Mississippi Administrative Code
Title 16 - History, Humanities and Arts
Part 3 - Historic Preservation Division
Chapter 12 - Mississippi Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations
Rule 16-3-12.6.4 - Special Environment Surveys
Current through September 24, 2024
Deep Sediments
If colluvial, alluvial, or aeolian deposits are known to be present in the survey area from background research or by field inspection, testing will be needed to identify buried sites or the potential for such sites. This may be accomplished through a combination of methods such as coring, hand excavation of deep shovel tests, or mechanical slit trenching. The choice of technique will depend upon the depth of the deposits. If limited to shovel test excavations exceeding 70 to 80 cmbs in depth, an auger or Oakfield soil probe should be employed from the base of shovel test excavation to a maximum depth of 120 cmbs (3.9 ft.). MDAH strongly recommends that deep testing be performed on all parcels of alluvial or colluvial soil within the project area, especially for projects with deep vertical impacts. If full-scale systematic testing of the project area is not feasible, a geomorphologist is to be employed to develop a sampling program that identifies soils suitable for the preservation or formation of cultural deposits.
When deep testing is accomplished by the use of mechanical equipment, care must be taken to avoid excessive damage to fragile archaeological sites. Slit trenching with heavy equipment such as a backhoe (preferably toothless) is to be used in situations where deep sediments cannot be reached through hand excavation. Trenches are to be placed in a manner suitable to reconstruct the past and present landforms. For large continuous sections of terrain, the testing is to be adequate to reconstruct the alluvial history of the floodplain. The excavations are to continue until a depositional environment not favorable for formation or preservation of cultural horizons is found. In special circumstances where the terrain limits the access of heavy equipment and hand excavation is not feasible, coring or auguring may be implemented. The soils from the cores are to be extracted in a controlled manner and sifted when appropriate.
After excavation, the trench profile will be troweled to inspect for stratigraphy and cultural features. A detailed profile drawing and description shall be completed. If a geomorphologist is used, he or she is to assist in the placement of trenches, evaluation, and interpretation of the excavation profiles. The evaluation may include tests for soil type and texture, standardized color descriptions, and grain size distributions. The geomorphologist will submit a detailed interpretive analysis on the deep testing that will be included as an appendix to the full technical report of investigations. This analysis will address the issues of site depositional processes, their effects on archaeological preservation, visibility of archaeological sites, and landform evolution over time. A summary and discussion of the results should be presented in the body of the technical report.
In most cases it will not be possible to determine if buried cultural artifacts are present simply by visual inspection of the profile alone. Therefore, hand excavation will be required. Preferably, a three-foot-square test unit will be excavated at the margin of each backhoe trench where favorable soil horizons have been identified. The test unit will be excavated in a series of arbitrary and/or natural stratigraphic levels until soil horizons not favorable to the formation or preservation of cultural horizons have been identified. All soil will be sifted through --inch mesh hardware cloth and the artifacts retained according to level. As conditions dictate, alternate sampling strategies may be implemented to evaluate the integrity, age, and cultural period of the soil profile. For example, in consultation with the geomorphologist, recent fill layers or very recent alluvium may be removed without sifting. However, the researcher must justify that the sampling strategy is satisfactory to identify historic resources that may be present. In addition, if cultural material is encountered during deep testing and a geomorphologist is not already employed, arrangements are to be made to use a geomorphologist in an evaluation of all the trenches.
Urban Sites
An urban property is defined as any lot within the boundaries of a platted city block within an incorporated city, village, or town. Investigators are strongly encouraged to discuss urban survey strategies with MDAH as the research proposal is developed. Deviations from these standards can be agreed upon prior to beginning fieldwork and described in the report. Any deviations developed in the field, and their rationale, must be described in the report.
Prior documentary research is critical because the spatial limits of urban archaeological deposits often cannot be defined in the same manner as the boundaries of non-urban sites. Such research may aid in determining the historical boundaries of streets, blocks, house lots, etc. Given the unique nature of these settings, the typical 30-m grid system nor traditional site delineation techniques are sufficient for defining site boundaries.
