Introduction

Archeologists identify critical areas for protection. When appropriate they may excavate and preserve both historic and prehistoric sites and artifacts, such as at Crissy Field at the Presidio of San Francisco in Golden Gate National Recreation Area. (Will Elder)

The identification, evaluation, and treatment of archeological sites are essential activities for effective cultural resource management. Archeologists cannot make appropriate decisions regarding resource treatment without knowing about their locations and significance. Site management involves many steps such as developing a research design, preservation, stabilization, and public education and site interpretation, which are discussed below.

How do archeologists know where to look for sites?

The discovery and examination of archeological resources are two basic activities undertaken by archeologists. Archeological surveys seek to identify all or a sample of the archeological resources in a given study area. Site testing or evaluation focuses on extracting information about the size, contents, and structure of an archeological site, a portion of a site, a number of related sites, or, perhaps, the spatial distribution of archeological remains within an area, such as a portion of a river valley or a battlefield.

Choosing appropriate techniques for an archeological investigation depends on many factors. First, one must consider the purpose of the investigation. Is the target one kind of site-for example, a prehistoric mound or a site of a particular time period? Or is the goal to find the full range of site types within a given area, as is the typical case for historic preservation and environmental impact-related studies? If a particular type of site is the target, one can focus on a technique that detects the specific characteristics of that particular site type. If a wide range of sites is the target, one will want to choose a technique or techniques that will detect the characteristic(s) most commonly shared by all the expected site types. The choice of techniques is a vital part of any archeologist's research design.

Research Design
Based on knowledge gained from previous research about a culture being studied, an archeologist can narrow down the location of potential sites that might add new information about that culture. This information as well as an outline of proposed methods forms the basis of a research design. This is a document in which the objectives of the investigation are described and briefly justified. It states questions that the research will address. It describes the rationale for the selection of particular archeological method(s) and technique(s) and the level of effort necessary to accomplish these objectives. The research design fully considers natural environmental conditions and expected archeological site characteristics. It also addresses the expected types of material remains that will be collected and identifies the analytical methods that will be used to study them. Strategies for curating and storing the collections are also addressed.

Research designs should consider the historic contexts available in State preservation plans or other relevant documents. Contexts provide the basis to design expectations about site type, distribution, condition and characteristics such as size, depth and nature of resources. Contexts also provide the basis to evaluate resources through comparison with other properties. Terms should be clearly defined so that it is clear, for example, what constitutes a site.

Within the research design, expectations should be fully described and justified. The intensity of a survey depends upon the amount and nature of the information discovered through archival research and informant interviews, past and present land use, past ecological settings, geomorphology, the kinds and density of ground cover, the expected presence and distribution of sites, existing museum collections and the expected number of site types as well as the specific needs of the project. All of the following sections may be components of a project that should be justified in the research design.

Archival Research
Archival research often is very productive for investigations aimed at discovering and evaluating prehistoric and historic archeological sites. In areas where the archeological record is well recorded, the kinds and locations of known sites often help archeologists predict the likely locations of unreported sites. Archeologists conducting archival research will use documentary sources to build an historical framework based on previous research and archeological investigations as well as new research questions and strategies.

Historical archeologists use a variety of documentary sources found in historical societies, libraries, government agencies, private collections and other repositories. Maps, official records, photographs, journals, tax records, diaries, private and official correspondence, and newspapers are among the many archival resources available to historical archeologists. Prehistoric archeologists and historical archeologists alike consult site reports, existing artifacts, and topographic maps to identify sites.

Archeologists must use archival data carefully, however. Archival resources may be biased, incomplete, or nonexistent. To confirm whether an archeological site exists in a location, fieldwork should be organized to test the predicted pattern and to improve the efficiency of the investigation.

Oral Histories
Oral history is historical tradition, such as genealogical information, which is passed by word of mouth. Oral histories may consist of a person's memories about his or her past experiences or knowledge or traditions passed from one generation to the next. Oral histories are the basis of cultural identity and knowledge for many groups and are a key element in understanding that group's experiences, perspectives, and culture.

Oral histories can be an important resource for archeologists. People who have personal or traditional experience with a site may offer unique information about the site's use and meaning. However, because memories may be biased and fallible, oral histories should be used cautiously and in conjunction with other documentary or ethnographic research.

The importance of a site may change over time. Thus, oral histories must be compared closely with ethnographies. Ethnographies tend to concentrate more on the knowledge people have of a site or object in the present, or how they look back on a historical or archeological site from the present. Many sites, objects, or natural resources that had a subsistence use in the past, for example, may be important to certain groups or peoples today because of their educational value about the past.

Predictive models
Archeological sites can be found anywhere; they often are found in unexpected places. Statistically, however, they are more likely to be in certain environmental settings than in others. It is this latter observation that fuels predictive models. Predictive site models rest on the assumption that there are fairly regular patterns of human settlement for any particular time period in a particular environment. These models begin with a hypothesized pattern drawn from known site locations and analogies with ethnographically known societies. Confirmation is then sought through site discovery and inventory.

While predictive models may identify potential site locations, they do not encompass the entire scope of topics necessary to interpret past human societies. Archeology documents the long-term use of a landscape. A complete understanding of a society's settlement pattern would include the variety and relationships between sites of different functions that were occupied during different seasons and the variations of these relationships through time and space. It would also put the use of landscape into a context of social, political, economic, and environmental relationships both within and between cultural groups. Such a task is not easily accomplished. It has taken generations of archeologists to flesh out an understanding of this topic and the work is by no means complete.

Archeology is still in its infancy in its anthropological understanding of past human lives. Predictive models, when used only to locate sites, mistakenly imply that archeologists have a mature understanding of how humans have used the landscape. Site prediction is not the point of archeology; site discovery leading to the interpretation of human lives in a regional context is at least one of archeology's goals (Little 1995:170-171).

Sampling
Very few archeological investigations-whether survey, testing, or excavation-recover all of the remains in the area being studied. Archeologists must always be concerned about how accurately the data that they have collected reflects the archeological record about which they are making inferences. Almost all archeological discovery and examination investigations involve some kind of sampling. If an investigation does not discover or examine all the remains in a site or all the archeological resources in an area, it deals with a portion, or sample, of them (AEP et al. 1997: 8).

Sampling methods may be judgmental, that is, based upon past knowledge or present interpretations, or probability-based, that is with sample units selected mathematically, or a combined method may be used that combines judgement with probability. There is no single best way to sample. The most important aspect of sampling is that archeologists carefully consider how sampling will affect the results of the examination (AEP et al. 1997: 8).

