The Utah Antiquities Computer System (UACS) [suggestions for an alternative name are encouraged]

workmarathonΔιαχείριση

9 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 11 μήνες)

110 εμφανίσεις











The
Utah Antiquities Computer System (UACS)



[suggestions for an alternative name are encouraged]




























July

22
, 2013


[Draft]




Table of Contents


[to be populated]












































I
ntroduction

This manual contains guidance for recording archaeological sites throughout
Utah
.
T
he
discontinuance of the Intermountain Antiquities Computer System

(IMACS)
is explained, as
well as the adoption of the Utah Archaeological Computer System (UACS). UACS forms for
recording archaeological sites as well as appendixes on prehistoric and historic artifacts are
included at the end of the document.


A Short Histor
y
of the Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS)

During the 100 plus years of archaeological work in Utah,
archaeological
sites have been
recorded using a number of different systems c
reated

by academic institutions, federal and state
agencies, a
nd private cultural resource management firms. It was not until the creation of
IMACS

that site recording began to be standardized throughout
the state
. With the basic system
created by faculty and staff at the University of Utah during the late 1970s, I
MACS became
official when it was formalized, standardized, and adopted
by federal and state agencies in 1981
(IMACS
1992
; Schroedl 2008). During th
e last 30 years IMACS forms have at one time or
another been the official recording instrument for
several
federal and state agencies in Utah,
Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, and California.

For Utah, the use of IMACS forms since the early
19
80s has contributed to 30 years of standardized archaeological and environmental data.


Despite its success,
or perhaps because
of it,
IMACS has changed very litt
le over the last three
decades. Originally distributed by the University of Utah and administered by a committee of
representatives from the various land management agencies (the IMACS Committee), IMACS
was written with t
he intent th
at modifications to the system w
ould be made as needed

(IMACS
199
2
:140)
. But despite major changes in technology (e.g. global positioning systems [GPS],
geographic information systems [GIS], etc.), management practice,
research,
and
archaeolog
ical
method

and theory
, IMACS has remained essentially static and has failed to evolve with a
changing world.
P
roblems
involving its use
are
evidenced by the fact that
in the last
decade

Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, and California
have
all
either a
dopted different
recording systems
or
independently altered the IMACS system
. In addition, the committee that was created to adjust
IMACS as needed no longer
exists.


The Utah Antiquities Computer System (UACS)

To

reduce redundancies and deficiencies
in

the site recording process, and to create a system
m
ore compatible with 21
st

century technology and land management practices
, the
Utah
Antiquities Computer System

was created
. This project has been undertaken
in consultation with
state and federal agenc
ies, the private sector, and the academic community.
It is hoped that the
r
eformulation

presented herein will

reduce unnecessary expenditures of time, effort, and
resources
, while still providing the data necessary for land managing agencies to properly
m
anage the archaeological resources under their care.



Those familiar with IMACS will recognize
in UACS
many key categories and an overall layout
that is
very
similar
. This was
done in a

conscious

effort

to
r
etain some consistency in form
,

and
in recognition that critical site data does not change regardless of the recording system. The
continued use of the I
MACS

moniker, however, did not seem
appropriate

as the new system is
designed to be used specifically
in

Utah (hence the adoption of
the UACS title)



A key difference between the two systems

is the focus on details.
In general,

IMACS
encouraged recording
very specific,
detailed environmental and artifact attribute data
.
UACS

however,
encourages
recorders to focus on
information necessary to help determine
site
boundaries and NRHP
eligibility.
Quickly gathering enough information to give a basic
characterization of the site, and place it in its temporal and cultural context, is the primary focus
under UACS. The forms

are open ended however, so that should recorders want to include
additional detailed information they are able to do so.








































UTAH ANTIQUITIES COMPUTER SYSTEM (UACS)


P
ART

A (Administrative Data)

Part A of the UACS site

form contains administrative data such as site number, location, land
ownership, site description, impact
ing agents
, NRHP eligibility recommendations and
determinations, etc.
The individual entries and categories used in
Part A
are

described below.

[Note

that on the final forms all entries will be numbered. This is not being done in the current
draft as anticipated revisions will cause renumbering.]


Smithsonian Trinomial
:
Enter the
Smithsonian Trinomial
number
for the site

(
assigned by the
Antiquities
Section
)
. The Smithsonian Trinomial
system consists of three parts (state
-
county
-
site).
Utah is coded as
42
,

county
abbreviations are listed below
,
and e
ach new site
is

assigned a
sequential number

in its
respective
county
. For example, site 42GA5863 is

the 5,863
rd

site to be
recorded in Garfield County, Utah.


County
Abbreviations

BE:

Beaver



JB:

Juab



TO:

Tooele


BO:

Box Elder


KA:

Kane



UN:

Uintah

CA:

Cache



MD:

Millard


UT:

Utah

CB:

Carbon



MO:

Morgan


WA:

Wasatch



DA:

Daggett


PI:

Piute



WS:

Washington

DV:

Davis



RI:

Rich



WN:

Wayne


DC:

Duchesne


SL:

Salt Lake


WB:

Weber



EM:

Emery



SA:

San Juan



GA:

Garfield


SP:

Sanpete



GR:

Grand



SV:

Sevier



IN:

Iron



SM:

Summit


Temporary Site No.
:
Enter a
temporary site
number if one has been assigned
.


Recorded Date
:
Enter t
he date
the site
wa
s

record
ed

or revisit
ed
.


Previously Recorded Site
: Check this box if
the site has been previously recorded
.

Generally,
i
f a site has undergone significant change
,

or

if the original site form is incomplete or lacking

important information
,

the
n the

site should be re
-
recorded using a
new form (with the

Previously Recorded Site’

box checked).

If, however,
a previously recorded site
is revisited and
has
not undergon
e significant change, or alternatively has
been destroyed,
a

simple site update
(not an entire UACS form) is
often
all that is needed.

Such site updates do not have official
forms, but are usually composed by the recorder and only contain key entries.


Co
unty
:
Enter the c
ounty the site is located in.


Project Name
:
Enter the n
ame of the project
that

is spurring the recording of the site.


State

Project Number
:

Enter the
project number assigned

by the Antiquities Section
.

This
number is composed of five parts
:

state, year, organization,
sequentially assigned number
,
and
land ownership.
State

Project Numbers always
begin

with a ‘U’, designating that the project
number was assigned by the Antiquities Section in Utah
.
Seco
nd
is the last two digits of the
calendar year the project was assigned.
Third

i
s the
UACS

code for the organization requesting
the project number

(
same as the

‘Survey Organization Code’ in IMACS

1992
)

(see

below
for a
listing of the organization codes)
.

F
ourth

is a sequential number assigned to
the
individual
project
, and f
ifth is a single lower case letter designating land jurisdiction
/
ownership

(see
below
for
l
and jurisdiction
/ownership

codes
).
E
xample
:

State

Project Number U
-
13
-
UA
-
0195bfp
occurred in Utah, was assigned in 2013 to the University of Utah, was the 195
th

project assigned
by the Antiquities Section in 2013, and took place on land managed or owned by the BLM,
Forest Service, and a private interest.

Additionally, projects that involve data recovery or
excavation are denoted by an ‘e’ following the landownership (e.g. U
-
13
-
UA
-
0195bfp(e)).