Each lot is considered by MDAH to be a separated entity, inherently defined by its legal boundary. Therefore the typical approach of two negative shovel tests defining the edge of an archaeological site is not required nor necessarily applicable. Consequently, the definition of the site boundary should be restricted to the current or historic, legally-defined limits of the lot. This can be depicted through historic Sanborn maps, city maps, historic and modern aerial photographs, physical separation of lots from neighbors through the use of fences and plantings along lot lines, etc. Each urban lot should be subjected to survey to see if archaeological deposits are present. (For further information about urban sites and developing boundaries for urban districts please see NRHP Bulletin #21). In general, identification efforts in an urban area are to include:
1. STPs excavated at 10m (33 ft.) intervals on transects spaced no further than 10m apart;
2. All STPs should be square in profile, at least 30 cm (~1.0 ft.) in width, and be excavated to sterile subsoil or a minimum depth of 80 cmbs (2.6 ft.);
3. Identification of the presence, distribution, and preservation of architectural evidence, site stratigraphy, features, and assessment of site significance based upon all available documentary evidence. Previous work at urban sites regionally indicates it is useful to target mid-lot and backlot areas for cellars, privies, wells and cisterns;
4. Recordation and assessment of features containing large numbers of artifacts;
5. The use of metal detectors is encouraged along 1.5-m (~5.0 ft.) lanes along transects spaced no more than 10 m apart;
6. Sampling strategies for artifact recovery. Sampling strategies are to be addressed on an individual basis and the method chosen justified in the research design;
7. Recordation of excavation procedures including drawings and photographs; and
8. Geophysics may be used on vacant lots where traditional survey methods can be employed (i.e. paved lots, etc.).
In cases where the above techniques are not applicable, please consult MDAH about alternative survey strategies/methods.
Military Sites
Conventional survey employing shovel testing at military sites has consistently proven to be unsuccessful in identifying these types of sites across the Southeast. Military sites such as encampments and battlefields are to be considered sensitive resources as many contain unmarked burials. Surveys in areas having potential for military sites need to be sensitive to the following:
1. A thorough visual observation of the ground surface needs to be conducted to identify surface features (huts, chimney falls, latrines, etc.), broad scatters and/or clusters of building materials, and evidence of relic hunting. This is especially needed for transect surveys where it is likely that only a portion of the site is contained in the project area;
2. Areas of steep slopes (15%), sometimes excluded from survey, need to be examined as slopes are often favored locations for military encampments;
3. Landscape features are key components to military sites and can be recorded as archaeological resources; and
4. Metal detector surveys are recommended because the majority of diagnostic items deposited at military sites are metallic. When implemented, the metal detector survey shall consider relevant factors such as the experience of the metal detector operator(s), the type of metal detector(s), ground cover, intensity of survey coverage, extent of previous relic hunting, and environmental factors.
A system of interpreting battlefield landscapes known as the KOCOA system (explained below) has been adopted by the NPS and endorsed by the American Battlefield Protection Program for the evaluation of historic battlefield environments. It encompasses key landscape features that may have affected or directed the military action in a given location and keeps the evaluator from focusing solely upon archaeological remains or built environment such as earthworks:
K: Key terrain (terrain that must be taken or held to obtain victory);
O: Observation and fields of fire (terrain that permits observation of enemy movements and avenues of approach);
C: Cover/concealment (terrain that provides troops with cover or protection from enemy fire);
O: Obstacles (features that stand in the way of seizing key terrain - these can be natural, such as heavy woods or deep swamp, or man-made such as fencelines, ditches or earthworks); and
A: Avenues of approach (terrain by which the enemy may be approached - this can be anything from an established roadway to an open field).
Underwater Sites
Archaeological testing in underwater settings often involves unusual circumstances. Research designs for underwater Phase I surveys are to be discussed in advance with MDAH. In general, identification efforts in an underwater setting are to include:
1. Placement of exploratory units based on remote sensing results and knowledge of the sunken vessel or submerged cultural remains;
2. Use of mechanized equipment where extensive modern overburden present;
3. Careful examination of air-lifted and water-dredged soil samples. The soil samples must always be screened through mesh or net bagging;
4. Recordation of the excavation procedure to include drawings and photographs if visibility permits; and
5. Compliance with safety standards of nationally recognized diving organizations (PADI, Instructors NAUI, SSI, etc.).
Metal Detection
Research designs and proposed methodologies for metal detecting must be discussed in advance with MDAH staff, and any relevant Federal agencies. Avocationalists should be interviewed regarding their knowledge of the area. Use judgement when involving avocationalists. If looting has and continues to be a strong possibility, then involving avocationalists may not be appropriate. It is suggested that devices be recent models and professional grade, as technology is always improving.
1. Coverage: When required during Phase I, metal detector coverage should be systematic along 1.5 meter lanes on transects at a maximum 30 meter interval, though closer or even overlapping coverage may be necessary to meet specific research objectives; and removal of ground vegetation and/or leaf litter along detection lanes may be needed for metal detecting to be effective.
2. Reporting: Equipment, personnel, and time spent should be clearly stated in the methods section. Coverage, mapping, and artifact collection strategies should likewise be clearly stated.
3. Personnel Experience: Although recommended, no specific metal detecting training course is required. Preferred qualifications:
