Attachment_4_Form_Data_Dictionary.pdf

ASMIS

3.01

Archeological Sites Management Information System

Version 3.01

Data Dictionary

Archeology Program Park Cultural Resources Programs National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC

December 2007

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 40

Site Formation Type

Field Name: FMSitetype Table Name: FMSITETYPE Date Updated: December 2007

Description

Formation Type is used to categorize the salient physical or formational properties of a site or subsite independently of its inferred function.

Format

Authority Table controlled text.

Examples

Scatter Cumulus Building

A domiciliary mound would typically have the values "Earthwork" and "Building" entered as formation types.

A burial mound would typically have the values "Earthwork" and "Interment" entered as formation types.

A sub-surface kiva would typically have the values "Excavation" and "Building" entered as formation types.

Procedures and Guidelines

This is a one-to-many relationship at both the site and subsite levels. Select each value that applies, but the formation type that best describes the majority of the site should be listed first.

Formation Type is not a required field in ASMIS. However, it is mandatory to enter a value in this field if a site is a Maintained Archeological Site (MAS) that will be entered in the Facilities Management Software System (FMSS). The data in specific fields in ASMIS, including this one, will be automatically transferred from ASMIS to FMSS for a site that is designated a MAS.

The “Structure” value in the Formation Type field should not be confused with how structure is used for the National Register of Historic Places, which includes buildings. “Structure” and “Building” are separated out in this field to facilitate use in identifying characteristics of a MAS in FMSS.

The Site Formation Type field provides useful management information about any site. It is required only if the site is classified as a Maintained Archeological Site. Data from this field will be automatically transferred to the Facilities Maintenance Software System (FMSS) for a site that is designated a MAS.

Authority

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 41

National Park Service Manager, Archeology Program Archeological Sites Management Information System

Formation Type

Value Definition

Barrier/Enclosure The archeological features and/or artifactual remains were erected to limit or control access from one area to another. Examples include corrals, fences, walls, barricades, weirs, game drives, stockades, and palisades.

Building The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are associated with structures that typically had roofs and walls to afford humans shelter or protection to their belongings. Examples include houses, lean-tos, above ground kivas, wickiups, sod houses, tents, barns, cribs, henhouses, garages, grist mills, and factories.

Cumulus The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of the accumulation or mounding up of refuse, waste, or other cultural debris over a period of time. Examples include middens, dumps, shell heaps, campsites, rubble mounds, ballast piles, and tailings.

Earthwork The archeological features and/or artifactual remains were created by contouring the ground surface. Examples include mounds, embankments, dikes, terraces, bunkers, and reservoirs.

Excavation The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of removing materials by digging or excavation. Examples may be structural or non-structural and include mines, quarries, sub-surface kivas, house foundations, borrow pits, ditches, wells, millraces, and cellars.

Grounds The archeological features and/or artifactual remains were created by removing, planting, or otherwise altering the ground cover in an area to demarcate a cultural space. Examples include plazas, gardens, town squares, and parks.

Imagery The archeological features and/or artifactual remains were created by drawing, painting, scribing, or decorating a visible surface. Examples include artwork, graffiti, petroglyphs, pictographs, and geoglyphs.

Interment The archeological features and/or artifactual remains were purposely buried in the ground or earth. Examples include human burials, animal burials, cemeteries, tombs, and caches.

Route-way The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are associated with transportation arteries or waypoints. Examples include tramways, railways, road traces, trails, paths, canals, and causeways.

Scatter The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of associated but relatively sparsely distributed cultural materials. Examples include lithic scatters, ceramic scatters, battlefield scatters, can dumps, wood scatters, surficial campsites, and gravel terrace quarries.

Structure The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are associated with

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 42 structures that are not buildings. Examples include bridges, trestles, docks, hunting blinds, kilns, medicine wheels, and heiaus.

Wreckage The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the remains of vessels and vehicles that were lost or abandoned as a result of accident, attack, or deterioration at a particular moment of time. Examples include boats, ships, airplanes, trains, wagons, automobiles, sleds, and carts.

Other This category includes those sites not well addressed by the previous categories.

Examples include culturally modified trees and papamus (game boards).

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 43

Environmental Setting

Field Name: FMSetting Table Name: FMSETTING

Setting is the physical setting or environmental conditions under which the site or subsite and its archeological resources currently exist.

Format

Authority Table controlled text.

Examples

Surface Buried Submerged

An historic mill site with a foundation and walls a little over a foot high sits on the shore of a small river and gets inundated once every year or two after a very rainy spring season. In this case, “Littoral” should be entered as the first value in this field. It should be followed by “Surface” and “Subsurface”.