Surface inspection
Surface inspection, also referred to as "reconnaissance," "above-ground survey," or "walkover," is probably the technique used most frequently by archeologists to discover sites. In arid parts of the world, such as the American Southwest, surface inspection by teams of archeologists walking systematically-that is, in a purposefully regular way-over an area, recording and/or collecting structures and artifacts remains the standard means of site discovery. Systematic surface inspection is also used in such environments to examine isolated sites or to examine a larger area or a number of sites and make inferences about demography, economic relationships, and other aspects of human adaptation (AEP et al. 1997: 5).

Surface inspection also has been used in parts of the world where vegetation or soil aggradation have covered archeological materials. In such areas, for example agricultural portions of the eastern United States, surface inspections of plowed fields has had a long tradition as a primary discovery technique (AEP et al. 1997: 6).

There are some limitations to the use of surface inspection as a technique. It requires that site elements be visible on the surface, or when plowed fields are being inspected, within reach of the plow. It requires that artifacts be abundant so that they are easily detected. In areas where dense vegetation covers the surface, it will not work unless the sites of interest also contain remnants of structures that stand out and are detectable despite the vegetation (AEP et al. 1997: 6).

Subsurface testing
Four common types of subsurface tests are useful for site discovery and often also for site investigation. However, all of these tests are limited in depth and therefore useful only for sites close to the surface (AEP et al. 1997: 6-8):

Augur testing at Cane River Creole National Park (NPS)

- Soil cores of approximately 1-inch diameter are better for investigating known sites where artifacts deposits are dense, such as trash deposits, than for discovering new ones. Unfortunately, such dense deposits are relatively infrequent on archeological sites and tend to be spatially concentrated rather than widespread within site areas. This limits the effectiveness of soil cores as a discovery technique.

- Soil auguring can be an effective technique for site discovery, especially where artifact concentrations are dense. Because auger holes are 4-6 inches wide, they extract more soil and detect more artifacts than soil cores do. However, soil stratigraphy is difficult to see in the samples. Experience suggests that augers do not effectively yield artifacts within site boundaries unless the distribution of artifacts is both abundant and widespread.

- Divots are wider than auger holes. They expose an area of the surface and are useful in dense artifact concentrations.

- Shovel tests, also called shovel test pits (STPs), are the largest volume subsurface probes and may reveal not only artifacts, but features and stratigraphy as well. Shovel testing is more effective than soil cores and auger holes at discovering artifacts and archeological features. Shovel testing is time consuming. Soils removed from STPs are described and screened and artifacts are bagged and labeled. Archeologists place STPs at systematic or random patterns in the area being investigated. Each pit is approximately one foot in diameter and extends deep enough to penetrate sterile subsoil.

- Deep trenching is used on floodplains, urban areas or other areas where industrial operations have left deep deposits. Trenching-digging rectangular test pits by hand or with machinery-can be used to obtain cross sections of sites and is important in stratigraphic interpretation because it provides a single, long vertical profile. Trenching can expose features buried under later structures (Hester et al. 1997:78-79).

Geophysical prospecting
Archeologists may use non-invasive techniques to initially characterize a site or part of a site. Geophysical prospecting is the use of high-resolution geophysical methods to discover archeological sites. These methods may also be called "remote sensing" or "archeogeophysics". Advantages to geophysical methods are that they are nondestructive and provide rapid reconnaissance. Their major limitation is that they use non-contact techniques. The best they can do is detect anomalies, which archeologists must then investigate directly to interpret. These methods are also instrument-intensive and initially expensive (see Bevan 1998.)

Remote sensing identifies archeological features buried below ground that still leave their mark on the landscape. Shallow ground occurs over buried features such as buildings, walls, and streets; deeper ground is found within pits and ditches. These variations in depth affect the growth of plants and soil color-producing patterns that are usually only visible from above (McIntosh 1999:44). Common remote scanning methods include:

Aerial photography is the simplest of all the remote sensing techniques. It only requires a camera and a way to get it airborne, above the potential archeological site. Variations within the site that would have been totally unnoticed from the ground become obvious from a higher vantagepoint. Hot air balloons, airplanes, helicopters, and tethered blimps are all ways of getting these kinds of pictures.

- Aerial infrared photography uses film sensitive to light with wavelengths slightly longer than are visible to the naked eye. When processed, the film shows normally red objects as green and green objects appear blue. Objects that give off heat, including vegetation, appear red. Buried archaeological features cause slight changes in ground vegetation by hindering growth and by blocking ground water or the natural soil movement. Infrared film's ability to detect the vegetation's heat signature makes it possible to see this effect from above.

- Imaging radar allows scientists to aerially map areas that were difficult to map previously, due to heavy forests or dense cloud coverage. Imaging radar uses multispectral radar frequencies sent from a space shuttle or satellites, illuminating the Earth with microwaves that allow detailed observations at any time, regardless of weather or sunlight conditions. Imaging radar can also penetrate thin layers of sand, allowing archeologists to locate sites.

Electrical resistivity is the most flexible and most generally useful technique for a wide variety of sites and is the best method to control or adjust the depth of investigation. Electrical resistivity methods are noninvasive. A resistivity meter measures the difficulty of pushing electricity through the soil-more resistance requires more voltage. The soil's actual ability to conduct the current comes from the amount of moisture it holds. Compacted areas, such as floors and trails, restrict the amount of moisture that the soil can hold, and will show up as being highly resistive during this test. Places where the soil has been disturbed, such as filled holes, trenches, and ditches, will collect more moisture than surrounding soil and will show up on the test as having low resistivity.

Flags mark where archeologists using metal detectors located buried artifacts at Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. (Midwest Archeological Center, NPS)

Electromagnetic (EM) surveys detect metals (ferrous and nonferrous) and changes in soil conductivity that may be related to moisture or chemical content. Current is induced into the ground and electrical conductivity is measured. Conductivity is the opposite of resistivity. The advantage over resistivity is that resistivity meters must make contact with the ground, while EM meters do not need to. Conductivity is most easily read in saturated soils.

- Metal detectors operate using conductivity. Although often used in illegal and unethical artifact prospecting, metal detectors do have legitimate archeological uses. Metal detectors are electromagnetic devices that work at low frequencies. They are effective to the depth that is approximately the width of the search coil. Depth also depends on the size and orientation of the buried object and the amount of corrosion.

