Hal and Rochelle

Here are the notes from last Friday’s meeting.  They are basically a transcript of the meeting, with notes of everyone’s comments in the sequence that they occurred.  I have attempted to give each comment a source, but have used three or four question-marks to denote speakers that I did not know or could not identify.  I hope the notes make sense to you

Clare

PS I have tried to avoid Britishisms, but a few may have slipped in.  If so, sorry.

IAS MEETING NOTES February 25, 2005

IDNR Building, Springfield

Opening remarks – RRL.

1) Aiming to produce a set of guidelines

2) We have a responsibility to the public (taxpayers) and clients to do the best archaeology possible efficiently and practically, therefore we need sound academic and practical guidelines

3) Guidelines need to be archaeologically sound.

Anne Hacker

IHPA has had a longterm goal of revised and cohesive standards.  IHPA has role to communicate to the larger development community.  Discussion will be important to getting a document for the community.

Hal Hassen (HH)

There are 4 issues:

1)  context

2)  sampling

3)  documentation

4)  buried landform assessment.

Each issue will be discussed in context of Phase I, Phase II and Phase III.  Will distribute copies of statement regarding each issue as a basis for discussion.

CONTEXT (see attached statement)

RRL – What comprises adequate context?  Especially for historic sites.  With all the information now available on the internet, it may be time to incorporate some of this into evaluation of sites in Phase I.

Mark Mehrer – we need research questions

Floyd Mansberger – what is meant by context?  Theme, time and place?

Larry Conrad – we need baseline guidelines for Phase I – cf shallow pipeline survey

Kevin McGowan – need to make evaluation of site independent of impact of project.  The evaluation is not relevant to current development (shallow trench in Larry’s pipeline) but all future work on the site.

Mike Wiant – context is dynamic and changes over time.  We lack a feedback mechanism, especially for sharing decisions.  No RP3 process either.  Data is present but only available to those who do research in a particular area or to reviewers.  Either we develop RP3 or other means of dissemination and keep context dynamic for region.

HH – need development of context for regions, will aid understanding of how decisions regarding significance are made.

David Halpin – with reference to context, suggests that archaeologists read county histories for region for historic context.

Mark W.  Yes, but still need a state plan and research goals.  State plans can be reviewed and changed, but there is a danger that they become set in stone.

???? – how about a clearinghouse for current research questions by region?

Larry C.  – contact local archaeologists if you need more information about a region.

David H.  Problem of competition –

Group – NO

Larry C.  – but even after they get the project they still don’t talk.

HH – context applies to prehistory too,  My issue is can I understand the conclusion of the report under review based on the information within it?

Mark. – Research questions are derived from information available, which is NOT readily available,  How can we then develop research questions?

RRL- take a look at the ITARP Archaic conference.  People came together and discussed regions, but information is not out there yet.  Do we need more local (state level) meetings with formal papers etc?  Problem then of time…

HH  there are 2 issues

            how to improve on communication

primary issue is context being developed in report

Chuck R.  At what point do we need to develop context –  3 flake site vs 3000 flake site

HH  If three flakes are obsidian?  Just need a sentence or two

Floyd  Comes back to what is an adequate context statement

Chuck R  but reviewer should understand context from ASSR

HH  ASSR lacks cultural and social context

Chuck  so what should be written about my hypothetical site?

Doug Kullen – 1 paragraph

Mark M – gives brief example

Mike W – remember relevance has to be part of context statement

Larry C – include physiography, state of erosion etc.

John Kelly – method of discovery important to context (will return to this in sampling –HH)

HH – seems to be consensus that we need to understand context.  Difference of opinion on what constitutes context – how much discussion, what information is vital?

Chuck R – what about IHPA’s view?

 Joe Phillippe yes, context statements are lacking

Ann H.  are ASSR forms adequate?  They are not sacred

Floyd M.  still haven’t got an adequate idea of context for Phase I, Phase II and Phase III

HH – context should evolve – don’t need 20 pages on a Phase I but should be clearly laid out

RRL – reports go to clients, who have to understand our recommendations.  If clients don’t understand, they will be confused.  Our responsibility is to provide context for them to understand.

Joe P – very very good point

Larry C. – don’t forget that tools don’t mean significance.  Remember issue of collector predation – context should consider this.

Blane (?) – Government plan vs ad hoc context prepared by each contractor.  Do we need something a little more formal,  Problem of time and money.

Anne H. – I am hearing something very important.  Room understands definition of context.  Getting at context and communicating to individual reader is important.  Will take back ideas and step up (with no funding and/or people) getting reports scanned and ASSRs scanned on line for contractors.  Need letter of support from IAS, need good bibliography etc.