Land Jurisdiction/Ownership Codes

b:


Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Department of the Interior)

f:

Forest Ser
vice (U.S. Department of Agriculture)

i:

Native American tribal lands

m:

Military (United States Armed Forces)

n:

National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior)

p:

Private

s:

State, county, city or other
nonfederal jurisdiction

w:


Other Fed
eral (e.g. Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service,
etc.
)


























Code

Survey Organization

0

Data Administration

A1

Alpine Archaeological Consultants

A2

Ancient America Foundation

A3

Archaeological Consulting Services

A4

Antonette Chambers Noble

A5

Advance Sciences, Inc.

A6

Archaeological Research of Southern
Nevada

A7

Adams and Associates

A8

Arboles Contract Archaeology

A9

Archaeological Research Conservation
Services

AA

J.P. Albanese

AB

Anthro Research, Inc.

AC

American
Museum of Natural History

AD

Archeological Associates

AE

Archaeological Research Associates

AF

AERC Archaeological Environmental
Research Corp.

AG

Archeological Rescue

AH

Archaeological Services

AI

Arizona State Museum

AJ

Arizona State Park

AK

Archaeologic
al Research Consultants

AL

Ancient Enterprises, Inc.

AM

Archeo Consultants

AN

Archeological Consultants

AO

Archaeological Energy

AP

Argonne National Laboratory

AQ

Archaeological Consultants

AR

Archaeological Research Services

AS

Abajo Archaeology

AT

AR
Consultants

AU

Antiquus

AV

Agency of Conservation Archaeology

AW

American Archaeological Consultants

AX

Applied Archaeology Consultants

AY

AIA
-

An Independent Archaeologist

AZ

Anonymous

BA

Basin Research

BB

Boise State University

BC

BYU
-

Office of Publi
c Archaeology
-

Brigham Young University

BD

Bristlecone, Inc.

BE

BOR
-

Bureau of Reclamation

BF

Burgess and Associates

BG

Burney and Associates

BH

Buffalo Bill Historical Center

BI

Bureau of Indian Affairs

BJ

James Brechtel

BK

Basin & Range Consultants

BL

Bureau of Land Management

BM

B.R. Butter, Assoc.

BN

Bighorn Basin Consulting

BO

B.C. Services

BP

Biosystems

BQ

Burns and McDonnell

BR

Basin and Range Research

BS

Baseline

BT

Bennett Management Services

BU

Alan R. Bowles

BW

BioWest

BX

ACR Consultants, Inc.

BY

Claudia F. Berry

BZ

Albion Environmental

C1

CPAA
-

Colorado Plateau Archaeological
Alliance

CA

University of California, Berkeley

CB

University of California, Davis

CC

University of California, Los Angeles

CD

Centuries Research

CE

Chambers Consultants a
nd Planners

CF

Colorado State University

CG

State of Colorado

CH

CASA
-

Complete Archaeological Services
Assoc.

CI

Cultural Resource Consultants

CJ

University of Colorado

CK

California State College

CL

Chambers Group, Inc.

CM

University of Northern Colorad
o

CN

Centennial Archaeology

CO

Central Washington Archaeological Survey

CP

Cultural Resources Management

CQ

Fred Chapman

CR

J.R. Crouch

CS

Crow Canyon Center for Southwestern
Archaeology

CT

CEU
-

College of Eastern Utah

CU

Cultural Resource Group

CV

D. and

J. Chance and Associates

CW

CH2M Hill

CX

University of California, Riverside

CY

Current Archaeological Research

CZ

California State University
-

Dominguez
Hills

DA

DRI
-

Desert Research Institute

DB

Division of Conservation Archaeology

DC

University of De
nver

DD

Department of Environmental Quality

DE

David Darlington

DF

Desert West

DG

Dakota Research Services

DH

Dames and Moore

DI

Mary Dohnalek

DJ

D. L Zurga and Associates

DK

William C. Davis

DL

Daggett and Chenault Inc.

DN

Don Keller

DR

Dusty Resources

DT

Intermountain Archaeology

DU

Dugway Proving Ground

DW

Desert West, Carlsbad

DY

Applied Earth

DZ

Desert West Research

EA

Eastern New Mexico University

EB

Eastern Washington University

EC

Environmental Consultants

ED

ESCA Tech

EE

Harry Reid Center
-

Environmental Studies
Research Center

EF

Ethnoscience

EG

Environmental Studies Group

EH

Ecosystems Resources, Inc.

EI

Environmental Solutions Inc.

EJ

Ebasco Environmental

EK

Ecosystems Management, Inc.

EL

Everett Bassett

EM

EDAW, Inc.

EN

Environet, Inc.

EO

EPG
-

Environmental Planning Group

EP

Earth Touch

EQ

Environmental Resources Management

ER

ERO Resources

ES

EnviroSystems Management, Inc.

ET

Smith Environmental Inc.

EU

The Environmental Company, Inc.

EV

AMEC Earth & Environmental

EX

Entrix Inc.

EY

E2M
-

Engineering
-
Environmental
Management Inc.

EZ

EM
-
Assist

FA

Frontier Archaeology

FB

Fugro Northwest

FC

Flat Irons

FD

Fort Lewis

FE

4 Corners Archaeology

FF

Far Western Anthropological Research
Group

FG

Fossil Butte National Monument

FH

Foothil

Engineering Consultants

FI

Affinis Environmental Services

FJ

John N. Fritz

FK

Frontier Historical Consultants

FL

Aaron Fergusson

FO

Four Corners School

FR

DMG Four Corners Research, Inc.

FS

Forest Service

FU

Espey Huston and Associates

FW

Stillwater Natio
nal Wildlife Refuge

FZ

Forest Service Certified Paraprofessional

GA

Gordon and Kranzush

GB

GRI
-

Grand River Institute

GC

Grand River Consultants

GD

Gilbert/Commonwealth

GE

J. and M. Greer Archaeological Consultants

GF

Goodson and Associates

GG

GCM Service
s

GH

Great Basin National Park

GI

Great Basin Archaeology, Reno

GK

Geoarch Sciences, Inc.

GL

GreatHouse Environmental

GM

Geo
-
Marine, Inc.

GN

PEPG
-

Pentacore Engineering

GO

GeoOpt Resources, Reno

GR

Aros Archaeology

GS

Greystone

GU

Great Basin Institute

HA

Harvard University

HB

High Plains

HC

Heritage Museum

HD

Historical Research Associates, Inc.

HE

Richard R. Harrison

HF

Marvin Hoyt

HG

Huerfano Consultants, Inc.

HH

Heritage Research Center

HI

Hageman Fossilbeds National Monument

HJ

High Country Archaeolog
y

HK

HDR Engineering

HL

Hill AFB

HM

Kathy Huppe

HN

Harding ESE

HO

Bighorn Archaeological Consultants

HQ

HRA, Inc.

HR

HDR Clenes, Santa Barbara

HS

Historic Sites Research

HT

Winston Hurst

HU

Human Systems Research

IA

Idaho Archaeological Consultants

IB

Idah
o State Highway Department

IC

Idaho State Historical Society

ID

Idaho State University

IE

University of Idaho

IF

Intermountain Research

IG

Intersearch

IH

Independent Archaeological Consultant

II

independent archaeologist

IJ

Intermontane

Archaeological Association

IK

Idaho Museum of Natural History

IL

Intermountain Resources

IM

Independ. Archaeological Consultant

IN

Idaho Power Company

IP

Paleo
-
West Archaeology

IQ

Intermountain Archaeology, Inc.