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is commonly used in archeology to make accurate site maps and get an overall picture of the subsurface. GPR uses low-power radio waves to detect changes in density in the subsurface layers and locate buried objects. It is best to combine GPR with other methods such as EM, resistivity, and magnetometry to ensure wide coverage. GPR, like most remote sensing, is not very effective in urban settings because of interference from buildings, power lines, cars, and other objects.

An archeologist uses a magnetometer at the Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NPS)

Magnetic prospecting is useful and fairly inexpensive. Objects buried underground or in different ground layer densities will create small disturbances in the earth's natural magnetic field where they focus the magnetic flow into a stronger field. If an object is more permeable than the soil (which has magnetic properties), then the magnetic field will be stronger through that object. A magnetometer, also referred to as a gradiometer or proton magnetometer, measures how these variations in the Earth's magnetic field affect the protons of the subsurface objects.

Other technologies
A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a powerful analytic tool that can make regional data more useful to archeologists. A GIS is used to create a computerized layer cake of spatial information about an area, each layer representing a single spatial attribute. The layers are all entered with the same coordinate system so that they are georeferenced, for example, compared with one another. The different layers can be things like roads, streams, soils, elevation, etc. Information is represented in the form of points (such as archaeological sites), lines (such as roads or steams), or polygons (such as a soils or a geology map.)

GPS data from Fort Washington Park in Maryland. Red points are gun positions, the brown line is the parapet (Historic Preservation Services, NPS)

The Global Positioning System (GPS)is a technology that greatly benefits archeology because it helps show exactly where a site is located. The GPS is a "constellation" of 24 well-spaced satellites that orbit the Earth and make it possible for people with ground receivers to pinpoint their geographic location. A portable GPS receiver obtains signals from the satellites to calculate the user's position anywhere on earth. The locational accuracy is anywhere from 1 to 100 meters depending on the type of equipment used. GPS allows archeologists to determine exact location coordinates in the field. Archeologists can map sites and their environments can be mapped quickly and accurately using GPS to measure control points. Based on the set of on-site readings that the GPS receiver generates, archeologists can locate sites as single point coordinates, or as areas, or as corridors with many points. GPS data can also be transferred into GIS databases, making the GIS even more precise and powerful.

How do archeologists identify artifacts?

Artifacts recovered from the Locher/Poffenberger cabin site at Antietam National Battlefield. (National Capital Region, Regional Archeology Program, NPS)

Once archeology was almost totally artifact oriented. Archeologists collected artifacts and categorized them based almost solely on their physical attributes and functions. Gradually, archeologists have shifted objectives, realizing that understanding the people behind the artifacts is more compelling than the artifacts themselves. Today's archeology has turned from simply filling museum cabinets to discovering how people in the past actually lived. To do this, archeologists use various studies to link artifacts, ecofacts, and features with the human behavior that produced them (Thomas 1998:229).

Cataloging artifacts
Once an excavation ends and the artifacts are cleaned, the archeologist's first task is to classify, or catalogue them. To do this the archeologist describes each artifact's many physical properties, known as attributes, such as the material(s) from which the artifact is made, its size, shape, function, and decoration. The cataloging process is meant to be an exhaustive description of the artifact so that researchers can ask multiple questions of artifacts in an assemblage without constantly having to return to the actual objects and repeatedly examine them for attributes. Cataloging is crucial process that allows archeologists and managers to track and represent artifact assemblages.

An extremely important part of this cataloging process is the use of typologies, or idealized categories that describe a certain attribute of an artifact. Archeologists create artifact typologies to organize and make sense of past material culture. There are no rigid typologies that all archeologists use in every situation. Rather, each classification system must be formulated with a specific purpose in mind (Thomas 1998:235). If, for example, you had an assemblage of six artifacts: one red glazed ceramic sherd, one blue glazed ceramic sherd, one blue glass bottle, one green glass fragment, one rubber tire and one red plastic button. You could choose to classify them by color (red, blue, green and black), by material (ceramic, glass, rubber and plastic), or any number of ways depending on the questions you ask of the assemblage. The National Park Services uses the Automated National Catalog System (ANCS) to classify artifacts and maintain collection records.

Although no single classification system exists, many archeologists do categorize artifacts into somewhat standard typologies based on both materials used and manufacturing techniques. Within each standard typology are many subclassifications. Some of the standard typologies are:

Lithics
Stone tools, debitage (debris produced during stone tool manufacture), firecracked rocks, crystals and other stone artifacts are categorized as lithics.

Typical early 19th-century ceramics and glassware. (National Capital Region, Regional Archeology Program, NPS)

Ceramics
The term ceramics covers all artifacts that are modeled or molded from clay and then made durable by firing (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:119). Vessels are undoubtedly the most widespread and abundant kind of ceramics, although bricks and decorative artifacts, such as porcelain figurines, are also ceramics. Ceramics can be either prehistoric or historic. Most ceramics recovered from archeological sites are in broken pieces called sherds. Archeologists examine sherds and try to determine the original vessel's characteristics, including:

- Manufacturing technique-was the ceramic handmade (built from clay coils or hand formed), made on a potter's wheel, or made in a mold?

- Temper-what substance was added to wet clay during pottery manufacture, such as crushed shell or sand, to reduce shrinkage and strengthen the fired piece?

- Decoration-is the vessel glazed, painted, transfer printed, marked or impressed (decorated by patterns that were pressed into the wet clay before it was fired)?

- Form-what was the shape of the complete artifact when it was made? Was it a cooking pot, a plate, a cup, a bowl…?

Glass
Glass artifacts are fragile and must be examined carefully. Glass may be classified by color, form, decoration or by other attributes. Window glass is often the most common glass artifact found at historical archeological sites, although archeologists may recover bottles, hollowware, and personal artifacts such as beads.

Metals
Metal artifacts result from a manufacturing technique that extracts metal from ores. Copper, iron, tin, brass, silver, gold and alloys, such as bronze and pewter, comprise different types of metals. Metal artifacts may be molded, cast, hand wrought, hammered, or produced in a number of ways. Metal artifacts may be problematic since some require immediate conservation when they are removed from soil during data recovery.

Organic artifacts
This typology includes a variety of objects made from organic materials such as wood, plant fibers, bone, antler, leather, ivory, and shell.

Ecofacts
These nonartifactual natural remains can provide information about human behavior, such as remnants of wild and domesticated animals and plants, soil and charcoal. Floral ecofacts are microscopic and macroscopic plant remains. Faunal ecofacts are animal remains that may indicate what animals were exploited by humans and how.

What happens to a site after it's discovered?

