Stds_Guidelines_2025_red.pdf

DRAFT

Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological

Survey and Excavation in

Maryland

Maryland Historical Trust Maryland Department of Planning

Revised 2025

All rights reserved. Published 2025.

Maryland Historical Trust Maryland Department of Planning 100 Community Place Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2023

Preface

This document represents the third major publication of archaeological standards and guidelines from Maryland’s state Office of Archaeology. In the intervening years since Shaffer and Cole (1994) was published, we have seen expansive growth in the field of archaeology, as well as significant changes in practice brought on by both new tech-nologies and larger movements in American culture. To name just a few examples:

1) When the first state archaeological standards were published in 1974, the com-mercial adoption of no-till farming was just taking off. Today, the technique is so ubiqui-tous that surface collection is often no longer a viable means of survey and shovel test pit intervals of no greater than 15 meters have become the norm in most states, resulting in an updated standard for Maryland.

2)Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were still in their infancy when Shaffer and Cole was published in 1994. Now digital mapping is standard practice and most CRM firms have put away the compass and tape in favor of high precision GPS or total station data collection. While making maps is nothing new for archaeologist, how we go about doing it has changed.

3)Even a mere decade ago, remote sensing was frequently viewed with skepticism by archaeologists who had “been burned” by a technology that seemed to over-promise re-sults and under-deliver in the field. With advances in both the robustness of the hardware and the data interpolation methods used by remote sensing software, this is no longer the case. More and more we see remote sensing becoming a routine part of archaeological survey. These standards provide guidance on how to collect, report, and archive such data.

With this evolution of the field in mind, it is time, once again, to re-issue guidelines for the practice of archaeology, and especially compliance-driven archaeology, in the State of Maryland. Over 90% of the archaeology that gets done in Maryland is being driven by com-pliance with cultural resource legislation. While we whole-heartedly encourage the use of these guidelines by all professional archaeologists working in the state, these guidelines are written primarily with the CRM audience in mind.

Nearly 60 years of reviewing CRM reports for legal compliance has taught us a thing or two about what works effectively in the field, how to transfer that knowledge into a final report, and how to avoid pitfalls along the way. Recognizing that field conditions can sometimes thwart the best laid plans, we’ve attempted to use prescriptive language only where necessary, and leave as many options open for the consulting archaeologist to discuss with MHT and lead agencies when trying to bring a project to completion. When you think we’ve missed the mark, please feel free to reach out. Always remember, archaeology is a team sport and we are here to help.

Matthew D. McKnight Chief, Office of Archaeology

Maryland Historical Trust i

Table of Contents ii

PREFACE..................................................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................. ii PERSONNEL.................................................................................................................................................. iv COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ iv

I. INTRODUCTION

II. IDENTIFICATION (PHASE I)

III. EVALUATION (PHASE II)

IV. TREATMENT (PHASE III)

Table of Contents

V. SITE REGISTRATION AND OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS

VI. CURATION OF COLLECTIONS

VII. REPORTS AND DOCUMENTATION

VIII. ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER WATER

IX. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

X. WORKS CITED

XI. APPENDICES

iii

Personnel* iv

Office of Research, Survey, and Registration

Office of Preservation Services

With Additional Contributions by Rebecca Morehouse, Sara Rivers Cofield, and Nichole Doub

*This list is current as of October 2025. For e-mail addresses for individual staff members and the most up-to-date staff listing, please see the Maryland Historical Trust Staff Directory.

Commonly Used Acronyms

v

I Introduction

Authority

The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), Maryland’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), issues these standards and guidelines under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C.

470a(b)(3)(D),(E),(F), and (G)), and the Maryland Historical Trust Act of 1985, as amended (State Finance and Procurement Article §§ 5A-325 and 5A-326 of the Annotated Code of Maryland). To ensure consistency for projects with both feder-al and State involvement, MHT follows the process set forth in 36 C.F.R. Part 800 when reviewing State-assisted actions.

