Ohio_Archaeology_Guidelines_Fieldwork Phase 1.pdf

Archaeology Guidelines Section: Fieldwork

State Historic Preservation Office

Ohio History Connection Columbus, Ohio

Archaeology Guidelines Page 2 of 39

May 31, 2023

Fieldwork

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARCHAEOLOGY FIELDWORK

INTRODUCTION

PHASES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

EVALUATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY

A. National Register of Historic Places Criteria B. Integrity

CRITERIA FOR QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS

PHASE I IDENTIFICATION

A. FIELD VISIT

B. BACKGROUND RESEARCH

C. DISTURBANCE ASSESSMENT

D. DEVELOPING THE SAMPLING STRATEGY

E. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MODELING

F. PHASE I IDENTIFICATION- FIELD INVESTIGATION

1. Surface Collection

2. Shovel Testing

3. Deep Testing

4. Geophysical Survey

5. Metal Detector Survey

6. Rockshelters

7. Submerged Resources

G. PHASE I IDENTIFICATION- NO-COLLECTION AND IN-FIELD ANALYSIS

H. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING

I. TRIBAL MONITOR

J. HUMAN REMAINS

K. PHASE I ANALYSIS

PHASE II. EVALUATION

A. Phase II Background Research B. Phase II Evaluation. Field Investigation C. Boundary Definition D. Artifact Distribution E. Feature Identification

1. Geophysical Survey Techniques

2. Mechanical Topsoil Removal

VHACLLBOWENB

Rectangle

Archaeology Guidelines Page 3 of 39

May 31, 2023

3. Test Units F. Feature Characterization G. Stratigraphy H. Dating I. Botanical/Faunal Specimens J. Phase II Evaluation. Submerged Resources within Lake Erie K. Human Remains L. Phase II Evaluation. Urban Environments

PHASE III. TREATMENT OF ADVERSE EFFECT

A. Field Procedures B. Artifact Analysis

Archaeology Guidelines Page 4 of 39

May 31, 2023

Archaeology Fieldwork

Introduction

The following guidelines are set forth to ensure a consistent and uniform approach to the treatment of archaeological resources. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has consulted with non-SHPO archaeologists, the Ohio Archaeological Council, and has referred to the archaeological literature, federal guidelines, and other states' standards in developing these guidelines.

Reports generated must meet the requirements outlined in Archaeology Report Formats of these Archaeology Guidelines.

Phases of Archaeological Investigation

Regulation 36 CFR Part 800.4 (b) Identification of historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 calls for the agency official to identify historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE). Identification is to be done in consultation with (prior to, during, and after the investigation) SHPO, the undertaking’s consulting parties, tribes, other organizations, and individuals likely to have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties in the APE, and the undertaking’s effects on them. Identification of historic properties, especially those archaeological in nature, often involves a two-step process; typically referred to as Phase I identification and Phase II evaluation. Phase I involves the development and implementation of a testing strategy focused on identifying archaeological properties within the APE. The archaeological properties identified by the survey are documented and evaluated for eligibility against the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria for evaluation. However, for some properties the information gathered during the Phase I identification is insufficient and more intensive investigation is required. The properties requiring additional investigation are subjected to Phase II evaluation. Phase II evaluation usually focuses on documenting the range of archaeological data sets at specific archaeological resources, their spatial distribution, and their physical integrity to adequately evaluate the resource’s archaeological significance, i.e., its ability to yield important information in prehistory and/or history. Each property is different and SHPO encourages the development of a testing strategy in consultation with SHPO and other consulting parties, including tribes as necessary, that ensures the information obtained through the Phase II evaluation is sufficient to demonstrate the property’s NRHP eligibility.

https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/regulations/2017-02/regs-rev04.pdf

Archaeology Guidelines Page 5 of 39

May 31, 2023

Phases I and II are not exclusive and can be combined to save time and effort, usually on sites suspected to contain few archaeological features and/or appear to lack integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and association, provided the sampling strategy recovers sufficient evidence to document their information and/or lack of integrity for NRHP eligibility.

No identification efforts or testing should be conducted on historic properties that are listed or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP without consultation with

SHPO.

Archaeological resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP and are adversely impacted by the undertaking most likely require Phase III archaeological data recovery. Exceptions to data recovery depends upon the nature of the archaeological resource and the result of consultation between the lead agency, tribes, SHPO, and other consulting parties. The scope of work necessary to mitigate the adverse effect is determined through consultation with the federal agency, SHPO, all other consulting parties including tribes, and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and outlined in a data recovery plan. Implementation of the data recovery plan, among other stipulations, is formalized by the federal agency in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

There is no formal process for consulting with SHPO under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 149.53. However, the phased approach indicated above is typically followed.

