Introduction

Archeology is perhaps best thought of as the study of past ways of life. To pursue this study, archeologists focus on the relationship between the material objects made by past peoples on the one hand, and the makers' behavior on the other. Sometimes written records help; often no such records exist.

In previous centuries archeologists were content simply to find objects. Today, armed with computers, laboratory analysis, theories about society and culture, and a wide range of questions about human behavior, they may try to reach into the minds of those that made and used the artifacts. Thus their analysis acts as a bridge between the two sets of things: one an invisible realm that includes human ways of survival, religious beliefs, family structure, and social organization; the other a visible, tangible accumulation of material remains such as trash, tools, ornaments, and buildings. The latter group provides the raw material for understanding the former through logical reasoning. In making this all-important link, archeologists have at least three main goals:

-To obtain a chronology of the past, a sequence of events and dates that, in a sense, is a backward extension of history. For example, an archeologist may wish to determine when agriculture developed in a particular society or when a certain kind of pottery was made. Such basic information not only contributes to charting individual sequences of culture change also allows comparisons among culture histories in different parts of the world.

- To begin to reconstruct the ways of life that no longer exist. For example, excavations at the huge Cahokia site in western Illinois give us intriguing glimpse of the area as it was around A.D.1200 by providing numerous clues to the nature of everyday life, the richness of ceremonial activity, and the workings of economic systems in the Mississippi Valley at that time.

- To give us some understanding of why human culture has changed through time. Given the delicate and complicated interplay between environment and people-either different segments of past societies or peoples of different cultures-archeologists can often isolate the occurrence of small changes in the past, such as shifts in gathering methods, changes in art motifs, or new sets social relationships. These, in turn, may allow investigators to track changes through time and to understand the reasons for them.

The quest for cause-and-effect explanations of human behavior over the centuries is perhaps the most important ingredient of the discipline, for it has the potential to help us understand the present. This is but one of many reasons why archeology plays such a vital part in the overall study of humanity (Stuart and McManamon 1996).

What is material culture?

Material culture is not culture, but its product. Culture is socially transmitted rules for behavior, ways of thinking about and doing things. Culture-whether it is language, religion, or law-is learned and reflected in the way we shape our physical world. Material culture is usually considered to be roughly synonymous with artifacts-objects used by humans to cope with the physical world, to facilitate social interaction, and to benefit state of mind-and ecofacts-nonartifactual natural remains that provide information about human behavior, such as remnants of wild and domesticated animals and plants. Material culture may be more broadly defined as that sector of our physical environment that we modify through culturally determined behavior. The physical environment includes more than artifacts. James Deetz writes:

We can also consider cuts of meat as material culture, since there are many ways to dress an animal; plowed fields; even the horse that pulls the plow, since scientific breeding of livestock involves the conscious modification of an animal's form according to culturally derived ideals. Our body itself is a part of our physical environment, so that such things as parades, dancing, and all aspects of kinesics-human motion-fit within our definition…(Deetz 1996:35-36).

This definition of material culture forces us to look at archeological information in the broader framework of whole material cultural systems, which may permit sharper delineation of their corresponding cultural systems (Deetz 1996:36). Artifacts, remains of structures, artwork, historical documents, landscapes, and ephemeral social practices such as dancing and religion are all aspects of material culture produced by countless individuals who shaped past events. Although those individuals are long gone, their achievements and failures have lived on to shape our present world (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:14).

Archeologists' work only begins with research and surveying a site. Through analysis archeologists search for meanings in the recovered artifacts to answer research questions. What do the artifacts reveal about social structure? Do the artifacts indicate which people may have used them and for what purposes? What do the artifacts reveal about how resources were obtained and used? Do artifacts indicate associations with religious or spiritual practices? How do artifacts relate to each other, physically and ideologically? Through such questions archeologists attempt to interpret what the artifacts meant to their original users.

Many archeological presentations display artifacts without giving them meaning. Exhibit cases lined with poorly or unlabeled artifacts cannot convey any depth of information about how past people made, used, and discarded the artifacts. Similarly, an interpretive program that fails to present an artifact's social context-that is, to interpret it's technical production and use, its value to the people who used it, and perhaps how and if the artifact symbolized those peoples' ideology-only presents the minimal amount of information to the public without eliciting intellectual and emotional responses.

