TxDOT Analytical Protocols: Questions, Comments, and Suggestions
GENERAL
C
[there is an] apparent lack of foresight in establishing how the
database would function, where it will reside, how it will be
structured to facilitate queries, who will maintain it, who will conduct
quality control on the data (if any), and who would fund it for years
to come.
what is the point of mandating that everyone document their sites,
data, and artifacts according to the protocols when TxDOT doesn’t
even know where the database will be housed, how it will work, or
even what computer it will be on?
TxDOT’s protocols for the recording and analysis of cultural
resources address a long-standing need for standardization of
archaeological data
C
C
C
C
Regarding standardization, in general, there is an increasingly urgent
need in Texas archaeology to identify broad patterns in the
archaeological data and develop contexts… [that] require directly
comparable data… the protocols are certainly a move in that
direction.
[the protocols] jeopardize the long and sustained effort to tie data
collection to specific research objectives. These protocols are largely
a reversal of that reasoning, a return to the shotgun approach of
gathering data and then looking for patterns.
…excessive detail and complexity in individual analyses that can
limit creativity as well as increase subjectivity…
…these endeavors are definitely intriguing and would likely result in
interesting if not new understandings of prehistoric lifeways, …[but]
I do not believe such in-depth research studies are conducted very
often…
…several of the lithic analyses have several variables that cannot be
coded in an objective and replicable way.
There is a strong probability that the design, implementation, and maintenance of
the database will go out as an RFP.
Agreed.
Agreed.
We have all had 20 or more years to gather data and we have all gathered it in
different ways. So we ask: What major move forward in terms of how we do
archeology (develop its implementation into a rigorous science) have we made in
the last 20-30 years without standardized protocols or guidelines? Similarly, while
other areas of North America openly and actively develop and pursue something
beyond chronology, technology, and subsistence, we remain mired in the
generation of redundant data that is increasingly difficult to categorize as
important.
It may be reasonable to suggest that the professional community needs to expose
themselves more actively to a broader spectrum of contemporary research in North
American archeology. As the citations in our reports average approximately 20 or
more years old, it is more disappointing than surprising that we continue to explore
research agendas that were out of date more than a decade ago.
This is exactly the issue. Such studies are further inhibited by the fact that
comparable data doesn’t currently exist.
This may be correct, but the validity of the comment cannot be addressed without
specific examples.
1
[protocol use] can affect creativity while at the same time introduce a
high level of subjectivity in the data.
I would assume research questions must follow them closely. This in
itself poses problems as it will stifle creativity and lead researchers to
use the same variables over and over.
C
Think about most of the data gathered by these protocols in the same vein as
baseline physiological data (i.e. height, weight, age, sex, blood pressure, etc.).
How does this effect a doctor’s “subjectivity”?
Protocol use should have no effect on creativity. It sets a baseline for data
collection, not a ceiling. The only creativity we are attempting to curtail is the
creative use of vocabulary and application of reporting standards, which do far
more to produce subjectivity than anything we have proposed.
We never stated that the data should drive your research. You are simply being
asked to report a specific data set, which in most instances will exceed what you
normally would collect and report.
C
C
…the detailed analyses proposed in the lithics, site structure, and
burned rock protocols will lead to a high level of subjectivity in the
database, a level of subjectivity that may make the use of the
resulting data pointless or lead to spurious and incorrect
interpretations.
…these protocols seem micro-focused on terminology instead of
distilling which data are comparable.
[likely only a] small number of future researchers who will ever use
the comparative database.
I am skeptical that future researchers (grad students?) would even
know this database exists, let alone have access to it.
Researchers already use the same variables over and over. They just use different
variable, or the same variables with different names, or the same variables named
identically but defined differently.
Some of the proposed data is subjective, and the inclusion of such data will need to
be reassessed. Other data, while not explicitly objective, should be recorded with
very little if any variability so long as the analyst performing the research is
qualified to perform the analysis (ex. production stage, tool portion, use-wear).
No data is readily comparable unless common terminology is used.
The idea that these data will not likely be used by future researchers suggests that
contractors are:
a) not interested in using baseline data
b) not interested in comparative analyses
c) are going to conduct whatever research they wish to on TxDOT projects
How many PIs in this room have discussed research projects with a grad student in
the last 6 months and how many grad students have you spoken to in that time
period? Where does the problem actually lie?
C
What is this measurement of future use based on? We believe that the Atlas is
well used.