This is a one-to-many relationship. More than one setting value can be entered for each site or subsite.

The first entry should be the setting that best describes the majority of the site. Another important value to include in this field is the portion of the site, if it is different from the setting of the majority of the site, which is most at risk and requires treatment.

Choose the most appropriate value(s) based on what can be seen or known through visual inspection, testing, or excavation of the site. Select additional values only when clear and sufficient evidence exists.

For example, when evidence of a sheet midden is seen on the surface of the site, select Surface. Although the sheet midden may extend down into the Subsurface, do not select Subsurface unless there is clear evidence that the depth of the site extends down that far.

This field provides useful management information about any site. It is required only if the site is classified as a Maintained Archeological Site. Data from this field will be transferred directly to the Facilities Maintenance Software System (FMSS) for Maintained Archeological Sites.

Authority

National Park Service Manager, Archeology Program Archeological Sites Management Information System

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 44

Environmental Setting

Value Definition Above Ground Archeological resources at the site are elevated above the natural ground surface, generally as a result of human construction or earthmoving, where they are subject to deterioration by natural and human impacts. This value includes any site that begins above ground level, such as petroglyphs, pictographs, and other rock art, as well as culturally modified trees. Other examples include standing structures with multiple stories, structural ruins that extend more than one foot above ground surface, wickiups, conical timbered lodges, mounds, shell ridges, fences, earthen embankments, and rock piles.

Alcoved Archeological resources at the site are located beneath a natural protective cover but where sunlight naturally provides illumination, such as an overarching cliff face or cave opening. Examples include rock shelters, cliff dwellings, and cavates.

Buried Archeological resources at the site are located well below the natural ground surface, at least 24 inches, where they are relatively safe from common ground disturbing activities. Buried sites are primarily known through data recovery, testing, construction, geophysical investigations, or erosion by water, wind or other means.

Inundated Archeological resources at the site are located in an area that was altered by purposeful water management actions. Often the site was originally in a terrestrial setting but became inundated by the controlled management of water or water flows through the construction of locks or dams. These actions resulted in man-made reservoirs or other unnaturally elevated water levels. Some inundated sites occur in shallow, near-shore locations, while others are in deep, reservoir water. They may be subject to wave action, fluctuation of surface water levels, storm surges, and other disturbances. Examples include any historic or prehistoric sites affected by water management actions.

Littoral Archeological resources at the site are located in an area, typically along a natural shoreline or in natural shallow water environments, where they are periodically affected by tides, wave action, or fluctuation of surface water levels due to dry/wet periods. Examples include any historic or prehistoric sites affected by natural shallow water fluctuations.

Submerged Archeological resources at the site are located beneath the surface of a permanent, natural body of water, such as a river, lake, or ocean, are not exposed to air as a result of fluctuating water levels, and lie on the surface of the bottom sediments. Examples include shipwrecks, fallen aircraft, and prehistoric sites.

Submerged-Embedded Archeological resources at the site are located beneath the surface of a permanent, natural body of water, such as a river, lake, or ocean, are not exposed to air as a result of fluctuating water levels, and are embedded or firmly affixed in the bottom sediments or in coralline formations. Excavation tools are required to move the bottom sediments to gain access to the site, such as a shipwreck.

Subsurface Archeological resources at the site are located immediately below the natural ground surface, usually 2-24 inches deep. At that depth, they are readily affected by common ground-disturbing activities, such as plowing, grating, brush clearing, and tree falls. Examples include pithouses, cellars, cisterns, and

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 45 subsurface kilns.

Subterranean Archeological resources at the site are located within a cavern or cave system, generally beyond the point where sunlight naturally provides illumination. Other examples include mining tunnels or shafts, lava tubes, and karsts.

Surface Archeological resources at the site are located at the natural ground surface, and may extend approximately one foot above the surface, where they may be seen without digging and are readily disturbed/broken/altered by natural and human impacts. Examples include artifact scatters, lithic scatters, rubble mounds, geoglyphs, rock alignments, stone or brick pier foundations, and tepee circles.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 46

Site Function

Field Name: FMFunction Table Name: FMFUNCTION Date Created: December 2007

Site function refers to the general type of activity or intended purpose of the activity that resulted in the formation of the archeological site and its features.

Domestic/Residential Communication

Enter the function that best describes the type(s) of activities or intended purposes of the activity that brought about the formation of the archeological site and its features. More than one function can be entered for each site or subsite as they apply. For example, cairns may be listed under “Procurement”, “Ceremonial/Religious”, and “Transportation/Supply”, and platform trees may be listed under “Storage/Holding”, “Funerary/Mortuary”, and “Procurement.” The function that best describes the majority of the site should be listed first.