Excavation of a dwelling at Chaco Culture National Historical Park. (NPS)

Archeological resources within national park units are subject to several basic treatments, including data recovery, also referred to as excavation, or preferably in situ preservation. Public education and interpretation may be thought of as part of a comprehensive treatment plan.

The National Park Service does not undertake any treatment project unless it is supported by an approved proposal, plan, or report appropriate to the proposed action. The significance of the resource, its condition, its interpretive value, its research potential and the availability of data are all weighed to determine the appropriate treatment. The appearance and condition of the resource before treatment and changes made during treatment are appropriately documented.

Pending planning decisions, all archeological resources are left undisturbed unless removal of artifacts or their incorporation into other media is justified by protection, research, interpretive, or development requirements. They are preserved in a stable condition to prevent degradation and loss of research values or exhibit potential. Structures of archeological significance and recovered archeological objects are also subject to the treatment policies for structures and museum objects (NPS 1997:84).

British Star Fort preserved in situ at Ninety Six National Historic Site. (Southeast Archeological Center,NPS)

In Situ preservation
We can not assume that we who are alive today can know precisely which questions we need to ask about the past, and which we do not. New questions about the past are always developing and old questions are being answered. Answering old questions usually generates new ones. As new questions are asked, different kinds of information become important, and information may need to be examined in new ways. At the same time, techniques of field study and analysis are constantly being developed and improved, making it possible to address questions that could not be addressed using older techniques. Thus, there is a danger that if only those archeological properties we see as valuable today are protected, we will allow the destruction of properties that will be of great value in the future.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to preserve in place as large a range of archeological properties as possible, even if we cannot define precisely how we would use the information they contain. There are obvious practical limits to the application of this principal, but as a rule, if an archeological site can practically be left in place and preserved from damage, it should be. There is a large number of ways in which this may be done.

Stabilization preserves the site by supporting or strengthening it to reduce the possibility of deterioration. Backfilling-covering an archeological site with fill-is an effective treatment, provided caution is exercised to limit compaction, disturbance of the soil, chemical changes, and changes in soil structure. As well, access must be assured within reason for future research. Designing construction projects so as to leave an archeological site in a reasonably protected open space, designing structures over archeological sites in such a way as to minimize subsurface disturbance, and protecting archeological sites from damage through fencing, berm construction, shoreline armoring and rerouting construction activities are all potential impact avoidance treatments.

Archeological resource protection may be attained by establishing protective covenants or other arrangements with residents, operators, or users of constructed facilities to control the archeological resources within their domain. Site banking preserves archeological resources in an undisturbed state for future archeologists who will most likely have more advanced questions and techniques than we have today. Examining existing assemblages and collections to answer research questions may also be an effective alternative to excavation.

Excavations at Stafford cabin chimney at Cumberland Island National Seashore. (John Cornelison)

Data recovery
Data recovery, also referred to as excavation, is the treatment most associated with archeology. Data recovery is the principal means by which archeologists gather information about the past from below the ground surface. While site discovery methods such as archival research, surface inspection, subsurface testing and sampling, geophysical prospecting, and predictive models may provide evidence of buried features, the only way to verify the presence and characteristics of subsurface data is through excavation (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:94).

Data recovery is usually conducted for research purposes or when archeological resources are threatened with destruction from natural processes, such as erosion, floods, or wildlife, or by human activities, such as construction, vandalism and oil spills. The idea behind data recovery is to take the site apart in reverse order to that in which it was formed. According to the Law of Superposition, the further below the surface a soil stratum lies the older it, and the materials contained within it, are. Data retrieved through excavation are especially important to archeologists since subsurface remains are usually the best preserved and the least disturbed. Artifacts recovered from the ground surface are seldom in primary context-that is, in the same soil layer and location as when they were originally deposited-and are usually poorly preserved. Surface features such as roads or walls may be in primary context, but are most likely less well preserved than buried features. Excavation often reveals how artifacts, ecofacts, and features are related to each other within their primary context (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:94).

The two basic goals of data recovery are:

- To reveal the three-dimensional patterning or structure in the deposition of artifacts, ecofacts, and features, and

- To assess the functional, temporal, and possibly the symbolic significance of this patterning.

Determination of this three-dimensional patterning depends on documenting provenience and associations of the individual artifacts, ecofacts, and features with respect to each other and their surrounding environment. From this documentation archeologists can assess context. By knowing what elements were found together and by inferring how these elements got there and how and why they were used, archeologists can reconstruct past human behavior (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:94).

Four excavated units at the Federal picket line, Petersburg National Battlefield Park. (Gail Brown, University of Maryland)

The data recovery process
No "one-size-fits-all" data recovery project design exists. Archeologists must determine the methods for data recovery based on an individual site's characteristics, the purposes of the project, and the available resources. Data recovery projects differ greatly in their scope, size, duration, and cost. However, the same general methods, tools and procedures are used for the majority of data recovery projects. These are:

- Preliminary activities
Once a project site has been selected, the project's managing archeologist-or principal investigator- creates a research design to describe and justify his or her expectations for the entire archeological project. The research design includes identification of a repository to curate the collections, budgeting for collections care, and a collection strategy (Childs and Corcoran 2000:V). In the field, archeologists will follow the research design unless circumstances necessitate changes in focus or methods. Surface inspection and subsurface testing may be conducted to determine feature and artifact concentrations. The archeological team is assembled and supplies are acquired in preparation for the excavation.

- Gridding the site
Data recovery is a carefully controlled process. The provenience of each recovered artifact, ecofact, and feature is meticulously recorded. The grid is the most common means for dividing a site into manageable sections. When establishing a grid, archeologists divide the site into precisely measured squares-also referred to as units. A unit is measured in feet or meters. Within the grid each unit is numbered and its location is recorded in relation to the grid's datum point-the zero point, a fixed reference used to keep control of the excavations in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Archeologists often use string to define units within a grid.

- Tools
Archeologists use a variety of tools and equipment. Common hand tools include trowels, shovels, picks, line levels, measuring tapes, brushes, marking pens, root cutters, buckets, dust pans, notebooks, pencils, plastic and paper bags, string, plumb bobs, compasses, cameras, and sometimes toothbrushes, tweezers and cotton swabs for delicate work. Archeologists use screens-wooden frames with 1/4" to 1/8" screen-to sift and recover artifacts from soils removed during excavation. Minute artifacts and ecofacts such as beads, seeds and bone fragments, may be recovered through flotation-the use of fluid suspension to recover tiny materials from soil-or sieving soil through fine screens. In some situations archeologists employ backhoes, bobcats and other construction equipment to remove topsoil or backfill excavated units.