C
without provisions to maintain the database and be responsible for it
in the future, it is too likely to end up an unusable and unused relict
Perhaps we should be more concerned with the dwindling number of grad students
pursuing the study of Texas archeology. We cannot be accountable for graduate
student quality.
Such provisions will be incorporated into the development of these protocols going
forward.
2
C
C
S
S
The trend away from materialistic studies and toward interpretation is
reflective of archaeology as a whole and of TxDOT in particular,
during the last decade. These protocols appear to contradict this
progress.
[The protocols] would be very costly to implement, given the level of
analytical detail called for in the draft protocols.
I suggest that more discussion among practitioners is needed and that
such meetings should be held in a workshop style… We also need to
discuss how this would be implemented.
We suggest that TxDOT develop, in coordination with the THC and
as part of the Atlas, a much simpler database that is intended to help
archeologists figure out which tested and excavated sites are suitable
for addressing certain kinds of questions.
Would the PI/PA still have the flexibility to decide in the field when
NOT to apply protocols?
Q
Q
Are there plans to create lab/field manuals to accompany any of these
protocols?
Q
Considering its long-range goals, where will the database be housed
in 10 years? 20 years?
Who will manage the data and ensure some level of quality control?
Q
Q
Who will fix problems with the database? Will this be a TxDOT fulltime employee?
In fact these protocols and the standardization of data reporting actually make
comparative analyses, synthesis, and meaningful interpretation a possibility rather
than an exercise in subjective particularistic interpretation of a specific site.
Interpretation in the absence of data is not science. The protocols will be an
invaluable asset for allowing greater interpretive potential as they will cause the
availability of greater amounts of data.
Again, the need for trimming is recognized.
Agreed
Some streamlining is admittedly necessary. This review process was intended to
better focus those efforts. It seems there needs to be a fundamental decision as to
whether these protocols are to provide basic data suitable for using in an
independent analysis, or simply basic data suitable for determining whether a
particular collection would be useful in the context of a specific research design.
While a better balance could admittedly be reached, it would seem like the latter
option can already be accomplished through review of published reports, and it
moves the community no closer to generating comparable data.
If you have a TxDOT contract, then you work for TxDOT and are obligated to
meet the requirements of the work authorized. If a change in methods is desired,
simply call TxDOT to receive prior approval, which may or may not need to be
formalized through a supplemental? A practical example would have assisted in
conceptualizing such a scenario, but this should be possible with prior TxDOT
approval.
As a matter of practicality, you would not give your subcontractors carte blanche
to simply do whatever they desired? In fact, some of us have listened to many of
you complain bitterly of such things. Why is there a double standard here?
Some manuals may be required, as may certification classes. This is not the road
that we would prefer. We would prefer to rely on the professional qualifications of
our archeological consultants.
We envision the database being housed and made available through an entity that
has a strong and long-standing interest in Texas archeology, as well as the
available resources to devote to maintaining the database in a timely manner.
Whoever responds to the RFP with the (presumably) best value proposal. TxDOT
may need (at least initially) to perform audits on analyses in order to control for
quality and consistency. We may also need to audit the database facility to ensure
the accuracy of data entry.
Whoever responds to the RFP with the (presumably) best value proposal. TxDOT
may need to audit the database facility to ensure the accuracy of data entry.
3
Q
Q
Q
Who has access? Only CRM contractors working for TxDOT or
anyone in the archaeological community? If students, from which
universities?
What will be the software utilized? Will training or a manual be
necessary for contractors to utilize the database?
If a researcher would prefer a different method of biface study or site
structure exploration and discussion, will that be allowed?
Will TxDOT be willing to pay for studies outside the protocols box
or, in the face of limited funding, just mandate the minimum
standards?
How can a researcher have freedom to develop new ideas or methods
of study when confined into the detailed analyses proposed in the
protocols?
Q
Q
Q
Q
C
C
C
C
Can a researcher modify the protocols to fit their site?
How will new ideas or hypotheses related to prehistoric lifeways be
incorporated into the protocols over time?
Will TxDOT pay for a researcher to do the minimal protocols as well
as other studies on the same data that could be contradictory?
Should this undertaking proceed, I believe that TxDOT should
implement several small-scale workshops with limited groups of
contractors to explore the structure and implementation of the
protocols.
The database should be designed to accommodate GIS analysis.
…it would be prudent to explore the options available for database
management in terms of in-house capabilities, inter-agency
agreements, etc. before implementing the Protocols.