The Site Function field provides useful management information about any site. It is required only if the site is classified as a Maintained Archeological Site (MAS). Data from this field will be automatically transferred to the Facilities Maintenance Software System (FMSS) for a site that is designated a MAS.

Manager, Archeology and Ethnography Program

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 47

Site Function

Value Definition

Ceremonial/Religious The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of religious, ceremonial, or ritual activities. Examples include churches, shrines, temple mounds, kivas, ritual offerings, cairns, and missions.

Civic/Public The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of mainly secular public or communal activities. Examples include school houses, court houses, jails, post offices, museums, plazas, great kivas, and council houses.

Commerce/Trade The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of commerce or trade. Examples include retail stores, trading posts, banks, taverns, hotels, and market places.

Communication The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of transmitting messages or information between individuals, groups of individuals, or communities. Examples include rock art, graffiti, cairns, signs, boundary trees, culturally modified trees - bent trees, totem poles, geoglyphs, and telephone pole lines.

Defense/Military The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of defensive or military activities. Examples include forts, battlefields, sentry posts, and warships.

Domestic/Residential The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of domestic-oriented activities associated with a temporary or long-term residential setting, including the construction of dwellings and ancillary domestic structures or features. Examples include cabins, teepee rings, hogans, domiciliary mounds, pueblos, kitchen houses, privies, and villages.

Extraction The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of collecting, digging, lumbering, or other physical means of procuring immobile raw materials for use elsewhere. Examples include quarries, mines, lumber camps, oil wells, clay source sites, and salt-water evaporation ponds.

Funerary/Mortuary The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of handling, treating, or disposing of human remains. Examples include burial mounds, cemeteries, charnel structures, burial crypts, graves, tombs, grave offerings, and mortuary poles.

Horticulture/Gardening The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of manipulating plants and planting areas (gardens, fields, orchards, etc.) to obtain foods, medicines, and plant materials for economic, ornamental, and other purposes. Examples include formal gardens, terrace walls, and greenhouses.

Processing/Manufacturing The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of processing or modifying raw materials into a ware or product for consumption or trade. Examples include lithic workshops, pottery kilns, ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 48 smithies, grist mills, saw mills, tanneries, fish racks, packing houses, refineries, bedrock mortars, grinding slicks, power plants, and factories.

Procurement The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of collecting, hunting, gathering, fishing, or other physical means of procuring native plant and animal resources for consumption. Examples include fish camps, fish weirs, culturally modified trees – peeled trees, game drive lines, quarries, hunting camps, and hunting blinds.

Recreation/Tourism The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of recreational activities or tourism. Examples include ball courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, spas, visitor centers, comfort stations, pavilions, and gazebos.

Refuse/Byproducts The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of discarding refuse and/or other cultural byproducts of various kinds.

Examples include lithic scatters, bottle dumps, and midden deposits.

Storage/Holding The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of storing foodstuffs, raw materials, tools, or equipment of various kinds.

Examples include cribs, granaries, silos, platform trees, garages, barns, warehouses, cellars, storage pits, caches, sheds, springhouses, carriage houses, and smokehouses.

Transportation/Supply The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of transporting or providing the means of transporting people or goods from one place to another. Examples include roads, trails, canals, shipwrecks, lighthouses, wharfs, wagons, railroad grades, and tram lines.

Water Control/Irrigation The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of controlling water resources by extracting, impounding, channeling and other means of water control. Examples are wells, cisterns, dikes, water towers, dams, irrigation ditches, pipelines, and aquaducts.

Zooculture/Ranching The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of raising livestock or animal husbandry. Examples include corrals, chicken coops, line camps, and dipping vats.

Other The archeological features and/or artifactual remains are the result of other activities that cannot be described by any of the other values in this field.

Undetermined The site function of archeological features and/or artifactual remains cannot be or has not yet been determined due to insufficient information about the site.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 51

Site Condition Assessment

Field Name: Condition Table Name: Condition Date Updated: July 2006 Field Name Updated: February 2005

The Site Condition Assessment, formerly RMP Condition Assessment, is a professional evaluation of the condition of an archeological resource that focuses on physical stability and degree or amount of deterioration. Condition assessments involve a site visit and should be conducted on a regular schedule [see the Documented Inspection Schedule field; see also “Guidance for Determining Archeological Site Condition and Recording it in ASMIS” on InsideNPS at http://inside.nps.gov/waso/custommenu.cfm?lv=3&prg=279&id=1018].