Evaluating Archaeological Resource Eligibility

Archaeological investigations conducted under federal and state regulatory requirements seek to identify NRHP eligible archaeological resources. For Section 106 compliance, the regulations require the federal agency to apply the NRHP eligibility criteria in consultation with the SHPO, American Indian tribes, and other consulting parties [36 CFR § 800.4 (c)(1)]. The federal agency may use in-house professionals or rely on recommendations provided by archaeological consultants. The federal agency, however, is legally responsible for decisions on NRHP eligibility. Consultation under ORC 149.53, essentially follows the same procedures as set forth under section 106.

A. National Register of Historic Places Criteria

To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, archaeological resources must be evaluated according to its historic context and ability to meet at least one of the four National Register criteria (A through D) established by the National Park Service and possess integrity.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-149.53 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-149.53 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-149.53

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

Highlight

Archaeology Guidelines Page 6 of 39

May 31, 2023

Criterion A: Archaeological resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Archaeological resources associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

Criterion C: Archaeological resources that represent the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or embodying, representing, and possessing high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

Criterion D: Archaeological resources yielding, or likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

The United States Department of the Interior’s National Register program has published several bulletins to help guide archaeologists, agencies, managers, and others in evaluating archaeological resource significance:

• How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997)

• Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties (2000)

• Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural

Properties (rev. 1998)

• Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties with Appendix, Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties (rev. 1997)

Assessing NRHP eligibility is usually a cumulative process in which more and more data is collected to reach a level of information sufficient to establish significance.

Although eligibility is usually determined after Phase II testing, sometimes a Phase I investigation provides sufficient information for an NRHP eligibility evaluation.

B. Integrity

An archaeological resource cannot be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP unless it possesses integrity. Integrity is the ability of the property to convey significance through physical features and context. The NRHP criteria require that an eligible archaeological resource must possess several aspects of integrity:

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and/or association.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB36-Complete.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/Boundaries-Completed.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/Boundaries-Completed.pdf

Archaeology Guidelines Page 7 of 39

May 31, 2023

Integrity of location, design, materials, and association are of primary importance for archaeological resources being considered under Criteria A and B. Integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are especially important under Criterion C.

Under Criteria C and D, integrity of setting adds to the overall integrity of an archaeological site and/or district. Integrity of association is especially relevant under Criterion D. Integrity of association measures the strength of the relationship between the site’s data or information and the important research questions.

Typically, archaeological resources with excellent integrity will have intact features/deposits that are temporally and spatially distinct.

Criteria for Qualified Professional Archaeologists

Any archaeological investigation conducted pursuant to federal or state laws as well as undertakings funded with grants administered by SHPO must be conducted or overseen by qualified archaeological professionals who meet or exceed the minimum standards for archaeology as outlined in the Department of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.

SHPO maintains a directory of qualified archaeological consultants, and a list of those with specific expertise in disciplines such as submerged and geophysical archaeological survey, geomorphology, and paleoethnobotany. Placement on the directory does not mean that SHPO recommends or endorses these individuals or organizations to the exclusion of others. Work by individuals or organizations appearing on the directory does not receive any special consideration by SHPO.

Qualified archaeologists and related disciplines should provide SHPO with updated resumes on an annual basis. If an individual’s resume is not on file and/or the individual does not meet the minimum standards as set forth by the Department of Interior, SHPO retains the right to reject deficient submissions.

Curation Guidance

Artifacts are the property of the landowner; however, securing written permission from the landowner to curate a collection from private property in a facility which meets federal curation standards is highly encouraged. If the artifacts are recovered on State land, under ORC 149.53, the Director of the Ohio History Connection (Director) shall determine the disposition of artifacts. In most cases, the Director determines that the artifacts are curated at the Ohio History Connection (OHC). The curation of artifacts from federal property is determined by the agency with jurisdictional control. Every effort should be made to curate a collection from any chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelines-archeology-historic-preservation.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelines-archeology-historic-preservation.pdf https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-149.53

Archaeology Guidelines Page 8 of 39

May 31, 2023 archaeological resource determined eligible for listing or is listed in the NRHP with a facility meeting federal curation standards.

Collections and original primary documents must be curated in accordance with the receiving institution’s curation standards and guidelines. For further information, see OHC Archaeology Collections Acquisition Procedures.