Cynthia Phillippe – people are not completing ASSRS properly; people do not look at plats and atlases (documentation)

Larry C. – not everything will be on the reports.  Not all interests and research questions are out there.  Have to talk to people in the area.

HH – need for discussion on how we get information available.  Probably better for IAS to address the issue independently.

RRL – place to put ideas on web etc…IAS Website current research can be augmented.  Updated once a year by region and usually contains Phase II & III.  Could augment with current issues.  Problem is not getting information out but getting people to supply information.

Brad Koldehoff – regarding poor attendance at IAS meetings.  Get IHPA, DNR and IAS to develop context for web site – just a baseline?

HH – any more discussion about context in reports?

Fred Finney – likes Brad’s idea so that we don’t reinvent the wheel.

Larry C. – could be done locally

HH – IAS should take the lead on this.  But will involve other agencies

Summary of discussion (HH) 

1) frustration with poor communications, especially within regions but also statewide.

2) when we do our work we need to do a better job of communicating reasons for significance (from a paragraph to a chapter)  ie communicating the decision making process

Mike Hargreaves  Need enforcement of minimal standards

John K – IHPA will reject report and then get stick from the client’s legislator

David H – IHPA has two reviewers for 120 counties.  They are relying on archaeologists to do good work.

SAMPLING (see attached statement)

RRL – we do too many project to justify on a project by project basis as if applying for a grant.  Most of us have an idea of reasonable sampling strategies for our region which do not always correspond with present guidelines.  Can categories project we do where strategies are straightforward and others more complex.  Certain standards are appropriate statewide and current standards need to be tinkered with.

Doug K. – 5 meter transect interval has no relationship to archaeology – what about 10 or 15 for walkover?

HH – does anyone here thing they don’t need guidelines

No one thinks that

Charles Markham  need guidelines to level playing field when bidding on contracts.

Blane(?) – need to establish a consistent set of techniques

Joe P. – guidelines set minimum standard for review.\

HH – we need guidelines for whatever reason, therefore we can focus on specifics – survey intervals at 5 meters in 25% + visibility and 15 meter intervals for shovel testing.  Can have specific discussions

Joe P – you can always ask to do something different but it is important to consult with IHPA before doing it!

HH – do intervals have scientific relevance given the difference in intervals for walkover and shovel testing.

RRL  - No

Mark M. – wants to shrink 15 meter interval for shovel testing

RRL – unplowed sites are important and undisturbed and rare.  Concerned that 15 meter interval means you can miss them as we are sampling such a small proportion of the area.

Larry C.  – regional issue to problem.  May need a two-tiered system

Chuck R – how to define how to define intervals based on disturbance, topography etc.

Larry C. – put on map what you did and where, discuss intervals in terms of physiographic situation.

HH – 2 lines of discussion

1) are there regions where we should not survey at all?

2) we have problem with current system of 5 and 15 meters.  Reviewers say we can deviate.  How do we go about effecting change in requirements?

???? How may are confident surveying at 15 meter intervals (none) – can strip plow in fallow fields.

(big discussion [row] on raking leaf litter as a means of surveying unplowed sites)

Mike W. – seems to be consensus that contingencies outweigh any other argument cf above discussion

(digression into ATV survey)

Mike W.  Can we identify minimum standards to get baseline but give us latitude?  If not, we are stuck with 5 and 15.  Let’s go back to 5 meter intervals in good visibility, what is better?  How are we going to get consensus?

Sharon Santurre – problem with crop residue, if too bad 5 meters is too large.

Mike H  sorry to sound commercial but how to make ends meet in those circumstances?

????  - how about setting number of shovel probes within a hectare and letting people decide where to put them?

Sharon S.  – What is the goal of the survey?

John K – can work on bid

Clare Tolmie – remember that need consistency in survey methods to enable comparisons of results.

Brad K – issues of huge surveys and areas written off (cf forest service) – when does that apply

Kevin M. – we’re trying to set minimum standards regardless of forest service/federal guidelines etc,

HH – hearing a difference of opinion on how to modify guidelines and arguments are cogent – standards are either not sufficient of are fine.  Real split on how to establish standards.  Need to follow up.

Larry C. – suspects relates to circumstances etc.

Decision: Phase I sampling strategies to got to IAS standards committee.

Phase II Sampling

Mike W – proportion of site tested – is this adequate?

RRL – the system in place for plowed fields seems backwards.  We end up stripping 100% of small sites and large sites are barely tested, given the minimum

HH we put trenches where we think the sites and feature should be

RRL – danger of reification if you do that

HH – but if you know about site structure….

Brad K. – disagrees with Hal.  Given the modern surface visibility in contrast to past agricultural practices (that were current for present guidelines).  The modern surface does not reflect site structure.  Topography is a better guide.  All goes back to context.

