Phase II (evaluation) archaeological survey

Introduction

After Phase I archaeological survey identifies an archaeological site, Phase II evaluates the site’s eligibility for inclusion on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places. If a project will adversely affect an eligible site (a historic property), the site will require further analysis. This includes development of ways to avoid and/or minimize impacts through project redesign.

Publications of the National Register of Historic Places (NPS)

Download the National Register of Historic Places Bulletins referenced on this page and other guidance publications.

National Register Criteria for Evaluation

NPS describes all applicable criteria for eligibility in a National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (formerly NRB 15). Others may also apply, but Criterion D, or information potential, is the most frequently used criterion for archaeological sites.

Criterion D requirements

Criterion D evaluation requires assessing the significance and integrity of the archaeological property’s data set(s) to

  • Answer research questions
  • Place the resource(s) within the appropriate historic context
  • Evaluate potential to yield important information in history and/or prehistory

Archaeological integrity under Criterion D evaluates

  • Location
  • Design
  • Materials
  • Association

Important research questions

Cultural and natural alterations reshape an archaeological site into a different form than it existed in the past. Researchers address this change by identifying important research questions. Tailored to the site type and setting, these assess the site’s potential to yield specific data. Researchers identify these questions within any of the following:

  • Historic context document
  • Statewide comprehensive preservation plan
  • Project research design meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeological Documentation.

Steps for Criterion D listing

A Criterion D assessment’s research design includes the following steps:

  1. Identify the property’s data set(s) or categories of the following types of information:
    • Archaeological
    • Historical
    • Ecological
  2. Identify the historic context(s) — that is, the appropriate historical and archaeological framework in which to evaluate the property.
  3. Identify the important research question(s) that the property’s data sets can be expected to address.
  4. Taking archaeological integrity into consideration, evaluate the data sets in terms of their potential and known ability to answer research questions.
  5. Identify the important information that an archaeological study of the property has yielded or is likely to yield.

Phase II methodology

Purpose

Determine the historical and cultural significance of archaeological materials and deposits identified during the Phase I archaeological survey.

Components

Phase II builds upon Phase I results to achieve the following goals for each site:

Evaluation

Recover a sufficient sample of information about the archaeological site to support a National Register eligibility assessment.

Research questions

Develop appropriate research questions for recovering important information, specific to the

  • Site type
  • Data sets
  • Features
  • Context

Test units

Systematic excavation of test units collecting data on

  • Site integrity
  • Cultural composition
  • Feature classes
  • Site stratigraphy

Site boundaries

Refine and confirm the horizontal and vertical site boundary based on the extent of associated

  • Artifacts
  • Features
  • Topographic landforms

Site features

Identify and classify features, if present.

Distribution

Analyze horizontal and vertical intra-site artifact and feature distribution.

Dating

Date the site, context and feature(s) through comprehensive analysis.

This can include:

  • Diagnostic artifacts
  • Artifact assemblage(s)
  • Geomorphology
  • Relative dating techniques

Site condition and potential

Determine the site’s preservation, integrity and research potential.

Specialized collection

Consider resource-specific specialized collection and analysis, such as:

  • Radiocarbon samples
  • Botanical resources
  • Pollen resources
  • Faunal resources

Specialized testing

Consider specialized testing methodology, including:

  • Geomorphology in riverine settings
  • Geophysical remote sensing
  • Metal detecting for military engagements

Technical report

Present the Phase II survey effort’s results in a clearly written technical report. Include National Register recommendations with the rationale and supporting documentation.

Logs and catalogs

Report appended soil testing logs and artifact catalogs. Tabulate all artifacts by:

  • Type
  • Provenience unit
  • Stratum (or arbitrary level)
  • Feature

Categorize them in a manner that allows for comparisons with other sites or artifact collections.

Mitigation recommendations

Prepare recommendations if the project will affect identified historic properties. As needed, provide any of the following:

  • Avoidance
  • Minimization
  • Phase III archaeological mitigation

What to consider

Cultural considerations

  • Regionally appropriate subsistence and settlement models/historic context.
  • Cultural/ecological adaptation strategies.
  • Cultural sequence and chronology.

Environmental considerations

  • Environmental reconstruction and environmental evolution of a site over time.
  • Environmental variables and qualities influencing the site’s …
    • Location
    • Size
    • Complexity
    • Function to the site landform
    • Relationship to other known sites within that drainage/landform/region.

Artifact data

Detailed physical and chronological data on artifacts.

Site analysis

Functional site analysis with discrete stratum and feature discussion. Support this with

  • Graphics
  • Tables
  • Appendixes

Plow zones and integrity

One common assumption is that plow zone deposits lack integrity due to disturbance. Contemporary mid-Atlantic archaeological research asserts the opposite. The plow zone’s spatial distribution and artifact assemblage composition reveals:

  • Preferred refuse deposition locations
  • Work areas
  • Domestic occupation

Despite plowing, we can still learn about historic and precontact sites’ formation and evolution. Plowing may have displaced some artifacts without compromising the site’s most valuable data. If the plow zone still has discernable activity areas or important information, then the site still has integrity. The National Register program within the National Park Service (NPS) says the following:

  • 98% of all archaeological sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places exist within a plow zone context (NPS archaeologist Erika K. Martin Seibert, New Jersey Historic Preservation Conference, 5/29/2012).
  • The National Register Bulletin Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties (formerly NRB 36), states plowed sites possess archaeological integrity as related to integrity of location or design.