It is very important to use the values of “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, or “Destroyed” for the site's current condition whenever possible. Two new values, “Inundated – Uncertain” and “Not Relocated – Unknown,” were added to the Site Condition Assessment field in July 2006. They should only be used when the condition cannot be accurately assessed based on the conditions presented in the field value definitions and other guidance provided below.

A condition assessment may provide an opportunity to offer initial treatment recommendations or to update previously recommended corrective treatments [recorded in the Treatment Proposed field] to improve sites in fair or poor condition. Such treatment involves stabilizing disturbances at a site and removing potential threats to prevent further harm to its archeological values.

If the site is scheduled for corrective treatment, such as improving site condition, the activity and costs of the activity(ies) involved should be entered into the Project Management Information System (PMIS) and, if appropriate, the Facility Management Software System (FMSS).

The information provided in this field is used for national level reporting for NPS Strategic Planning (GPRA Goal Ia8), Preserve America, OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and other regular, annual reporting requirements.

Good Poor

Enter the appropriate Site Condition Assessment value for the resource. A complete Site Condition Assessment entry includes a Date, Condition Assessment, and Data Source. The site's condition assessment should always be documented and the paper record kept with other information about the site.

http://inside.nps.gov/waso/custommenu.cfm?lv=3&prg=279&id=1018

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 52

The following provides additional guidance on how to determine the appropriate condition for some of the condition values and other matters.

Destroyed: If the site is “Destroyed”, the ASMIS site record should be changed to a Local Resource Type using the value “Destroyed” and the date it was determined to have been destroyed.

Inundated-Uncertain: A site condition should be recorded as “Inundated-Uncertain” if the condition of an inundated site cannot be accurately assessed during the site visit. Sites that were originally occupied in a terrestrial setting along lakes and other waterways may become inundated over time due to natural rises in water levels, purposeful water management actions, or subsidence of land. While some inundated sites are accessible using standard underwater archeological methods, others occur in shallow, near-shore settings where such methods are difficult, or even impossible, to apply.

When inundated sites become exposed above the water level, traditional terrestrial field methods should be applied. Such situations often cannot be predicted or relied upon to accomplish site condition assessments because exposure is irregular. However, most man-made lakes are monitored at their dams and increases or decreases to the out flows are announced ahead of time so terrestrial condition assessments may then be scheduled, as appropriate.

It should not be assumed that sites in inundated settings are destroyed, nor should the sites be assumed to be in good, fair, or poor condition without direct, first-hand observation. When the condition of an inundated site can be accurately assessed, it should be done and recorded using the standard site condition values of “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, and “Destroyed”.

Not Relocated–Unknown: Every effort should be made to determine whether a site is in “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, or “Destroyed” condition. However, a site’s condition may be assessed as “Not Relocated – Unknown” if its general location cannot be identified after careful inspection of the area where the site was recorded originally, close consideration of all available knowledge about its context, structure, and content, and there is good potential for it to be relocated with further testing or under changing environmental conditions. A site may be difficult to relocate because:

• It was discovered and documented before the standard use of a relatively precise location device, such as a compass, Loran, and GPS unit.

• The initial documentation of a site may be too vague and/or incomplete.

• Natural forces, such as shifting sands, alluviation, and major vegetation growth, may have significantly obscured the site since the last visit.

Efforts to relocate a site might include inspection for artifacts on the surface or in disturbed areas (rodent back dirt piles, cut banks, foot paths or animal trails, previous archeological testing), geophysical investigations, auguring, or shovel testing. Before conducting any subsurface investigations, consider what impacts this might have on the site and availability of time or funding for dealing with any recovered artifacts.

When a site cannot be relocated, the archeologist must determine if there is good potential that it is in that general location based on knowledge of similar site types in the park in relation to geography, topography, vegetation, distance to fresh water, and related factors. If there is a good potential, then use “Not Relocated – Unknown.” If there is a low potential for the site to be relocated during a reassessment, the ASMIS site record should be changed to a Local Resource Type using the value “Not Relocated.”

When a site has been visited twice and “Not Relocated – Unknown” was entered in ASMIS both times, the site location and presence of archeological data must be determined during the third visit. If the site location still cannot be determined, the ASMIS site record should be changed to a Local Resource Type using the value “Not Relocated.”

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 53

Poor: A site is usually in “Poor” condition if, since the last condition assessment, there has been a loss of a major organizing or defining feature, such as a subsite (e.g., an earthwork, mound or structure), or a loss of a portion of a site with several key features that defined the primary site function. Since these features or areas are critical to the site’s data potential for historical or scientific research, their loss makes it very difficult to utilize any remaining site data. For example, a site along a waterway existed for the purpose of extracting fish and most of the evidence for fishing activities, such as smoking pits, stone platforms for drying fish, etc, is lost from erosion. What remains of the site are functional areas common to many site types, so the data potential of the remaining area is largely lost.