Public interpretations that include archeology are most successful in making these emotional and intellectual connections between visitors and resources if they convey the broad context within which archeologists construct their understandings of the past. Interpretations that use artifacts from the past as a bridge to the present will better engage the visitor in historical and contemporary issues (Little 1998:112).

Archeologists and interpreters can work together to go beyond mere description when interpreting archeological resources for the public. Consider questions such as:

- How is accurate and useful information provided to the public?
- In what larger social and cultural contexts might the artifacts be placed?
- How can visitors make personal connections with the artifacts?
- What do the artifacts mean to present-day visitors?
- Why should visitors care about archeological resources?

Public misconceptions about archeology

In popular culture, archeologists are romantic characters who travel to exotic lands in search of mysterious artifacts. Some people think that archeologists dig up dinosaur bones. Although the public is increasingly interested in archeologists and what they do, misconceptions about both still abound. Creatively addressing misconceptions about archeology is an effective way for interpreters and archeologists to share information with the public to alleviate confusion that may lead visitors to misunderstand, or even abuse, archeological resources and provide a means for the public to appreciate and care for archeological resources.

In 1999, the Society for American Archaeology and several other archeological organizations commissioned Harris Interactive to conduct a study among the American public to understand their perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes about archeology. Through open-ended and choice-specific questions, the study found that the majority of Americans believe that archeological resources are important and that archeology should be taught in schools. The study also disclosed some public misconceptions about archeology and archeologists:

- When asked what the public thinks when they hear the word archeology, 10% mentioned digging dinosaurs or dinosaur bones, while only 1% mentioned digging associated with Native peoples or Native societies.

- When asked what archeologists study, 92% of the people agreed that they study fossils (which they do not study), 85% agreed that they study dinosaurs (which they do not study) and 77% agreed they study shipwrecks (which they do study).

- Very few respondents mentioned underwater (1%) and Indian remains/ burial grounds (1%) as places where archeologists study the past.

- When asked, "What are some of the most important archeological sites ever found?" no respondents named North American sites. The majority mentioned Egyptian sites, dinosaur sites, Biblical and Roman sites, and Latin American Aztec, Mayan and Inca sites.

FUN FACT Fossils? Gold? Treasure? Dinosaurs? Aren't these what archeologists look for? This site explores some of the most popular Archeology Myths. Highly recommended. (4/30/01)

Archeology, science, & people

Science is concerned with gaining knowledge about the natural world by observation. To do their job, scientists systematically describe phenomena, classify observations, and reach conclusions. This often involves controlled and replicable laboratory experiments, such as those in chemistry or psychology, but it may also consist of detailed observation without experiment. Some fields cannot solely rely on experiments; these are called historical sciences. Geology, evolutionary biology and archeology are historical sciences that deal with past events that no longer can be directly observed. The evidence left behind, however, can be studied to reconstruct what took place (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:10).

Many modern archeologists subscribe, in some way, to the basics of science. Like other scientists, archeologists apply the scientific method to a specified class of phenomena: the material remains of past human activity. Like other scientists, archeologists attempt to isolate, classify, and explain the relationships among pieces of evidence- in this case, among the variables of form, function, time and space. But archeologists do not always follow a set of logical rules based on formal principles. Rather, they are free to use creative imagination to solve problems and to expand beyond scientific methods to bring a humanistic perspective to their studies of the past (Thomas 1998:57).

Humanism is a doctrine, attitude, or way of life featuring human interests and values. It stresses the individual's value, dignity, and capacity for self-realization through reason. Unlike the purely scientific approach, which stresses objectivity and independent testing, humanists employ more subjective methods, stressing reality as perceived and experienced (Thomas 1998:57). In their investigations, many archeologists interpret the humanistic expressions of past people through their recovered material culture-valuing and understanding the people through the artifacts they left behind. Artifacts may support or refute current interpretations about past people. It is important to remember, however, that although archeologists try to be objective in their research, they can never escape their own cultural and personal biases (Ashmore and Sharer 1996:11). Their conclusions may reflect these biases.

People and artifacts are intimately entwined-one shouldn't be valued without the other. Scientific and humanistic studies can be used together to make the richest, most robust interpretations of archeological resources.

