INTRODUCTION
The Secretary of the Interior has developed broad national performance standards and guidelines to assist federal agencies in carrying out their historic preservation activities. These federal standards and guidelines are entitled Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (48 FR 44716-44742). Professionals working in Virginia have long recognized the need to standardize archaeological field investigations. This set of guidelines was established to meet this need and to fill the gap between the broad-based federal guidelines and the various previously published field manuals. The Department of Historic Resources’ (DHR) guidelines are intended to provide standards and offer general guidance without hindering the development and use of new and innovative approaches.
The intent is to clarify expectations for archaeologists, their clients and the public. The guidelines describe widely accepted archaeological practices used in the mid-Atlantic region. They also encourage the selection of methods and techniques generally found to be the most efficient and cost-effective.
It is hoped that these guidelines will enable project sponsors to better understand and assess proposals for archaeological survey. Users of the guidelines should feel free to contact DHR staff with questions about particular problems or projects. It is anticipated that the guidelines will be updated at regular intervals to incorporate unanticipated considerations and new approaches.
DEFINITION OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
In general terms, an archaeological site is defined as the physical remains of any area of human activity greater than 50 years of age for which a boundary can be established. Examples of such resources would include the following: domestic/habitation sites, industrial sites, earthworks, mounds, quarries, canals, roads, shipwrecks, etc. Under the general definition, a broad range of site types would qualify as archaeological sites without the identification of any artifacts. To establish a boundary for archaeological sites manifested exclusively by artifacts, the recovery of a minimum of three items is needed, related either temporally or functionally and located within a spatially restricted area (300 square feet area is suggested). Exceptions to this definition may include any cultural material that has been redeposited, reflects casual discard, or represents one episode of behavior. Other items to consider in deciding whether or not an area warrants a site designation include survey conditions, survey methods and site types. Additional guidance on underwater site definition may be found in An Assessment of Virginia’s Underwater Cultural Resources, Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 3 (1994). Any occurrence that does not qualify for a site designation should be termed a location.
Estimates of site boundaries may be based on the spatial distribution of artifacts and/or cultural features and their relationship to other features of the natural (landform, drainage) and cultural environment (historic landscape features). In addition, historic background information should be taken into consideration when defining the boundaries of a historic site. It is recognized that the boundaries for resources located in urban or underwater environments may be difficult to estimate at the Phase I level. For all archaeological sites identified, a DHR Archaeological Site Inventory Form must be completed and submitted to DHR for review and approval. Effective September 1, 1996 all archaeological as well as architectural survey records must be submitted to DHR on disk in the Integrated Preservation Software (IPS) format.
LEVELS OF INVESTIGATION
There are three levels of documentation for cultural resources. The first two levels constitute components of what is defined in the federal standards as an “intensive” survey. Please recognize that this is different from a “reconnaissance” survey. Although defined in the federal standards, a reconnaissance level survey is not appropriate for projects submitted for review pursuant to Section 106 unless otherwise agreed upon by the DHR and the project sponsor. For practical purposes the DHR has divided an intensive survey into two levels: identification (Phase I) and evaluation (Phase II). The third level (Phase III) constitutes treatment for significant resources. The DHR normally does not recognize additional division into sub-phases (i.e., Phase Ia and Phase Ib).
Each phase is defined briefly below.
Identification (Phase I)
Identification involves compiling all relevant background information, along with comprehensive recordation of all sites, buildings, structures, objects and potential districts within the survey area. This information is used in planning and making decisions about historic resource management needs. The goals of a Phase I archaeological investigation are:
to locate and identify all archaeological sites in the survey area;
to estimate site size and boundaries and to provide an explanation as to how the estimate was made; and
to assess the site’s potential for further (Phase II) investigation.
Evaluation (Phase II)
Evaluation of a resource’s significance entails assessing the characteristics of a property against a defined historic context and the criteria of the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The evaluation shall result in a definition of those resources which are eligible or ineligible for Virginia Landmarks and National Register listing. The purpose of a site evaluation is:
to determine whether the site is eligible for the National Register; and
to provide recommendations for future treatment of the site.
