Data synthesized from seven Pennsylvania counties and two decades of Phase I archaeological surveys documents the efforts CRM archaeologists have made to identify sites in a typical Middle Atlantic state. That synthesis has produced some concrete information regarding the efficacy of some widely employed methodologies and sampling strategies employed to find sites, and the environmental settings in which we look for them. It also suggests some additional research that could help to better evaluate the results of CRM investigations, and better conduct future reconnaissance surveys. This article argues for the regular synthesis and assessment of the decades of work CRM archaeologists have done since the National Historic Preservation Act was passed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION (ACHP)2009Section 106 Archaeology GuidanceACHP, Washington, DC.
2.
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION (ACHP)2011Meeting the “Reasonable and Good Faith” Identification Standard in Section 106 Review, ACHP, Washington, DC.
3.
BakerJoeBeastonErikJailletAngelaMaherDavidMontgomeryKrisOlsonErik, and PlumerMartin2010The Archaeology of Front Yards: Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations from the PennDOT 2007/2008 Cultural Resources Internship Program, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 26, pp. 141–154.
4.
BeckmanKristinEastThomasDuncanRick, and GundyBarbara1996Phase I/II Testing of Crooked Creek Model and Phase III Data Recovery, Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, Interstate 70 to Route 51, Allegheny and Washington Counties, report prepared for The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Skelly and Loy, Monroeville.
5.
BenackLisaMacDonaldDouglas, and DuncanRick2010Phase I/II Archaeological Investigation, Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Project, SR 0015, Sec. 088, Northumberland, Snyder, and Union Counties, report prepared for PennDOT District 3-0, Skelly and Loy, Monroeville.
6.
BinfordLewis R.BinfordSally R.WhallonRobert, and HardinMargaret Ann1970Archaeology at Hatchery West, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 24, pp. i–vii, 1–91.
7.
DuncanR. B. and BeckmanK. A.2000The Application of GIS Predictive Site Location Models within Pennsylvania and West Virginia, in Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists. A Predictive Modelling Kit, WescottK. L. and BrandonR. J. (eds.), Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 33–58.
8.
IoannidesAnastasios and SullivanAlan2002Best Management Practices of Archaeological Study Methods, State Job Number 14775(0), In Cooperation with Ohio DOT and FHWA, University of Cincinnati College of Engineering, Cincinnati.
9.
KatzGregoryBraniganJohnBlondoSteven, and SchoppPaul2002Reconnaissance Survey and Predictive Model Report, SR 0228, Section 290, Cranberry, Adams and Middlesex Townships, Butler County and Marshall, Pine and Richland Townships Allegheny County, report prepared for PennDOT Districts 10-0 and 11-0, AD Marble and Co., Camp Hill, PA.
10.
KingTom2006Plenary Presentation: presented at the Summer 2006 meeting of the Archaeological and Historic Preservation in Transportation (ADC50)Committee Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Williamsburg, Virginia.
11.
KrakkerJames J.ShottMichael J., and WelchPaul D.1983Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey, Journal of Field Archaeology, 10:4, pp. 469–480.
12.
MillerPatricia2006Archaeological Predictive Model Field Testing Results, PA 23 EIS Project, S.R. 0023, Section EIS, Lancaster County, report prepared for PennDOT District 8-0, KCI Inc., Mechanicsburg.
13.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE1983ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated]USDI, Washington, DC.
14.
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION (PHMC)2008Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg.
15.
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION (PHMC)2012Site Identification Criteria, Bureau for Historic Preservation/State Museum, Harrisburg.
16.
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION (PHMC)2013Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey Site Densities by County as of January 1, 2013, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg.
17.
SebastianLynne2010The Future of CRM Archaeology, in Archaeology & Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future, SebastianLynne and LipeWilliam (eds.), Sar Santa Fe, pp. 3–18.
18.
ShottMichael J.1987Feature Discovery and the Sampling Requirements of Archaeological Evaluations, Journal of Field Archaeology, 14:3, pp. 359–371.
19.
SundstromLinea1993A Simple Mathematical Procedure for Estimating the Adequacy of Site Survey Strategies, Journal of Field Archaeology, 20:1, 91–96.