Interactions with the environment

Environmental archeology (sometimes referred to as historical ecology) addresses how people lived in the past, the environment they faced, the resources and opportunities it provided or denied them, and the economic strategies by which they made a living in the world around them. Archeological sites very rarely consist entirely of humanly produced remains or artifacts. They also contain a vast range of ecofacts such as soils and sediments that compose the site to the remains of animals and plants. Four areas of environmental archeology and their related fields are discussed below.

Zooarcheology
Zooarcheology (also known as archeozoology) is the study of faunal (animal) remains from archeological sites. These primarily consist of the surviving hard parts of the body, e.g. bones, teeth and shell. Such remains represent for the most part the food refuse of ancient populations, although they may also reflect the use of animals for transportation, decoration or household pets. Zooarcheology, together with other bioarcheological disciplines, provides the archeologist with a more complete picture of the kinds of animals and plants present at a site-whether these organisms represent food remains, living entities that were part of the surrounding environment, or organisms present after the site was abandoned. Faunal and floral remains can shed light on way of life of past populations and the kind of environment they inhabited. Although zooarcheology provides information about the animals themselves and uses biological methods, its final aim is to understand the environmental context of past human cultures.

Paleobotany
Paleobotany, also referred to as archeobotany, is a branch of paleontology dealing with fossil plants. A subfield of paleobotany is paleoethnobotany, which analyzes and interprets plant remains from archeological sites in order to understand the past interactions between human populations and plants (Thomas 1998:325) Paleobotanists particularly study macroflora (seeds), phytoliths (plant microfossils composed of silica) and plant pollen. Paleontology is the study of fossils-any trace of a past life form. Although wood, bones, and shells are the most common fossils, under certain conditions soft tissues, tracks and trails, and even coprolites (fossil feces) fossilized. Paleontologists study these fossils to help reconstruct the history of the earth and the life on it.

Archeologists primarily work with artifacts and human remains. Paleontology does not usually deal with artifacts made by humans. However, archeologists and paleontologists might work together. For instance, a paleontologist might identify fossil animal bones associated with an archeological site to determine what the people who lived there ate; or a paleontologist might analyze the climate at the time a particular archeological site was inhabited.

Soil analysis
Soil analysis can tell archeologists about the conditions in which it was formed, the changes that have taken place since then, and, in some cases, the activities of humans. Soils consist of an inorganic mix of rock particles and minerals and organic material (humus) derived from decayed plants (McIntosh 1999:105). Archeopedology is the study of ancient soils in archeological contexts. At archeological sites soils often retain matter from cultivated plants, fires, human-made features and human daily activities such as cooking or waste disposal.

The chart has sets of standardized color chips arranged in rows on several pages. Archeologists obtain a code by comparing the soil color to one of the pages in the book. The purpose of this system is to avoid arbitrary color descriptions. Archeologists may analyze soils microscopically. Magnification may reveal particles that indicate the original function of archeological structures or deposits. For example, minute pieces of charcoal suggest fires, while phytoliths may determine the past presence of specific plants (McIntosh 1999:105).

Archeologists may chemically analyze soils. Human activity can alter soil chemistry, often enriching soils, particularly in their phosphorus or nitrogen concentrations. Soil samples can be taken both within features as well as at regularly spaced intervals throughout the site in an attempt to find patterns in chemical concentrations that indicate human activities such as trash disposal or soil fertilization. Archeologists may test soils in the field or send samples to laboratories for analysis (Hester et al. 1997:136).

Geomorphology
Geomorphology is the science thatstudies the general configuration of the Earth's surface, specifically the study of the classification, description, nature, origin, and development of present landforms and their relationships to underlying structures, and of the history of geologic changes as recorded by these surface features. Through geoarcheology, archeologists incorporate geomorphological studies into their research to gain an understanding of what earlier landforms were like and where sites may be potentially located as well as insight regarding prehistoric raw material choices, extraction technologies, mining economy, site formation processes, and landscape history. Geoarcheologists often use high-tech remote sensing techniques, such as ground penetrating radar and seismic sensing.

Why does NPS interpret archeology?

The stewardship of America's archeological heritage is a well established policy and function of the federal government. Interagency cooperation and partnerships are fundamental to this mission. Archeological resources-sites, collections, and records-are unique and fragile. They must be used wisely and protected for future generations.