Scope and Purpose

This document represents a revision of MHT's Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994). Like its predecessor, this document recognizes that flexibility and diverse approaches are needed in a dynamic field science like archaeology. However, it must also be acknowledged that archaeology is a destructive process and that archaeological sites are non-renewable resources. There will not be a sec-ond chance to get it right. Therefore, this document sets a baseline or minimum standard for professional excavation work that will ensure both good field practice and adequate site documentation. This is not a recommendation, but a necessity, particularly when re-search is funded by public monies or tied to compliance with historic preservation laws.

As in 1994, the principal purpose of this document is to ensure the development of archae-ological information which is useful for interpretation and of a consistently high quality.

While this document has been put together with an eye towards compliance (or CRM) archaeology, it will also be useful to academic researchers, county and city planners, and others whose work is not tied directly to compliance with state or federal historic preser-vation laws. While not designed as an exhaustive textbook of archaeological method and practice, this document does describe in basic terms the proper process of archaeological fieldwork and reporting, and relates how such work should be carried out in a way that is compliant with Maryland law, follows modern best practices, and causes minimal harm to cultural resources while achieving maximal results. Explanations of archaeological tech-nique and procedure are, however, simplified from the kind of treatment one can only get from years of college-level education or experience under the tutelage of professional ar-chaeologists.

Compliance archaeologists will find this document most useful and they are the primary audience for these standards and guidelines. Compliance archaeology can involve more than just the professional archaeologist, though. Such work may not only involve profes-sionals working in the field of Cultural Resource Management, but also other governmental personnel and those working as proxies for them (environmental consultants, developers requiring state or federal permits, grant recipients, grantors of preservation easements, etc.). This document serves as a primer for how compliance archaeology should be con-ducted in the State of Maryland.

Compliance Archaeology: One of the primary goals of this document is to facilitate the review of projects requiring compliance with federal and state historic preservation laws and regulations. Specific types of information are required by the governmental agencies responsible for identifying and treating historic properties, as well as by those who are obliged to review activities affecting historic properties. The following chapters go beyond the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Dickenson 1983) to specify the documentation that MHT, as the SHPO, re-quires from other governmental units and their agents to provide formal substantiated comments. While the present volume discusses standards and guidelines for archaeologi-cal work, preservation professionals should contact MHT staff to obtain the corresponding guidance for historic architecture in order to assist and enhance multidisciplinary projects in which a number of different cultural resources may face impacts.

MHT’s Office of Preservation Services reviews projects for effects on historic properties under the federal and state laws noted above. As defined by the NHPA, historic properties include districts, buildings, archaeological sites, structures, and objects that are eligible for listing in the National Register. The most common reviews are conducted pursuant to Sec-tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, or State Finance and Procurement Article §§ 5A-325 and 5A-326 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. These laws and their implementing regulations and policies require agencies to consider the ef-fects of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is important to emphasize that the governmental agencies which initiate the undertakings are responsible for compliance with the historic preser-vation laws. The SHPO’s role is a consultative one, geared towards the provision of infor-mation, advice, and recommendations on how to eliminate or minimize adverse effects on historic properties.

Agency officials should begin their consultation with the SHPO as early in the project planning process as possible (see FIGURE 1) in order to provide adequate time to ad-dress historic preservation concerns and to prevent avoidable delays.

Early in the project planning stage, alternative project locations, configurations, and meth-ods may still be available, programmatic discussions can still be developed, and options that may minimize impacts to historic resources are more numerous. Delaying consulta-tion is typically more costly in terms of both time and resources. Coordination should com-mence with the agency official submitting a written request to the SHPO for assistance in the identification of historic properties. The MHT e106 Online Project Submittal System is available on the MHT website and allows users to provide their requests for state and feder-al project reviews by completing an online form and uploading the necessary attachments.