Unknown: A site condition should be recorded as "Unknown" if the validity or currency of the assessment is questionable. This determination is usually done without a site visit. The corresponding date in the Condition Assessment Date field is the date that the condition is determined to be “Unknown,” which may be at the time of data entry.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 54

Site Condition Assessment

Value Description

Destroyed The site's formal condition assessment resulted in a professional determination that the site was destroyed or so severely damaged that the data potential/scientific research value was deemed insufficient to warrant further archeological monitoring or investigation. A destroyed site is excluded from Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and other national level reporting requirements and is recorded in ASMIS in the Local Resource Type field.

Fair The site, at the first condition assessment or during the time interval since its last condition assessment, shows evidence of deterioration by natural forces and/or human activities. If the identified impacts continue without the appropriate corrective treatment, the site will degrade to a poor condition and the site’s data potential for historical or scientific research will be lowered.

Good The site, at the first condition assessment or during the time interval since its last condition assessment, shows no evidence of noticeable deterioration by natural forces and/or human activities. The site is considered currently stable and its present archeological values are not threatened. No adjustments to the currently prescribed site treatments are required in the near future to maintain the site's present condition.

Inundated – Uncertain The deposits and condition of an inundated site, formerly in a terrestrial setting, are obscured and cannot be accurately assessed due to factors such as water turbidity or natural lack of clarity, wave action, growth of aquatic vegetation, and other conditions.

Application of standard methods to assess the condition of an inundated site is not possible in these circumstances.

Not Relocated – Unknown The location where the site was last documented was visited, but the site could not be relocated. Based on best professional judgment that considers standard site types in the park, geography, topography, site documentation, and other pertinent factors, the area is deemed to most likely be the location of the site. Further testing may be required to determine the site location with certainty.

Poor The site, at the first condition assessment or during the time interval since its last condition assessment, shows evidence of severe deterioration by natural forces and/or human activities. If the identified impacts continue without the appropriate corrective treatment, the site is likely to undergo further degradation and the site’s data potential for historical or scientific research will be lost.

Unknown The current condition of the site is not known, or available information is not sufficient to professionally evaluate the site’s condition, or the validity of the assessment is questionable. An unknown site condition is excluded from Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and other national level reporting requirements.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 58

Depositional Integrity Assessment

Field Name: Dep_Integrity Table: Dep_Integrity Authority Table Updated: February 2005

The Depositional Integrity Assessment field is used to document archeological integrity (degree of preservation) at surface and subsurface levels of a site and its subsites. It includes sites that are above ground and have no surface or subsurface deposits, such as culturally modified trees or rock art.

According to Bulletin 36 of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), "Archeologists use the word integrity to describe the level of preservation or quality of information contained within a district, site, or excavated assemblage. A property with good archeological integrity has archeological deposits that are relatively intact and complete. The archeological record at a site with integrity has not been severely impacted by later cultural activities or natural processes." (NPS 1993:14)

As the NRHP further explains, the assessment of archeological integrity at a particular historic property or district "depends upon the identified historic contexts, questions, and research" that can be addressed

(NPS 1993:15).

If Depositional Integrity information is recorded at the subsite level, then it should be entered at the site ("00") level as well. When subsites do not have the same Depositional Integrity values, the highest or best of the recorded subsite Depositional Integrity values should be assigned at the site ("00") level in order to afford the site the greatest management consideration and the best opportunity for resource protection.

Format

Authority Table controlled text.

Examples

#1 - An archeological site consisting of a platform mound and village has been subjected to extensive plowing, but subsurface features exist below the plowzone. The mound has not been subjected to plowing and has a fully intact occupation surface (extremely well preserved structural remains, hearths, etc.) on its summit. The mound, because of its extraordinary preservation, is graded as "Exceptional" at the subsite level while the heavily plowed village is assigned a value of "Moderate" at the subsite level. At the overarching site level, the village/mound complex is rated at the "Exceptional" level because of the high preservation qualities of the mound.

#2 - A pristine rock art site that appears to have no loss of painted, pecked, or other elements has exceptional integrity, while one that has suffered some deterioration through natural or human forces would have moderate integrity. If the rock art site is heavily vandalized or naturally eroded with the loss of a number of elements, it would have poor integrity.

Enter the appropriate Depositional Integrity for the resource. A complete entry includes a Date and the Depositional Integrity value.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 59

This value is based on the best professional judgment of the evaluating archeologist with NPS concurrence, and should be assigned only after the state of preservation has been documented by adequate field investigations. If there is insufficient information currently available to adequately assess archeological integrity of the surface and subsurface deposits (e.g., subsurface evaluative testing has not been conducted), then a value of "Unevaluated" should be assigned along with the date of determination.

