forms Scurry and Carlson, this volume). are submitted; it must often be added when the Given the importance of accurate locational final report is completed. Many states have data, the collection of satellite-generated Global solved this problem by refusing to review re Positioning System (GPS) data should be rou ports until site forms are completed, and, in at tinely used in all archaeological fieldwork; least one case-North Carolina-the fonns are 128 Site File Management in the Southeast reviewed as part of the report review process. $5,000 annual stipend from the SHPO. (This Project tracking systems have been implemented figure has varied somewhat from year to year in several states to follow the submission of site but has never been appreciably larger.) In form, report, and collection data, largely to Alabama, site file management is accomplished ensure that everything is submitted. Arkansas as a service to the state by personnel at the has an excellent tracking system in place (see Office of Archaeological Research, Mound State Donat, this volume). Monument, the University of Alabama Museum As site file managers adopt and enforce of Natural History, with occasional project new reporting standards, of course, many prob specific funding provided by the SHPO. The lems that once loomed large have diminished. situation is essentially the same in Kentucky1 Few reports today make use of temporary num where the site files are maintained by the Office bers, for example--a problem that plagued early of the State Archaeologist in the Department of CRM archaeology in the Southeast. (Many sites Anthropology at the University of Kentucky. In described in CRM reports dating to the 1970s most cases, regardless of where the files are do not have permanent site numbers assigned to physically located, responsibility for maintaining them, largely because the forms were never them falls on one person, who must handle filled out.) Site file managers should not be everything from quality control to data input, afraid to take a hard line when setting standards, interfacing with the public and handling re even if this means bouncing back inadequate quests for information. In several states, funding records until they are completed correctly. for temporary employees is also available, although it is rarely equivalent to the amount Generating Money and Support needed for a full-time employee. In Puerto Rico the Commonwealth archaeologist maintains the State management of cultural resources data is files single-handedly as part of his overall essential to the effective operation of the duties. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Obtaining the necessary resources to ac (NHPA) and a wide array of other state and complish their mandated management responsi federal environmental laws and regulations. bilities is a critical concern facing every site file Monies are transferred annually from the federal curator. The level of work that is actually government to each state to assist in the imple accomplished, of course, depends on the amount mentation of NHPA, and a portion of these of base funding and upon the dedication and funds are typically directed to information man training of the staff. Funding levels reflect agement concerns. In several southern states priorities established by higher-level adminis (Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, trators, and site file managers who wish to and Tennessee) and in Puerto Rico, site files are improve their funding must, among other things, managed directly by the SHPO. In the re make sure their supervisors know the uses to maining states, they are maintained by other which the data are put and their importance to agencies or organizations, but always in close the research and resource management process. cooperation with the SHPO. One effective way to do this is to present, as Funding levels for site file management part of specific requests for assistance, clear, vary appreciably from state to state in the unambiguous data about what the job entails Southeast. A few states, such as Arkansas and and how workloads and responsibilities are in Florida, enjoy adequate or at least manageable creasing over time. As several articles in this funding levels. But, in most states, site file volume demonstrate, most site file managers can management is woefully underfunded. The provide year-by-year information on the number Georgia site files, for example, have been of site forms and requests for information they maintained for years by the Department of must process, and the number of visitors they Anthropology at the University of Georgia for a must interact with. All of this data, properly 129 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective compiled and illustrated, can be used to make a operating budgets. ISTEA and SHPO Survey case for additional funding. It can also be used and Planning Grants, for example, have been to educate the user community, which may used to undertake specific tasks, as documented prove a useful ally in generating change. in several articles in this volume. In Georgia, an Curiously, there is little direct relationship access fee of $250 per project was recently between the amount of money directed to implemented. The resulting outcry by users archaeology by a state government and the accustomed to receiving free access dramatized quality of the site files. Some of the most the lack of state funding and led to extensive poorly funded states have