At a minimum, the attachments should include: 1) a detailed description of the proposed project, noting the nature of the state and/or federal agency involvement; 2) a map (a sec-tion of a USGS topographic quadrangle, a Google map, or aerial photo) clearly showing the location and boundaries of the project area and more detailed site plans, if appropriate; 3) labeled photographs (digital or scanned) of the project site including images of buildings and structures located within the project area; 4) drawings and/or a written scope of work illustrating any plans to construct, demolish, or rehabilitate buildings or other structures;

and 5) any additional information that may be relevant such as a description of past land use on the subject property, local government approvals, etc. The state's online cultural resource information system, known as Medusa, is an invaluable tool for accessing MIHP and NR records, and conducting the necessary background research to pre-

FIGURE 1 - Flow chart of the steps in complying with federal (Section 106 of the National Historic Pres-ervation Act of 1966) or state (State Finance and Procurement Article §§ 5A- 325 and 5A-326 of the Annotated Code of Maryland) historic preservation laws for archaeology. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and other stakeholders should occur throughout the process.

pare a responsive request. See pages 5-6 for more information about Medusa.

Upon receipt of this information from the relevant governmental agency or consultant, SHPO staff archaeologists and architectural historians review the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) for recorded archaeological sites and standing structures, as well as other available documents to determine if known historic properties exist in the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). Staff will also examine survey records, historic maps, historic and prehistoric settlement models, and descriptions of present and past land use to assess the potential of the project area to contain historic properties that may not yet have been identified. Based on this review, SHPO staff will inform the inquiring agency of its recommendations of the need for further survey or other historic preserva-tion activities. Since the SHPO reviews over 6,000 projects annually on a first come, first served basis, a response may take up to 30 days from the receipt of complete documen-tation from the requesting agency. A log of the current status of compliance review projects is available on the MHT web page.

Recommendations from MHT may include: 1) advising that no further studies are war-ranted (when, for example, prior surveys or documented past disturbance indicate that no significant archaeological resources would be present); 2) calling for additional investiga-tions to locate or evaluate the significance of properties (when archaeological resources are known to or may exist within the APE); or 3) requesting the development of treatment plans for identified historic properties (when projects may adversely affect archaeological resources). Figure 1 illustrates the review steps in a flow chart. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) provides additional information on the Section 106 review process in their various training courses and publications. More information can be ob-tained through the ACHP website.

Other historic preservation activities will necessitate consultation with MHT. These activ-ities may involve federal agencies locating, inventorying, and nominating to the National Register of Historic Places properties under the agencies' ownership or control (16 U.S.C.

470h-2); Maryland state agencies locating, documenting, and nominating properties un-der those agencies’ ownership or control that may be eligible for the NRHP; recipients of financial assistance through MHT or MHAA grant or loan programs; or individuals and organizations which hold properties that are under one of MHT’s Historic Preservation Easements. MHT's requests for adherence to specific standards and guidelines stem, in part, from statutory responsibilities to comply with National Park Service requirements.

Archaeology Beyond Compliance and Cautionary Tales

Those researchers conducting archaeological investigations in Maryland for academic and similar purposes will find much of use and interest in these standards and guidelines, such as discussion of permitting procedures, the elements of a thorough report, and remote sensing guidance. Archaeologists conducting surveys and discovering previously uniden-tified cultural resources also will learn how to record archaeological properties for the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP).

It is not the intention of MHT to use these standards and guidelines to direct or oversee the research of academic archaeologists and other professional scholars. MHT believes, however, that Maryland’s entire archaeological community would benefit from consistent recording of archaeological finds in conformance with the basic procedures outlined here-in and from reporting results with reference to the historic contexts established in Mary-land’s comprehensive Historic Preservation Plans (available on the MHT web page, and in the MHT Library). MHT strongly recommends that all archaeological work in the state take place according to professional standards and under the direct supervi-sion of individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior ‘s Professional Qualifica-tions Standards. Non-professional assistance including student, volunteer, and/or avo-cational archaeologist support may be appropriate on archaeological projects, but should be supervised by someone meeting the Standards. Organizations which fund/oversee the work of archaeologists, as well as local governments which plan to develop their own historic preservation laws, are encouraged to follow these recommendations and consult other guidance documents and ethical practices promulgated by the Society for American

Medusa: Maryland’s Online Cultural Resource Information System

Medusa is the MHT’s online database of architectural and archaeological cultural resources. The name Medusa is not an acronym, but merely a code name used for many years by MHT staff for Maryland’s in-house database of properties listed as part of the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP).