- Record keeping
In archeology, provenience is everything. Throughout data recovery archeologists carefully record information regarding artifact and ecofact provenience, soil characteristics, features, stratigraphy, field conditions, and personnel. Because data recovery destroys the site, field records are crucial in documenting how work was conducted. Field records contain notes and drawings of unit profiles and stratum surfaces as well as photographs. The records generated during data recovery are as important to the analysis and interpretation of the site as the recovered materials are. They become part of the project collections curated at a designated repository.

- Site mapping
Throughout the excavation archeologists photograph and draw updated maps of unit profiles, stratum surfaces, and features. This process ensures that the data recovery analysis will accurately reflect the location of units, features, artifacts, ecofacts, and other physical phenomena important to the site's interpretation. In some cases archeologists will use gis or GPS to map a site.

After being washed (if appropriate), artifacts are analyzed, conserved and stored. (Gail Brown, University of Maryland)

- Bagging and labeling artifacts
All artifacts and ecofacts recovered from a stratum are placed in carefully labeled plastic or paper bags to ensure that their provenience is recorded. On each bag is written specific information regarding the site, unit, stratum, date, and excavators. Conservation of archeological materials in the field can be an essential aspect of a field project and can significantly affect the long-term preservation of objects in the resulting collection. The conservation and preservation care that an object receives in the field may be the only care it ever receives (Childs and Corcoran 2000:VI). After the excavation is completed, archeologists working in the lab are able to identify artifact and ecofact provenience based on what is written on the bag. When artifacts are processed, archeologists often label the artifact with information.

- Artifact processing and analysis
For artifacts and ecofacts, processing consists of proper cleaning, conservation, labeling by provenience, and sorting into basic categories for later analysis. Information about each artifact is entered into a database of some sort to be used in later analyses. In some cases only a representative sample of recovered artifacts is retained, conserved, and stored. Processing is usually done during fieldwork so the archeologist can evaluate the data as they are recovered and can continue to formulate and modify working hypotheses for testing while data recovery is underway (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:111). The collection's long-term care and management should be a priority during artifact processing and analysis (Childs and Corcoran 2000:VI).

After artifacts are processed they are ready for archeologists to use in order to obtain information about the past. For example, an archeologist may look for wear marks to determine how an artifact was used. He or she may also date the artifacts using one or more of the many techniques described elsewhere in this Guide. Based on this analysis, previous research about the site, and information about how the artifacts were deposited and distributed throughout the site, the archeologist will interpret the data and draw conclusions about the people who occupied the site.

- Data reporting
The archeologist is responsible for producing a project report. In this report the archeologist records the research design goals, the site's historical background including any previous work conducted there, the methodology used, artifact analysis results, and recommendations for conserving, protecting, managing and interpreting the resource. NPS archeologists produce project reports as well as Archeological Overviews and Assessments and Archeological Identification and Evaluation Studies. These documents, including an archeological base map of the site, provide information needed by park managers, planners, interpreters, law enforcement officers and other specialists to effectively carry out their responsibilities for the protection and interpretation of archeological resources.

Public education programs and interpretation promote archeological resource protection. (Gail Brown, University of Maryland)

Public education and site preservation
Public education and site interpretation complement the treatment and preservation of archeological resources.

Public education and interpretation promote archeological resource protection. Through these treatments the public is made aware of the value of archeological resources and the penalties for destroying them. Public involvement through site stewardship programs, volunteerism, classroom activities, archeology weeks or months and many other venues heighten public awareness of and responsibility toward archeological resources.

Resource treatment policies

NPS policies exist for the treatment of specific archeological and cultural resources (NPS 2000):

Grave marker at Tumacácori National Historical Park, Arizona. (NPS)

Burials
Historic and prehistoric burial areas, whether or not formally plotted and enclosed as cemeteries, are identified and protected. They are not disturbed or archeologically investigated unless threatened with destruction by park development, operational activities, or natural forces.

Submerged cultural resources
Submerged cultural resources are left in place unless removal of artifacts or intervention into fabric is compellingly justified by overriding protection, research, or interpretive requirements. No submerged cultural resource is removed if its preservation would be adversely affected or unless provision has been made for its appropriate conservation and curation. All such resources collected from park waters are managed as NPS museum collections. The National Park Service does not permit treasure hunting or salvage activities at or around shipwrecks or other submerged resources.

Programs are conducted to enhance public understanding of submerged cultural resources. Parks may provide recreational diving access to submerged resources not susceptible to damage or the removal of artifacts from such access.

Structures
Structures within national park units are subject to four treatment options:

- Preservation
A structure will be preserved in its present condition if (1) that condition allows for satisfactory protection, maintenance, use, and interpretation, or (2) another treatment is warranted but cannot be accomplished until some future time.

- Rehabilitation
A structure may be rehabilitated-repaired and adapted for contemporary functional use-if (1) it cannot adequately serve an appropriate use in its present condition, and (2) rehabilitation will not alter its integrity and character or conflict with park management objectives. Rehabilitation does not apply to prehistoric structures.

- Restoration
A structure may be restored to an earlier appearance if (1) restoration is essential to public understanding of the cultural associations of a park, and (2) sufficient data exist to permit restoration with minimal conjecture.

- Reconstruction
The NPS makes limited use of reconstructions. A vanished structure may be reconstructed-recreated based on research and physical evidence-if (1) reconstruction is essential to public understanding of the cultural associations of a park established for that purpose, (2) sufficient data exist to permit reconstruction on the original site with minimal conjecture, and (3) significant archeological resources will be preserved in situ or their research values will be realized through data recovery. A vanished structure will not be reconstructed to appear damaged or ruined. Generalized representations of typical structures will not be attempted.

Cultural Landscapes
The management of cultural landscapes recognizes and protects significant historic, archeological, ethnographic, and design values. Treatment decisions take into account both the natural and built features of the landscape and the dynamics inherent in natural processes and continued human and animal occupation. The perpetuation of significant vistas and historic parkway and park road landscape design features receive special emphasis. Cultural landscapes, like other cultural resources, are not "beautified" to suit modern aesthetic tastes through decorative plantings or other modifications not reflecting historic conditions. Cultural landscapes within national park units are subject to four treatment options:

In 2000 the NPS demolished the National Tower so to restore Gettysburg National Military Park's landscape to its 1863 appearance. (NPS)

- Preservation
A cultural landscape is preserved in its present condition if (1) that condition allows for satisfactory protection, maintenance, use, and interpretation, or (2) another treatment is warranted but cannot be accomplished until some future time.