The handling, processing, and disposition of human remains must follow the Human Remains Treatment Plan (see Cemeteries, Burial Mounds, and Other Burial Places I: Human Remains Treatment Plan) developed by the agency in consultation with the appropriate consulting parties and tribes.

https://www.ohiohistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ArchCollAcquisProced01012021.pdf

Archaeology Guidelines Page 9 of 39

May 31, 2023

Phase I Identification

Phase I identification is intended to discover unrecorded archaeological resources and confirm previously identified archaeological resources within the APE. The methodology of a Phase I identification should be adequate to sample the full range of archaeological resources that may be present within the APE. The results of the Phase I identification are documented and summarized in a report reviewed by the agency, SHPO, tribes, and other consulting parties, as applicable. A statement as to the author's opinion of the resources' eligibility must be included in the report.

A. Field Visit

Although a great deal of topographic and environmental information is available electronically, a field visit, when practicable, is recommended. Minor physiographic features (slight rises, depressions, slopes), modern agricultural practices, the presence of significant environmental features (rock outcrops, springs, etc.), and prior ground disturbance should be noted. The results of the field visit should be combined with background documentary research to develop a sampling strategy.

An important category of information available from a field visit is that of prior ground disturbance. An attempt should be made to ascertain and document the nature and extent of previous disturbance(s). Documentation should take the form of photographs, maps, representative soil profiles, and/or construction records.

If disturbance seriously affects the preservation of archaeological resources that may be present within the APE or influences the extent or the nature of archaeological investigations, SHPO must be provided with sufficient

Urban. A field visit is necessary to evaluate the possibility of prior destruction of archaeological resources, the visual evidence for potential archaeological deposits and to document existing conditions. In the urban environment, visual evidence for archaeological deposits is often lacking, especially in an open situation such as a large parking lot or modern highway. In such cases no amount of surface inspection will detect the presence or absence of archaeological deposits, but certain geophysical survey instruments, such as ground penetrating radar and magnetic gradiometry, can be used to identify archaeological properties buried beneath modern infrastructure. If the APE currently contains buildings, structures, and/or objects, it is sometimes possible to predict the likelihood of the survival of archaeological resources by an assessment of basement depths, or other intrusions into the original ground surface for example.

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

Archaeology Guidelines Page 10 of 39

May 31, 2023 documentation to allow concurrence with the investigator's conclusions; see section entitled General Report Outlines for Disturbance Assessment and Phase I Identification Short Reports within the Archaeology Report Formats of the Archaeology Guidelines.

In evaluating the effect of disturbance and small-scale environmental conditions, the nature of the archaeological record and site formation processes must be considered. Archaeological resources, for example, may be preserved beneath modern disturbance. Likewise, wet or marshy areas may be of contemporary origin.

B. Background Research

This segment of the identification survey is an essential precondition for effective field work, interpretation, and NRHP evaluation. Background research should include, but not be limited to tracing the local environment and culture history using historical maps, documents and photographs, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data, historical and modern aerial photographs, previous archaeological survey results, local, regional, state, or national syntheses (historic contexts), and interviews with persons knowledgeable about archaeological resources in the

APE.

It is the responsibility of the investigator to develop expectations of the probable archaeological resources occurring within the APE, their distribution, and potential significance. If the undertaking occurs in a part of the state where survey data are available and provides a cultural chronology and settlement patterns, the expectations will be derived from extrapolating the known regional settlement patterns to the local conditions and note where gaps occur in the current knowledge. In the Phase I report, the investigator is responsible for summarizing the pertinent and missing information from the regional studies as they apply to the local conditions.

To place the Phase I identification within a fuller context for examining the ecological and cultural historical parameters affecting the location of archaeological resource, background information from various sorts must be considered. Background information should address and critically evaluate environmental characteristics important for defining cultural chronology, establishing settlement patterns, identifying relevant cultural ecologies, and devising predictive models for the location of archaeological resources.

The Phase I identification should also assemble relevant information on the following aspects of the APE:

• Geomorphology

• Soils

Archaeology Guidelines Page 11 of 39

May 31, 2023

• Hydrology

• Geology

• Flora

The Phase I report should integrate and interpret these data and use them to identify areas in which archaeological resources are likely to be present and less likely to be present. These expectations should be explicitly stated and defended by reference to the above categories of information and to local or regional models of settlement. If any of this information is not useful for the development of the sampling strategy, then the Phase I report can exclude them.

The Phase I report must consider the potential for buried archaeological resources in shoreline, streambank, and other environments, as applicable. In doing so it is imperative to conduct background research in past environmental, climatic, geological, pedological, archaeological, and geomorphological studies.

Recommended sources of information include historic USGS topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, soil surveys, and LiDAR data. These resources can help document impacts to the APE, such as erosion, sediment deposition, and land-altering activities that may impact archaeological resource preservation potential. Investigators need to identify the potential impacts of a given undertaking on the APE and identify how the landscape has changed over time (e.g., has the APE always been underwater, or was it dry land at a previous point in time).