The branching structure of the database, which included (1) MIHP architectural files; (2) MIHP archaeo-logical site records; (3) National Register properties in Maryland; (4) determination of eligibility (DOE) records; and (5) properties in the Maryland Historic Preservation Easement program, apparently reminded folks of the mythological gorgon’s serpentine hair. And the name just stuck! Subsequent additions, such as the Archaeological Synthesis Project and Maryland Heritage Area boundaries, only made the Medusa analogy more appropriate.

Access to paper records at the MHT Li-brary in Crownsville has always been free and open to the public by appointment (access to archaeological data is restrict-ed to qualified individuals). With Me-dusa’s launch online in 2014, users can now access the bulk of MIHP data both at our library and off-site. As of this writ-ing, the database consists of over 45,000 standing structure or architectural resourc-es and over 14,000 archaeological sites.

Medusa can be searched in a variety of ways, both map- and text-based. Stand-ing structures data is displayed with red polygons and on red site forms while ar-chaeological data is displayed with blue polygons and blue forms. In the case of archaeology sites, links are provided for all A typical MIHP Archaeology form displayed in Medusa

Archaeology, the Society for Historical Archaeology, the ACHP, and other professional ar-chaeology and preservation organizations. In addition to acquiring a familiarity with these present standards and guidelines, archaeological researchers should establish and main-tain contacts with MHT staff for assistance in locating unpublished studies and records (gray literature) on cultural properties and to ensure that appropriate laws, regulations, and guidelines are followed. Over the years, MHT staff have observed several recurrent challenges faced by archaeological projects in the state. Three of the more common prob-lems are highlighted here as cautionary tales for both compliance and “pure research” project managers to keep in mind.

Archaeologists and property owners should review conservation and curation needs at the research design phase and ensure that adequate funding and other resources are

Results of a geographic search using map-based Medusa site sub-forms (prehistoric, historic, and shipwreck) for sites where the paper records have been scanned, and for sites which are also included in the Archaeological Synthesis Database.

Web access to architectural data is open to the public. Access to archaeological site locations and detailed site information is restricted and password protected and will only be granted to qualified individuals (gen-erally those who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards for Archeology). To access Maryland's online cultural resource information system, use a web browser to visit Medusa. Click on the “Login” and “Register for an Account” links to submit your qualifications and to receive an account to ac-cess archaeological data. Detailed tutorials with additional operational information are available from the main page as well.

available to support the long-term care of collections stemming from the archaeologi-cal process. Curation and conservation must be considered at the project planning phase, not after field work is completed and the lab work has begun. Failing to include the costs as-sociated with preparing a collection for curation, storage or box fees (if applicable), or con-servation treatments in project plans may lead to delays, budgetary shortfalls, and orphaned collections. The earlier curation and conservation are considered when writing a scope of work and creating a project budget, the easier it will be to prepare a collection for perma-nent curation and the less likely it will be that the project will encounter budgetary issues.

Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Maryland: Collections and Conservation Standards (Morehouse et al. 2022) provides guid-ance for preparing artifact collections and their associated records, both paper and digital, for permanent curation at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory (MAC Lab). Even if a particular research collection is not destined for the MAC Lab, this docu-ment still provides valuable "best practice" guidance that can be used by local curation fa-cilities. It also provides guidance for when to contact a conservator and how to budget for conservation. These collections and conservation standards should not just be required reading for lab managers or those processing the artifacts. Everyone from senior archae-ologists and projects managers to field supervisors and field technicians should know the standards. Collections and records are created in the field, and lab managers may not be able to meet standards if the materials are generated without such requirements in mind.

There are four factors that, if considered during the planning process, will ensure the col-lections meet state curation and conservation standards and that a project remains on time and on budget.

• Ownership Determining collection ownership is paramount. Contact property owners early, not just for access to their property for excavation, but to get a commitment to transfer the collection to an appropriate and accredited curation facility. Project planners should consider donation to MHT (at the MAC Lab) if the land is not federally owned. Obtain the required transfer documents, such as deeds of gift or letters of transfer, as soon as possible and coordinate the proposed transfer with the Curator of State Collections. If excavations are on federal land, ensure that the agency owner is aware of the need for curation according to 36CFR79, Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archae-ological Collections. Contact the MAC Lab’s Curator of Federal Collections if the owner agency wants to use the MAC Lab as its repository.