the most sophisticated lobbying for change. While most other states do information management systems, with up-to not charge access fees, many charge fixed hour date records (Alabama and Georgia), while in ly and per page fees for staff search and copy other states, where archaeology is comparatively ing time, if the users are unable to do this them well-funded by the state government (North selves. In South Carolina, SCIAA provides cul Carolina and South Carolina, for example), site tural resources summary data to private consult file computerization/data entry has only just be ing firms at a flat rate of $50 per project plus gun or is woefully backlogged. Money directed $15 per hour if this effort requires more than to archaeology by state governments, therefore, one hour. Because demand for this kind of data does not translate into money directed to infor is increasing as developers and planners recog mation management. Although the Georgia and nize the value in advance planning, the SCIAA Alabama cases are seemingly anomalous, in information manager must spend increasing both cases the operation of these files has been amounts of time addressing requests for infor subsidized by other organizations-the Depart mation. Access fees, while providing an impor ment of Anthropology at the University of tant source of funds, are at present not sufficient Georgia and the University of Alabama Muse to cover site file maintenance and are, at best, a um's Office of Archaeological Research. Fur stopgap measure. As the Georgia example thermore, in both Alabama and Georgia, the site indicates, perhaps the most effective method of file curators, Mark Williams and Eugene Futato, ensuring adequate resources is to have the user have devoted tremendous amounts of unpaid community itself forcefully argue for change. personal time to develop and maintain these systems. What Do We Record? Site file managers are an extremely dedi cated group. While the Alabama and Georgia Much of the workshop discussion centered on cases are exceptional, all of the region's site file historic site recording practices, the minimum curators work very long hours, providing appre data needed to assign a site number, and wheth ciable voluntary labor. Most of the participants er cemeteries should be recorded (see Excerpts at the 1995 workshop, in fact, either privately or from Workshop Discussions, this volume). One publicly expressed frustration and concern about thing is clear: what is accepted as a "site" the lack of support they received, and several changes over time, and professionals in each felt their systems were barely one step ahead of state and region need to meet regularly to total breakdown and chaos. That the region's discuss this and other information management site files are in such good shape, in fact, is concerns. In most southern states, data on strong testimony of the dedication of a number archaeological sites and historic structures are of remarkable individuals. Such altruism is not maintained by different agencies and are not something that can be counted on, however, integrated together. In Florida, however, historic particularly as site numbers and requests for in structures, archaeological sites, and other cul formation continue to increase dramatically. tural properties are maintained in a single Some state site file systems have adopted integrated computerized file system (see M. alternative funding sources to supplement their Smith, this volume). Historic structure entries, 130 Site File Management in the Southeast interestingly, vastly exceed archaeological sites depth discussion of this problem). A single fire in the Florida files, primarily because the state or other natural disaster, accordingly, could provides a high level of funding to communities overnight wipe out an entire state's site files- for survey and registration projects--something information compiled at great effort over other states would do well to emulate. Florida decades. This situation simply must change, uses the fifty-year age cutoff for both sites and although fortunately a number of alternatives structures, following NRHP criteria. This policy are available. In North Carolina, for example, is emulated by most other states in the region, site forms, field notes, inventories, and even except in Mississippi where a site must be pre- copies of final reports are microfilmed, and 1900 before it is given a formal site number. copies are maintained both at the site files and Mississippi's policy, however, has been strongly in a fireproof vault at the state archives (see challenged by historic sites archaeologists and is Rowland and Hall, this volume). In Arkansas likely to be changed to the NRHP fifty-year the site file data are maintained in two loca standard. Interestingly, the beginnings of his tions. A complete set of files is kept at the toric sites archaeology in many southern states central office of the Arkansas Archeological is clearly indicated by the dates when these Survey in Fayetteville, and the appropriate types of sites began to be entered into site files subsets are on file at a series of regional re in large numbers. Typically, this was in the late search stations scattered around the state. 1970s in many states, and somewhat earlier Most states have considered various infor where a strong local research tradition in his mation storage procedures to back up or replace toric sites archaeology existed, for example, in their paper records, such as optical disk, CD South Carolina and Florida. Rom, or microfiche. In some states, the quantity Some southern states make use of special of paper records is immense. There is a very "isolated find" recording categories for scatters real desire and, in some cases, need to reduce with low numbers of artifacts (typically five or the volume. Marion Smith, for example, re less in a small area, usually twenty or so meters ferred to Florida's increase in data as the in extent). In other states minimal site definition "Tallahassee treadmill" because two new shelv criteria are left up to the archaeologist, while in ing units have to be acquired each year to still others, the decision is left up to the site file handle new paper records! Although Florida manager. While no standardized policy exists, currently represents the extreme case, because the consensus of the workshop participants was their files include both structures and archaeo that isolated nonmodern artifacts found in logical sites, every state has accumulated a undisturbed context should be collected, and considerable volume of site fonl1s as well as their location and description presented in final associated records and reports. In North reports. Similar ambiguity surrounds the record Carolina, where the Archaeology Branch is ing of cemeteries. Some states assign archae situated in a historic house, there was a very ological site numbers to old or unmarked real concern that the floor joists might break cemeteries, while others do not Again, whether under the weight of all the paper! or not site numbers are assigned, everyone Microfilming or, alternatively, electronic agreed that cemeteries found during surveys document management (EDM) are increasingly should be documented in project reports. seen as viable solutions to the problem of records management, although to date no state Backing Up Site File Records has adopted the latter approach. The compara tively low cost, long-term stability, and ease of A major problem recognized at the 1995 work use of microfilmed data makes this an attractive shop was that few states in the Southeast have option, and there is little likelihood that the backup copies of their site files in secure technology will become obsolete. The ability to locations (see Trinkley, this volume, for an in- rapidly search, find, and manipulate text on 131 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective personal computers, however, is also seen as institutions where they work. Their salaries are increasingly valuable and important. Perhaps the typically well below those of more traditional greatest concerns with EDM are obsolescence researchers or administrators, and they are rarely and longevity, that is, whether or not existing provided opportunities for travel and training. systems and files will be supported or even This is paradoxical and shortsighted, given their readable in a decade or two. Effective EDM, data quality assurance/quality control responsi accordingly, requires the transferring of data to bilities. Also, it is undeniable that the informa new mediums as they are developed. Fortunate tion manager has, by the nature of modem ly, data recorded in digital format can be easily environmental management, extensive contact moved about, meaning this is unlikely to be a with the public, particularly the segment that major problem. However, as Trinkley points out shapes large-scale land use and development. In in his article (this volume), given the low fund a real sense, site file managers are the public ing directed to information management at face of archaeology and archaeological research present, it may be wishful thinking to assume institutions. Modem site file management re that updating efforts will be properly supported. quires well-educated, meticulous, and computer Though microfilming is an ideal choice for literate personnel, who should receive salaries the long-term storage of information (i.e., pro commensurate with their responsibilities. Quite viding data that will be useful centuries from simply, site file management personnel should now, whether an advanced technological civili be far better paid then they typically are at zation survives or not), EDM is the ideal choice present; they need to be encouraged to take for those interested in working with large advantage of training opportunities; and their quantities of information. To evaluate what sys attendance at professional meetings must be tem is appropriate, site file managers need to supported. assess what they use their data for, and whether Although the workloads in site file offices and how they need to manipulate it. As evi are seemingly overwhelming in many states, a denced from the articles in this volume, site file number of labor-saving solutions were advanced data is currently used almost exclusively for during the workshop. In many states records research/resource management purposes. Quick searches in support of resource management access, synthetic treatment of data, and output actions must be done largely or entirely by in a variety of formats are what today's users contractors themselves, since they have a vested need, making EDM the clear choice. The fact financial interest in collecting and using the that most of the states in the Southeast are data. The site file manager's responsibility in already well· along in computerization efforts these cases lies largely in showing users how to indicates that this is recognized and that EDM access the