- Rehabilitation
A cultural landscape may be rehabilitated for contemporary use if (1) it cannot adequately serve an appropriate use in its present condition, and (2) rehabilitation will retain its essential features and will not alter its integrity and character or conflict with park management objectives.

- Restoration
A cultural landscape may be restored to an earlier appearance if (1) restoration is essential to public understanding of the cultural associations of a park, and (2) sufficient data exist to permit restoration with minimal conjecture.

- Reconstruction
An obliterated cultural landscape may be reconstructed if (1) reconstruction is essential to public understanding of the cultural associations of a park established for that purpose, and (2) sufficient data exist to permit reconstruction with minimal conjecture.

How do we preserve archeological resources?

Stewardship of archeological resources is wide-ranging. It includes their treatment, preservation, and protection. It includes monitoring resource condition and assessing threats and disturbances. It also includes staff involvement and training in protection concerns and methods, preservation of significant features, sites, and recovered materials, recording resource management information in a database such as the NPS Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS), and their interpretation for public benefit (NPS 1997:84-85).

Archeological resources such as these petroglyphs at Mesa Verde National Park require preservation. (NPS)

The National Park Service guidelines for the preservation of archeological resources are summarized here:

- All resources will be protected against natural and human agents of destruction and deterioration whenever practicable

- Preservation will maintain the resource's existing form, integrity, and materials

- Preservation includes techniques of arresting or retarding deterioration through a program of ongoing maintenance. Deteriorated areas will be backfilled or otherwise stabilized

- Excavation and other destructive techniques will be employed only when necessary to provide sufficient information for research, interpretation, and management needs. Excavated areas (including potholes excavated by looters) will be backfilled or otherwise stabilized

- Stabilization of a resource to arrest and inhibit deterioration will be done in such a way as to detract as little as possible from its appearance and significance and not adversely affect its research potential unless adequate data recovery has occurred, and

- Data recovery will precede and be completed before physical intervention into any archeological resource, including sites associated with historic structures.

Archeological resources to be preserved include far more than the site or the recovered artifacts. Field data, objects, specimens, and structural elements, such as stones and bricks, retrieved for preservation during data recovery and treatment projects, together with associated records and reports, are all retained and managed within the park's museum or other designated repository. The long-term care and management, or curation, of preserved archeological resources is an ongoing process. It also involves their accessibility to a variety of users for a number of purposes (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

Every archeological project yields a collection. A collection of material remains may result from work at a single site or from a single investigation or project that involves a number of sites. Academic research and some contracted projects may yield a collection or series of collections from work at a single site over a number of years (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

While many people might think of an archeological collection as only the objects or artifacts collected during an excavation or survey, other items are involved. These include:

- non-cultural materials (e.g., ecofacts, soil samples, radiocarbon and other dating samples),

- associated records (e.g., field notes, maps, photos, laboratory data),

- digital data (e.g., Global Positioning data, field and laboratory data collected in a database, Computer Assisted Design (CAD) models), which should be considered a component of associated records, and

- research results or interpretation (e.g., site reports, results of "no finds", books, articles) (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

It is important to understand that certain projects may yield an archeological collection that only consists of associated records. Such a project might be a survey during which no artifacts were recovered or no sites were found, but a contract and scope of work were written and signed, field notes were made, and a final report was written and distributed (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

Everyone involved in the archeological profession is responsible for curation. Many archeologists in the field do not fully understand or think about their responsibilities to the collections that they unearth, especially after they complete analysis. Instead, they make assumptions that repositories, such as museums, are responsible with little or no interaction from archeologists. Also, some federal or state agencies, contract archeology firms, and universities do not always understand or take full responsibility for the care and management of their collections. These responsibilities can be legally, ethically, or professionally mandated (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

Conservator testing ethanol on a pot. (Art Conservation Center, University of Denver, formerly the Rocky Mountain Conservation Center)

Artifact conservation
Some treatments for archeological resources within national park units-including data recovery and in situ preservation-are addressed in this guide's What happens to a site after it's discovered? section.

The preservation and conservation of objects is a continuing process. The goal is to maintain an object in a state as close to its original as possible. All objects have a limited life span and are never immune to agents of deterioration, no matter what measures are taken. Archeological objects face even more conservation and preservation problems because they are already old and deteriorated. Active conservation measures can be costly and decisions on proper care need to be considered carefully. This is one reason why conservation and preservation should be a collaborative process between archeologists, registrars, curators, and conservators. As well, such considerations need to begin before a field project starts (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

Perhaps the best approach to conservation is prevention. It often takes a lot less time, money, and effort to slow down or prevent deterioration than it takes to repair or replace objects. Prevention involves constant monitoring and control of both the physical environment and the objects themselves. Condition reports establishing the exact condition of an artifact, document treatments, and note potential problems are an essential element of the monitoring process. These reports can be prepared by collections management staff or conservators and need to be readily accessible in an accessions file or similar location (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

Specific conservation treatments vary for every object. Most detailed conservation work should only be attempted by a trained conservator. An inferior conservation treatment can often cause more harm than good (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

Long-term storage and curation
After objects have been analyzed and stabilized, they should be labeled, cataloged, and then packed in containers for curation. This should be done in a manner that is consistent with the standards of the repository where the collections are to be housed. Once these procedures have been completed, the collection is ready for long-term storage and curation. Again, it is important to make sure that all procedures have been fully documented along the way. All the associated records must be given to the repository along with the collection, as is usually required (Childs and Corcoran 2000).

There are numerous types of repositories that curate archeological collections. Each one is unique in its size, staff, funding, organization, and collections. Many repositories fit into more than one of these categories. Each of the broad categories of repositories that curate archeological collections outlined below are not mutually exclusive:

- Academic repositories occur at a wide range of institutions and include several repository types. Some academic repositories are museums that are open to the public, while others may only be used by researchers, staff, and students affiliated with the academic institution.

- Tribal museums and cultural centers are institutions that are usually run by Native American tribes or organizations.

- Historical societies usually contain a variety of objects collected from the society's local, state, or regional geographic area.

- Government repositories, such as public museums or repositories, are solely concerned with caring for and providing access to the collections for research, interpretation or heritage purposes.

- Archives house records and documents associated with archeological collections including the personal papers of archeologists, such as letters, diaries, photos, and draft documents.