TxDOT and the Texas archeological community would benefit more
from an approach that first focuses on an explicit development of
research problems/issues and new research perspectives.
The same people that have access to the Archeological Sites Atlas.
This remains undetermined (may be an element of the RFP), but one requisite will
be that it be available in a commonly utilized format.
Yes, provided they also meet the requirements of the specific protocols.
Understand that we are willing to pay consultants to meet the requirements of our
protocols because we feel that it will benefit archeology in the State of Texas, and
that this benefit will increase exponentially as more and more data is included.
Our consultants are not, nor have they ever been, free to perform whatever services
they wish to do without first making a good case for it?
If “detailed analysis” (for ceramics) means INAA, petrography, metric data, and
photos of sherds, then we are indeed going to mandate such analysis – which
should be performed through standard professional practice even without a
protocol stipulating it. This is truly a minimum for comparative analysis, and this
is particularly so in a state where many of the ceramics are represented by
undecorated sherds instead of decorated whole vessels.
Furthermore, researchers are not confined; they are provided with a larger data
universe. In general, the protocols ask for more information than what is typically
provided, not less. You can perform analyses not identified in the protocols so
long as they are justified and approved… in the same exact way as is currently
practiced.
No, but they can modify which criteria they report.
The protocols mandate the collection of certain basic data, not the adherence to
specific ideas.
How would objectively derived data ever be contradictory? Even subjective data,
if measured by the same researcher, should never be contradictory.
Fine. We prefer this. We have undertaken only the burden of leadership, and in
no way with to assume an authoritarian position. That aside, what would define a
limited group? How would it be limited?
Agreed. This is an eventual goal.
More likely, protocols will be implemented in pilot projects to work out their
issues in a practical application environment prior to the database design and
execution is complete. The design and implementation of the database is likely to
follow through issuance of an RFP.
We have employed this approach with rigor and commitment over the past several
years. Neither TxDOT nor the Texas archeological community has realized any
measurable benefit. Its time to move on. Deregulation didn’t work on Wall Street,
and it hasn’t worked on our projects. In both instances a lot of taxpayer money has
evaporated without a quality product being realized.
4
C
…legacy data that is tabulated with a numeric coding system is often
rendered meaningless once the original database software is obsolete.
Use clear text to the fullest extent feasible and include metadata.
While I can agree that uniformity and compilation of regional data
are both Good Things, it's not clear to me why TxDOT needs to
impose either one.
If uniformity is the primary goal, then many institutions should be
involved.
C
Since TxDOT doesn't control all archeology in the state, uniform
reporting only for TxDOT does not carry us much closer to the goal
of greater uniformity and regional synthesis.
The vast majority of archaeological data being generated across the
state, whether by other state agencies (TPWD, GLO, etc.), federal
agencies (Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, Forest Service,
etc.) or private companies (pipeline surveys, development projects,
etc.), is not related to TxDOT work.
Agreed.
Uniformity has not occurred in almost 100 years of archaeology in Texas. We
have lost all hope in its spontaneous development? If that was going to happen it
would have already. What we are proposing is to systematically lead the way, in
consultation with our professional peers, toward the development of a baseline
database incorporating comparable data.
We don’t control everyone else, but we could look into a PA or MOA with other
agencies. This will probably not be necessary as several other agencies have
expressed an interest in this endeavor, and may be likely to voluntarily adopt our
protocols if they are eventually perceived to be a benefit to the profession. It is not
beyond the realm of our wildest dreams that the THC may adopt these protocols as
permit requirements following a pilot period where the Texas archeological
community can scrutinize their value.
Ultimately, however, we’re the entity paying for our projects, and that provides us
with the authority and legitimacy to dictate the way in which work is performed.
…since it would include only sites investigated by TxDOT in the
future, it would not do anything to facilitate analyses using nonTxDOT data or the voluminous body of existing excavation data
LITHICS
I often get the impression in some CRM firms that lithic analysis is
relegated to some under qualified employee to sort into categories for
some RPA to interpret.
C
C
C
In general, some categories require more expertise than others to
determine the appropriate check box. I am skeptical that all analysts
will be capable of these determinations
Standardization, for pragmatic considerations, ought to focus more
narrowly on the quantifiable [data]… Identification of heat-treatment
of lithic materials, use of hard vs. soft hammer in debitage, inferences
of function of features and tools, many types of breakage patterns,
reasons for discard, etc. can vary tremendously between any two
researchers.