IR

Infotec Research, Inc.

IS

Archaeological

Services Inc., Reno

IW

Interior West Consulting

JB

JBR

JC

Superior Consultants

JF

Frank W. Johnson

JM

JUB

JS

Jones and Stokes

KA

K.K. Pelli

KB

Kantner
-
Smith

KC

Peter Kiewit Sons

KD

Kainer
-
Rodriquez Associates

KE

Kail Consulting Ltd.

KF

R. Kautz and Associ
ates, Inc.

KG

Knight and Leavitt Associates, Inc.

KH

Kleinfelder, Inc.

KI

Kinlani Archaeology, Ltd.

KK

Kinlani Archaeological Ltd., Flagstaff

KL

KEA Environmental

KR

K. Renee Barlow

KS

ARCADIS

LA

La Plata Archaeological Consultants

LB

Laramie Cultural
Research

LC

Llano Consultants

LD

Lincoln Land Community College

LE

Land Resources Technology

LF

Auberg Cultural Resource Consultant
Services

LG

LSA Assoc. Inc., CA

LH

Lithic Technologies

LI

LSD
-

Logan Simpson Design Inc.

LJ

Solano Archaeological Services

LK

Salt Lake Community College

LL

Lithic Plus

LM

Lone Mountain

LN

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

LO

Lobdell and Associates

LP

Alta Pleno Archaeology

LQ

Amanda J. Landon, Independent
Archaeological Consultant

LS

Littlesnake Archaeological Consu
ltants, WY

LT

Latady and Associates

LU

Institute for Archaeological Ceramic
Research

LV

ArchaeoLogic U.S.A.

LW

Western Land Services, Inc.

LY

Toyapi Archaeology Consulting

MA

Metcalf
-
Zier Archaeology, Inc.

MB

MESA

MC

Mike Moen and Associates

MD

Montgomery
Engineers

ME

TRC Mariah

MF

Minerals Research Center

MG

Douglas McKay

MH

Montana State University

MI

University of Montana

MJ

Office of Surface Mining

MK

University of Missouri

ML

Susan J. Miller

MM

Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

MN

Middlefork Archaeolo
gy

MO

Moore Anthropological Research

MP

Peter B. Mires, NV

MQ

MOAC
-

Montgomery Archaeological
Consultants

MR

Mari's Archaeological Resource Services

MS

Kae McDonald

MT

Marron Associates, Inc.

MU

Muukui
-
Ci Cultural & Environmental
Services, Inc.

MV

Mountai
n States Archaeology

MW

Museum of Western Colorado

MX

Doug McFadden

MY

Mahogany Bench

MZ

Miller Brooks Environmental Inc.

N1

Archaeological Invest. NW Inc.

N2

Nevada Land & Resources

NA

NPS
-

National Park Service

NB

Nevada Archaeological Survey

NC

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

ND

University of Nevada, Reno

NE

Nevada State Museum

NF

New Mexico State University

NG

New World Research

NH

Nickens and Associates

NI

Museum of Northern Arizona

NJ

Northland Anthropological Research

NK

Navajo Nation Cultura
l Resources

NL

Nevada Department of Transportation

NM

Native Cultural Resources Services

NN

University of Northern Colorado

NO

Northern Arizona University

NP

A.K. Nielson and Associates

NQ

Native Cultural Resource Services

NR

Northwest Archaeological Asso
ciation, Inc.

NS

National Specialty Society

NT

University of Nebraska

NU

UNDAR
-
West

NV

North Platte Archaeological Services

NW

Niwot Archaeological Consultants

NX

Western Division, Naval Air Station, Fallen,
NV

NY

North Wind Environmental

NZ

Nakonechny Arc
haeological, Pullman, WA

OA

Oil Well Elev. and Loc.

OB

Overland Archaeology, Inc.

OC

Powers Engineers

OE

Ogden Environmental & Energy Services,
Boise

PA

Powers Elevation

PB

Professional Analysts

PC

private contractor or engineering co.

PD

P
-
III Associates

PE

Pioneer Archaeological Consultants

PF

private individual

PG

Pronghorn Anthropological Association

PH

Paleo
-
Environmental

PI

P/S Scientific

PJ

Peak and Associates

PK

Plano Archaeological Consultants

PL

Powder River Consultants

PM

Barry Price

PN

Patrick E
ngineering

PO

Petrographics

PP

University of Pittsburg

PQ

Paragon Contractors

PR

Plateau Resources

PS

J. Pochteca Archaeology

PT

Applied Paleoscience, Richmond

PU

Pacific Legacy Incorporated

PV

Parr Environmental

PW

PBS & J (Austin TX) 512 327
-
6840

PX

Past

Peoples Consulting, LLC

PZ

Parsons Brinckerhoff

RA

Mary P. Rossillon

RB

Rocky Mountain Archaeological
Consultants

RC

Charles Reher

RD

Rosenberg Historical Consultants

RE

University of Redlands

RF

Resource Concepts, Inc.

RG

Research Archaeology

RH

R.K. Vie
rra and Associates, Inc.

RI

Rainbow Country

RJ

Rare Earth Studies, Albuquerque

RK

RMC Consultants, Inc.

RL

Cultural Resouce Analysts, Inc.

RM

Cultural Site Research and Management

RO

Compass Rose Archaeological, Inc.

RP

Arrowspace, Idaho Falls

RR

Red Rock

RS

Rainshadow Resources, Inc.

RT

Renewable Technologies

RW

American Indian Rockwriting

RZ

Researcher
-

Unaffiliated

SA

San Juan Archaeological Research Center

SB

Science Applications

SC

Senco
-
Phenix

SD

Smithsonian Institution

SE

SUSC
-

Southern Utah Univer
sity

SF

Snake River Archaeology and History

SG

San Jose State College

SH

NRCS
-

Natural Resources Conservation
Service
-

Soil Conservation Service

SI

Soils System Inc.

SJ

Sagebrush Archaeological Consultants

SK

Swanson and Associates

SL

San Juan College
Cultural Resource
Program

SM

Somona State University

SN

J.F. Sato

SO

Noel Logan, SEC Inc.

SP

Southern Illinois University

SQ

William Self and Associates

SR

Statistical Research

SS

Science Application Int. Corp.

ST

SWCA

SU

Southern Methodist University

SV

S
almon Archaeological Services

SW

William T. Statham

SX

S.L. Lahren, Jr.

SY

Summit Envirosolutions

SZ

Southwest Archaeological Consultants

TA

Tennessee Valley Authority

TB

Larson Tibesar

TC

Pat Treat

TD

Tetra Tech

TE

Tooele Army Depot

TF

Terra Alta Archaeo
logy

TH

Cochetopa Archaeological Consultants, Ted
Hoeler

TI

Terre
-
Cultural Resources

TN

Transcon Infrastructure, Inc.

TR

Trigon Engineering Inc.

TU

University of Texas, Arlington

UA

University of Utah
-

Archaeological Center

UB

UTARC
-

Utah Archaeological
Research
Corporation

UC

UDSH
-
Antiquities

UD

Utah State Parks

UE

United States Geological Survey

UF

U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers

UG

USR
-
Berger

UH

Utah Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

UI

U.R.S. Corp.