C. Disturbance Assessment

Reclaimed strip mines, clear cut forests, transportation/utility rights-of-way, and industrial/commercial/residential development areas where documentary research suggest extensive disturbance may require some level of field verification to document the prior disturbance destroyed or at least significantly impacted the integrity of archaeological deposits that may have been present within the APE.

Soil coring (push tube device, typically ¾ inches in diameter) and/or shovel probes (non-standard sized units excavated with a shovel solely to document stratigraphic integrity) spaced at the discretion of the investigator are appropriate alternatives to standard survey techniques in areas thought to be disturbed.

Photographs and verbal descriptions of soil profiles are typically sufficient to document the extent of disturbance.

D. Developing the Sampling Strategy

Because every undertaking offers a different setting, the sampling strategy for Phase I identification should tailor the investigator’s approach to the local conditions. The sampling strategy needs to integrate the locally pertinent environmental, archival and culture history background information. It should

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

Archaeology Guidelines Page 12 of 39

May 31, 2023 reference the specific environmental setting of the APE and should specify probable survey results. Finally, the sampling strategy needs to provide the appropriate instrumentation and field methods to fulfill its objectives. Consider the following guidelines as a flexible baseline for the design and implementation of the Phase I identification sampling strategy.

E. Geographic Information System Modeling

For large-scale undertakings involving hundreds or thousands of acres it is common practice to develop a predictive model summarizing the relative probability of encountering certain types of archaeological resources across broad terrain. In the absence of an established set of predictive models covering the State of Ohio, investigators create their own models for APEs and/or undertaking types. Almost all rely upon comparing existing archaeological resource location datasets to environmental datasets (e.g., general soil types, distance to permanent water sources, degree of slope) to identify probability zones (e.g. high and low). The models go further to either implicitly or explicitly link archaeological resource types to NRHP eligibility determinations. Predicted locations of archaeological resource types considered most likely to be determined eligible are intensively sampled; while those locations of less likely eligible archaeological resource types are less intensively sampled or excluded from the survey. Differential survey strategies connected to probability zones are

Urban. In addition to the information sources outlined above (beginning in Background Research), the following considerations apply to urban situations where documentary research is extremely important in the identification of urban archaeological resources.

Documentary research must be performed prior to conducting the field survey and should focus on the development of the APE over time, from its pre-urban horizons through to its urban florescence, typically during the twentieth century. The scope of the Phase I research should incorporate discussions of broad social, economic, architectural, technological, ethnic, and other historical and cultural trends in the APE, specifically as these relate to the possibility that significant subsurface archaeological resources are or are not likely to be preserved. For example, the effect of municipal services such as water, sewer, and trash disposal should be considered. The Phase I research should also focus on the effects of the urbanization process on the APE. This phase of investigation should assess the possibility that earlier construction destroyed or has disturbed archaeological resources through grading, blasting, excavation for cellars, subways, sewers, etc. The information should discuss the extent to which earlier construction techniques and projects affected the potential preservation of buried archaeological resources. The result of the documentary research should justify the need for archaeological investigations by outlining expectations that the archaeological deposits are potentially NRHP eligible and substantially intact.

VHACLLBOWENB

Rectangle

Archaeology Guidelines Page 13 of 39

May 31, 2023 allowable but complete exclusion of parts of the landscape introduce bias and compromises the testing of the predictive model.

Geographic information system (GIS) modeling must always be evaluated and refined as to its utility (or lack thereof) in identifying archaeological resources. The goal of these models are not to simply eliminate areas from Phase I identification, but rather to use the results of a tested model to effectively identify where archaeological resources are likely to occur so that the most appropriate survey method(s) can be utilized in the most effective way now and in the future. Models also need to demonstrate what kind of information is most helpful in determining the potential for archaeological resources, and they must also consider what kinds of NRHP eligible archaeological resources are most likely to exist at a given location. All large-scale undertakings (100 acres or larger) that utilize GIS modeling to exclude areas from survey must therefore be reviewed by SHPO prior to the start of any Phase I field investigations.

F. Phase I Identification- Field Investigation

Field investigation will be done after the development of an appropriate sampling strategy that includes the nature and extent of the undertaking, current and historic land use, background research and proposes adequate survey methodologies and instruments to identify archaeological resources in the APE.

There are no standard techniques that can be rotely applied in all situations. All methodologies should be derived from and justified by the situation and the background information. The procedures outlined here are a suggested baseline.

Procedures that fall below this baseline are acceptable if justified by the sampling strategy and agreed to via consultation with SHPO and other consulting parties.