While these protocols will do much to raise the level of effort on
many archaeological studies, they will likely have the converse effect
of reducing or eliminating novel or exemplary directions.
This is one of the major driving forces behind the perceived need for and
conceptualization of the lithics protocol. Shockingly, not everyone is qualified to
perform a lithics analysis. The amount of data gleaned in such an analysis, as well
as the accuracy of that data, is directly related to the skill of the analyst. A proper
analysis of stone tools requires as much technical skill and training as a ceramic
analysis or a geoarcheological investigation.
Frankly, in terms of the lithic protocol, we agree with this in some measure. This
is a very apparent need for lithic protocols, but we will need to work together with
our professional peers to trim this down to a practicable scale. We suggest the
need for a workshop or perhaps a committee composed of several accomplished
lithic analysts to work on the lithic protocol w/TxDOT.
This is not their intent. The protocol data mandated sets a base limit, but doesn’t
prevent researchers from performing additional analyses if justified under their
research design. They are also intended to (1) make basic data available for future
researchers with varying data needs, and (2) establish best industry practices.
5
For tools, it seems best to drop the reduction stage, portion,
failure/discard causal aspects, alteration, reduction technique, wear
patterning, flaking attrition, hafting evidence, source identification.
For debitage analysis, the problem of mixed assemblages…
C
C
I question whether developing a whole new system of lithic study
dictating how artifacts are documented down to platforms on debitage
is really necessary.
…lithic studies have been a major component of research over the
past many decades. The quality of these studies has often been high
due to innovative, ever evolving ideas on how prehistoric peoples
utilized stone and produced stone tools.
C
…simpler is better in lithic data in terms of objectivity, replicability,
and comparability. The current incarnation of the lithic protocols will
need a manual to describe to researchers the definitions and purposes
behind most variables.
Source identification of raw material is a waste of time…
C
… flaking attrition category is overly complicated and not directly
tied to a meaningful issue.
C
Reduction stage, portion, alteration, and use-wear should be able to be identified
with little variability so long as the analyst is qualified to perform the analysis.
Reduction technique, causal aspects of failure/discard, source identification, and
perhaps hafting evidence should likely be removed from the protocol due to
subjectivity concerns.
Mixed debitage assemblages should not be a great concern. Protocols for debitage
analysis should only realistically be followed when the assemblage has a high
degree of integrity, and thus warrants intensive analysis. Data that is recorded will
need to remain terminologically consistent with that specified in the protocols.
The procedures identified are not new, they are contemporary industry practice.
Platform type has been shown to provide significant information related to
trajectory stage and production technology and/or technique.
The quality of these studies is too often poor based on the use of untrained
analysts, and are not replicable using data from other sites due to a lack of
standardized terminology or data presentation. Use of the chipped-stone protocol
would not have inhibited a single one of the studies performed in the past; it would
have enabled many more studies to have been performed, and would have
improved the quality of other studies.
What are we asking for that isn’t already done? How is asking for more data
limiting?
There are also instances where simplicity leads to spurious data (such as with usewear descriptions).
A manual is likely to be developed for this and possibly other protocols, but the
terms used should not be novel to an individual qualified to perform lithic analysis.
In using the protocols, analysts will be encouraged to leave a data field blank
rather than enter a guess.
Agreed. If anything, it should only be reported when it can be identified with
absolute certainty. Yet, most archeologists casually state that the materials
encountered are “local” without providing the slightest justification for making
this assertion.
It is not complicated; it is inclusive. This data related directly to an objective
assessment of actual tool function. Use-wear data is most often presented as a
nominal variable (present/absent). This only encourages analysts to cling to their
preconceived assumptions regarding what a particular tool was used for. This is
not science, and it under-represents the diversity of activities and technoeconomic
understanding expressed with our prehistoric populations.
6
The study of debitage beyond simple weight, count, and perhaps size
sort is pointless without specific research questions tied to a specific
site or portion of a site.
Those variables provide very little information. The data requested is to allow for
the formulation of questions by other researchers who may have questions
unaddressed by the original analyst.
I see no need to mandate this debitage study for every site… studies
should be site specific with flexibility for the researchers to explore
new methods.
“Reduction technique used” is a problematical category that various
C
studies have shown to be difficult to interpret correctly, particularly
distinguishing hard from soft hammer.
In general, terms are used without adequately defining them or
C
providing graphic examples.