UJ

Utah State University

UK

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

UL

Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining

UM

SITLA
-

Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands

UN

Utah Geological Survey

UO

Sullivan Consultants

UP

Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants

UQ

DWR
-

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

UR

Utah Rock Art Research
Assoc.

US

Utah Statewide Archaeological Society

UT

UDOT
-

Utah Department of Transportation

UV

Utah National Guard

UW

U.S. West Research

UY

BUYS and Associates, Inc.

UZ

University of Arizona

W1

Les Wykle

W2

FE Warren AFB

W3

White Sands

W6

Western
Archaeological Services

W7

WAPA

WA

University of Washington

WB

Washington State University

WC

Weber State University

WD

Westec Services, Inc.

WE

Western Cultural Resource Management

WF

Western Historical Studies

WG

Woodward
-
Clyde

WH

University of Wyoming

W
I

Wyoming Office State Archaeologist

WJ

Worldwide Surveys

WK

Western Wyoming College

WL

Western Research

WM

Western Archaeological Consultants

WN

Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants

WO

Water and Power Resources

WP

Wyoming Archaeological Society

WQ

Wyom
ing Recreation Commission

WR

Western Heritage Conservation

WS

Western Interpretive Services

WT

W G Consultants

WU

White Mesa Institute
-
CEU

WV

Western Prehistoric Research

WW

Western Public History Assoc.

WX

Western Public Historical Consortium

WY

White
Pines Public Museum

WZ

Desert West Research

YN

Canyon Environmental

YV

Buena Vista Archaeological Consultants

ZA

George Zeimens

ZB

Plateau Mining

ZC

Aztec Archaeological Consultants

ZE

Zeier & Associates, LLC

ZF

ASM Affiliates

ZG

Ecology & Environment, Inc
.

ZI

Archaeological Investigations NW

ZT

Aztlan Archaeology, Inc.

ZU

Arizona State University

ZZ

Other Org, non
-
IMACS

























































Land Owner
ship
: Enter
all
land owners
.


Meridian
:

Check the appropriate box for the principal meridian
used in locating the site
.
Most
of Utah
is located in the area covered by the Salt Lake Meridian
; however
a
small
portion of the

state
is covered by the Uintah Meridian (Figure
1
).


Primary
Map Refere
nce
:

Enter the name,
date, and
series of the USGS map for the area where
the site is located.
If the site boundar
y

cross
es

multiple maps, list only the primary one
.
For
e
xample
,

i
f
70% of a site is located on Map A and 30% is located on Map B
, o
nly Map A
need
be
entered
.


Primary
Township, Range, Section
:

Enter the township, range, and section for the
site
location
. If
the
site boundar
y

cross
es

multiple divisions,

enter
only the primary
location
.
For
e
xample
,

i
f 7
0% of a site is located in
S
ec
tion
4

and
30% is located in
S
ection

5
, o
nly Secti
on 4
need be
entered
.


UTMs
:

Using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid system, enter
the Zone
,
easting
,
and
northing coordinates for the site location. The vast majority of Utah is in Zone 12, al
though
the
extreme western
portion of the state
is in Zone 11. The easting and northing coordinates will
optimally
reference
a datum placed on site. Alternatively, the coordinates should refer to the
approximate center of
a

site.


C
heck the box for the North American Datum (NAD) being used to calculate the UTM
coordinates.
Keep in mind that all USGS 7.5 maps use NAD 27
. However, the more modern
NAD 83 ensures better consistency across regions, is in use by most land surveying
organ
izations, and can easily be selected on GPS units.
Unless there are exceptional
circumstances (which must be explained in the Comments/Continuations section),
UTM
coordinates should always be recorded using
NAD 83
.

Additionally, when re
-
recording or
upda
ting previously recorded
sites
prior to
ca.
2000, UTM coordinates should always be checked
to ensure that NAD 83 coordinates are
represented
.


Elevation
:

Enter the

elevation in feet
; p
referably
from a site

datum. Alternatively
,

record
elevation from an a
verage or center point of the site.


Site Dimensions
:

Enter

the maximum length and width of the site
in
meters.


Recorded By
:

Enter the i
ndividual responsible for recording the site
in the field
. This is the
individual on the ground, actively directing
the recording of the site
; usually
a cre
w chief or
senior crew member.


Recording Organization
:

Enter the n
ame of the o
rganization th
at recorded the site.


Location and Access
:

If access to the site is straightforward or easily determined using standar
d
means (e.g. electronic or print maps, GIS, Google Earth, etc.), a written description is
not

required.
H
owever,

if
access to the site is unusual, difficult, or restricted, describe how to
access





Figure 1. Map of principal meridians and base lines governing the United States Public Land Surveys (from Bureau
of Land Management 2013).



the site using local landforms
,

cultural features
, and thorough directions. The use of exact
mileage, mile posts
, compass directions (e.g.

turn north’

instead of ‘turn right’
), and specifics
are useful
(
e.g.
gate is locked
;

road is extremely rocky and 4
-
wheel drive is
required;

proceed on
foot on an approximate bearing of 30º following the old stream bed
;

etc.)
.


Site Type
:

Check the appropriate box or boxes for site type
. A single site may
fit into
multiple
categories.



Prehistoric

-
Lithic Scatter:

A
site
that contains
o
nly

chipped stone debitage or tools.


-
Artifact Scatter:

A

site that contains a mixed as
semblage of a
rtifact types

or
materials (e.g.
chipped stone, ground stone, ceramics, bone, perishables, shell, etc.),

or

a
site that contains a
si
ngle type of artifact other than chipped stone debitage or tools

(e.g. ground stone scatter,
ceramics scatter,

etc.)
.


-
Rock Art:

A

site that contains petroglyphs

or pictographs
.



-
Lithic Source/Quarry: A site that was used as a lithic source or quarry; often indicated by large
amounts of raw and tested lithic materials, a lithic assemblage characterized by
a
high percentage
of cortex, and/or large percentage of primary reduction flakes.


-
Architectural Feature(s):

A s
ite that contain
s

features that are considered ‘buildings’ or
‘built’
feature
s. This generally includes features such as residences (
pit
or sur
face
houses
), granaries

or
other
storage structures, wikiups, ramadas, kivas, towers, etc. As all archaeological remains are
in a process of decay, it is
incumbent

upon the recorded to
interpret

features found and determine
whether they believe the featur
e should be recorded as architecture or not.
While a large rubble
mound could easily be recorded as a non
-
architectural feature, it may be clear to the recording
archaeologist that
the remains are those of a
collapsed
masonry structure

and should therefor
e be
recorded as an
a
rchitectural feature. Similarly, dark staining in a large depression may be
indicative of a pit house and not simply a depression. Recorders are encouraged to use their best
judgment when
assessing wh
ether a feature is
architectural
or not, and it should be expected that
differences of opinion between professionally trained individuals may occur.


-
Non
-
Architectural Feature(s):

A

site that contains feature
s

that are not considered ‘buildings’

or
‘built’
. This generally includes
thin
gs s
uch a
s agricultural fields, burials, non
-
diagnostic
depressions,
middens,
non
-
diagnostic
mounds, fire
-
cracked rock concentrations, hearths, roasting
pits, soil stains, artifact concentrations, etc.


