Mississippi Administrative Code
Title 16 - History, Humanities and Arts
Part 3 - Historic Preservation Division
Chapter 12 - Mississippi Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations
Rule 16-3-12.6.6 - Phase II Testing and Evaluation

Phase II projects involve the testing of previously identified archaeological sites for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This level of investigation may include controlled surface collections, intensive shovel testing, test units, strip blocks, and other appropriate methods for the determination of the extent and nature of archaeological deposits at the site or sites. Again, due to the highly variable nature of each site, this office will not issue a set of general specifications for number of test units or other requirements. The end result of a Phase II project should include, at a minimum, recommendations concerning the eligibility of the site to the NRHP, and firm identification of site boundaries within the project APE. If the site is recommended eligible by the consultant, Phase II investigations should yield recommendations for potential modifications of the project that might avoid impact to the site. Phase II testing reports SHOULD NOT include proposed data recovery plans and research designs. In accordance with 36 CFR 800, data recovery excavation is an ADVERSE EFFECT to historic properties. All avenues of avoidance must be exhausted prior to consideration of Phase III data recovery excavation.

Goals of Investigation

Phase II investigation evaluates the National Register significance of the site through more extensive excavation, which samples and characterizes archaeological deposits. The investigation provides an understanding of the horizontal structure and its stratigraphy including artifact and feature distribution; indicates the site's physical integrity, noting any areas of disturbance; establishes the period(s) of occupation, function, cultural affiliation, and associated contexts; and more closely defines the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the site within the APE. More precise boundary definition may be particularly important in some locations as design examines alternatives to avoid the site. The investigation determines if the site can address significant questions associated with the associated contexts. It provides sufficient data to prepare a Phase III research design addressing those questions. Sufficient comparative research is necessary to determine the site's importance in relation to others of its period, cultural affiliation, function, and region.

Depending on site content, an individual qualified under 36 CFR 61 as a prehistoric or historic archaeologist will direct field investigation, research and data analysis, and report preparation. In Phase II, other consulting professionals may also be needed, for example geomorphologists, industrial archaeologists, and faunal specialist, etc. The principal investigator directs all phases of investigation and is present during field testing sufficiently to ensure appropriate field investigation strategies are properly completed, field records including mapping and stratigraphic sections are adequate, sampling is performed appropriately, and artifacts are properly labeled and transported. Field analyses and interpretation of strata and features and their relationship with associated remains are performed by the principal investigator as the investigations proceed. The proposal for Phase II investigations includes a discussion of the necessary professional input and will be submitted and approved by MDAH prior to the initiation of fieldwork.

Environmental Research

The site specific research of Phase II may require additional environmental research to explore the research potential of the site. For example, Phase II investigations may require a discussion of the environmental context contemporary with the site's occupations. Include an environmental context for the site drawn from previous and ongoing research.

Background Research

During Phase II, background research for both prehistoric and historic period sites provides a well-developed cultural contexts defined by theme, period, and physiographic region. In the Phase II level-of-effort research should focus on comparative investigations of known periods of occupation, parallel resource utilization, and similar site type in this area. Such research examines the ways in which the subject site fits into the contemporary regional site distribution and/or environmental and resource needs. The goal of such research is to understand the components of the subject site and address site significance.

Thus, such research defines the site type, its role, and associated cultural context. Examination of previous work at known sites of a similar type within the region establishes the data types and site structure that may be anticipated at the site under examination. The context may provide an understanding of the ways in which the site may have related to others of the same period and cultural association. Knowledge of the context and site type provides the background or comparative overview for interpretation of findings at the subject site and allows the researcher to identify areas needing further investigation within each context and frame potential research questions. It thus permits evaluation of site significance by establishing the major research questions that the site can address. Comparative research also establishes the rarity of the site type, the representativeness of the subject site, and the level of integrity of similar sites.

Site-specific and contextual/site type research involving both prehistoric and historical archaeological site investigation includes intensive interviews with local informants and state and regional authorities in the area of research and region. It involves a review of published and unpublished site reports at MDAH and other repositories in the state (e.g. University collections) that examine relevant contexts, site types, and specific aspects of the site to permit its evaluation. For example, such topics may relate to specific artifact types and other forms of data that may be characteristic of the subject site type, building or structure forms, diet, settlement distribution by land form, etc. Particularly for sites related to prehistoric occupation, locate and assess the importance of artifact collections related to the site and comparative collections related to the site type and/or specific artifact types and materials of particular interest at the site. The former is needed to more fully understand the contents of the site and the later contributes to the comparative analysis and is examined at this phase to frame research questions and prepare a research design if needed.