• Curation box fees Collections generated as a result of laws and regulations, which require archaeological investigations to evaluate, preserve, or mitigate archaeological resources, and are then donated to MHT are subject to a one-time curation box fee. It is important to build this cost into the project budget. There are ways to mitigate the cost of the box fee, such as selective sampling and discard strategies for bulk materials. X-radiography for bulk iron artifacts, such as nails, can inform such strategies and help make the most cost-effective use of a project’s curation box fee budget. Contact the Curator of State Collections for assistance in budgeting for curation costs and for the most up-to-date Archaeological Cu-ration Box Fee Policy. Federal collections cannot be deeded to the state and are subject to annual fees. The Curator of Federal Collections is the contact for quotes. The Curation Box Fee is not charged for “pure research” projects that are not driven by legal compliance.

• Preparing artifacts and associated records for curation Project budgets must include the cost of processing artifacts and their associated re-cords. This includes archival supplies, such as acid-free paper and folders, zip-lock bags, labeling materials, and staff time or resources. Project managers should budget plenty of their staff's time to process materials, including digital records that may need thoughtful culling, file naming, and detailed metadata entry before delivery. Maintain file organi-zation and group records by record types. Be sure to include a contingency provision if more artifacts are recovered than initially anticipated in the scope of work.

• Artifact conservation A conservator affiliated with the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) should be consulted during the project planning phase. A conservator on contract while in the field can provide quick response to a request for stabilization and removal of artifacts, reduce the loss of information through rapid deterioration, and reduce the cost of stabilization and treatment of artifacts. The project or lab manager should work with a conservator to determine priorities for conservation treatment and provide the most cost-effective methods. The assessment should include consideration of artifact significance, material condition, potential benefit from conservation efforts, and budgetary restrictions. When budgeting for artifact conservation, it is important to consider the type of site and the anticipated assemblage it could generate. Pre-Contact sites are far less likely to have ar-tifacts in need of conservation treatment, while historic-period sites many contain large quantities of iron and composite objects that require extensive stabilization. Contact the MAC Lab’s Head Conservator for assistance with creating conservation budgets for ar-chaeological projects.

Even the best-planned projects can still encounter unique or challenging situations. There-fore, it is recommended that consultants communicate with MAC Lab curation and conser-vation staff throughout the course of a project for case-by-case guidance. For more detailed information see Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Maryland: Collections and Conservation Standards (Morehouse et al. 2022).

A solid research design will establish a plan for the eventual dissemination of archae-ological research findings. The SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics, Principles 6 &7, as well as SHA Ethics Principles 3 and 4, stress the importance and the duty of the archae-ologist to ensure timely distribution of archaeological data. It should be noted that the term “publication” is not presented as an absolute in these ethical statements, but, rather, terms like “disseminate,” “public reporting,” and “documenting” are used. While publica-tion in academic journals or monographs sets the gold standard for project outcomes, the landscape of opportunities for project reporting has expanded significantly since the last publication of the Standards and Guidelines. While the internet has increased opportuni-ties for publication, it has also resulted in the decline of many traditional print publications and created real concerns about the permanency of end products.

Submission of final products to the MHT Library, even when not required to do so as a grant deliverable or to meet legal requirements, is still a best practice. All authors of ar-chaeological reports are encouraged to consider providing copies of their final products to MHT for inclusion in the MHT Library, along with original field forms, notes, maps, and other data which can be archived at the MAC Lab. There is no box fee for the donation of records created by professional archaeologists who generated collections as a result of emergency or research-related investigations not related to county, state, or federal-ly-mandated compliance projects.

Before any project begins, there should be a plan in place for disseminating research find-ings. Ideally, such plans will consider both the professional archaeological audience as well as the general public and will develop reporting strategies appropriate for each.

All archaeological projects on lands owned or controlled by the State of Maryland, within Maryland waters, and in all caves (including rockshelters) within the state require permits from the Maryland Historical Trust. See Maryland Natural Resources Code § 5-1401(b) for the legal definition of "cave". The process for obtaining a terrestrial or underwater archaeological excavation permit are described in greater detail in Chap-ters VIII and IX.