-
Rock Shelter
/Cave
: A site which contains
artifacts or features within a rock shelter, alcove, or
cave.


-
Other:

Any site whose primary characteristics fall outside of the site types listed above.

If
selected, a one to three word description should be included.


Historic

-
Artifact Scatter/Dump
:
A site that contains artifacts but no features.


-
Linear:

A site that contains
(or is comprised of)
some type
of linear feature. Examples include
road
s
, trail
s
, railroad
s
, ditch
es
, transmission line
s
,
canal
s
,
etc.
Use of the linear site guidance
developed by the
Utah Professional Archaeological Council (UPAC 2008) is recommended
when recording sites of this type.


-
Architectural Feature(s):

A s
ite

that contain
s

features that are considered ‘buildings’ or
‘built’
fe
atures
. This generally includes features such as residences,
cabins, dugouts, foundations,
commercial buildings, etc. As with prehistoric features, all archaeological remains are in a
process of decay and it is incumbent upon the archaeologist to interpr
et features found

(see
above)
.


-
Non
-
Architectural Feature(s):

A site that contains features that are not considered ‘buildings’.
This generally includes things such as agricultural fields, cairns, burials,
non
-
diagnostic
depressions or
mounds, hearths
/campfires, mines,
adits,
quarries, tailings, linear features, etc.


-
Other:

Any site whose primary characteristics fall outside of the site types listed above.

If
selected, a one two three word description should be included.


Site Description
:

Describe the site in detail. Information
on the site
may
i
nclude
its
basic size
and shape
;

whether it is prehistoric, historic, or multicomponent (if multicomponent, the basic
size and shape of each component and how/if they overlap);
cultural/ethnic affi
liation

and dating
;

site type
;
natural environment
;

ground visibility;
a description of the artifact assemblage
,

diagnostic artifacts,
material types, or
features
;

spatial relationships on site
;

site interpretation
(e.g. plant processing locale, hunting ca
mp, lithic quarry, sheep herders camp, etc.)
;

description
of previous work done on the site (
NRHP eligibility recommendations
,

collect
ion
, test
ing
,
excavat
ion
,
or
the location of any curated materials
)
, etc.

A site description need not contain
all

of the information listed above just as it need not be restricted to
only

the information listed
above. The recorder should attempt to strike a balance between necessary
detail and efficiency.



Consider the following examples (both of which should
NOT

b
e
thought of as templates)
.



Example 1:

The site is a medium sized lithic scatter measuring roughly 80m n/s by 50m e/w and is composed
of approximately 400 pieces of chipped stone debitage, two early stage bifaces, and
two

Elko
C
orner
-
notched projectile p
oint
s
.
L
ocated on a broad, flat terrace between Simpson
Spring
and
South Creek
, t
he site is
in the Pinyon
-
Juniper zone
and ground visibility is generally good as
there is only a small amount of understory. Debitage is distributed evenly over the site, wi
th no
concentrations. Obsidian is the only material type present, with the exception of
one of the

projectile point
s (
made of a tan colored chert
)
. The lack of features and
the
limited nature of the
assemblage suggest the site was used
as a short term lo
gistical camp (
possibly for hunting
) and
may have been

occupied for

only

a couple of days.


Example 2:

Site 42GA2012

is a
Fremont
residential

site and associated artifact scatter
located
on a
small
ridge
near

the southern slopes of Boulder Mountain. The remains of two rectangular surface
structures (Features 1 and 2) are located
in the northern portion of the
site and
a dark soil stain
(Feature 3) is located near the center. Artifacts are concentrated
near

t
he center and southern
portion
s

of the site, and include approximately 200 lithic flakes

(mostly Boulder Jasper)
,

300
ceramic sherds (mostly Emery Gray), 4 non
-
diagnostic ground stone fragments, 3 metate
fragments, 1 mano, and
1

side scraper. Based on the

featu
res and the artifact assemblage

it is
likely that the site functioned as a
seasonal re
sidence for Fremont populations sometime between
A.D. 500 to 1100.


42GA2012

was previously recorded in
May of
19
87

by
YAR Inc.

a
nd was r
ecommended
as

eligible for

inclusion to the NRHP under criterion D.
Four months
later YAR Inc.

returned to the
site and
excavat
ed

three 1x1m test units in the center of the site (see attached map), and curated
the resulting

artifacts (27

pieces of debitage,
18 ceramic sherds,
and
1

metate fragment) at the
Edge of the Cedars
State Park
Museum in Blanding
.


Impacting Agents
:

Describe

any natural or cultural agents that are
directly
impacting the site.
De
gree of impact var
ies

greatly, and minor impact
s

need not be noted. For example, while many
sites are open to grazing by domestic animals, the
ir
mere presence does not de facto indicate the
site is being negatively impacted.
F
inding a cow pie and
a set of
hoof prints would likely not
count as
animal

i
mpact, while a herd of animals trampling the area around a tree for shade,
denuding the vegetation, or walking over/in structures, would
definitely
qualify.

Similarly, all
sites undergo natural erosion or aggradation, but only

sites that are experiencing
excessive
erosion are deteriorating at a higher than normal rate. Examples of
when
erosion
is impacting a
site could include

a site in a cut bank (
with
portions of the site sloughing off) or a site that has
experienced a wild fire and strong winds are now

removing topsoil.

Common i
mpacting agents
include vandalism, looting, recreational use, vehicle impact, agricultural or industrial
development, erosion, animal impacts, fire and associated effects, etc.


Natural Environment
:

Describe the general site se
tting and location, including
a basic
topographic setting (e.g. valley, ridge, dune, etc.), general vegetation types, and depositional
context as it relates to the cultural resources.


Example

-
The site is located near the center of a small ridge that stre
tches north to south on the southern
slopes of Boulder Mountain. The soil is relatively rocky (mostly residual), and has a maximum
depth of 10cm (ascertained by trowel scrape). Primary vegetation on site is
pinyon pine,

but of
note is

the complete lack o
f sagebrush (
which is
oddly
found in abundance surrounding the site
)
.


Recorders Recommendation
: To be completed by the person or organization recording the
site. This should be based on the property’s significance under Criteria A, B, C, and/or D; as
well as if the property retains integrity (the ability to convey its significance).


In
making

a

recommendation, qualified individuals should take into account the criteria for
evaluation
and considerations
as described in National Register Bulletin #15
:


The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering,
and cult
ure is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association,
and:

A.

That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution

to the broad
patterns of our history; or

B.

That are associated with the lives of significant persons in o
u
r past; or

C.

That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or

that possess high artistic values, or
that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or

D.

That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.

Ordinarily

cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by
religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from
their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily
commemo
rative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past
50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such
properties
will qualify

if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or

if
they fall within the following categories:

a.

A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic
distinction or historical importance; or

b.

A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily
significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or event; or

c.

A birthplace or grave of a histo
rical figure of outstanding importance if there is no
appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; or

d.
A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distincti
ve design features, or from association with historic
events; or

e.

A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and
presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other
building or structu
re with the same association has survived; or

f.

A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic
value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

g.

A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional
importance.

[National Park Service 2002:2]


Justification
: Justify the recommendation for NRHP significance by explaining how the
property does or does not meet
the
crite
ria and
/or

integrity requirements.