Through programs that preserve, protect, conserve, and educate the public regarding archeological resources the National Park Service preserves over 63,000 archeological sites, as well as huge archeological collections from scientific investigations of those sites. Interpreting archeological resources helps meet this part of the NPS mission by:

- Perpetuating and representing the archeological heritage of the nation uniquely reflected in national park units

- Ensuring the natural, cultural, and recreational heritage reflected in the national park units is available and accessible to everyone

- Providing visitor experiences that strengthen the recognition, understanding, enjoyment, and preservation of the nation's archeological resources

- Creating the opportunity for audiences to ascribe meanings to archeological resources, leading to concern for the protection of those resources. Such revelation is the seed of archeological resource stewardship (NPS 1997b:2)

FUN FACT   Archeology is happening all over the nation! Research in the Parks links to web sites describing NPS archeology and ethnography projects. Highly recommended. (4/30/01)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION The Public Interpretation Initiative This article outlines the purposes and direction of the Public Interpretation Initiative, a a public outreach program initiated and coordinated by the NPS Southeast Archeological Center. (4/30/01)

National Strategy for the Federal Archeology Program

In 1991 the Secretary of the Interior identified areas of special emphasis for federal agencies with archeological programs. This 1998 update of the National Strategy renews our effort to pursue these actions.

Preserve and Protect Archeological Sites in Place
- Identify, evaluate, and document sites
- Increase our understanding of the past and improve preservation through well-designed research
- Assess and document threats to sites and monitor their condition
- Prevent or slow deterioration of sites by stabilization and other means
- Fight looting with public awareness programs and effective legal strategies among archeologists, law enforcement officers, and public prosecutors

Conserve Archeological Collections and Records
- Locate collections and records, assess their condition, and conserve appropriately
- Identify actions needed to ensure long-term care of and access to collections and records
- Undertake, facilitate, and promote research using collections and records to better understand the past

Utilize and Share Archeological Research Results
- Synthesize research results, particularly gray literature, to advance scientific knowledge, further preservation, and better inform the public
- Facilitate use of archeological databases by managers and researchers
- Develop data standards to better share research results

Increase Public Education and Participation in Archeology
- Establish education programs as a regular agency function
- Interpret archeological research for the public in a way that is accurate and understandable
- Consider the views of diverse cultural groups when interpreting the past
- Engage the public in archeology through professionally directed volunteer programs

The National Strategy for the Federal Archeology Program reinforces the NPS commitment to preserve and interpret American archeological resources. Work done in each park by managers, interpreters, and archeologists ensure that these resources will be protected and appreciated by visitors.

Stewardship

Baskets of artifacts illegally collected in a national park (NPS)

America's archeological resources embody a rich heritage of human experiences and cultural identities. They provide information about people from the past and establish important connections to the present. They also provide evidence about important historical trends and events, inform about people's everyday lives and significant accomplishments, and give voice to people who are absent from or underrepresented in historical records.

Archeological resources are fragile and are easily damaged or destroyed. Bulldozers grading fields, looters digging for treasure, well-meaning visitors walking in restricted areas, erosion and other natural causes, and even archeologists who engage in unethical or unprofessional practices can cause damage to above and below-ground archeological resources and thus lessen our ability to learn more about the past.

Without meaning to do harm, many visitors feel the need to collect artifacts from the archeological sites they visit. They pick up objects from the ground in order to own a little bit of history. They may not realize that our ability to learn more about the past from these artifacts also depends upon knowing the artifact's provenience-the precise location on the site the artifacts were discovered. So, taking souvenirs for one's own may be tempting, but it is wrong and is, in federal property including national parks, against the law.

Archeologists and interpreters should emphasize stewardship of archeological resources in any visitor exchange-from tours of archeological sites to exhibitions to discussions of ongoing fieldwork. Through effective preservation and protection, archeological resources can continue to convey their important history about people from the past to present and future generations of Americans.

Interpretive programs reach park visitors when they are still forming their opinions, value, and ethics. Long-term survival of park resources depends upon a stewardship ethic among the general population, The majority of threats to the resource are, by definition, human caused. Establishing a bond between visitors and the park can create a sense of shared ownership and life-long commitment to park ethics.

Some NPS archeology facts

- Archeological sites record diversity throughout our past, from some of the earliest American sites in the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve to the prehistoric structures and roadways around Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico to the foundations of Benjamin Franklin's house in Philadelphia.

- A recent Harris poll reveals that Americans believe that archeology is important and valuable and helps us to understand the modern world. 90% believe that information from archeological studies should be taught in schools.