data and then seeing that it is will be the wave of the future (although in replaced properly. This strategy is most viable formation is also likely to be stored in more where records are on-line, or where back-up traditional formats for a long time to come). copies exist (since paper records can get lost or damaged with use). Another time-saving strat Personnel Considerations egy involves developing efficient routines for dealing with information requests, particularly Information managers are the unsung heroes of land-use planners and developers. County-level our field. They are compiling and safeguarding (or larger) summary reports containing a wide much of what we will ever know about the range of data are quickly produced in Kentucky archaeological resources in our region, and just using a statistical analysis package linked with about the only data that will be available in the the file data. The speed with which data queries future to test our current ideas and theories. in general can be accomplished with on-line Unfortunately, information managers are often systems has been demonstrated in the articles treated as second-class citizens in many of the describing site file management in Alabama, 132 Site File Management in the Southeast Arkansas, and Tennessee. Some concern was raised about the dura As the Florida case illustrates (see M. bility of existing paper records (see Trinkley, Smith, this volume), given the rapid turnover this volume). Questions were raised about and resulting high training costs associated with whether records should be maintained on acid the use of temporary personnel, every effort free paper, and about the life span of photocopy should be made to make site file personnel and laser print ink. Electronic facsimiles of permanent employees. Finally, another way to every state site form in the region now exist, reduce workloads is to abandon obsolete or thanks to the efforts of CRM firms, but there inefficient procedures, such as performing data was some question as to whether this infor searches by hand. Ironically, the site file man mation/software should be considered proprie ager in South Carolina-the one state in the tary or made available to all interested parties. region where the site files are not maintained on Whenever possible, site file data should be sub computers--spends an increasing percentage of mitted in electronic as well as paper format to his time conducting manual records searches reduce data entry time at the state level. There that most other site file managers accomplish was general agreement that agency and site file quickly and at little or no cost because their personnel need to work together and respect one data are on-line. The single and most effective another's concerns. Given that limited copies of strategy for reducing staff workload, accord most CRM reports are produced, and that these ingly, is apparently to adopt efficient, user documents provide important primary informa friendly methods of accessing and manipulating tion, reports as well as site forms should also site file data, and then making this data readily probably be routinely backed up. Finally, there accessible to those interested in using it. was some concern about the intentional destruc tion of original records once the data are moved Miscellaneous Data Management Concerns to other media, reflecting a general suspicion about the permanence of nonpaper media. A number of minor considerations were briefly (Ironically, electronic records may ultimately touched on in the articles and general discus last a great deal longer, as anyone who has sions at the workshop that warrant mention. examined crumbling paper records in humid Sketch maps are not uniformly required, al southern courthouses can testify.) though some site file managers believe they offer a good ancillary source of locational infor mation and provide detail on the immediate site DILEMMAS FACING SITE FILE area that is not readily available from quad MANAGERS rangle sheets. Silly site names are occasionally seen as a problem, and offensive names are Public Access to Data and Site Destruction never entered into permanent records. Site names are an important datum to record, how A topic heard over and over during the two ever, since many classic sites are best (or only) days of the workshop centered on who should known by their name. Although the lengths of have access to site file data (see in particular the state site forms vary greatly over the region, article by Tippett). In some states, site file data from two pages in Georgia and Mississippi to is considered sensitive information and is ex eleven in North Carolina, many basic data cate plicitly excluded from freedom of information gories are shared in common. Site form length requests. In other states, the data are considered does not appear to deter their completion by public information and must be made available users. However, as Horak noted during the to anyone who asks for it. While most state site workshop discussion, the appearance of a form file managers routinely make data available to a can greatly influence how readily or completely wide range of users, a few refuse to. Only it is filled out. rarely and in special circumstances do they open 133 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective their files to nonarchaeologists, primarily be While I fully agree with Tippett's argument cause of a fear that easy access to locational (this volume) that there will