All field investigations should start with a thorough walkover of the entire APE, including a thorough examination of areas where the ground moderately to severely slopes for the presence of rockshelters, rock ledges, or caves, as well as for trash disposal areas and eroded artifacts/features at or from the top of the slope. The walkover should be documented with photographs. The use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) with sub-meter accuracy is encouraged for all archaeological surveys. GPS should be used to record the boundaries of all individual surveyed areas and the location of shovel/deep test units, artifact locations and/or artifact distributions, and above-ground buildings, structures, objects, or prominent landscape features within the surveyed area. Cultural features and anomalies of archaeological interest must be recorded using a GPS receiver with sub-decimeter accuracy

1. Surface Collection

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

Archaeology Guidelines Page 14 of 39

May 31, 2023

a) An important consideration is the widespread use of “no-till” farm practices in Ohio. No-till farming (also called zero tillage or direct drilling) is an agricultural technique for growing crops or pasture without disturbing the soil through tillage. In some cases, low-till methods combine till and no-till methods. For example, some approaches may use a limited amount of shallow disc harrowing but no plowing. The visibility and nature of surficial cultural materials present at an archaeological resource will be directly affected by the method of farming employed. All ground conditions should be thoroughly documented and considered when evaluating the nature, extent, and density of archaeological materials during ground surface inspections.

b) All open and undeveloped areas with sufficient ground surface visibility (greater than 50 percent) can be systematically inspected at intervals of 5 to 10 meters. If archaeological materials are visible at the ground surface, a controlled surface collection of these materials should be made. Use of a grid or piece-plotting may be employed to define provenience for each object to the level of the sampling framework, i.e., 3-4 meters along a transect.

c) Plowing and disking of fallow and/or no-till fields may be used to improve ground surface visibility. Sufficient time must be allotted to allow the newly plowed ground to be rain washed.

d) A single shovel test unit (0.5-m x 0.5-m) to determine depth of topsoil/plowzone should be excavated within the boundaries of an archaeological resource that is recommended for Phase II evaluation. Additional shovel tests, at the investigator’s discretion, may be necessary if the archaeological resource extends across different topographic features.

e) Archaeological resource boundaries must be based on cultural material proximity and landform. Cultural materials found at distances greater than 20 meters apart generally require treatment as a separate archaeological resource unless it occupies the same landform.

2. Shovel Testing

a) Hand excavation of 0.5-m x 0.5-m (square) shovel test units may be employed where plowing, disking, and weathering are not feasible and must be employed in areas with an undisturbed topsoil.

b) Shovel test unit interval (the distance that separates two adjacent units) should not exceed 15 meters. All shovel test units should be excavated in natural stratigraphic levels or 10 cm levels within natural levels to depths reaching bedrock or parent glacial material, or in

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

Archaeology Guidelines Page 15 of 39

May 31, 2023 which no archaeological materials are discovered. In the case of deep soil profiles, shovel test units should be excavated to at least 50 cm depth below ground surface. If culturally sterile soil or bedrock has not been reached at a depth of 50 cm, procedures for deep testing should be followed.

c) Close-interval shovel testing, less than 15-meter intervals on a block grid, may be appropriate to further investigate soil conditions and/or to better assess the distribution and density of archaeological materials.

d) All soil from each natural or 10 cm level in each shovel test unit should be screened through ¼ inch mesh hardware cloth to test for the presence of archaeological materials. Troweling through the removed soil may be employed as an alternative to screening in areas of high clay content soils with low potential for archaeological materials. This alternative approach must be discussed and justified in the sampling strategy.

e) Notes must be kept on each shovel test unit documenting its location, soil stratigraphy, Munsell color codes, depth, and the presence or absence of artifacts. A representative sample of shovel tests should be documented with photographs and profile drawings.

f) Archaeological resource boundaries must be based on cultural material proximity and landform. Cultural materials found at distances greater than 20 meters apart generally require treatment as a separate archaeological resource unless it occupies the same landform.

3. Deep Testing

a) Deep testing and/or geophysical survey is required in areas where cultural bearing strata may be deeply buried, i.e., below 50 cm.

b) The interval for testing in deeply stratified contexts is a 1 m x 1 m unit (screened) at 30 m intervals on a block grid. Deep testing should continue to a depth indicated by a geomorphologist as not likely to contain archaeological resources or 50 cm below the vertical APE.

Deep testing can use hand or power augurs with 160 three-and-a-half-inch diameter, or 127 four-inch diameter, or 32 eight-inch diameter auger holes per 30 m as the equivalent of one 1 m x 1 m unit. When the vertical APE exceeds 1.5 meter in depth, larger hand excavated test units or backhoe trenches will be necessary.

c) Additional geomorphological or soil studies may be appropriate where particularly complex or unusual conditions of soil deposition exist. If in doubt SHPO should be consulted.