Mike H – need standards

Sharon S – what do we want guidelines to be?  Will they give the basics for what we need to do?

Cynthia P – we need guidelines to protect resources

(someone pointed out that we are doing a cultural resources inventory, not just seeking sites)

Anne H – we need to be clear about definitions.  Standards are what are required, and guidelines are how standards should be applied.  Are we going for standards with guidelines?

Mike W – Identifying standards and guidelines is important for clients.  They need to be able to evaluate proposals submitted and see if they are adequate to meet requirements.

Larry C – danger of minimum becoming the maximum. Need to make it clear to clients that IHPA have the right to ask for more than the minimum, depending on circumstances.

RRL – don’t see the archaeological logic in what is being asked in terms of ground cleared.  NRHP Council publications talk about questions that need to be answered, not how to do it.

Mike H. – troubled by idea that minimum might not be enough.  Should pick a minimum rigorous enough to meet most contingencies.

Lunch

Summary of sampling discussion. (HH)

Context an sampling discussed and not solved.  One final note – important to understand that until standards are changed IHPA suggests calling and talking with reviewer (esp about Phase II strategies).  Call Hal too.

RRL - 1 request – if anyone knows of studies for survey intervals that will give a rational base for standards/guidelines please send a copy to her.

HH – or send ideas/thoughts on sampling to RRL too.

DOCUMENTATION  (see attached sheet)

HH – do all of us feel an obligation to document all resources over 50 years old?

David H – not in agreement on 50 year limit – take photographs and submit pictures of every structure please.

Larry C – all agencies required to do that?

Anne H. – yes, there are programmatic agreements etc.

???? – what makes a site – one artifact?

Floyd M. – comes back to question of context.  Example of problem of early historic small scatters/isolates and a problem for all sites and time periods.  Who has final decision on what is a site?

Cynthia P. – the documentation on the ASSR must be complete too.

Everyone agreed that this is the case

HH – there is no form for Phase II or mitigation – how to report Phase II and mitigation.  Same theme keeps recurring – how much deference should be given to professional in the field and their analytical system?  How much latitude should we give?

Larry C. – at minimum there should be a map of the site, plans and profiles of all features and an inventory of artifacts.  Site description is very important.

RRL – recently on reports where Phase II is recommended the IHPA letter recommending testing now requires certain types of analysis on materials collected.  Is this a new standard or does it just apply to certain projects? Gave example of minimum vessel counts , which has not always been required for Phase II.  Can IHPA come up with a way of disseminating this to all companies ?

(brief discussion between RRL and David Halpin)

Joe P. – there needs to be a mechanism to disseminate changes in requirements

HH – RRL has raised two issues

1) review process and how it changes over time

2) changing personnel at reviewing agency with different mindsets/interests and one other issue – how we analyze things.  Importance of communication again

(discussion on sites, site files and nick – who has final decision on what is a site)

Mike W – prehistoric isolates are digitized as are prehistoric sites.  Isolates have triangle symbol.  A site is 3 artifacts within 15 meters

With historics the convention had been that less than 3 artifacts within 15 meters is not a site and is not recorded. Historic isolates are not being recorded.  Nick will send back anything else with questions.  If recorded can make a compelling case, the findspot will be digitized and given a site number.

Joe P. – we are inventorying cultural features, therefore we need site numbers!

Mike W. – buildings will be/are recorded as sites.

Mark M. – don’t these fall under architectural review?

Floyd M. – remember all 4 criteria!

Mike W. – seems to be a consensus that we are content with recording all prehistoric material as sites. (yes) What about historic isolates (manuring problem)

Mark M – problem of context again

Mike W. - all historic objects (including isolates, when it is thought necessary to report them) will be digitized – isolates will get a new symbol.  Remember Nick is a gatekeeper for precision.  He is reasonable but will want clarification.

Steve – when recording and evaluating standing structures – query about viewshed vs. footprint – eg. impact of cell towers, utility poles, piplines.  

Joe P. – if an architectural issue it will be assessed by the architecture division of IHPA.  We are concerned with impact on archaeology

Floyd M. – remember that a house is not a site, it is the entire component surrounding the house.

(discussion on if towns can be sites etc…)

Summation of documentation (HH)

Seems to be more consensus on documentation requirements.

Buried land forms

Statement asks a lot of questions.

Dave N. – what is a depositional environment?  Western Illinois has redeposited loess on upland (cited Julianne Van Nest’s work).  Buried soils are not just on floodplains or under alluvium

Cindy Balek – landforms should be guidelines for deep testing.  Check soil maps for indications of horizon thickness etc.

Kevin M. – only current Illinois requirement is for testing floodplains of all major rivers over half a mile wide and remember to check for buried sites in loess in western Illinois.