be plenty of sites data will lead to pothunting. As Tippett has left for future generations of archaeologists, I argued, however, we as a profession actually cannot accept his statement that sites are a re have little hard data on the impact open site file newable resource and, hence, we needn't worry data has on pothunting. Since the Florida site overmuch about possible increases in looting files are considered public information (see M. stemming from public access to site file data. Smith, this volume), a test of this question is Although new sites will admittedly continue to effectively ongoing in at least one part of the form, old ones are disappearing at an alarming Southeast. Several curators felt that getting rate, and every one lost is a page torn from the information out and having local individuals and book of our species' history. The destruction communities help protect sites was better than that has and is continuing to occur is staggering, attempting to rely on secrecy. Kevin Smith and there are many questions we will never be added that while many looters already know able to answer because of these losses. For this where the good sites are, most developers do reason, I believe care must be exercised in how not. The latter are likely to cause far more site file data is made available. The subject of destruction (albeit unintentionally) if they are site file access, which at times generated heated forced to operate in ignorance. There was a discussion during the workshop, will undoubt general consensus that, whether the files were edly continue to be a source of concern and open or not, private landowners have a right to debate as more and more data comes on-line. If information about their own land. current technological trends continue, I suspect Access to on-line data is currently managed that the public will ultimately have unlimited by the use of passwords. These codes are pro access to our data. Although much good will vided to organizations and individuals with a likely come of a policy of openness, I am con clear need for the information, who have re vinced that it will also lead to increased looting quested access in writing. Information-sharing unless society's attitude about the importance of procedures and restrictions are sometimes codi cultural resources changes profoundly. fied in formal agreement documents. Some concern was expressed about the possibility of Why Aren't Site Files Used More? hackers making data available, or even approved users giving data away inappropriately. While Paradoxically, while site files have a high re this was admitted to be a possibility, the harm search potential, few archaeologists employed in done by maintaining secrecy and inaccessibility academic positions use or substantially contrib was considered far worse. Among the lighter ute to them in most southeastern states. Why comments in the debate was Clay's statement site files are little used by researchers is uncer that "90 percent of the sites we are reporting in tain, although the consensus of the workshop our site files no self-respecting pothunter would participants was that most researchers have little want information about." In an example that idea of the potential of site file data, and that its may illustrate what the future will be like, the access and use is widely perceived as too cum geographic data clearinghouse being established bersome and difficult. Both attitudes appear to in North Carolina will list the Archaeology be rapidly changing, however, as data becomes Branch on their World Wide Web (WWW) more accessible in electronic format and as home page, with instructions on how to obtain more people achieve computer literacy. permission to access the data. Similar WWW postings already exist for both AAS and CAST A vocational Site Recording in Arkansas, at SCIAA in South Carolina, and are being developed or are under consideration Perhaps even more surprising than the minimal in severa! other states. use of site file data by researchers is the fact 134 Site File Management in the Southeast that few avocationals fill out site forms in the Hard-copy paper records will still be with Southeast, even though these people are sitting us, I have no doubt, but they will be increas on a wealth of information. Exceptions to this ingly relegated to storage areas as emergency pattern do occur. For example, avocationals backups. Most of us will be working with digi report large numbers of sites in Arkansas and tal images, and the experimental multimedia Louisiana. In general, for such recording to take records we are now seeing in states like place on other than an occasional basis, how Alabama (see Futato, this volume) will be in ever, it must be strongly encouraged and widespread use. That is, when we access a site supported by the local professional community. number in twenty years, what we will see, Everyone agreed that avocationals who wanted besides the data now on site forms, will be to record sites and learned to do so properly images of artifacts, the discoverer's notes, pho were to be cherished and nurtured. Many site tographs, slide images, maps, and even film file managers found that avocationals typically clips of the fieldwork and laboratory analysis. provided far more detail on their site forms than Simple commands will link the user to images professionals, particularly about diagnostics. of the artifact catalogs and final reports, and Although some site forms appear to be too more complex