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

VHACLLBOWENB

Highlight

Archaeology Guidelines Page 16 of 39

May 31, 2023

d) Regardless of the investigative method employed, a geomorphologist should be consulted for the identification of buried soil horizons.

e) Archaeological resource boundaries must be based on cultural feature and/or material proximity and landform. The horizontal and vertical boundary must be clearly documented. Estimates as to the full horizontal extent of the boundaries should also be provided within the report.

f) All deep tests must be conducted in a manner consistent with the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Standards for Excavating Trenches.

4. Geophysical Survey The standard site identification methods presented above are conventionally employed; however, the use of geophysical instruments for the identification of subsurface features and deposits has proven efficient and effective. In cases where an American Indian burial mound, earthwork complex, or cemetery is known or thought to be within the APE then geophysical survey is SHPO’s preferred method of investigation.

Justification for use of geophysical instruments for Phase I identification as an alternative to conventional identification methods must be built into the sampling strategy and coordinated with SHPO prior to implementation.

Resistivity, magnetometer, and other remote sensing techniques have been refined and used with considerable success in identifying potential sub-surface cultural features under certain conditions. The success of these techniques is highly dependent on bedrock and soil conditions, feature size and composition, depth of features, as well as the skill and sophistication of the user. Certain conditions (i.e., bedrock at or near the ground surface, consistently or periodically high-water tables, soils with hard pans, Urban Settings. Archaeological investigation in urban situations can pose unique accessibility and safety challenges. Where the APE is accessible, testing is expected.

Background research should determine whether protective safety equipment is required. If field investigations to verify the presence and integrity of archaeological resources as identified by the background research cannot be accomplished at this stage of the survey the Phase I report should state the justification for the decision and suggest an appropriate alternative. Further consultation with SHPO will be necessary. Guidance on subsurface testing in urban areas is contained in Field Investigation in the following section on Phase II survey.

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha2226.pdf https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha2226.pdf

VHACLLBOWENB

Rectangle

Archaeology Guidelines Page 17 of 39

May 31, 2023 fragipans, gravel concentrations, and high iron contents) may preclude the use of some of these techniques.

Although remote sensing techniques are, under certain conditions, an effective and efficient means to obtain information on the number and range of anomalies that may be features and their distribution, they do not allow for the full characterization of anomalies without coring or selective excavation, i.e., ground-truthing. That said, alone systematic surface collection and subsurface testing are poor sampling techniques for identifying anomalies that may be archaeological features and their distribution. Yet the techniques complement each other and can provide a more robust Phase I identification.

The geophysical instruments tabled below represent “best practice” for identifying the targeted archaeological resources. They are subject to change as the technology improves and new applications are discovered.

The magnetic gradiometer is the recommended instrument for survey when and where practicable. The magnetic gradiometer can be pared with the electromagnetic conductivity meter for better results. For geophysical survey focused on historic-era resources (e.g., stone foundations, privies, wells, and cisterns) and cemeteries, ground penetrating radar and/or electrical resistivity can be used to either compliment or replace the magnetic gradiometer. The minimal acceptable standards for these instruments are provided in the table below.

Archaeology Guidelines Page 18 of 39

May 31, 2023

INSTRUMENT DATA DENSITY TRANSECT

SPACING

DEPTH PREFERRED

TARGETS

Magnetic Gradiometer

10 samples per meter

50 cm Base of plowzone/ 1+ meter

Burned Soil Prehistoric features Iron objects Magnetic rocks

Ground Penetrating Radar

20-50 Traces per meter

25-50 cm Varies w/ soil type 0.70- 3+ meters

Graves* Foundations Rock-filled pits

Electrical Resistance

2 samples per meter

50-100 cm 0 – 70cm Soil moisture Earthworks Roads Foundations

Electromagnetic Conductivity Meter

8-10 per meter 50 cm Earthworks Foundations Roads Prehistoric features Middens

* See the Cemeteries, Burial Mounds, and Other Burial Places chapter of Archaeology Guidelines for further discussion

Additional expectations for any geophysical survey include:

a) Vegetation within the survey area must be removed or cut to a height of 2 to 4 inches prior to survey.

b) If the survey is done on a grid, semi-permanent datum points recorded using a GPS receiver with sub-decimeter accuracy must mark the geophysical grid corners.

c) Geophysical anomalies of archaeological interest must be ground-truthed via soil coring and/or hand excavation. The presence of burnt soil, microdebitage, ceramic, dark organic soil, and/or charcoal/ash may be used as indicators of a pre-contact feature, with brick, mortar, glass, refined ceramic, and corroded metal for a historic-era feature.

d) If field conditions allow the area where geophysical anomalies of archaeological interest are identified should be surface collected.

e) Geophysical anomalies verified as cultural features in isolation or clusters must be recorded on an Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI) form.