Remember that the
significance of a property must be evaluated within a historic context (NPS 2002:3,7
-
11)
.
Be
sure to describe

why the property does or does not retain integrity, including which aspects of
integrity
(
l
ocation
,
design
,
setting
,
materials
,
workmanship
,
feeling
,
association
)
are most
important to its NRHP eligibility. C
onsider the following when determining wheth
er a property
retains integrity

(see also NPS 2002:4
4
-
49
)
:


Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the
National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant
under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The ev
aluation of
integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an
understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.


Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their si
gnificance) or they do
not.

Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven
aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity.


To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and us
ually most, of
the aspects.

The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to
convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a
particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the pr
operty is significant.
[
N
PS

2002
:44]


I
n referring to the seven aspects of integrity, Thomas King (2004:114) states
, “One can go into
great detail about what this means, but the bottom line is that the place can’t be so screwed up
that it no longer contain
s or exhibits whatever made it significant in the first place.



Consider the following examples (both of which should
NOT

be thought of as templates, but
only as
possibilities for how justification
may

be discussed
)
.



Example

1
:

A

lithic

scatter

now
loca
ted
in a
farmer’s field that
had
previously been

recommend as
eligible
to

the NRHP due to its ability to yield information important in prehistory.


While
at one point the
site may
have
be
en

considered eligible for inclusion to the NRHP
under criterion D
,
it has
since
been heavily disturbed by v
andalism and looting
,

and has
been plowed multiple times. These activities have destroyed the natural stratigraphy as
well as the spatial relationships between artifacts, features, and
sediments
.
The site was
ori
ginally described as a surface scatter, and there is no additional evidence of buried
features.
In addition, well known
artifact
collection by local property owners ha
s
significantly changed the composition of the assemblage

(
removing all
formal

tools)
.
These factors have reduced the
aspect of as
sociation to a degree that the site no longer
retains integrity
, and is therefore not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP
.


E
xample

2
:

A

historic
aqueduct
that allowed for the development and growth of
the town of
Marysvale

and
was therefore associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of
local history

and also embodied the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction.


The site
is recommended as
eligib
le for inclusion to the NRHP under criteri
a

A

and C
.
The aqueduct provided the ma
in source of water to Mar
y
s
vale

in the late 19
th

and early
20
th

centuries
, without which the town could not have been founded. The
aqueduct

therefore contributed to
both the

settlement
of Marysvale and
the
area

in general
,
and is
important in local and region history (Criterion A). The iron hoop
-
bound, wood
-
stave
construction of the
feature

embodies distinctive characteristics of type, period, and
method of construction (Criterion C).

While portions of the
water line have deteriorated
over time

(leaving some sections entirely destroyed)
, it was abandoned
at the end of its
use life and
has n
ot been altered by modern improvements
. The property retains
the key
a
spects of

location, design, materials, workmanship, and association
, and therefore
retains integrity as it is able to properly convey its significance.”


Agency Determination
:

This ent
ry, as well as the ‘Responsible Agency’ and ‘Agency Official’
entr
ies
,
is

to
be completed
ONLY
by the federal or state agency responsible for the management
and eligibility determination
of the site

OR

by the original recorder with permission from the
resp
onsible agency
.
Check the appropriate box as to the agency’s NRHP determination.
The
date should be recorded in
numeric
month/year format.

If the agency does not agree with the
r
ecorders
r
ecommendation

th
e
n a

justification for the agency’s alternate determination should be
entered in the ‘Comments/Continuations’
section.


Responsible
Agency:

Enter the

name of the agency making the NRHP determination
. For
example: BLM
-
Salt Lake Field Office; SITLA; UDOT
-
Regio
n Four; Ashley National Forest;
Utah Department of Natural Resources; etc.


Agency Official:

Enter t
he name of the agency representative making the NRHP determination.
This entry is
optional depending on the agency

preference.


Comments/Continuations
:

U
se this entry for extending comments or adding
additional
information
not
mentioned in other sections

of the
site form.



































PART B (Prehistoric Component
)


Smithsonian Trinomial
:
Enter the Smithsonian Trinomial number for the site (assigned by the
Antiquities Section).


Cultural/Temporal Affiliation
: Enter the cultural/temporal affiliation of the site using the
categories below. Multiple entries are allowed
. F
or example
,

a sit
e that contain
s

Emery Gray
ceramics, Desert Side
-
notched projectile points, and Intermountain Brown Ware
may

be
recorded as
Fremont and
Late Prehistoric.


-
Unknown Prehistoric


-
Paleoarchaic/Paleoindian


-
Archaic (
g
eneral)

-
Early Archaic

-
Middle Archaic

-
Late Archaic


-
Fremont


-
Basketmaker

-
Anasazi

-
Anasazi (P
ueblo I
)

-
Anasazi (Pueblo II)

-
Anasazi (Pueblo
III
)


-
Promontory


-
Late Prehistoric
/Numic


Lithic
s

Debitage


Estimated Quantity
:

Enter

the estimated amount of
chipped stone

debitage present.

Avoid using

a range of amount
s

(i.e. 400
-
600), and instead use an average (
i.e.
500
)
.
U
nless
specifically noted
in the comments,
this number will be an estimate only.


Abundance
:

For each lithic material type

enter

its relative abundance using the
categories

of
Dominant

(D)
,

Common

(C)
,

or Rare

(R)
.


Material Type
:

Enter

the material types
represented in the lithic debitage
. Include descriptive
terms such as color or inclusions as necessary

(e.g.

obsidian,
mahogany obsidian, white
colored
chert,
coarse
-
grained quartzite, etc.
).



Tool
s


Quantity
: Enter the quantity of the type of lithic tool described in the following entry.


Type
:
Enter the type of
lithic tool

using the categories below. See Appendix
A

for
illustrations
of the general shape of
projectile point types frequently found in Utah.


-
Axe

-
Biface

-
Burin

-
Core

-
Chopper

-
Drill

-
Graver

-
Hammerstone

-
Knife

-
Maul

-
_________________Proj Point (insert type of projectile point using categories below)

-
Scrap
er

-
Uniface

-
Utilized Flake

-
Other:________________________


Projectile Points
: Use the generic categories (such as Large Fluted, Large Corner
-
notched, Small
Side
-
notched, Small Triangular, etc.) when the artifact cannot be further typed.

See Appendix
A

for illustrations of the general shape of projectile point types frequently found in Utah.


Dart/Spear Points

Fluted

-
Clovis

-
Folsom

-
Large
Fluted


Stemmed

-
Great Basin Stemmed (
includes
Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, Dugway Stubbie, Parman,



Cougar Mt.,
Haskett, etc.)

-
Large
Stemmed


Lanceolate


-
Humboldt Concave Base

-
McKean Lanceolate

-
Large
Lanceolate


Contracting Stem


-
Gatecliff Contracting
-
stem (
Gypsum)

-
Large
Contracting
-
stem


Bifurcate
-
Stemmed


-
Pinto Series


-
Gatecliff Split
-
stem

-
Large
Bifurcate
-
Stemmed


Corner
-
Notched


-
Elko Corner
-
notched


-
Elko Eared

-
Large Corner
-
notched


Side
-
Notched


-
Elko Side
-
notched


-
Northern Side
-
notched


-
Sudden Side
-
notched

-
Rocker Side
-
notched


-
Hawken Side
-
notched


-
San Rafael Side
-
notched

-
Large
Side
-
Notched


-
Other
Large

Point

(describe type or characteristics in the ‘Description’ entry)


Arrow Points

Corner
-
notched

-
Eastgate Expanding
-
stem

-
Rose Spring Corner
-
notched

-
Small Corner
-
notched


Side
-
notched

-
Bear River Side
-
notched

-
Uinta
Side
-
notched

-
Nawthis Side
-
notched

-
Desert Side
-
notched

-
Small Side
-
notched


Triangular

-
Parowan Basal
-
notched

-
Bull Creek

-
Cottonwood Triangular

-
Small

Triangular


-
Other Small Point (describe type or characteristics in the ‘Description’ entry)



Description
: Enter any addition
al

important
information
about th
e artifact
.
Be aware however,
that
most prehistoric lithic tools do not need to be recorded in detail, and in most cases things
like individual
m
easurements
are not justified (
with the
notable exception of complete projectile
points
)
.

Simple descriptions such as: a complete white chert early stage biface;
six

obsidian
utilized flake
s
, a large obsidian core, a chert drill with the tip broken off,

etc., are usually all that
is necessary.

I
n
-
depth description and measurements should be reserved for temporally
diagnostic
lithic
tools (projectile points) and more unique or
exceptional

artifacts.


Additional information that may be i
nclude
d in the description entry includes things like

a more

specific artifact name than what is allowed in the type category. For example, while ‘Great
Basin Stemmed

Proj Point
’ may be the lithic tool type, the recorder could note in the description
that the point type is Cougar Mountain.

A
rtifacts
that are
given

unique designations or numbers
should
have those designations
included in the description and keyed in site maps.


Lithic

Comments
:

Include any additional comments that may be re
levant to the lithic
assemblage
.


E
xample
s
:

--

Approximately
80% of
debitage on site is composed of primary flakes with large amounts of
cortex still present. This fact, in combination with the overall large flake size

(
as well as the
many tested cobbles
)
, clearly indicates the site was used as a lithic quarry.



--

G
ray

colored chert is rare on site,
but
all 7 lithic tools
were

made of this material
.

While
flakes are distributed evenly o
n the surface
, density is generally low, with an average of 1 flake
per every 2 meters.



--

The entire debitage assemblage is composed

of small tertiary flakes, likely the result of a
single tool sharpening episode.



Ceramics

Ceramic documentation
focuses on recording the level of

data that can be confidently assigned in
the field. Prehistoric ceramics are recorded using a two
-
tiered system. At the initial level sherds
are identified into generic ware categories, and then
if

the pottery is complete enough and the
analyst is exper
ienced enough, a second level of analysis allows the pottery to be identified by
traditional types. In practice, most pottery will

likely only

be identified to the first level of
analysis, although type documentation is encouraged when
it can be
confident
ly done.

See
Appendix
B

for a more in
-
depth discussion of how to classify ceramic wares and types
frequently found in the state.


Ceramics


Estimated Quantity
:

Enter the estimated amount of ceramic sherds present. Avoid
using a range of amounts (i.e. 4
00
-
600), and instead use an average (i.e. 500).
Unless
specifically noted in the comments, this number will be an estimate only.


Quantity
:

Enter either the exact count or an estimated quantity of the types of ceramic sherds
present.


Category
:

Enter the
kinds of ceramics present using the
categories from
initial level of
classification below.

See Appendix
B

for detailed descriptions of each category.


Gray Ware


-
Gray ware

-
Gray ware (early neckbanded)

-
Gray ware (neckbanded)

-
Gray ware (clapb
oard neckbanded)

-
Gray ware (exuberant corrugated)

-
Gray ware (corrugated)



White Ware

-
White ware

-
White ware (early
-
intermediate)


-
White ware (late)




-
White ware (Lino style)

-
White ware (Kana’a style)

-
White ware (Red Mesa style)

-
White ware
(Black Mesa style)

-
White ware (Dogoszhi style)

-
White ware (Sosi style)

-
White ware (Puerco style)

-
White ware (Late Mesa Verde style)

-
White ware (Late Kayenta style)


Red/Orange Ware


-
Red/Orange ware

-
Red/Orange ware (with red paint)

-
Red/Orange ware

(with black paint)

-
Red/Orange ware (polychrome without white paint)


-
Red/Orange ware (polychrome with white paint)



Brown Ware


-
Brown ware


-
Brown ware (early)





-
Brown ware (Promontory)


-
Brown ware (fingernail impressed)



-
Unknown ceramic

-
Other
:________________________


Type
:
If
conditions allow, and
the analyst is confident about the classification
,
enter the ceramic
type
.

Note that this entry will not be completed for many ceramic assemblages and can be left
blank.


Example:

Ceramics
-

Estimated Quantity
:___
270
_______

Quantity Category




Type
2

___
200
_ _______
White ware
____________________ ______________________________________

___
50
__ _______
Gray
w
are (c
orrugated)
___________ ______________________________________


___
3
___ _______
Gray w
are (c
orrugated)
___________ _______
Snake Valley Corrugated
___________

___
13
__ _______
Red/Orange ware (with red paint)
___
______________________________________


Ceramic
Comments
:

Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the ceramic
assemblage.
Artifacts that are given unique designations or numbers should have those
designations included in the comments sect
ion and keyed in site maps.


Examples:

--
“All 14 sherds on site are the same type, have
the same

coloring, the same thickness, and are
found in a 5 x 3 meter area
, suggesting they c
a
me from a single vessel.”


--

“Sixteen ceramic sherds were found on site, but none of them could be
positively
identified

to
type

(although they are all clearly Fremont gray ware)
.
Tempered with
quartz and mic
a, 15

are
body sherds and
one
is a jar rim.”


Groundstone
--

Quantity
:
Inser
t

the quantity of groundstone artifacts
for each e
ntry.


Description
:

Record a basic descripti
on of the groundstone artifacts.
Artifacts that are given
unique designations or numbers should have those designations included in the description and
keyed in
site maps.


Example:

Groundstone

Quantity







Description

___
2
___


Complete
one
-
handed
sandstone manos (M1 and M2
)
.
__________
_____________
____________

___
1
___


Basalt slab
metate

fragment (M3
)
.
_____________________________
_____________
_________


Groundstone
Comments
: Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the
groundstone assemblage.
Be aware however, that most groundstone tools do not need to be
recorded in detail and in most cases simple short descriptions are all that is neces
sary.


Other Artifacts
--
Description
: Give a concise description of any other artifacts present. Attach
photos or drawings as appropriate. In
-
depth description and measurements should be reserved
for unique or exceptional artifacts.


Feature
s
--
Type
:

Enter the type of feature using the categories below.


Non
-
Architectural Features

-
Artifact Concentration

-
Bedrock Mortar/Grinding Slick

-
Cairn

-
Collector’s Pile

-
Depression

-
Earthen Mound

-
Firecracked Rock Concentration
/Burned Stone

-
Grooved Rock

(grind
ing or s
harpening
g
rooves
)

-
Hearth/Firepit

-
Midden

-
Pit

-
Rock Alignment

-
Rock Art

-
Rock Concentration

-
Rubble Mound

-
Stained Soil

-
Water Control Feature

-
Other
:________________________


Architectural Features

-
Cist

-
Granary

-
Kiva

-
Pithouse

-
Structure
(single
-
room)

-
Structure (multi
-
room)

-
Tower

-
Wall

-
Wickiup/Ramada

-
Other
:________________________


Description
:

Enter a description of the feature
.