Larry C. – but smaller streams can contain buried sites

Cindy B. – the question is how much infilling occurs resulting in restriction of modern valley.

HH- do we need more standards/guidelines for subsurface testing in Illinois?
Blane (?) -  so what methods – shovel probe vs core vs backhoe trench?

HH – are we looking for sites or evaluating the potential for sites?

Doug K- evaluate potential first and then go looking for sites

Cindy B. – Phase I, find old living surface that say if it has potential for sites

HH – next step? If this is a strip mine area, what would I do – questions of cost etc.

Joe P – IHPA requires a good faith effort to locate sites.

Cindy B – we have liklihood of sites vs if on buried soils, comes back to standards

Chuck R.- need to sample

Larry C. – problem of potential impact on sites with heavy equipment – core before backhoeing?

Mark M – nature of impact– if a large mine is not his call, contractor has his job to do, comes down to money which is why we need standards

Chuck R – question of depth of buried soil and nature of development – will site be impacted?

Joe P. – remember buried resources occur under cities too “there is nothing wrong with using a backhoe in Phase I”

Brad K – American Bottom – have buried prehistoric and early historic sites.  Cores can help narrow the scope but coring can be confusing and isn’t enough.  Need to trench to get the big picture.

HH – do you need to supplement with hand trowelling, screening and sampling

Brad K. – yes, at least to carefully clean and record profiles

Summary of deep testing  (HH)

Hearing that we need better guidelines for deep testing and that people would support something specific.  IAS will need a group to assemble these.

ANY OTHER ISSUES

Steve N – underwater sites – need to consider these too in guidelines – wrecks in rivers and Lake Michigan, flooded sites etc. Bridge construction

HH- need to consult with those who have done this

Mark W. – there is a new report on Mississippi wreck sites published by CoE that covers much of the Illinois section

Mark M. – issue of decommissioning of railroads – potential for sites surviving under railroad beds.

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES

HH 2 – separate discussions

1) PROVIDING CONTEXT IN REPORTS.  We need to do a better job of aiding independent readers, so that they understand our conclusions

2) GETTING INFORMATION OUT

3) Developing real context statements as we’re not going to gate an RP3 (though we should).  Will have to go to IAS for this as IHPA cannot do it.

4) Sampling and buried landforms – we want guidelines/standards but also want to apply professional discretion.

5) Documentation – most people are OK with status quo, site definition and standing structures/

6) Will be incumbent on IAS to get back to all members for comment etc,

7) This is the second workshop here (first was the historic sites workshop) and seems to be a good way to talk about issues.  We can hold an annual workshop here.

RRL – likes the idea of an annual workshop, which could also be done as part of IAS annual meeting (if organized in time) and that might improve attendance.

Issue is now back in IAS field.  RRL has asked for questions/problems/solutions for guidelines and got very few comments back.  If people don’t voice concerns/opinions RRL hopes they’ll be content as people will have the opportunity to put out ideas.  Thanks to Hal for organizing this meeting and moderating it.

Anne H  Would an internship be useful?

Cynthia P – do guidelines need be approved by IHPA

Yes, will be comment

Floyd M. – what is the process?  The IAS committee

Anne H. -  Thinking about this, not certain yet.  Anne is not happy with the guidelines and sees advantages to codifying into regulations.  Therefore there would b presentation to public via the register (Secretary of State’s Office) for comment.  Also envisioning other ways to comment on draft for the professional community via IAS.

Sharon S– who is on committees?

Background –1 committee meeting so far, committee will reconvene and is all volunteer

Mike W. – can we operate in an unregulated environment?  We think we can (as individuals) but others can’t.  Our problem is that our profession is not regulated.  Very complicated to go to state licensing.  How do we feel about proposition that all people doing archaeology should be Professional Archaeologists as defined by the SAA (ROPA)?

Also concern because these are economic considerations that people who review proposals are not qualified therefore need to get them to learn what is a good proposal and avoid the bottom line as the only method of choosing contractor.

Sharon S – what is the purpose of the list of archaeological contractors? 

Joe P. - Simply a convenience to contractors.  Specifically states that these meet the basic Secretary of State’s standards and have an Illinois address.  Not an approval list.  Don’t have to be on list to do Illinois archaeology

Larry C – reminds everyone that it is important to talk to collectors, especially now that no –till is practiced

Brad K. – Guidelines still reflect an idea that testing is predicated on good artifact distribution on the surface.  This does not happen today – no deep plowing in fall (eg of Mississippian site where features used to be apparent but are not visible now) and this needs to be addressed.

Larry C. – more important than visibility is amount of rain on tract prior to survey

HH- details will be addressed by committee

End of meeting, general applause, exuent omnes