Archaeology Guidelines Page 19 of 39

May 31, 2023

f) Archaeological resource boundaries must be based on cultural anomaly proximity and landform.

g) Detailed discussion of the instruments used, how the data was collected, and field conditions must be included in the Phase I identification report.

h) Field notes and when possible unprocessed sensor data must be provided with the Phase I identification report.

i) Inconclusive and/or negative soil cores may be an indication of leaching and organic decomposition due to the extreme age of a cultural feature. Stone preventing core penetration may represent fire-cracked rock. Verification of the soil coring may be necessary (e.g., hand excavation to expose the anomaly in plan view) when the geophysical data and soil coring suggests incongruent results.

j) Interpretation of the data and classification of geophysical anomalies must be done by or under the direct supervision of a qualified professional with proven experience for applying this technique to archaeological resource identification in the eastern United States.

For more detailed discussion see the supplement entitled, Geophysical Survey.

5. Metal Detector Survey Metal detector survey play an important role in the identification and understanding of early historic frontier sites, historic-era village sites, forts, and battlefields. Use of metal detectors should supplement conventional site identification and/or testing methods, as determined by the sampling strategy.

Metal detector coverage should be based on research objectives, but at a minimum, should be conducted systematically along 2-meter lanes, within

Ohio’s American Indian earthworks are among the most significant prehistoric features on the landscape. However, their surface expressions have been lost to agricultural practices and modern development. That does not mean they are destroyed, or they have lost the integrity to yield important information. Current and historic aerial photography, LiDAR, and 19th century illustrations are all useful tools in locating earthworks, but recent use of geophysical instruments has shown that these resources are often much larger, more complex, and occur more frequently than archaeologists have previously understood.

Outside of the footprint of the earthen structure, pits, posts, and other important features likely occur. If an earthwork is within the APE, SHPO will likely recommend a magnetometer survey and/or other geophysical survey be conducted.

Archaeology Guidelines Page 20 of 39

May 31, 2023

20-meter blocks. Vegetation and leaf litter may need to be removed within the survey blocks to allow for adequate coverage. Plastic shaft pin flags are used to mark “target” locations. Targets must be investigated (typically with trowel and pinpointer) with verified artifacts cataloged and their proveniences recorded via GPS with sub-meter accuracy.

Reported results of a metal detector survey must include overall methodology, survey coverage, and a discussion of how metal detection aids and enhances the survey. The methodology description must include the survey equipment type, personnel/qualifications, operation mode and time spent in detection. If sampling is used, the type of sampling (e.g., every third transect swept or only iron targets excavated) must be justified and discussed. Mapping graphics should illustrate the width and orientation of detection lanes, pin flag locations, and any excavations placed for ground truthing.

Although no specific make or model detector is recommended, the equipment used for survey should at a minimum comprise the following:

a) Ability to discriminate between metal types

b) Ground balance capabilities

c) A search coil measuring greater than or equal to 20 cm in diameter

d) Ability to pinpoint

In addition, the use of good quality noise canceling headphones is highly recommended.

The metal detecting operators must be qualified professionals with proven experience applying this technique to archaeological site survey.

Inexperienced operators may be used but the ratio of novices to qualified professional should not exceed 4 to 1.

6. Rockshelters Unique depositional environments such as rockshelters must be visually inspected for evidence of artifacts, petroglyphs, polissoirs, cupstones, etc. If no cultural materials are observed on the shelter’s interior surface or talus slope, at least one shovel test (0.5-m x 0.5-m) should be excavated inside the shelter. If the interior shovel test cannot be excavated due to excessive rock fall, then a shovel test beyond the drip line or on the talus slope will suffice.

The height of the ceiling and the depth of the shelter should be recorded, and a photograph of the rockshelter taken. GPS should be used to record

Archaeology Guidelines Page 21 of 39

May 31, 2023 the location of the rockshelter and/ or shovel test units.

7. Submerged Resources Ohio’s northern border includes over 310 miles of shoreline along Lake Erie and the coastal islands, with approximately 600 shipwrecks estimated to have been lost within Ohio waters. While shipwrecks are the most recognized type of submerged archaeological resource, they are not the only resource anticipated from submerged contexts, nor is Lake Erie the only location with the potential to contain submerged archaeological resources. Navigable waterways, including streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs may all contain evidence of past human activity. Archaeological resources may also be identified within streambanks and along eroding shorelines. Background research should address the potential for shipwrecks as well as the potential for early industrial structures/remnants or inundated (formerly terrestrial) archaeological resources.

When the APE includes the potential for submerged archaeological resources that cannot be readily seen through visual inspection of the seafloor, lakebed, or riverbed, a remote-sensing survey may be necessary.