Features
that are given unique designations or
numbers should have those designations included in the desc
ription and keyed in site maps.


Feature
Comments
:

Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the features

on
site
.


Comments/Continuations
:
Use this entry for extending comments or adding additional
information not mentioned in other parts
of the prehistoric component.




















PART C (Historic Component)

All artifacts and features in Part C should be recorded
using the standard system of measurement
(e.g. inches, feet, gallons, etc.
)
.


Smithsonian Trinomial
:

Enter the Smithsonian Trinomial number for the site (assigned by the
Antiquities Section).


Site
Interpretation
:

This

is not the same as the ‘Site Type’
entry
on Part A but instead
is meant
to be
more descriptive.

There are no specific categories liste
d for this entry, and the recorder is
encouraged to give a shor
t,
one to five
word
description according to their interpretation

(e.g.

railroad grade, one
-
room saddle notched cabin, can scatter,
saw mill
, earthen canal,
sheep corral,
etc.
).



Estimated

date
s

of
site
use/occupation: ___________ to ___________
:

E
stimate the

dates of
use or occupation of the site based on all
available
evidence.


How E
stimated
:

Check the appropriate box or boxes for how the date of site use or occupation
was estimated
using the categories below.


-
Cross
-
Dating/Diagnostic Artifacts

-
H
istoric record (e.g. histories, journals, title records, maps, etc.)

-

Other:________________________


Artifact Types Present
: Enter the types of artifacts present on site using the
following
categories:


-
Bone

-
Ceramics

-
Glass

-
Metal

-
Perishables (leather, fabric, etc.)

-
Plastic

-
Rubber

-
Stone/Concrete

-
Wood

-
Other:________________________


Cans
:
See Appendix
C

for can descriptions and illustrations.


Quantity
: Enter
the

quantity of the can
s

present.


Type
: Enter the types of cans present using the categories below.


-
Hole
-
in
-
cap

-
Hole
-
in
-
top

-
Sanitary

-
Unde
termined

-
Other:________________________


Description
:
Give a concise description of the artifacts present

(e.g.
can form or function, size,
marking, etc.
).

In
-
depth description and measurements should be reserved for unique or
exceptional artifacts.


Comments
: Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the artifact assemblage.


Example
:

Can
s


Quantity Type


Description (
form or function, size, markings, etc.)


__
7
__ __
Sanitary
__
__
___
_


_
__________________
_____________________________
__________________


__
4
__ __
Hole
-
in
-
top

_
__
__ _
Two
stamped with


‘PUNCH HERE’
_______
_
___________________________


__
1
__ __
Tobacco Tin
__
__
_ _
Prince Albert
__________________________
____________________________


__
8
__ __
Cone top beer
___

_
____________
____________________________________________________

Comments
:

_
Temporally d
iagnostic
features

include the ‘PUNCH HERE’ stamp (
1935
-
1945) (Rock 1993)
,

the
____

Prince Albert tobacco
tin (1913
-
1960s) (Rock 1981)
, and the cone top beer can
s

(~1935
-
1960s)
.
__________
______


Glass

Bottles



Estimated

Quantity (fragments)
:

Enter the estimated amount of glass
bottle
fragments present. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 200
-
300), and instead use an average
(i.e. 250).
See Appendix
D

for glass descriptions and illustrations.


~MNV (approximate minimum number of vessels)
: Enter the approximate minimum number
of bottles present. MNV counts describe the minimum number of original glass bottles that can
account for all fragmentary speci
mens on site. A number of diagnostic traits can help to
determine the MNV, such as glass color, bottle form, and manufacture style. Other less
diagnostic, yet still important, factors such as the overall number and size of individual bottle
fragments can

also help estimate MNV.
Except for very small sites,
MNV is
meant to be an
approximation,
giv
ing only

a rough estimate of the number of bottles originally present.


Manufacture
:

Enter the bottle
manufacturing method using the categories below.


-
M
old

-
Machine

-
Undetermined

-
Other:________________________


Description
: Give a concise description of the artifacts present (e.g. bottle forms or functions,
sizes, markings, glass color, etc.). In
-
depth description and measurements should be reserved for
u
nique or exceptional artifacts.


Comments
:

Include any additional comments that may be relevant to the artifact assemblage.
If
markers marks

are present, be sure to list the name and age range as best can be determined
.
Describe undiagnosed or rare
marks and attach photos or drawings

as appropriate
.



Examples:

Glass Bottles
-

Estimated Quantity (fragments):____
30

_____



~MNV Manufacture


Description


__
2
__ ____
Machine
______
Fr
agments from two br
own
beer

bottles.
_______
______
__
________
___________

Comments
:____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________



Glass Bottles
-

Estimated
Quantity (fragments):____
3
00
____



~MNV Manufacture


Description


_
_
20
_ ____
Machine
______
Fragments from

~
20 bottles (brown, green, and clear colored)
.
______
________
__

__
_
2
_

____
Mold
______
_
__
Including one sun colored amethyst
with a
tooled finish
.
___________
_______
___

__
10
_


___
_
Undetermined
_
_
Brown
-
colored glass dominates, but a few fragments of milk glass present.
______

Comments:

Tempora
lly diagnostic
features

include t
hree
bases with
the
Owens
-
Illinois diamond and oval

makers
__

mark
s

(1929
-
1954) (Toulouse 1971:403)
,
one Reed Glass Co. mark (1927
-
1956) (Toulouse 1971:432)
, and a few
fragments of sun colored amethyst (~1880
-
1925) and milk glass (~1890
-
1960)
.
___________________
_
__
__


Ceramics


Estimated

Quantity
:

Enter the
quantity (or
estimated
quantity)
of ceramic

fragments present. Avoid using a range of amounts (i.e. 200
-
300), and instead use an average
(i.e. 250).


~MNV (approximate minimum number of vessels)
:

Enter the

approximate minimum number
of ceramic vessels present
.

MNV counts describe the minimum number of original ceramic
artifacts that can account for all fragmentary specimens on site.
A number of
diagnostic
traits
can
help to determine the MNV,

such as
ware
, vessel form, manufacture style,
surface treatment
and decoration, and body characteristics (
e.g.
color

and

temper)
.
Other less diagnostic, yet still
important, factors such as the overall number and size of individual ceramic fragments can also
help est
imate MNV.
Except for very small sites, MNV is meant to be an approximation, giving
only a rough estimate of the number of ceramic vessels originally present.


Ware
:

Enter the type of ceramic by using the categories below.
See Appendix

E

for ceramic
desc
riptions and illustrations.


-
Whiteware

-
Earthenware

-
Stoneware

-
Porcelain

-
Undetermined

-
Other:________________________


Description
:
Give a concise description of the artifacts present

(e.g.
vessel form or function,
surface treatment and
decoration,
color,
maker
s marks
, counts, etc.
).

Attach photos or drawings
as a
ppropriate (especially of maker
s marks). In
-
depth description and measurements should be
reserved for unique or exceptional artifacts.