- Archeological objects comprise more than half of the approximately 75 million objects in NPS collections.

- Archeologists estimate that there may be as many as 1.5 million archeological sites within National Park System units.

- Archeologists add about 2000 sites per year to the inventory of archeological sites in the parks.

- The Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS) was launched in 1997 to collect information on archeological sites in parks for management purposes. Over 190 park units have compiled ASMIS data.

- The National Archeological Database, Reports module (NADB-R) contains over 240,000 bibliographical entries consulted by approximately 800 users per month.

- More than 17,000 readers learn about current issues in archeology and ethnography in the magazine Common Ground.

- The Applied Ethnography Program in the NPS National Center for Cultural Resources works with communities and groups associated with park cultural and natural resources to understand and address local interests.

- Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), the parks work with tribes and other interested organizations to ensure that Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and other objects of cultural patrimony are identified, respectfully treated and repatriated when appropriate.

- The Vanishing Treasures Initiative manages and repairs irreplaceable ancient and historic ruins in the Southwest. The Initiative trains Native Americans to continue the adobe repair work that their ancestors have done for centuries.

- Two NPS Strategic Plan goals deal with archeological resources-one on inventory, the other on the condition of archeological sites. These goals promote accountability of archeological resources in the National Park System in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act.

Brief history of American archaeology

Serpent Mound, from Edwin Davis' and Ephriam Squires' 1848 book, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. (National Anthropological Archives)

Archeology in the U.S. is rooted in the 1700s when European settlers encountered and were intrigued by ancient mounds and earthwork complexes that had been known since the 1500s. Myths about ancient mound builders in the Midwest and southeast also spurred archeological research. During the 1800s, American archeology was linked closely with cultural anthropology, linguistics, and physical anthropology since Native Americans were seen as examples of what human life had been like in prehistoric times. Near the end of the 1800s, museums displayed American Indian antiquities and various investigators published accounts of their archeological discoveries, leading to popular interest in archeology and to the looting of artifacts from archeological sites for private use. Scientific reports on the destruction and looting of prominent ruins resulted in the passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906.

With the Antiquities Act's passage, public awareness about archeology and public agencies' involvement in preservation increased. The first national monuments commemorating and preserving archeological sites were created throughout the U.S. while scientific professionalism in the field of American archeology developed. The National Park Service was established in 1916 to care for outstanding cultural and natural resources. Concerns about site destruction and the need for public support to reserve sites continued through this period.

In the 1930s large-scale archeological projects escalated due to federal unemployment relief projects and programs funded by the Works Progress Administration and other public employment programs. These archeological projects focused on fieldwork and keeping large crews employed in excavating archeological sites. Although many of these projects were slow in producing and publishing descriptive reports, conducting artifact analyses, and curating the collections, they substantially increased the knowledge about American archeology, especially in the Southeast. Many projects also focused on the archeology of historic period sites, often done in coordination with architectural stabilization, reconstruction, and/or historical research on the historic structures at the site. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 mandated federal interest in a wide range of nationally important archeological sites and historic structures.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION Public archeology in the United States Timeline This web site explores the history of public archeology in the United States from the 1700s to the present. Bibliographies and links are included. The descriptions below are abstracted from this Timeline. Highly recommended. (4/30/01)

The 1916 Organic Act created the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior. (NPS)

During World War II U.S. officials began to plan a post-war, national system of dams and reservoirs in many important river valleys. Efforts to include archeological investigations in these areas culminated in the creation of the Committee for the Recovery of Archaeological Remains that funded archeological surveys and excavations as part of new dam and reservoir construction. During the 1950s the salvage of archeological data in the face of construction extended into highway and pipeline salvage archeology. In 1966 National Historic Preservation Act was enacted to control the adverse impacts of federal development projects on archeological sites and historic structures.

Dissatisfaction with some effects of salvage archeology led to the development of cultural resources management (CRM) in the US During the 1970s, public agencies including the NPS began to employ professional archeologists to meet CRM responsibilities. Increased looting of archeological sites within national parks led to the passage of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act in 1979. Programs to improve the care and use of archeological collections, records, and reports also began to receive attention. Native American protests about the treatment of their ancestors and significant collections in museums resulted in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990.

