Site Descriptions:

Folks,

Below is a checklist of things that need to be included in site descriptions at the survey level. I’ve gleaned these items from guidelines provided by the USFS and SCDOT, as well as SC Standards and Guidelines. I suspect the requirements cover other state’s requirements as well. While some of this information can be obtained from the site map (# of Sts and site size) some agencies want this information included in the actual text.

I’ve also included examples of moderately complex site descriptions and simple site descriptions. The order the information is presented in these should be followed in most instances. It is important to first say what the site is before you get into the specifics. Basically you should say what the site is, where it is located, and does it appear on any historic maps. What was the vegetation, and how was the site found. This should be followed by a description of any above ground remains noted. How was the site investigated? How many Sts and how many contained artifacts. Based on positive Sts, surface scatter, and above ground remains, how big is the site? What is the typical soil profile and in what soil zones were artifacts found? What is the official soil type? What kinds of artifacts did you find and what do they date to? What disturbances did you notice? What are your NR recommendations and why? In the case of DOT, will planned improvements adversely affect the site?

I’ve also included the things that need to go on all site maps, based on DOT and USFS guidelines.

In most instances, these descriptions can be used as a template or at least a guide for your descriptions. Please make sure to include all the information on the checklist below and use the mock descriptions as a guide for your writing. Please let me know if there is something I’ve missed.

Thanks,
Natalie

Checklist:
This information should be in the description either in tabular or paragraph form.

1. Site Characterization (lithic scatter, shell midden, etc., cultural affiliation)
2. Landform type
3. Location
4. UTM coordinates
5. Any historic map references
6. Vegetation
7. Ground surface visibility (%)
8. Description of above ground remains
9. How site was discovered
10. Artifact recovery techniques – ST, surface, etc.
11. How many Sts, at what interval, how many positive
12. Site Size
13. Soil profile and Type
14. Levels artifacts recovered from
15. List/description of artifacts recovered
16. Discussion of disturbances or integrity
17. National Register Recommendation
18. Statement of Effect (when applicable)

Moderately complex site description

Site 38LE1002 is an early to mid 19th century house site and undiagnostic prehistoric lithic scatter. It is located on a knoll approximately 200 feet north of County Road 24 at UTM E42490 E3789340 (NAD 27). Its location roughly corresponds to the settlement referred to as Singleton’s on Boykin’s 1820 map of Sumter district (see Figure x in the Historic Overview).

The site is wooded with a mixture of hardwoods and pine and there was no surface visibility. However, a low brick chimney pile was found above the ground surface along with an adjacent light scatter of brick rubble. It was these above ground remains that initially alerted the field crew to the site’s location.

The central shovel test was placed adjacent to the chimney pile and designated N500E500 and shovel tests were excavated at 50 foot intervals in a cruciform pattern until two negative shovel tests were achieved in each direction. A total of 27 shovel tests were excavated, with 17 contain artifacts. Above ground remains and positive shovel tests indicate that the site measures 200 by 200 feet (Figure x). The typical soil profile consisted of 0.8 feet of dark brown (10YR3/2) sandy loam, over 0.3 feet of brown (10YR4/3) sandy loam, over sterile yellowish brown (10YR6/3) sand. Artifacts were found to a maximum depth of 1.2 feet. No obvious disturbances were noted. The soils are classified as well drained Georgeville sandy loam

Historic artifacts were found in the first soil zone and consisted of 53 brick fragments (discarded in the field), 19 historic ceramics (see Table 1), three pieces of olive green bottle glass, nine fragments of window glass, 11 cut nails/nail fragments, and six pieces of animal bone. The ceramics produced a mean ceramic date of 1850.

Table 1. Historic Ceramics recovered from 38LE1002

In addition to the historic artifacts, a total of 16 pieces of lithic debitage was recovered from the shovel tests. They consist of 13 quartz tertiary flakes and three Coastal Plain chert tertiary flakes. These were recovered from the first two soil zones.

The prehistoric component of 38LE1002 is recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The artifacts are undiagnostic and much of that component has been disturbed by the overlying 19th century farmstead. The historic component is recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The presence of the chimney pile as well as indications from the soil profile suggests that the site could have intact subsurface features. The faunal remains are believed to be associated with the historic component and could address questions regarding historic diet. If the site cannot be avoided, Phase II testing should be performed to determine if intact features exist and the kinds of research questions it can answer, if any. Preliminary historical research should be performed to determine the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of the occupants.

Simple site description

Site 38LE1003 is an undiagnostic prehistoric lithic scatter. It is located on a knoll approximately 200 feet east of a springhead at UTM E42490 E3789340 (NAD 27). The site is situated in a fallow field that offered excellent surface visibility (80%). A complete surface collection was made, which resulted in the collection of 12 quartz tertiary flakes and two quartz secondary flakes. Although the site appeared to be plowed out, it was shovel tested at 50 foot intervals in a cruciform pattern until two negative shovel tests were achieved in each direction. A total of five shovel tests were excavated, none of which contained artifacts. The surface scatter indicated that the site measures 75 by 50 feet in size (Figure x).

The typical soil profile consisted of 0.9 feet of dark brown (10YR3/2) sandy loam plowzone over sterile yellowish brown (10YR6/3) sand. All were excavated to a minimum depth of 2.0 feet. No obvious disturbances were noted. The soils are classified as well drained Georgeville sandy loam.

Site 38LE1003 is recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The artifacts are undiagnostic and the site is small and sparse. In addition, no subsurface artifacts were recovered from shovel tests.

Note:

If the description is for DOT and the site is recommended potentially eligible or eligible, you must also provide a discussion of t he determination of effect. If the portion of the site within the proposed new right of way is very disturbed, but in great shape beyond that, the highway improvements may have no adverse effect. If the site is in great shape in the improved area, then there will be an adverse effect.

Site Maps

Graphics should illustrate the description, with all features discussed included on the map. According to SCDOT guidelines, each site map should show the locations of t he site boundaries, shovel tests, features, bodies of water, roadways, present right of way, proposed new right of way, any artifact concentration, disturbances, buildings, north arrows, scale, and other pertinent information. This will include shovel test locations outside the site boundaries but within the survey transects.

According to USFS guidelines, site descriptions shall include maps showing the locations of pedestrian transects, shovel test pits, surface remains, topographic features, and site boundaries. Historic sites may be identified by structural or landscaping remains such as chimney bases, eroded building outlines, foundation piers, graves, prospecting pits, ornamental plants, dams, quarries, and wells. These natural and cultural features shall be included on site maps.