queries will enable the user to long and technically oriented for most members find other sites with similar characteristics. of the lay public, some states have compensated Archaeology will become more public as our for this by developing a short form for avoca primary data becomes more accessible and, tionals. Clay noted that he commonly assigned frankly, more interesting to examine. As Clay site numbers on the spot to avocationals pro said during the workshop, "Give people data in viding sound site data, and then taught them the machine readable format and they will beat a importance of labeling their artifacts with this path to your door!" number. More effort also needs to be devoted to encouraging avocationals to record sites and document collections and, ideally, making pro CONCLUSION visions to eventually donate them to state insti tutions or other responsible curatorial facilities. Given the impact that the March 1995 workshop had, as reflected in the articles in this volume, one thing is evident: site file managers need to TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW meet periodically to exchange ideas and infor mation. This can take the form of regular The next twenty years are likely to see truly meetings between information managers in ad revolutionary changes in the way site file infor joining states, a regionwide meeting (bringing mation is handled in the Southeast. As Childs managers together from a physiographic or cul argues in her article, paper records are rapidly turally bounded area), or national-scale meet becoming a thing of the past, to the point where ings, perhaps in conjunction with conferences modern records management increasingly in like the annual meeting of the Society for cludes electronic formats. Our very philosophy American Archaeology. The cost of such meet of data management is changing from a static to ings are minimal compared to the payoff in dynamic approach as more people realize that improved data quality. The total cost to bring electronic/digital formats permit users to interact together some twenty people from across the with data, to quickly access, manipulate, and Southeast (including the Caribbean, which is transfer information. Given greater access to within the National Park Service's Southeast data, we will all be able to do our work better Field Office's administrative area) for the 1995 and faster, which should permit us to protect workshop was just under $4,000. I would en and manage the resource to a far better extent courage supervisors of site file personnel to then we do at the present. support travel for such purposes, and to allow 135 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective their staff to attend regional and national pro SHPO Survey and Planning Grants. Southeast fessional meetings, where they should establish ern site files are proving to be of great value for and participate in forums related to information both research and resource management pur management. Funding can come from institu poses. That this is the case is something we can tional travel budgets, federal grants, like the one all take pride in, while remaining ever mindful that resulted in the 1995 meeting, or the use of of the need to make things better still. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Christine Hensley, Michael Russo, and Virginia Horak for technical and editorial comments. Except where specifically attributed to others, the ideas and syntax herein are my own. REFERENCES CITED Allen, Kathleen M. S., Stanton W. Green, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow (editors) 1990 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, Bristol, Pennsylvania. Anderson, David G. 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by Barry Isaac and Kenneth Tankersley, pp. 163-216. Journal of Economic Anthropology Sup plement 5. 1991 Examining Prehistoric Settlement Distribution in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 19:1-22. 1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In The Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville (in press). Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson 1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262-286. Briuer, Frederick L. (editor) 1992 Automation Tools for Cultural Resource Managers. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg. Butler, William B. 1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process. American Antiquity 52:820-829. 136 Site File Managemenf in the Southeast Fish, Paul, and Thomas Gresham . . 1990 Insights from Full-Coverage Survey in the Georgia Piedmont. In The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Stephen A. Kowalewski, pp. 147-172. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Galloway, Patricia 1994 Prehistoric Population of Mississippi: A First Approximation. Mississippi Archaeology 29(2):44-71. Kimball, Larry R. 1992 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons from Tellico. In Paleoindian and Early Archaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective, edited by David G. Anderson, Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Christopher Judge, pp. 143-181. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia. Krakker, James J., Michael Shott, and Paul D. Welch 1983 Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:469-504. Kvamme, K. L. 1989 Geographic Infonnation Systems in Regional Archaeological Research and Data Man- agement. Archaeological Method and Theory 1:139-203. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. McManamon, Francis P. 1995 A Crumbling House of Knowledge: The Vanishing Record of the Archaeological Record. Federal Archaeology 7(4):2. Morse, Dan F., and Phyllis A. Morse 1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson 1994 Middle and Late Archaic Archaeological Records of South Carolina: A Synthesis for Re search and Resource Management. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia. W amecke, Lisa 1990 Geographic Information Systems Use in State Government Agencies. Cultural Resources Information Management Series. lnteragency Resources Division, National Park Service . ' Washmgton. Williams, J. Mark 1994 Archaeological Site Distributions in Georgia: 1994. Early Georgia 22(1):35-76. Wood, Noriko 1990 Computer Use in State Historic Preservation Offices. Cultural Resources Information Management Series. Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service, Washington. 137 CONTRIBUTORS Dr. David G. Anderson, Archeologist Dr. R. Berle Clay Interagency Archeological Services Division Office of State Archaeology National Park Service Department of Anthropology 75 Spring Street, S.W. 211 Lafferty Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 University of Kentucky 404-331-2628 Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0024 404-331-2654 FAX 606-257-5735 david_ [email protected] 606-257-1034 FAX [email protected] Mr. Keith A Baca Mississippi Department of Archives and History Mr. Keith Derting P.O. Box 571 State Site Files Manager Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0571 South Carolina Site Files 601-359-6949 South Carolina Institute of Archaeology 601-359-6955 FAX and Anthropology (SCIAA) 1321 Pendleton Street University of South Carolina Mr. Miguel A (Mickey) Bonini Columbia, South Carolina 29208-0071 State Historic Preservation Office 803-777-8170 Box 82, La Forteleza 803-254-1338 FAX San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 809-721-3737 809-723-0957 FAX Ms. Lela Donat Survey Registrar's Office Arkansas Archeological Survey Ms. Ruth E. Carlson P .0. Box 1249 South Carolina Department of Natural Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1249 Resources 501-575-3566 Water Resources Division 501-575-5453 FAX 1201 Main Street, Suite 1100 [email protected] Columbia, South Carolina 29201 803-737-0800 803-765-9080 FAX Mr. Eugene M. Futato Office of Archaeological Services 13075 Moundville (Archaeological) Park Moundville, Alabama 35474 Dr. S. Terry Childs Archeology and Ethnography Program 205-371-2266 National Park Service 205-371-2494 FAX P.O. Box 37127 Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 202-343-1141 202-523-1547 FAX [email protected] 138 Contributors Mr. Joseph A Giliberti Ms. Sharon Pekrul Mississippi Department of Archives and History Curator of Collections P.O. Box 571 South Carolina Institute of Archaeology Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0571 and Anthropology (SCIAA) 601-359-6945 1321 Pendleton Street 601-359-6955 FAX University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina 29208-0071 803-777-8170 Ms. Dolores A Hall 803-254-1338 FAX Office of State Archaeology 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Mr. Philip G. (Duke) Rivet 919-733-7342 Staff Archaeologist 919-715-2671 FAX Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism Division of Archaeology P.O. Box 44247 Ms. Virginia Horak Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Interagency Archeological Services Division 504-342-8170 National Park Service 504-342-8173 FAX 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 404-331-7642 Ms. Almeta Rowland 404-331-2654 FAX Office of State Archaeology virginia_ [email protected] 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 919-733-7342 Ms. Suzanne D. Hoyal 919-715-2671 FAX Tennessee Division of Archaeology arcy [email protected] .state.nc.us 5103 Edmondson Pike Nashville, Tennessee 37211-5129 615-741-1588 Mr. James D. Scurry 615-741-7329 FAX South Carolina Department of [email protected]. us Natural Resources Water Resources Division 1201 Main Street, Suite 1100 Dr. Jonathan Leader Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Deputy State Archaeologist 803-737-0800 South Carolina Institute of Archaeology 803-765-9080 FAX and Anthropology (SCIAA) 1321 Pendleton Street University of South Carolina Dr. Kevin E. Smith Columbia, South Carolina 29208-0071 Assistant Professor of Anthropology 803-777-8170 P.O. Box 10 803-254-1338 FAX Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132 615-898-5958 615-898-5907 FAX [email protected] 139 Archaeological Site File Management: A Southeastern Perspective Dr. Marion F. Smith, Jr. Dr. Michael Trinkley Senior Archaeologist and Supervisor Director Florida Master Site File Chicora Foundation, Inc. Division of Historical Resources P.O. Box 8664 R.A. Gray Building, 500 S. Bronough Street 861 Arbutus Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8664 904-487-2299 803-787-6910 904-921-0372 FAX 803-787-6910 FAX [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Lee Tippett Dr. Mark Williams Staff Archaeologist Georgia Archaeological Site Files South Carolina Department of Archives Department of Anthropology and History Baldwin Hall 1430 Senate Street - P.O. Box 11669 University of Georgia Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Athens, Georgia 30602 803-734-8478 706-542-1619 803-734-8820 FAX 706-542-3998 FAX [email protected] 140