Missouri River Basin Surveys in South Dakota (NPS)

The Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) prosecutes those who illegally collect artifacts from federal land, such as these taken from Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. (National Capital Region, Regional Archeology Program, NPS)

Today, protection, preservation, and interpretation continue to be the goals of public archeology. Archeologists add about 2000 sites per year to the inventory of archeological sites in the national parks. Interpretation, public education, and stewardship of archeological resources are vital to park archeology programs and will continue to guide archeological research into the twenty-first century.

USE WHAT YOU KNOW: ASSESS YOUR KNOWLEDGE — What are the goals of archeology in the National Park Service? — Why would you interpret archeology to the public? — Chapter 2 discusses "unexpected" archeological sites. Do examples exist in your park? How can you use them to encourage visitor stewardship? — What kinds of questions might you ask an audience to assess their preconceptions or misconceptions about archeology?

Suggested readings

General

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

Deetz, James
1996     In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. Revised Edition. Doubleday, New York.

Ellis, Linda (editor)
2000     Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

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

Kryston, Cynthia
1996     The Interpretive Journey. Curriculum essay.

Lewis, William
1989     Interpreting for Park Visitors. Acorn Press.

Smith, Shelley J., Jeanne M. Moe, Kelly A. Letts and Danielle M. Patterson
n.d.     Intrigue of the Past: A Teacher's Activity Guide for Fourth through Seventh Grades. United States Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management.

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

White, Nancy Marie
2000     Teaching Archaeologists to Teach Archaeology. In The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. edited by Karolyn Smardz and Shelley J. Smith, pp. 328-339. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Also see the Systemwide Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP) for your region.

Interactions with the environment

Crumley, Carole L.
1994     Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscape. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., Lee A. Newsom, and Sylvia J. Scudder (editors)
1996     Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum Pub. Corp., New York.

Zooarcheology

Davis, Simon J. M.
1995     The Archaeology of Animals. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Rackham, D. James
1994     Animal Bones (Interpreting the Past). University of California Press, Berkeley,

Hesse, Brian, Paula Warnish, and Paula Wapnish
1985     Animal Bone Archaeology: From Objectives to Analysis, Manuals on Archaeology, 5. Taraxacum.

Lyman, R. Lee and Cma Leman
1994     Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing
1999     Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Paleobotany

Faegri, Knut, Johs Iversen, Peter Emil Kaland and Knut Krzywinski.
2000     Textbook of Pollen Analysis. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell.

Gremillion, Kristen J. (editor)
1997      People, Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Henry Nathaniel, Andrews
1980     The Fossil Hunters: In Search of Ancient Plants. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Pearsall, Deborah M.
2000     Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, Second Edition. Academic Press, San Diego.

Piperno, Dolores R.
1988     Phytolith Analysis: An Archaeological and Geological Perspective. Academic Press, San Diego.

Rapp, G. and S. C. Mulholland (editors)
1992     Phytolith Systematics: Emerging Issues, Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, Vol 1. Plenum Pub. Corp., New York.

Stewart, W. N. and G. W. Rothwell
1993     Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Soil analysis

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

Holliday, Vance T. (editor)
1993     Soils in Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Geomorphology

Herz, N., and E. G. Garrison
1994     Geological Methods for Archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rapp, Jr., G., and J. A. Gifford, editors
1985     Archaeological Geology. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Rapp, George, Jr. and Christopher L. Hill
1998    Geoarchaeology: The Earth-Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation. Yale University Press: New Haven.

History of American archeology

Ellis, Linda (editor)
2000     Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

Orser, Charles E., Jr. and Brian M. Fagan
1995     Historical Archaeology. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York.

Patterson, Thomas C.
1994     Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the United States. Harcourt Brace Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.

Trigger, Bruce
1990     A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press.

Willey, Gordon Randolph and Jeremy A. Sabloff
1995      A History of American Archaeology. W. H. Freeman & Co.

References
Sections of this chapter were taken from:

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

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

Deetz, James
1996     In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. Revised Edition. Doubleday, New York.

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

Little, Barbara J.
1998     Considering the Context of Historical Archaeology for Museum Interpretation. In The Public Historian, Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 111-117.

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

National Park Service
1997a     Cultural Resources Management Guide, Release No. 5. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1997b     Module 101: Fulfilling the NPS Mission: The Process of Interpretation.National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Stuart, George E. and Frank P. McManamon
1998      Archeology & You. The U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Geographic Society, and the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

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