- Museums are probably the most common type of repository. Museums that house archeological collections range in size from large museums like the National Museum of Natural History with millions of objects to local museums with just a few artifacts. The thematic nature of museums that house archeological collections is just as varied. They may include natural history, history, anthropology, and art museums. The common thread that sets museums apart from other types of repositories is their concentration on an educational mission usually through exhibits and public programming.

Archaeologists and NPS staff created an exhibit explaining Confederate picket line excavations at Petersburg National Battlefield. (Gail Brown, University of Maryland)

Museums and exhibits
There are over 62,450,000 objects in NPS collections and over 30 million of these are archeological in nature. Archeologists recover, document, analyze, stabilize, and prepare archeological collections for storage as integral elements of archeological research. They also analyze and reanalyze existing collections. Archeologists, curators, archivists, and conservators consult on treatments for and consumptive uses of specific archeological objects, specimens, and records. Archeologists, curators, and ethnographers consult about the cultural affiliations of contemporary American Indian tribes, Native Alaskan groups, and Native Hawaiian organizations to materials in NPS museum collections. They also consult on culturally appropriate treatments for collections, the display of collections, and the repatriation of items under NAGPRA. Archeologists, curators, and exhibit planners and designers consult on the display of archeological objects in museum exhibits.

Exhibits are multi-media experiences. Because people learn in many ways, exhibits use diverse techniques to interpret park resources, teach concepts, and stimulate interest. They combine text, graphics, audio, video, models, mechanical devices, and lighting with natural, historical, and cultural objects to produce visitor experiences that involve all of the senses. Some parks and programs offer electronic exhibits on the WorldWide Web.

Exhibits have high visual appeal. They are a vital means of presenting parks' interpretive themes. Exhibits exploring archeological themes may address archeological methods in addition to highlighting how archeological investigations have broadened knowledge of the park's history and resources. Exhibits are an effective venue for emphasizing public stewardship of archeological resources and encouraging public interest in archeological interpretation.

Integrating archeology with other park resources
Archeological research contributes to improved management, preservation, and treatment of other types of cultural resources in park areas (NPS 1997). Conversely, the management, preservation, and treatment of archeological resources are enhanced through research in other cultural resource disciplines. Because of the potential interdisciplinary qualities of most cultural resources, archeologists and other cultural resource specialists can cooperate and collaborate on programs that manage and interpret archeological resources in many areas, including:

Archeologists identified past land use at the Blue Ridge Parkway's Mabry Mill. (NPS)

Museum collections
Archeologists may work with other cultural resource specialists such as curators, interpreters, archivists, conservators, and ethnographers to ensure the proper care, and display of archeological materials. Archeological information and materials may be presented in public venues including exhibitions, publications, wayside exhibits, programs, and multimedia presentations.

Historic and prehistoric sites and structures
Archeologists and historical architects may consult and share expertise in planning documents, analyzing building materials and structural fill, making condition assessments, and providing recommendations on routine maintenance and needed stabilization or other preservation treatments. Archeological studies can address research questions that historians and historical architects may have about the location, construction methods, developmental history, age, and use of historic and prehistoric sites and structures for which only ruins or subsurface remains exist.

Cultural landscapes
Cultural landscapes, like other cultural resources, are not "beautified" to suit modern aesthetic tastes through decorative plantings or other modifications not reflecting historic conditions. Archeologists help identify and document cultural landscapes through analysis of stratigraphy, soils, fossil pollen, and buried features. The result of archeological studies also can help identify past land uses of an area.

Ethnographic resources
Ethnographic resources include landscapes, sites and places, objects, and natural resources important to the cultural life, purpose, and identity of a people. These resources are similar to archeological sites, for example, but information on these resources stresses the perspective, knowledge, and viewpoint of the people associated with them. Ethnographic studies-studies of living peoples-make it possible to ensure that culturally affiliated groups are considered with archeological research and permitting activities. These studies feature the systematic combination of interview, participant observation, and documentary research to fully understand a people's way of life. Ethnographic research has increasingly included the active involvement and collaboration of peoples who are the targets of study. This involvement is especially important with management approaches for culturally sensitive archeological resources such as grave goods, and treatments and disposition of such materials in archeological collections. Archeological, ethnohistorical and ethnographic studies may also provide data on the cultural affiliation of contemporary Native American and ethnic groups to prehistoric and historic archeological resources, human remains, and objects in collections.

USE WHAT YOU KNOW: ASSESS YOUR KNOWLEDGE — Chapter 4 talks about the process behind archeological work. How might you integrate the process into contact with visitors? Which elements of the process are most familiar to you in your work? Which are most alien? How can you interpret these methods for the public? — How could you use archeological collections as a resource for interpretation? (Keeping in mind, of course, applicable NPS policies.)

Suggested reading

How do archeologists know where to look for sites?

Bevan, Bruce W,
1998     Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lincoln, NE.

Campbell, James B.
1996     Introduction to Remote Sensing. Guilford Publications, New York.

ESRI Press (editors)
1999     Getting to Know ArcView GIS. Environmental Systems Research, Inc. Press.

Green, Jeremy
1990     Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. Academic Press, San Diego.

Weymouth, John W.
1986     Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9. Edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 311-395. Academic Press, Orlando.

How do archeologists identify artifacts?

Brauner, David R.
2000     Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists: A Reader for Historical Archaeology. Society for Historical Archaeology, Tuscon.

Gibson, Alex M. and Ann Woods
1997     Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist. Pinter Publishing, Ltd.

Godden, Geoffrey A.
1999     New Handbook of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Trafalgar Square, London.

Hodges, Henry
1988     Artifacts: An Introduction to Early Materials and Technology. Ronald P. Frye & Co.

Justice, Noel D.
1995     Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States : A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kooyman, Brian P.
2000     Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Luedtke, Barbara E.
1992     An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint, Archaeological Research Tools, No 7. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Noël Hume, Ivor
1970     A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Odell, George H.
1996     Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. Plenum Press, New York.

Patten, Bob
1999     Old Tools--New Eyes: A Primal Primer of Flintknapping. Stone Dagger Publications, Denver.

Rice, Prudence M.
1987     Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Vlach, John Michael
1990     The Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Wanser. Jeffrey
1982     A Survey of Artifact Collections from Central Southern Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville.

Whittaker, John C.
1994     Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.

What happens to a site after it' s discovered?

In Situ Preservation and Data Recovery

Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shafer and Kenneth L. Feder
1997     Field Methods in Archaeology, Seventh Edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View.