When adequate testing or excavation is completed to make a depositional integrity determination, it should be entered in the Archeological Work Assessment field.

For sites that are above ground and have no surface or subsurface deposits, such as culturally modified trees or rock art, equate the physical condition of the archeological elements of the resource to its integrity. See example above.

The depositional integrity of an archeological resource can change over time due to a variety of factors such as natural deterioration, vandalism, looting, etc. All sites may require reevaluation from time to time.

See National Register Bulletin 36, pp. 14-15 for a discussion of archeological site integrity. Also, see National Register Bulletin 15 for a discussion of how integrity relates to site significance, but be aware that archeological site integrity is more concerned with contexts, i.e. "place" and "association", and less with the esthetics of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling. If it is important to document the significance of an archeological site, discuss it in the Remarks field.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 60

Depositional Integrity Assessment

Value Definition

Exceptional Virtually all archeological deposits are completely intact and retain all of their original archeological integrity. Preservation is exceptional and all indications are that the archeological deposits are entirely in situ and unaltered.

Lacking All of the archeological deposits, as a result of natural and/or human impacts, have lost all archeological integrity and have been determined, through professional evaluation, to be insufficiently intact to address any currently conceptualized spheres of archeological research that would warrant further investigation.

Moderate The archeological deposits have clearly suffered as a result of natural forces and/or human activities and a majority has been compromised. Despite the loss, a sizable portion of the remaining archeological deposits are relatively intact and complete.

Poor The greater majority of archeological deposits have been severely disturbed by natural forces and/or human forces, but a small portion remains relatively intact.

Substantial The archeological deposits have clearly suffered as a result of natural forces and/or human activities, but only a minor portion of their original archeological value has been significantly compromised. Despite the loss, the majority of the archeological deposits remain relatively intact and complete.

Unevaluated The archeological deposits have not been sufficiently assessed to evaluate their archeological integrity.

Unknown No information available.

Well preserved The archeological deposits have suffered some minor degradation due to natural forces and/or human activities, but this has not appreciably reduced the overall integrity of the extant archeological deposits. The existing archeological deposits are mostly intact and complete.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 61

Depositional Integrity Assessment Date

Field Name: Dep_Integrity_Date Table: Dep_Integrity Date Updated: February 2005

The Depositional Integrity Assessment Date is the date that a professional summary evaluation of the integrity of an archeological resource was made. This is usually the date of a visit to the site.

The Depositional Integrity Assessment Date is formatted to be a four digit year, a period, a two digit zero-filled month, a period, and a two-digit zero filled day. An unknown month or day is represented by two zeroes.

1989.09.11 1985.00.00

Enter the appropriate Depositional Integrity Date for the resource. If the Depositional Integrity Assessment is “Unevaluated” or “Unknown”, enter the date that this determination was made.

A complete Depositional Integrity Assessment entry includes a date and a Depositional Integrity Assessment.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 62

Data Potential Assessment

Field Name: Data_Potential Table Name: Data_Potential Date Updated: February 2005 Authority Table Updated: February 2005

Description

Data Potential Assessment is an estimate of the data potential or scientific research value of a particular archeological resource, which refers to the capability of a site to provide information important to understanding the prehistory or history of an area or region. It is synonymous with "of archaeological interest" in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and implementing regulations, and/or the language provided in National Register Criterion D. The definitions for the picklist values were updated in February 2005 when the value “Modest” was added.

Format

Authority Table controlled text.

Example

Medium

Procedures and Guidelines

Enter the appropriate Data Potential Assessment for the resource. A complete data potential entry includes a Date and Data Potential Assessment.

The data potential or scientific research value of a resource must be determined through a professional evaluation and be documented before an entry is made in this field. Since this may involve testing or excavation, the appropriate information that documents the method used to determine data potential should be entered in the Archeological Work Assessment field.

“Of archaeological interest” means capable of providing scientific or humanistic understandings of past human behavior, cultural adaptation, and related topics through the application of scientific or scholarly techniques such as controlled observation, contextual measurement, controlled collection, analysis, interpretation and explanation [43 CFR 7.3 a(1)].

The data potential or scientific research value of an archeological resource can change over time becoming either more important or less important due to a variety of factors such as natural deterioration, vandalism or looting, reevaluation, advances in research technologies, or a change in research goals. All sites may require reevaluation at some time.