These goals can best be met when research strategies focus on determining site chronology, site function, intrasite structure and integrity. At the conclusion of a Phase II evaluation, the site boundaries should be accurately defined and the horizontal and vertical integrity of the site assessed. The level of effort and the methods employed will vary depending upon site size, site type and the environmental setting.
It is important to note that resource evaluations must apply to the resource as a whole, not just to the portion of the resource within the project area. Sites evaluated as part of a federal or state agency undertaking should be evaluated in their entirety, not just within the immediate project boundaries. However, testing strategies for Phase II evaluation studies may focus primarily on that portion of the resource that will be directly affected by the proposed project.
Treatment (Phase III)
Once the significance of a historic property has been established, the appropriate treatment for the resource is implemented. Only after evaluations are completed are treatment plans or documents developed. Treatment can include a variety of measures such as avoidance, recordation, data recovery, development of an historic preservation plan, rehabilitation or restoration. Documentation requirements for treatment are determined on a case-by-case basis.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Regardless of level, all archaeological investigations should be guided by prepared research designs which refer to regional preservation plans and embody a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches. Research designs cannot and should not predetermine what one will find in the field but should be flexible in response to changing project needs and discoveries in the field.
IDENTIFICATION (PHASE I)
PHASE I BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Background research provides information regarding historic contexts and anticipated locations, frequency, and types of sites in the survey area. Background research should identify:
previous archeological research in the area;
the degree of existing disturbance;
high and low probability areas; and
the location of historic map-projected sites.
The purpose of the background research is not to produce 1) a general prehistoric chronology; 2) an exhaustive general history of the county; or 3) an exhaustive synthesis of deed records or cartographic resources. A general historic context should be developed to the level needed to aid in site specific recommendations. Background research should be conducted before field investigations are initiated. The level of background research should be appropriate to the scale of the project.
Sources of potentially valuable information are numerous and varied, including published and written texts, oral accounts, official documents, family records, artifact collections, and observations about folkways. In addition to more traditional sources of information such as state and university repositories, specialists and locally knowledgeable persons should be consulted along with local governments, historical societies, museums, libraries, etc. References to previous cultural resource studies and to existing archaeological collections and other data is a particularly valuable source of information.
Conventional Survey
At a minimum, the following sources should be considered:
DHR Archaeological Site Inventory. This contains information on site type, temporal affiliation, location and settlement pattern data and other site characteristics of previously recorded sites in the survey area and vicinity;
DHR library of cultural resource reports. These reports contain information similar to the archaeological site files but with additional data on historic contexts, regional chronologies, and settlement and subsistence patterns;
Residents or informants with knowledge of local resources. Such people may have information on previously unrecorded sites in the area or can offer an oral history for historic sites;
DHR Architectural Site and Structures Inventory. This contains information on types of historic sites and structures, temporal affiliation, and location and settlement pattern data for structures that may no longer be extant;
Archival map research. Holdings at the Virginia State Library and Archives are indexed according to county. Other sources include the Gilmer maps, and U.S.G.S. quadrangles over 50 years old. The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War as well as the maps prepared between 1991 and 1994 by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission should also be considered ;
Local county histories. These often contain site specific information.
Special Environment Surveys
Surveys can be conducted in environments where conventional site discovery methods cannot be employed. The two most common examples are urban environments, where modern construction materials obscure the ground surface, and underwater environments, where resources may be submerged. More intensive background research is necessary for these types of environments, and different sources of background information are available.
Urban sites — Urban areas often contain buried historic remains but they may also contain prehistoric sites or sites that were previously underwater or in rural settings. Documentary research should be performed as early as possible in the project planning stage well in advance of any pending construction. At a minimum, the research should consider the following:
Archival records, such as city directories, city ordinances, Sanborn insurance maps, census data, etc.;
Relevant information on previous disturbance. Construction that may have disturbed earlier deposits may be assessed by a visual inspection of the survey area and an examination of any records that relate to ground disturbance activities ( e.g. presence of basements on Sanborn insurance maps, construction of utility lines, etc.);
Historic maps that contain locational data on structures; and
Historic photographs and illustrations (e.g. Harper’s Weekly, etc.).