A permit from MHT is required for any activity that would “excavate, remove, destroy, in-jure, deface, or disturb a terrestrial archaeological site on land the state owns or controls” in accordance with State Finance and Procurement Article, §5A-342(a) of the Annotat-ed Code of Maryland. MHT takes its legislated stewardship of state-owned archaeological sites seriously, and has created an application for terrestrial archaeological permits that reflects its commitment to ensure that any permitted investigations are conducted:

1) by qualified individuals associated with a museum, institution of higher learning, or other scientific or historic organization;

2) according to a well-designed research plan reviewed by MHT;

3) in a manner that ensures objects and materials collected during excavation are prop-erly safeguarded and preserved, typically through curation at the MAC Lab;

4) for the benefit of the citizens of Maryland; and

5) in close coordination with the land-managing entity. Likewise, all lands below mean high tide and in most navigable rivers throughout Maryland are owned by the state.

A permit is not required to inspect, study, explore, photograph, measure, record, conduct a reconnaissance survey, or otherwise use and enjoy a submerged archaeological resource provided the use does not:

1) involve excavation, destruction, or substantive injury to the resource or its immediate environment;

2) endanger other persons or property; or

3) violate other regulations or provisions of federal, state, or local law.

Any other activities on submerged cultural resources may require a permit to be obtained from MHT. Generally speaking, the process of obtaining archaeological permits is not ar-duous, but does require communication and coordination with multiple state agencies and the approval of both the Chief Archaeologist and the Director of MHT. Plan ahead and fol-low the process laid out in Chapter IX.

Organization

Chapter II describes the goal of the identification component of historic preservation activ-ities (Phase I) and discusses the research designs, archival studies, fieldwork , and analy-sis associated with locating archaeological historic properties. Chapters III and IV provide corresponding information for the evaluation of an archaeological property’s significance (Phase II) and for the treatment or mitigation of adverse effects on an archaeological his-toric property (Phase III). Methods for creative mitigation are discussed as well. Comments on other archaeological investigations for archival studies; historic preservation plans; the various MHT grant, loan, and easement programs; the registration of archaeological prop-erties in the MIHP; and academic research are included in Chapter V. Chapter VI presents the key factors one needs to consider in planning the processing and curation of collec-tions, including both artifacts and associated records. However, it should be noted that far more detailed standards are required for collections submitted to the MAC Lab and these are described in Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Survey and Excavation in Maryland: Collections and Conservation Standards (Morehouse et

al. 2022). Chapter VII contains significant revisions to our standards and guidelines for the production of archaeological reports and other documentation, while Chapter VIII deals with the special considerations required for maritime and underwater archaeological studies. Chapter IX (Important Considerations) addresses professional qualifications, per-mits, treatment of human remains, remote sensing and public archaeology. Finally, numer-ous references and appendices provide supplementary sources of technical archaeological information as well as sample and reference documents.

Definitions

This Introduction closes with a list of some useful definitions of words, phrases, and acro-nyms specific to historic preservation:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) - the independent federal agency es-tablished by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470i) and charged with advising the President and the Congress on historic preservation issues and with reviewing federal and federally assisted projects that affect historic properties.

Area of Potential Effects (APE) - the geographic area or areas within which an undertak-ing may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE may also be called the “project area” or “study area” in these guidelines.

Archaeological Property - any object (e.g. artifact), site, or district which bears evidence of human activity. For the purposes of this document (and most legislation), an archaeo-logical property must date from prehistoric or historic times (i.e., at least 50 years ago).

Not all archaeological properties (archaeological resources) are necessarily historic properties.

Artifact - any object which has been made or intentionally modified by human action. For the purposes of this document, the object must date from prehistoric or historic times (i.e., generally at least 50 years ago) to be an artifact.

Collection - “material remains that are excavated or removed during a survey, excavation or other study of a prehistoric or historic resource, and associated records that are pre-pared or assembled in connection with the survey, excavation or other study” (36 CFR § 79.4[a]). Collections may include artifacts, specimens or samples, field notes, drawings, photographs, remote sensing data, and other materials.