Authority

National Park Service Manager, Archeology Program Archeological Sites Management Information System

NPS-28, Cultural Resources Management Guidelines Archaeological Resources Protection Act and regulations, e.g., 43 CFR 7

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 63

Data Potential Assessment

Value Definition

Exceptional Based on a preliminary, professional and documented field assessment, the data/scientific research potential at this site is considered outstanding and able to address research questions of prominent archeological interest at the national level of importance.

Alternatively, the site has been evaluated as possessing data/scientific research value that is believed to merit nomination as a National Register site (or revision of existing National Register documentation) at the national level of significance. The site might also merit nomination as a National Historic Landmark or World Heritage site.

High Based on a preliminary, professional and documented field assessment, the site contains a wealth of information that has substantial scientific data potential and compelling research value of regional or state interest or importance. Alternatively, the site, on its own merits, has been evaluated as possessing data/scientific research potential qualifying it for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (or revision of existing National Register documentation) at the state level of significance.

Low Based on a preliminary, professional and documented field assessment, the data potential/scientific research value of the site is evaluated as having little potential to address research questions of national, regional, or state interest, but would likely yield some useful scientific data for addressing a limited number of research questions of lesser (local) importance.

Medium Based on a preliminary, professional and documented field assessment, the site is evaluated as possessing data/scientific research potential for addressing a number of research questions of state or park interest or importance. Alternatively, the site, on its own merits, has been evaluated as possessing data/scientific research potential qualifying it for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (or revision of existing National Register documentation) at the local level of significance.

Modest Based on a preliminary, professional and documented field assessment, the site is evaluated as possessing data/scientific research potential for addressing a number of research questions of local interest or importance. Alternatively, although the site may not possess data/scientific research value potentially qualifying it for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places on its own merits, it may potentially do so as a contributor with other sites within a National Register district.

None Based on a preliminary, professional and documented field assessment, the site was judged insufficient to address any currently conceptualized spheres of archeological research that would warrant further investigation.

Unevaluated The site has not been professionally assessed in order to determine its data potential/scientific research value; or the assessment is undocumented.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 64

Data Potential Assessment Date

Field Name: Data_Potential_Date Table Name: Data_Potential Date Updated: September 1993

Data Potential Assessment Date is the date that the data potential or research value of a particular archeological resource was determined.

Data Potential Assessment Date is formatted as a four digit year, a period, a two digit zero-filled month, a period, and a two-digit zero filled day. An unknown month or day is represented by two zeroes.

Enter the appropriate Data Potential Assessment Date. If the Data Potential Assessment is “Unevaluated”, enter the date that this determination was made.

A complete data potential entry includes a Data Potential Assessment Date and a Data Potential Assessment.

NPS-28, Cultural Resources Management Guidelines Archaeological Resources Protection Act

National Park Service

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 71

Site Disturbance Severity Level

Field Name: Dist_Lvl Table Name: ASMIS

Site Disturbance Severity Level, formerly RMP Disturbance Severity Level, is a professional summary evaluation of the cumulative negative effects of all documented disturbances and threats to an archeological resource.

Format

Authority Table controlled text.

Example

Low

Procedures and Guidelines

Enter the appropriate Site Disturbance Severity Level for the resource. A complete Site Disturbance Severity Level entry includes a Disturbance Severity Level assessment and date.

The value for this element is determined only after all site disturbances and threats have been identified and the site condition is professionally evaluated and documented.

A disturbance (impact) is a detectable result of natural forces or human activities, which have had a negative effect on the integrity or data potential/scientific research value of the site, as well as the physical stability of the site. Threats are detectable conditions that can predict disturbances. The assessment should take into consideration all disturbances affecting the resource and those threats likely to affect the resource within the next five years. The assessment will need to be amended as conditions change. For example, low or moderate disturbances may, over time, become severe.

Threats to life and safety are not included in this definition. They are recorded using the field "Threats or Disturbances Affecting Life and Safety."

Manager, Archeology Program Archeological Sites Management Information System.

This data element definition is for archeological program use only. It replaces and supersedes, as far as park archeological sites are concerned, the definition for "Level of Impact Severity -- Archeological Resources" contained in the Resources Management Plan Guideline, Attachment C-6, March 13, 1989. It will be used to prepare a Resource Management Plan and the Summary Chart for Archeological Sites.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 72

Site Disturbance Severity Level

Value Definition

Unknown Information is insufficient to make an evaluation.

Low For Disturbance Severity to be considered low, the continuing effects of disturbances are, or are predicted to be, minimal, and are not yet resulting in significant damage to the site.

Moderate For Disturbance Severity to be considered moderate, disturbances are causing, or threat of disturbance may soon cause, significant site damage; the site, or major parts of it, will likely be irretrievably lost if actions to protect and/or preserve it are not taken within five years.