When examining historical archaeological sites and associated aboveground remains, also complete sufficient research specific to the site and its immediate community and delineate the relevant context(s) and site types to establish site significance. Again, examine relevant archaeological reports, MDAH files, and other professional sources that deal with the site type and its context(s). Locate comparable archaeological sites and standing buildings and structures and their remains that relate to the site type in the region to understand materials, construction techniques, size and form, technology, design, and functions common to the site type. Field examination of comparable standing properties in the locale in Phase II or III may address issues excluded from available records. If not completed, finish the examination of relevant property records and plats, death and marriage records, census data, directories, local newspapers, building permits, town records, institutional records, and similar records in town, city, and state repositories. While much of this research should precede field investigations, Phase II investigations can frequently point to additional areas of research and ways of analyzing materials either in this phase or in Phase III. Such research is an interactive process.

Thus, this broader study for both prehistoric and historic sites determines the existing level of knowledge about the site type and its context(s), the known levels of integrity of comparable sites within the site type and the existence of comparative collections, and the capacity of the site to investigate significant questions.

Field Investigations

Investigations in Phase II examine the portion of the site within the APE, clearly defining site boundaries within and immediately adjacent this area. These investigations must be sufficient to determine whether the site is eligible for the National Register, or if the portion being tested contributes to the site's eligibility. If significant, the effort must also determine if the nature of the data are of such importance that the site should be preserved for future investigations. If data recovery is appropriate, then the Phase II data must be sufficient to permit the preparation of research questions specific to the site type and each context it represents that are addressed through data recovery. Phase II testing also considers whether the most significant portion of the site extends outside the APE and would not be impacted according to the existing design. This effort may or may not be concluded with further testing outside the APE. Such extensions of investigations should be discussed both with MDAH, the lead federal agency/agencies, consulting federally-recognized Tribes, and other participating parties. If this testing cannot be completed under the current proposal, then the principal investigator will need to consult MDAH for an amendment.

Phase II investigations open larger, more contiguous areas of the site to define the nature and integrity of the archaeological deposits, test and analyze selected features, and locate others found during research. Investigations are sufficient to document the significance of the site. Phase II testing usually involves a combination of close interval shovel testing with 1-X-1 m or larger excavation units, potentially extended by other forms of testing such as remote sensing. The placement of units depends on the nature and distribution of deposits. Shovel-testing at 5-m (16.4 ft.) intervals across the site area more closely defines the locations of artifact clustering and overall distribution, feature distribution, and previously approximated boundaries and delineates the stratigraphy across the site. The hand excavation of 1-X-1 units and 1-X-2 or more meter trenches investigates the range of artifact types, numbers, and proportion of types, samples features, and defines the stratigraphy. It examines vertical site boundaries and site structure. While systematic arrays of shovel tests play an important role in locating features and defining stratigraphy at the location of artifact finds, it may not sufficiently characterize features, adequately document complex stratigraphy, or place them in relation to visible remains as the larger units do. The increased artifact sampling through both approaches permits more accurate site characterization including delineation of site components.

Units are excavated in 10 cm arbitrary levels within their strata by troweling or shovel-skimming. Dirt is screened through one-quarter inch mesh and one-eighth inch mesh in features or areas of high artifact concentrations, particularly with small artifacts such as micro-flakes or beads. Separate artifacts by level within their respective unit unless features, cultural deposits, and/or scatters require piece-plotting. Units are excavated into sterile soils. Complete any feature excavation with trowels. Depending on the size and artifact density of features, define, sample, and excavate features sufficiently to identify and characterize them and provide support for Phase III recovery. Their selection is judgmental, based on previous experience with the site type and the features' potential to define eligibility and develop questions to be tested in a potential Phase III. Controlled use of mechanical removal of soil may also be necessary in areas of fill. The depth and soil characteristics of the fill are previously identified, and it is known that the sacrificed layers lack archaeological deposits of National Register significance. If historic artifacts are not retained, then state the reason for their disposal, for example, they existed in areas of clear modern deposition. Both vertical and horizontal controls are maintained. Document all excavation units, providing profiles of at least one wall, plans of artifact concentrations and features and profiles, and photographic coverage. Collect soil, carbon, and other samples appropriate to understanding the site type and context.