Consultation - “the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters aris-ing in the Section 106 process” (36 CFR § 800.16[f]). Consultation entails the active ex-change of views about a particular property or projects and may include the involve-ment of federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, Indian tribal organizations, project or permit applicants, parties with legal or economic interests in the project, the ACHP, SHPOs, and others.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) - a digital system or database for the management, analysis and display of geographically referenced spatial data. The use of GIS systems to display archaeological data has become standard practice within the discipline.

Historic Contexts - an organizational framework that groups historic properties by simi-larities in geographic region, time or developmental period, and theme. Historic contexts form a system for the identification, synthesis, and evaluation of known or expected his-toric property types and often serve as the basis for developing appropriate treatment measures for those properties.

Historic Property - any district, site, building, structure, monument, or object significant in the prehistory, history, terrestrial or underwater archaeology, architecture, engineer-ing, or culture of Maryland and which is included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Historic properties include artifacts, records, and remains related to a district, site, building, structure, or object. Archaeological sites are often referred to as archaeological properties in these guidelines.

Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs (MCIA) - the Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs is composed of nine members appointed by the Governor of Maryland and con-firmed by the Maryland State Senate. The MCIA's mandate is to serve the interests of Na-tive American communities in Maryland, promote awareness and better understanding of the historic and contemporary contributions of Native Americans to Maryland, and assist state, local, and private agencies in providing resources to address the education-al, social, and economic needs of Native American communities in Maryland.

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) - the Maryland Historical Trust’s list of all districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of known or potential value to the prehistory, history, terrestrial or underwater archaeology, architecture, engineering, and culture of Maryland. The MIHP includes archaeological sites as well as standing struc-tures and other properties.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - the U.S. Department of the Interior’s list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity and are associated with significant historical events; are connected with the lives of important people from the past; are embodiments of distinctive or artistic forms of construction; or have yielded or may yield information important in prehistory or history (See Historic Property).

Preservation and Historic Preservation - “identification, evaluation, recordation, docu-mentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management, rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, maintenance and reconstruction, or any combination of the foregoing ac-tivities” (16 USC 470w[8]) of historic properties.

Principal Investigator - an individual who assumes responsibility for conducting or directly supervising a specific archaeological project and who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s “Professional Qualifications Standards” (Dickenson 1983:44738-44739; Chapter VII).

Remote Sensing - various means of imaging and mapping that can potentially identify anomalies caused by obtrusive archaeological resources. As used in these guidelines, remote sensing generally refers to land and water-based methods of geophysical survey.

However, airborne and satellite-based methods are also used in archaeology.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) - the individual appointed by the Governor of Maryland to administer the State Historic Preservation Program under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. SHPO frequently also refers to the office or staff of this individual.

Statewide Preservation Plan - The various statewide comprehensive historic preserva-tion plans, prepared by MHT. MHT is mandated to produce a state historic preservation plan which includes archaeology, pursuant to Section 101(b)(3)(c) of the National His-toric Preservation Act, as amended. Regulations require a plan “that provides guidance for effective decision making about historic property preservation throughout the state”.

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) - an official designated by a federally recog-nized Indian tribe to direct a program approved by the National Park Service in which the THPO must have assumed some or all of the functions of a State Historic Preserva-tion Officer on tribal lands (Section 101[d][2]).

Undertaking - any project, activity, or program that receives funding, authorization, or permission from a state or federal agency which could result in changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties are located in the area of poten-tial effects (see above). Undertakings are also frequently referred to as projects in these guidelines. For purposes of consultation, see FIGURE 1.

Additional Information

For additional information or assistance concerning the compliance review process or these standards and guidelines, contact MHT’s Office of Preservation Services. The MHT Office of Archaeology provides guidance and oversight regarding general issues in Mary-land archaeology. Please see the MHT Staff Directory for current contact information.

II Identification (Phase I)

Goal

For Maryland, the goal of identification for compliance projects is to locate ar-chaeological properties that may be eligible for the National Register of Histor-ic Places in an undertaking’s area of potential effects. The various activities that comprise identification are grouped together under the designation of Phase I Archaeo-logical Investigation. Phase I studies entail development of research designs, archival and background research, field survey, analysis, and reporting. While Phase I investigations serve to discover or to locate archaeological resources, Phase II and Phase III projects eval-uate the significance of the cultural resources and mitigate adverse project effects, respec-tively (see Chapters III and IV).