Underwater sites — Underwater sites may consist of sites that were once terrestrial (either prehistoric or historic), shipwrecks, docks, piers, launch ways, etc. Professionals working in underwater environments should consider the following:
DHR Archaeological Site Inventory and library of cultural resource reports;
The degree of previous disturbance (dredging, etc.);
Documents such as navigation charts, naval records, bathymetric charts, geological charts, etc.;
Interviews with local divers and watermen; and
Piers and other associated terrestrial remains that may suggest the presence of submerged resources.
PHASE I METHODS
Field methods should be appropriate to existing field conditions, should be based on a research design, and should reflect the current state of professional knowledge.
Conventional Survey
When field conditions warrant, systematic visual inspection of plowed fields and surface collection of artifacts has proven to be a highly effective and efficient method of site survey. We encourage replowing and discing prior to inspection. All exposed surfaces should be inspected. However, at least 50% exposure is needed to warrant visual inspection without complementary subsurface investigation.
When an archaeological site is identified by visual inspection, excavation of at least two shovel test pits (STPs) is recommended to assess site depth and presence or absence of intact cultural strata and/or features. However, low probability areas (e.g. poorly drained soils, steep slopes, generally with a grade greater than 15%) and extensively disturbed areas need only be subject to visual inspection. For large survey areas that utilize predictive models at the Phase I level to identify archaeological sites, verification of the model should include testing of at least 10% of the identified low probability areas.
Excavation of small (generally one foot in diameter) STPs remains one of the most reliable means of site identification in areas of low surface visibility. Whenever possible, STPs should be tied to a known datum or fixed reference point, with their location clearly marked on appropriate maps.
As a general rule STPs should be excavated at intervals no greater than 50 feet and should continue to sterile subsoil if possible. It is recognized that different site types, as well as soils and topography, may justify a larger STP interval. Justification for the STP interval selected should be clearly presented in the report. Similarly a tighter interval should be considered if small, low-density sites are anticipated. The standard 50-foot interval for STPs may also be augmented by judgmental testing in
high probability areas;
map-projected site areas; and
areas containing vegetation or cultural landscape features associated with historic sites.
Additional STPs at tighter intervals should be excavated to determine whether individual artifacts recovered from one STP with no adjacent positive STPs are isolated finds or small low density sites. An attempt should be made to estimate the site boundaries at this stage of the investigation. The boundaries for sites in areas of poor surface visibility may be defined by the excavation of STPs in a cruciform pattern or at radial transects (Chartkoff, 1978).
All soils from STPs must be screened through 0.25 ” hardware cloth. All artifacts should be retained with the exception of materials such as brick, shell, charcoal, etc., which may be noted in the field, a sample retained and the remainder discarded.
If extensive colluvial or alluvial deposits are known to be present in the survey area, consideration should be given to identifying buried sites. Deep testing accomplished with heavy equipment is the standard site discovery method for locating deeply buried sites.
Notes on all STPs should be recorded and should include information on survey/site/transect identification and location, either a profile drawing or detailed description of strata, soil types and Munsell descriptions, depth measurement, and a list of artifacts (both kept and discarded). It is important to note the environmental conditions under which any testing strategy was employed (e.g. adverse weather, condition of ground surface, etc.).
A detailed map should be prepared showing areas surveyed, areas eliminated from survey due to disturbance, slope, wetness, etc., and the location of the positive and negative STPs.
Remote sensing
Remote sensing is used to augment more traditional survey methods by identifying high potential areas for subsurface testing. Remote sensing (using metal detectors, proton magnetometers and ground penetrating radar, etc.) may be appropriate for certain types of sites, particularly for underwater sites. A specific case must be made in the research design for the use of remote sensing and its relationship to other survey methods must be made explicit. In underwater survey, remote sensing is often effective in identifying targets for later diver verification.
Special environment surveys
Urban sites — Archeological testing in urban settings often involves unusual circumstances. We recommend that research designs for urban Phase I surveys be discussed in advance with DHR staff. Prior documentary research is critical because the spatial limits of urban archeological deposits often cannot be defined in the same manner as the boundaries of non-urban sites. Such research may aid in determining the historical boundaries of streets, blocks, house lots, etc.
In general, identification efforts in an urban area should include:
Test units (in most cases larger than STPs) based upon available documentary evidence and current site conditions;
Identification of the presence, distribution, and preservation of architectural evidence, site stratigraphy, features, and assessment of site significance based upon all available documentary evidence. Previous work at urban sites indicates it is useful to target midlot and backlot areas for cellars, privies, wells and cisterns;
Recordation and assessment of features containing large numbers of artifacts;
The use of mechanized equipment, such as backhoes, excavators, front end loaders, etc. Mechanized equipment is efficient for exposing buried deposits, particularly when the overburden of fill is deep. It should be recognized, however, that the fill may be seen as part of the history of the site itself and not simply as a modern intrusion. Mechanized equipment should be used with care to complement more traditional archaeological strategies;
Sampling strategies for artifact recovery. Sampling strategies should be addressed on an individual basis and the method chosen justified in the research design;
Recordation of excavation procedures including drawings and photographs; and
Compliance with OSHA guidelines.
Underwater sites — Archaeological testing in underwater settings often involves unusual circumstances. We recommend that research designs for underwater Phase I surveys be discussed in advance with DHR staff.
In general, identification efforts in an underwater setting should include:
Placement of test units based on remote sensing results and knowledge of the sunken vessel or submerged cultural remains;
Use of mechanized equipment where extensive modern overburden is present;
Careful examination of air-lifted and water-dredged soil samples. The soil samples should always be screened through mesh or net bagging.
Recordation of the excavation procedure to include drawings and photographs if visibility permits; and
Compliance with safety standards of nationally recognized diving organizations (PADI, NAUI, SSI, etc.).
For more detailed guidance regarding methods for underwater survey, consult state guidelines for underwater archeology prepared by Maryland and North Carolina.
EVALUATION (PHASE II)
The goals of Phase II evaluation survey are:
to determine whether the site is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; and
to provide recommendations for future treatment of the site.
Phase II evaluation should accurately assess the horizontal and vertical integrity of the site as well as define the site boundaries. The level of effort and the methods employed will vary depending upon the environmental setting and site type. The site should be evaluated in its entirety, not just within the immediate project boundaries. However, testing strategies for Phase II evaluation studies may focus primarily on that portion of the resource to be directly affected by the proposed project.
PHASE II BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Background research should always be conducted prior to the initiation of any fieldwork. Background research should be sufficient to form research questions and to develop relevant historic contexts to aid in determining the site’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
Phase II background research should expand and refine the research conducted during the Phase I identification by:
a more intensive examination of reports and records consulted during the Phase I survey;
more in-depth interviews with informants; and
examination of more detailed records, (e.g. deed records, tax records, census records, probate records, circuit court records, etc.).
Background research for prehistoric period sites should focus on gathering more detailed information concerning site chronology, function, and regional settlement and subsistence patterns. For historic sites, background research should focus on site-specific data such as site chronology, function, and the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of site occupants.
PHASE II METHODS
The choice of field methods should be based upon a research design and should always reflect the current state of professional knowledge.
Accurately defining site boundaries is a goal that can often be accomplished by conducting a controlled surface collection for those sites having good ground surface visibility. Sites with poor surface visibility may require an intensive testing program to establish boundaries.
Testing strategies should take into account the following:
results of the Phase I testing;
results of background research;
cultural or natural features located on the surface (e.g. mounds, cellar depressions, fencelines, avoidance of previously disturbed areas, large trees etc.);
systematic or probablistic sampling schemes; and
remote sensing results.
Consideration should be given to placing test units larger than STPs in areas with differing artifact types and densities. Phase II testing strategies should result in the recovery of a representative sample of artifacts and determine the presence or absence of intact features.
Features may require sampling on a case-by-case basis to verify their cultural association and to determine their age, function and research potential. When previously recovered data addresses these issues, feature excavation should not be undertaken. While it is impossible to define a point applicable in all instances at which testing ends and data recovery begins, a rule of thumb is that testing is completed when sufficient information has been gathered to make a determination of eligibility or a management decision. “Testing” that destroys large portions of a site prevents the consideration of other site treatment alternatives and should be avoided at the Phase II level.
A permanent, fixed datum should be established on all sites recommended for Phase III data recovery.
Special Environments
Testing strategies at urban and underwater sites should be based on the results of intensive archival research and of the Phase I testing. Safety factors should be considered in determining the need for further work to be conducted in special environments. This includes properties with documented hazardous material, as well as deeply buried sites. Appropriate safety standards should be adhered to in all cases.
PHASE II FIELD DOCUMENTATION
As with Phase I identification, the choice of methods for recording Phase II evaluation field data should be based on a research design and enable independent interpretation. At a minimum, the following information should be recorded:
Test unit documentation should include the following:
provenience;
name of excavator;
date;
description of cultural material;
soils;
profile; and
planview.
The site map should include the following:
orientation and scale;
location of all STPs, larger size test units, and all above ground cultural features, including cultural landscape features and any previously disturbed areas;
site datum; and
site boundaries.
Photo documentation should be provided for:
All cultural features evident on the surface (e.g. mounds, cellar depressions, etc.); and
All cultural evidence beneath the surface (e.g. features, significant stratigraphy, etc.).
Provenience documentation should be provided for the horizontal and vertical provenience of each artifact or collection of artifacts.
PHASE II ANALYSIS
Phase II analysis should be oriented toward evaluation of the site and its ability to answer important research questions. This may be accomplished by:
Examination of intrasite structure
Discussion of the relationship between surface and subsurface remains; and
Tabulation of data on provenience.
The evaluation should take into account the percentage of the site area excavated and consider how well the excavated portion represents the site as a whole.
EVALUATION OF HUMAN REMAINS
Human burials represent an unique resource and require special consideration when being evaluated for the National Register. As a general rule, cemeteries are not considered eligible for listing on the National Register. For specific guidance on criteria for listing cemeteries, refer to National Register Bulletin 41, Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. If the evaluation includes the archaeological removal from in situ placement of humans remains and/or associated grave goods, a permit from DHR is needed in accordance with Code of Virginia 10.1-2305.
When evaluating burials for listing on the National Register, the following items are considered by DHR in making its decisions:
Historic documentation, if applicable
Clearly delineated features (grave shafts)
Artifacts
Bone preservation
In general, burials must have good bone preservation in order to be eligible under criterion D. However, it may be possible to demonstrate significance without good bone preservation if documentation, along with artifacts, can establish a secure date for the remains and demonstrate the ability of the resource to provide significant new information on topics such as mortuary practices, etc.
PHASE III (DATA RECOVERY)
All due consideration should be given to practical methods of preserving significant archaeological sites in place. However, when appropriate consultation has taken place, and it is agreed that preservation in place is not practical, data recovery may be appropriate. Data recovery should address defined and defensible research questions. It should be conducted in the most efficient manner possible. There is no single or standard way. The nature, scope and boundaries of the data recovery will be determined by the parties consulting on the project.
In terms of the substantive content, we recommend that the research design be guided by certain basic principles presented in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s booklet Consulting About Archeology Under Section 106 (1990). The preparer of a data recovery plan should ensure that:
The amount and areas of the site to be excavated are reasonable given the anticipated project impacts to the site, and the questions posed in the data recovery plan are answerable given the excavation strategy;
The research questions appear logical, current and answerable in terms of the potential information the site(s) can be expected to yield given the amount and nature of excavation proposed; and
The proposed field and laboratory methods for retrieving the information are consonant with the questions asked of the data.
All data recovery plans should include the following elements:
Information on the archaeological property or properties where data recovery is to be carried out, and the context in which such properties are eligible for the National Register;
Discussion of the research questions to be addressed through the data recovery, with an explanation/justification of their relevance and importance;
Description of the recovery methods to be used, with an explanation of their pertinence to the research questions;
Information on arrangements for any regular progress reports or meetings to keep agency managers and SHPOs up to date on the course of the work;
Description of the proposed disposition of recovered materials and records, along with evidence of agreement regarding curatorial responsibilities;
Proposed methods for disseminating results of the work to the interested public (e.g. presentation during Virginia Archaeology Month, etc.); and
Proposed methods by which any relevant Indian tribes, local governments and other specific groups will be kept informed of the work, and if human remains or grave goods are expected to be encountered, information on consultation with the Virginia Council on Indians, the United Indians of Virginia and any other relevant Indian tribe regarding final disposition of the materials.
CURATION OF ARTIFACTS AND DOCUMENTATION
Archaeological investigations usually result in the retrieval of archaeological materials (artifacts) and production of original data (notes, records, photographs) for a project. Artifacts and data are an integral part of the documentary record of an archaeological site and should be curated to ensure their stability and availability for future research.
Artifacts that are removed from private lands in connection with a federal action are generally the property of the land owner. Notes, records and photographs generated as a result of a federal action are the property of the federal government, regardless of the location of the archeological site. Provision for the costs of curation may be made a condition to the issuance of a federal license or permit. When the owner cannot provide proper curatorial care, the federal curation standards recommend but do not require that the federal agency seek title to the collection.
The place where a project’s artifacts and original data will be curated should be determined before beginning any fieldwork. DHR encourages placement of collections with the Virginia Archaeological Curation Facility, the principal repository for archaeological materials recovered from sites in Virginia. Prior to acceptance of a collection, DHR requires documentation of ownership or a Memorandum of Understanding with the involved state or federal agency clearly establishing curation responsibilities. The current fee is $75.00 per Hollinger box.
The National Park Service has established federal curation standards, entitled Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections (36 CFR 79), which apply to surveys, excavation or other studies conducted in connection with a federal action, assistance, license or permit. In 1993 DHR, in consultation with the Council of Virginia Archaeologists, established minimum standards for the processing and curation of archaeological collections. These standards should be followed for all collections to be curated by DHR. DHR recommends adherence to these requirements for all archaeological collections generated in Virginia, in order to standardize curation practices, ensure professionalism in the treatment of archaeological materials, and to assure the availability of collections and documentation for future research.
Any repository that is providing curatorial services for a collection subject to the federal regulations must possess the capability to provide adequate long-term curatorial services, as set forth in 36 CFR 79, to safeguard and preserve the associated records and any material remains deposited in the repository. There is no grandfather clause in the federal regulations. This applies equally to repositories that agree to preserve collections after the effective date (October 12, 1990) as well as repositories that agreed prior to that date. If a repository’s officials find that they are no longer able to provide long-term curation, they have the responsibility to consult with the federal agency responsible for the project regarding an acceptable repository for the existing collections.
PERSONNEL
The Principal Investigator has the responsibility to conduct field investigations in a manner that will add to the understanding of past cultures and will develop better theories, methods and techniques for interpreting the archaeological record while causing minimal attrition of the archaeological resource base. The Principal Investigator must meet the professional standards set by the Secretary of the Interior and has the ultimate responsibility for the overall quality of the project and for achieving the objectives of the research design. The skills of the investigative personnel must be appropriate to the nature of the project and to the goals and specifications delineated in the research design.
PERMITS
The following permits may be necessary to conduct archaeological work in the state. The Principal Investigator is responsible for ensuring that any applicable permits are acquired.
Human remains (administered by DHR, Code of Virginia 10.1-2305). A permit from DHR is needed for the archaeological removal from in situ placement of humans remains and/or associated grave goods;
State owned lands (administered by DHR, Code of Virginia 10-1-2302). A permit is need from DHR for excavation of archaeological sites on state-owned lands or state designated archaeological sites or zones.
Cave permits (administered by Department of Conservation and Recreation, Code of Virginia 10.1-1000-1008);
Underwater permits (administered by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Code of Virginia 10.1-2214 and 28.2-1203, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 7506(c)].). A state owned lands permit is needed from the DHR for archaeological excavations on submerged state-owned lands;
Federal lands permit [Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) 16 U.S.C. ” 469-469c]. ARPA permits are issued by the federal agency owning the land; and
Local permits as required.
REFERENCES CITED
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1994 Consulting About Archeology Under Section 106. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Blanton, Dennis B. and Donald W. Linebaugh
1994 An Assessment of Virginia’s Underwater Cultural Resources. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 3
Chartkoff, Joseph L.
1978 Transect Interval Sampling in Forests. American Antiquity 43:46-53.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
1993 State Curation Standards.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register 48(190):44716-44742
1992 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. National Register Bulletin No. 41. U.S. Government Printing Office.
1990 Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections; Final Rule. Federal Register 55 (177): 37616-37639.
Leave a Reply