McMillon, Bill
1991     The Archaeology Handbook: A Field Manual and Resource Guide. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Public Education and Site Interpretation

Alderson, William T. and Shirley Paine Lowe
1976     Interpretation of Historic Sites. American Association for State and Local History, Nashville.

Beck, Larry and Ted Cable
1997     Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign.

Bograd, M. D. and Singleton, T. A.
1997     The Interpretation of Slavery: Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Colonial Williamsburg. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths,edited by J. Jameson, pp. 193-204. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Davis, K. L.
1997     Sites Without Signs: Interpreting Closed Excavations, In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by J. Jameson, pp. 84-98. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Fry, B. W.
1969     Restoration and Archaeology. Society for Historical Archaeology Bulletin 3.

Grinder, Alsion L. and E. Sue McCoy
1989     The Good Guide: A Sourcebook for Interpreters Docents and Tour Guides. Ironwood Press, Scottsdale.

Ham, Sam
1992     Environmental Interpretation. North American Press, Golden.

Heath, B. J.
1997     Archaeology and Interpretation at Monticello and Poplar Forest. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by J. Jameson, pp. 177-191. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Hein, George E.
1998     Learning in the Museum (Museum Meanings). Routledge, London.

Hoffman, T. L.
1997     The Role of Public Participation: Arizona's Public Archaeology Program. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by J. Jameson, pp. 73-83. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Jameson, John H., Jr. (editor)
1997     Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

Knudsen, Douglas, Larry Beck and Ted Cable
1995     Interpretation of Cultural and Natural Resources. Venture Publishing, State College.

McDavid, C.
1997     Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. Historical Archaeology 31 (3):114-131.

Peters, K. S., Comer, E. A., and Kelly, R. E.
1987     Captivating the Public Through the Media While Digging the Past, Technical Series No. 1. Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology, Baltimore.

Potter, P. B. Jr.
1997     The Archaeological Site as an Interpretive Environment, In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by J. Jameson, pp. 35-44. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Rudd, Connie
1995     Achieving Excellence in Interpretation: Compelling Stories Thinkbook.

Smardz, Karolyn and Shelley J. Smith (editors)
2000     The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Tilden, Freeman
1957     Interpreting Our Heritage. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Veverka, John
1993     Interpretive Master Planning. Falcon Publishing, Helena.

How do we preserve archeological resources?

Conservation

Applebaum, Barbara
1991     Guide to Environmental Protection of Collections. Sound View Press, Madison, CT.

Childs, S. Terry and Eileen Corcoran
2000     Managing Archeological Collections Technical Assistance. Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Cronyn, J.M.
1990     The Elements of Archaeological Conservation. Routledge Press, New York.

Johnson, Jessica S.
1999     The Long-Term Effects of Acid-Cleaning Archeological Ceramics. Conserve O Gram 6/6, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Kronkright, Dale Paul and Ruth E. Norton (contributors) and Mary-Lou Florian (editor)
1991 The Conservation of Artifacts Made from Plant Materials (Getty Trust Publications : Getty Conservation Institute). Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Peebles, Christopher and Patricia Galloway
1981     Notes from Underground: Management from Excavation to Curation. Curator 24(4):225-251.

Sease, Catherine
1994     A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist, Third Edition. Archaeological Research Tools 4. UCLA Institute of Archaeology Los Angeles, CA.

Singley, Katherine R.
1995     Caring for Artifacts After Excavation: Some Advice for Archaeologists. Historical Archaeology 15(1): 35-48.

Sullivan, Lynne P.
1999     The Curation Dilemma: A Mutual Problem for Research and Resource Management. In Protecting the Archaeological Heritage of America. Edited by Robert Drennan and Santiago Mora. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Sullivan, Lynne P., and S. Terry Childs
in press     Curating Archaeological Collections: From the Field to the Repository. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Long-term Storage and Curation

Buck, Rebecca A. and Jean Allman Gilmore (editors)
1998     New Museum Registration Methods. American Association of Museums, Washington, D.C.

Fowler, Donald and David Givens
1995     The Records of Archaeology. In Preserving the Anthropological Record, 2nd edition, pp. 97- 106. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc., New York.

National Park Service
2000     Museum Archives and Manuscript Collections. In Museum Handbook, Part III, Appendix D. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Museums and Exhibits
Butler, Patrick H., III
1989     Obligations in Organizing a Museum. In Organizing Your Museum: The Essentials. S.K. Nichols, Compiler, pp. 1-8. American Association of Museums, Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C.

Case, Mary (editor)
1988     Registrars on Record: Essays on Museum Collections. Registrars Committee of the AAM. Incorporating Archeology with Other Resources, Washington, D.C.

Darcy-Staski, P.
1987     Exhibiting Archaeology, In Captivating the Public Through the Media While Digging the Past, Technical Series No. 1, pp. 48-50. Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology: Baltimore.

Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean
1994     Museums and Their Visitors. Routledge, London.

Karp, I. and Lavine, S. D. (editors)
1991     Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Malaro, Marie C.
1994     Museum Governance: Mission, Ethics, Policy. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

McManus, Paulette M. (editor)
1996     Archaeological Displays and the Public. Institute of Archaeology, University (College) of London.

National Park Service
1997     Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Release No. 5 (supplemented by Director's Order #28: Cultural Resources Management, 11 June 1998). U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Nichols, Susan K.
1989     Organizing Your Museum: The Essentials. American Association of Museums, Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C.

Pegler, Martin
2000     Contemporary Exhibit Design. Visual Reference Publications, Inc., New York.

Pearce, Susan M.
1993     Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

References

Sections of this chapter were taken from:

Archeology Program, National Register of Historic Places, and National Park Service
1997     Guidance on the Identification and Evaluation of Archeological Properties (Draft). Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.

Ashmore, Wendy and Robert J. Sharer
1996     Discovering Our Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology, Second Edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, CA.

Bevan, Bruce W.
1998     Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lincoln, NE.

Childs, S. Terry and Eileen Corcoran
2000     Managing Archeological Collections Technical Assistance. Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shaer and Kenneth L. Feder
1997     Field Methods in Archaeology, Seventh Edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View.

Little, Barbara J.
1995     National Capital Area Archeological Overview and Survey Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Capital Area.

McIntosh, Jane
1999     The Practical Archaeologist: How We Know What We Know About the Past, Second Edition. Checkmark Books, New York.

National Park Service
2000     National Park Service Management Policies, Cultural Resources Management

National Park Service
1997     Cultural Resource Management Guidelines, Release N. 5. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Thomas, David Hurst
1998     Archaeology, Third Edition. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.