As a rule, Phase I surveys in Maryland involve some form of sampling (for ex-ample, surveying in systematically ar-ranged transects) to permit the econom-ical investigation of the undertaking’s area of potential effects with a high assurance that sig-nificant archaeological resources have not been overlooked. Surveys designed to locate all historic properties in an area of potential effect will help to prevent the delays associated with discovering historic properties during a construction project (36 CFR § 800.11). The use of sampling in Phase I field survey is consistent with the ACHP's admonition for federal agencies to "make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties... " (36 CFR § 800.4[b] ; see section below entitled "Field Survey - General Considerations").

Research Design

All identification projects should begin with the formulation of an explicit plan or program of archaeological study: a research design. The research design, part of which might take the form of a proposal written in response to a request for proposals, is a framework that describes activities to accomplish the goals of an identification study. Important compo-nents of research designs are statements and discussions that justify chosen methods and techniques as the most logical and otherwise suitable means to locate potentially signifi-cant archaeological resources.

The Objectives section of a research design should begin with a discussion of why archae-ological identification is needed for the particular project. First, it is necessary to name the governmental agencies and other parties involved in an undertaking; to describe the na-

Phase IA, IB, etc.

In Maryland, Phase I identification projects include both the assessment of archaeological sensitivity of the project area and field survey. In some states, Phase I archaeological investiga-tions are divided into Phase IA (assessment of archaeological sensitivity through literature review) and Phase IB (field in-vestigations, typically shovel test pit surveys), however Phase “IA” and “IB” are not used in these Standards and Guidelines and should not be distinguished in technical reports.

ture of the undertaking (e.g., construction of a transmission line with certain access roads) and its area of potential effects (including the area where both the direct results and in-direct consequences of a project may occur); and to cite which specific laws, regulations, guidelines, and other requirements have either called for or apply to the project. Maps and other illustrations of the spatial relationships of resources impacted by the proposed un-dertaking should be consulted and (as necessary) incorporated into the research design, or bid proposal. Based on this information, project archaeologists should ensure that an appropriate level of research will be conducted.

Specific objectives of a Phase I Archaeological investigation should include:

• Delineation and inventorying of all archaeological properties that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in the area of potential ef-fects;

• Characterization and interpretation of all identified archaeological proper-ties with respect to cultural/temporal periods as listed on the MIHP Archaeolo-gy Site Form;

• Appraisal of the results of the investigations in light of existing models of settlement patterning;

• If sufficient data are available, evaluation of National Register or Maryland Register eligibility

• Assessment of the undertaking's impacts on the identified archaeological properties; and

• Determination of the need for additional archaeological work.

The Methods and Techniques portion of a research design should describe the amounts and kinds of archival or background research, field investigations, and analytical studies anticipated to achieve the goals and objectives of the project. Descriptions of general re-search methods and specific research techniques (e.g. subsurface shovel testing and re-mote sensing) should be justified to ensure that appropriate and successful strategies are planned for a particular project area's size, accessibility, environmental characteristics, and expected archaeological properties. An explicit discussion of methods and techniques will also help agency reviewers and other archaeologists to judge the quality and effective-ness of the work and permit scientific replication of analyses.

The Expected Results section of the research design should discuss the number, size, loca-tion, age, and general cultural characteristics of the archaeological resources anticipated in the APE. Thorough background research into the project area and into predictive models of settlement for analogous locations can provide the basis for these expectations. When-ever possible, a preliminary field check should take place to provide familiarity with the micro-environment(s).

The expected results section should also discuss the quantity and condition of material culture expected to be recovered during the investigation and provide a plan for the con-servation and curation of the recovered artifacts. For more information on conservation and curation planning, see sections 7-10 of Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Maryland: Collections and Conservation Stan-dards (Morehouse et al. 2022).

Additional technical information for developing strategies for identification surveys in-cludes the archaeological publications listed in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification,…