The methods described below represent “best practice” using commonly available tools and techniques as applied to the identification of Ohio’s submerged resources. If archaeological resources are identified and occur within Lake Erie, consultation with ODNR and SHPO is required to determine the most appropriate course of action.

a) General requirements for all submerged resource surveys, include:

(1) A differentially-corrected global positioning system receiver or system of equal or greater accuracy to continuously log the surface position of the vessel.

(2) Surveys for linear undertakings, such as submerged transmission cables or pipelines, should include a centerline based on the projected path of the infrastructure to be installed, and offsets to either side. The use of a centerline is intended to allow for collection of data directly along the area to be impacted by operations.

(3) The report must identify all project personnel and their role(s), equipment specifications and settings used in the survey, field and operating conditions, survey procedures, data quality, discussion of any data acquisition issues/problems that impact quality or interpretation, and post-processing procedures (including software used and workflows followed).

Archaeology Guidelines Page 22 of 39

May 31, 2023

(4) Operation of equipment and data interpretation must be done by or under the direct supervision of a qualified maritime archaeologists.

The selection of remote sensing instruments for the inspection of the submerged portion of the APE is dependent upon the goals of the survey.

Marine magnetometers are capable of penetrating multiple sediment layers and locating ferrous objects. The side scan sonar, commonly used to locate shipwrecks, provides imagery across large areas that discerns different features on the seafloor, lakebed, or riverbed. The minimal acceptable standards for these instruments are:

a) Marine Magnetometer

(1) For towed devices, magnetometer towfish should be pulled behind the vessel at a distance of at least three times the length of the vessel, or as appropriate based on hull material to eliminate vessel interference.

(2) The towfish altitude must not exceed 6 meters from the seafloor, lakebed, or riverbed.

(3) The data sampling interval must record at 1-second intervals or less.

(4) Magnetometer sensitivity should not exceed one gamma (ɣ) or one nanoTesla (nT).

(5) Parallel survey lanes should be 15 m apart, but never more than 30 m.

b) Side Scan Sonar

(1) Side scan sonar must be a dual-frequency system that records data digitally.

(2) Side scan sonar frequency must be a minimum of 300–500 kHz.

(3) Line spacing should be selected to ensure 100% overlap (200% coverage) of survey area.

(4) Towfish height should be between 10 and 20 percent of the range of the instrument.

G. Phase I Identification- No-Collection and In-Field Analysis The use of no-collection and in-field analysis strategies may be preferred for a given undertaking. Justification for employing this technique must be made

Archaeology Guidelines Page 23 of 39

May 31, 2023 clear in the report and can include agency/landowner requirements, the outcome of tribal consultation, resources that are 20th century refuse dumps, or work conducted on an NRHP listed archaeological property.

Expectations for use of this strategy will typically include:

1. Artifacts provenienced to shovel test unit, transect, or piece-plotted via sub-meter GPS.

2. Artifacts cleaned before analysis and photography.

3. Use of standardized artifact analysis forms for the recordation of material and artifact types as well as physical metric and nonmetric attributes such as shape, size, and decoration.

4. In-field photography of all diagnostic artifacts done on a neutral background with appropriate provenience labeling and scale.

5. Return of artifacts to location where found.

6. In-field analysis must be done by a qualified archaeologist familiar with the classification and analysis of artifacts typically encountered in Ohio.

7. Artifact analysis forms, artifact photographs, and other associated documentation must be included as an attachment to the Phase I Identification report.

H. Archaeological Monitoring Monitoring is an acceptable practice in cases where the built environment impedes identification and evaluation efforts of archaeological resources or human remains are thought to be present but cannot be reasonably identified prior to construction. Decision and justification to utilize archaeological monitoring will be based upon consultation between the agency, SHPO and other consulting parties. Generally, SHPO will request that an archaeology monitoring plan or an agreement document/letter stipulating the protocols for monitoring be prepared for review prior to construction activities. The plan/protocols should include, but not be limited to:

1. A discussion on the objectives of the archaeological monitoring include types of resources expected.

2. The number of qualified archaeologists required during the monitoring.

3. If lineal descendants and/or Tribal representatives will work alongside the archaeologists, their responsibilities and authority.

4. The area of archaeological monitoring must be included on project plans along with a construction plan note summarizing the stipulations

Archaeology Guidelines Page 24 of 39

May 31, 2023 of the archaeological monitoring plan. It is imperative that the construction contractor knows exactly what is expected of them.

5. Details as to who is responsible for notifying the monitoring personnel and others as appropriate and the time required to mobilize before start of construction activities within the specified monitoring area.

6. A clear statement by the agency or…