Phase II investigations at historic period sites can encounter stratigraphic challenges, a large variety of features, and dense artifact deposits, and often possess associations with standing buildings, structures, and ruins, circumstances, with some notable exceptions, not usually found at prehistoric sites. The excavation strategy is often affected by these factors as well as information provided from historical research. Phase II at least partially defines the extent of foundation and other walls and their relationship to each other and to the surrounding strata; gain a sense of the interior strata and their associated deposits in building foundations; and begin to address the nature of the surrounding landscape or setting to understand the extent and complexity of the site. Sheet middens, as well as discrete trash deposits, should be examined in relationship to the physical and historical context in which they are located. Phase II field investigations at historic sites should sample sheet middens, excavated in 10 cm levels within strata, particularly in relationship to the buildings and their openings. This stratigraphic control is intended to identify the existence of chronological layering of deposits.

Functionally and temporally-related aboveground components of historical archaeological sites may enhance an understanding of the overall property. For buildings, structures, and their extant remains that contextually relate to site deposits, include the following data: date of construction, relevant history of ownership, location on a project maps, photographic views of all elevations, setting, and temporal and/or functional association. Also develop a relatively detailed description including the structural system and exterior cladding materials; the way in which these materials were processed and the techniques of construction; a sketch of the building form with exterior measurements; number of stories; roof shape; orientation of front elevation to roof gable; location, size, and material of the chimneys; exterior building measurements; window and door placement and symmetry to the walls; decorative detailing; relationship to and identification of related buildings, structures, and landscape elements; relationship to buried components and to any associated visible machinery or power source as may be the case with an industrial or agricultural building; and interpretation of function if possible. Depending on the extent of buildings and building remains, the principal investigator may need to include an architectural historian versed in the region's architectural styles, building materials, and building techniques for the investigation. Because the focus of the study is likely to be the analysis of the floor plan, room/building functions, and the relationships between buildings and landscape features and archaeological remains, as well as the building's decorative detailing, which may be quite limited, a background in vernacular architecture may be needed.

Historic sites can possess deep, rich, temporally homogeneous middens, as well as deep, recent fill. In these instances, excavation by stratigraphic levels greater than 10 cm may expedite excavation without sacrificing significant vertical control. Excavation by stratigraphic level may also be necessary in areas of intricate stratigraphy. Carefully document the use of and reason for this method. As explained above, sheet middens are tested in 10 cm levels within strata. This excavation strategy carefully documents the extent of each stratum and its interrelationship with other strata, features, building remains, and artifact deposition. The approach can enhance the understanding the horizontal distribution of features, structural remains, sheet middens, and other deposits in relation to each other and standing buildings and landscapes within the same stratum. This horizontal analysis of site stratigraphy is often critical to the identification of remains of each time period represented at the site.

Data Analysis

As research proceeds, it is understood that the direction of data analysis may alter because of unanticipated data. By this stage of study, it is incumbent on the principal investigator to pursue the data analysis that best reflects the data and the context(s) to which the resources relate even though such an analysis may deviate from his/her general research interests. Another course would sacrifice increasingly scarce, nonrenewable resources.

In Phase II, analyze the site's vertical and horizontal structure, including the soil stratigraphy across the site and the relationship of the strata to site components and their associated structural remains, features, and artifacts. Complete the basic counts of artifact categories by strata and horizontal division, for example by grid unit and/or feature, permitting the identification of artifact concentrations within them to understand the ways in which the site was used. Examine diagnostic artifacts to verify cultural affiliations and date site components. Conduct the radiometric dating of prehistoric components as well as the preliminary examination of faunal remains, shells, and seeds retrieved during excavation and through flotation. And integrate environmental and documentary data with the results from the analysis of the field data. The inclusion of catalogue sheets alone fails to provide the analytical information required to understand the basic vertical and horizontal distribution of artifacts across the site. The distributional data derived from artifact counts should be summarized in table format and illustrated on site maps, if possible.

The intent of the data analysis is to address two issues: the level of site integrity and whether the data and associated features will augment the understanding of the one or more contexts to which the site relates as well as the development of the site itself. To address the first issue, the field investigations and analyses need to indicate whether materials associated with each component are or can be separate from the others and whether the horizontal distribution of features and artifacts potentially reflect variation in uses or time period of occupation across the site or later disturbance. It is also important to establish the integrity of the site relative to others through which the same questions may be addressed. The second issue examines whether the investigation of artifacts and their associated strata and features address such significant questions ranging from the structural characterization of the site type, the understanding of early building form, the use of technology, and commercial relationships to questions about diet, social status, and the roles of household members. Integrate site-specific and context data and applicable interpretations drawn in Phase I with the results of Phase II investigations. Reanalysis of these initial data in light of Phase II findings may be necessary. All artifacts returned to the laboratory are cataloged, and the catalogue is placed in the report's appendix.