CERAMICS
The current approach is data-heavy, and is not grounded in regionally
relevant problems/issues.
The protocols for debitage are not mandated for every site, but should be followed
when the integrity of deposits warrants its use. Again, as ever, new methods may
be used if justified.
Agreed. Yet, everyone does this.
C
C
The cost would be extravagant to try to implement…
C
C
C
C
…it is simply not reasonable to expect that one analysis protocol will
be relevant to sites and ceramic assemblages from all parts of the
state
[alternatively, TxDOT should have] a series of regionally and
culturally specific ceramic protocols… developed by researchers that
have an intimate understanding of the relevant questions/issues,
technological, stylistic, and morphological attributes, etc. that are
currently worthy of analytical attention.
[I] have yet to see where the color of the sherd has provided much
meaningful data.
[The ceramic protocol states that] petrographic analysis of sherds
should be conducted before one collects clay samples from the site
and/or its vicinity… [but] waiting for the results of the petrographic
analysis likely will require many months (perhaps a year or more)
following the completion of fieldwork before one is able to go back
to the site for the clay samples. By that time, the project area could
have been greatly altered by construction and clay sources once
available may no longer be available.
This is a function of the draft status of the protocol. Both definitions and
illustrations will be provided in subsequent versions of the document.
First, define what you mean by region. We have found very little consistency
among or within our report with respect to the use of this word. Region is used
unrestrictedly to mean everything from the American Southwest, to Texas, to East
Texas, to a biotic province, to a geologic area, etc. This is precisely what we mean
when we discuss standardization. Most of the time we do not even define terms.
Can we can infer from this statement that baseline data is not relevant to regionally
(whatever that means) relevant issues?
In terms of gathering and reporting baseline data (INAA, petrography, metric data,
etc.), any analyst qualified to perform such an analysis (and legitimately charge
TxDOT for having performed a professional archeological analysis of a ceramic
collection), should be able to cause the production of this information.
Why? Did ancient Texans live in isolation? Almost everything we know about
prehistoric as well as historic people in Texas strongly suggests that they
interacted intensively and extensively. Viewing groups as cultural isolates went
out of vogue at least 50 years ago. Why should we limit research to a specific area
and a specific researcher? Where’s the objectivity in that? Who would define the
“region?”
This issue will need to be explored in more depth. As with the lithic protocol, it
will be necessary to ensure that any data category mandated has the potential to
address a realistic research question.
Clay sampling has been pretty much eliminated from the protocol at this point
until we have a better handle on whether such sampling is practicable, and whether
the resulting data will be of any use. There may be other ways in which to address
the same research issues.
7
C
…it is required that counts be provided by surface treatment and
temper. In most cases… both the surface treatment and temper are
implied by the type and variety names used in sherd classification.
To record these attributes by count is redundant and a likely waste of
time when all one has to do is note the presence of that particular
variety.
[The ceramics protocol] notes that statistical sampling of ceramic
collections is required. Does this always have to be the case? If time
and money allow, why not analyze the entire collection?
PROVENIENCE AND DATABASE DESIGN
This protocol seems to unduly cross-cut and conflate three main
criteria of archaeological provenience: arbitrary, natural, and cultural
divisions.
Q
C
C
There exists a real problem with perception and identification such that referring to
something using a specific descriptive term does not always result in an objective
and consistent conclusion on the part of the audience. For example, a site will
commonly be referred to as Toyah when the lithic assemblage is Toyah and the
ceramic assemblage is Caddo? This in antithetical to the requirements of scientific
inquiry on a number of grounds.
I believe that this was intended to ensure representation (or potential for
representation) for all types/varieties present. 100% analysis should be possible
when warranted by the size or nature of the collection.
Some contextual concepts may occupy different categories of characterization.
Strata may indeed be identified based on both soil contexts and unconformities
(natural strata), or based on artifact inventories (cultural strata).
To provide for the recording of different sites dug according to such “criteria”, the
database must be flexible enough to accommodate each type. It is not our intention
to mandate any particular method, and much of the complexity arises from
attempting to avoid doing so.
C
C
Not all types and varieties are so descriptive, and we are hoping to achieve
consistency in recording methods and terminology.
Understanding the basics of the temporal components of a site should
be the goal of excavations but dictating the terms and manner by
which this is done seems excessive and pointless. This protocol goes
beyond data quantification and too far into the realm of qualitative
interpretation and heavy-handed standardization.