Severe For Disturbance Severity to be considered severe, disturbances are causing, or threat of disturbance may very soon cause, major site damage; the site, or major parts of it, will likely be irretrievably lost if actions to protect and/or preserve it are not taken within two years.

NA Not Applicable applies because the site has been completely excavated or destroyed and nothing remains.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 75

Threat or Disturbance Class

Field Name: Td_Class Table Name: Threats Date Updated: January 1995

Threat or Disturbance Class differentiates a threat from a disturbance, or identifies if no threats or disturbances have been identified, or identifies if no assessment of threats or disturbances has been done.

Authority table controlled text field.

Threat Disturbance

Enter the appropriate Threat or Disturbance Class value.

If threats eventually become disturbances, this field and any affected fields will need to be updated.

It is generally intended that threats and disturbances be entered or updated after site condition has been assessed and threats and disturbances have been professionally identified, evaluated, and documented.

However, information about threats and disturbances can be reported by non-archeologists (e.g. park rangers, maintenance personnel, visitors, etc.). If the information is judged to be reliable, it should be reported in ASMIS.

Each Threat or Disturbance entry consists of a Threat or Disturbance Date, Threat or Disturbance Class, Threat or Disturbance Type, Area Affected, Threat or Disturbance Effect on the Resource, and Threat or Disturbance Effect on Life and Safety. Additionally, threats uniquely include Threat Time Frame and disturbances uniquely include Disturbance Effect Level.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 76

Threat or Disturbance Class

Value Definition

Disturbance A disturbance (impact) is a detectable result of natural forces or human activities, which has had a negative effect on the integrity or data potential/scientific research value of the site. It is an observed harmful effect.

None No threats or disturbances have been identified and documented.

Threat A threat is a detectable condition that will predict disturbances. It is a predicted or expected harmful effect.

Undetermined No assessment of site threats and disturbances has been done.

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 77

Threat or Disturbance Type

Field Name: Td_Type Table Name: Threats Date Updated: January 1995 Authority Table Updated: December 2007

Description

Threat or Disturbance Type identifies specific types of threats and disturbances.

In August 2000, “Fire – Hazard Fuel Buildup” was added to deal with extensive vegetation buildup due to fire protection policies of the last 100 years. In February 2005, “ARPA Incident” was added to better identify and date these disturbances and threats. In July 2006, “Bioturbation”, “Fencing”, “Grazing/Trampling – Wildlife”, “Sheetwash”, and “Tree Fall” were added to better identify and date these disturbances and threats. In December 2007, “Exotic Plant Removal – Manual/Mechanical”, “Modification – Structural”, “Modification – Artifact Movement”, “Roof Fall”, and “Social Trail” were added to better identify and date these disturbances and threats.

Format

Authority table controlled text field.

Example

Animals Other Construction

Enter each Threat or Disturbance Type for the resource. Each type of threat or disturbance may only be entered once for a particular date.

It is generally intended that threats and disturbances be entered or updated after site condition has been assessed and threats and disturbances have been professionally identified, evaluated, and documented.

However, information about threats and disturbances may be reported by non-archeologists (e.g. park rangers, maintenance personnel, visitors, etc.). If the information is judged to be reliable, it should be reported in ASMIS.

Each Threat or Disturbance entry consists of a Threat or Disturbance Date, Threat or Disturbance Class, Threat or Disturbance Type, Area Affected, Threat or Disturbance Effect on the Resource, and Threat or

ASMIS 3.01 Data Dictionary (Revised December 2007) 78

Threat or Disturbance Type

Value

Agricultural Practices Insecticide/Herbicide Application Fertilizer Application Grazing/Trampling - Livestock (domestic) Grazing/Trampling - Wildlife Timber Harvest/Logging Plowing or Cultivating Stock Watering

Development/Construction Structures - Construct/Operate Transportation Facilities - Construct/Operate Road or Highway - Construct/Operate (includes sites exposed during road construction and/or in road cuts during use of roads) Railroad - Construct/Operate Trail - Construct/Operate (does not include creation of social trails) Utilities - Construct/Operate Powerline - Construct/Operate Pipeline - Construct/Operate Power Generating Plant - Construct/Operate Sewage Treatment Plant - Construct/Operate Waste Disposal Water Treatment Plant - Construct/Operate Water Control Facility - Construct/Operate Sedimentation - Construction Other Construction Fencing – Construct/Operate

Mineral Exploration/Extraction (General) Mineral Exploration Activities (General) Exploration - Coal Exploration - Oil and Gas…