… it is mentioned that strats should be named using an alphanumeric
system, with the oldest strat receiving the initial designation. I’m not
quite sure how this can happen, as there are many instances where a
researcher doesn’t know the chronological order of strats (whatever
they might be), real strata, or AUs until after all data are analyzed
following completion of fieldwork. This cannot occur in the field.
As long as the control corner is noted in the report and tied to UTM
coordinates, who cares what corner one chooses to use?
That said, we would argue that there are only two fundamental types of
provenience recorded during site excavation: proveniences that are collected and
recorded according to observable differences in a site matrix (so-called natural
levels) and those that are not (arbitrary levels). Cultural divisions are higher-order
constructs created by interpreting artifacts from proveniences collected according
natural and/or arbitrary criteria.
We are sympathetic to your point of view. However, the goal of the database is to
store archeological data in such a manner that future investigators can reasonably
reinterpret site data and derive different analytical units than used by the original
investigators. Given this objective, we do not see an alternative to standardizing
the observations necessary to do so.
Although it is necessary to make the relevant observations, strat definition and
particularly naming should not occur in the field. Remember that this protocol
relates to a database delivered at the close of analysis.
Again, standardization is critical to provide comparable data, or the utility of the
database is severely hampered. One should not have to refer to a paper report to
determine how coordinates present in the database relate to excavation units.
8
…not sure, after reading and re-reading the protocol, and after
discussing the term briefly at the meeting on Oct. 3, what defines a
strat.
C
[This is the] Most offensive of all protocols, as it would dictate the
use of terminology beyond reason.
C
…this protocol can only really be implemented by a
geoarchaeologist, therefore leading to more costs for testing and data
recovery projects.
C
How would this be applied in the field under varying situations? This
protocol goes beyond data quantification, it attempts to dictate how
we dig and what terms to use. How is this helpful?
On page 4 under “Reporting provenience and context,” it is
mentioned that every report must include a table listing the UTM
coordinates for every lot defined during the project, plus each lot’s
Q
elevation in meters, its depth below surface, and its volume.
Basically, this will require a ton of work and likely cost a good bit of
money. Is all of this really necessary?
INTEGRITY
When separated from the idea of creating a database, the protocols
could become useful tools to help standardize terminology and
consistency in our work. In particular, the integrity protocol is rightly
C
explicit about things that too often are not made explicit. It should
make all of us think more carefully about how we dig, analyze, and
report what we do.
Perhaps it is the term “strat” that is getting in the way—we are not wedded to it,
and would welcome alternatives. As defined, a strat represents the minimal
reasonably resolvable natural or cultural subdivision of the site. While the
definition of a lot is a function of the mechanics of site investigation, the definition
of a strat is a function of the interpretation of the site’s physical and/or cultural
stratigraphy. In many cases, there will be no practical distinction between strat and
stratum, but in other cases a stratum may be made up of many different strats.
Another way to look at it is to envision a strat as the minimum natural or cultural
subdivision that you, the original excavator, can discriminate and define in your
provenience data. It may be composed of one or more lots. A stratum, in contrast,
is the minimum stratigraphic subdivision that you believe is relevant, and may be
composed of one or more strats. Someone else may use your strats to define
different strata, and, ultimately, analytical units.
We recognize that the protocols are somewhat dictatorial. Again, note that this
applies to a database delivered at the close of analysis and reporting. Nothing
about it (except reasonability of cost, which would be case-specific) necessarily
precludes reasonable adoption of a parallel system for primary reporting.
We do not believe that only a geoarcheologist can make these types of
observations—competent field crew should be able to recognize and record the
types of observations on boundaries and matrix characteristics required. While it
may take a geoarcheologist to make sense of some observations, it is our position
that a geoarcheologist should be involved at some level in testing and data
recovery projects. That does not mean they need to be on-site the whole time.
Again, unless data collection is standardized at some level, it is not comparable.
C
TxDOT’s position is that it is necessary to satisfy the goals of the proposed
database. We recognize that there are cost implications.
Agreed… except for the part about ignoring the value of creating a database.
9
C
This protocol appears to make explicit much of what is already
standard practice and provides helpful guidance.
Some of the categories assume a more advanced knowledge of
geology or geomorphology than is typical of archaeologists in
general. Thus, I am skeptical of the quality of data this protocol
would generate.
C
FEATURES (BURNED ROCK)
The protocols would be better suited to mandating basic, quantitative
data on burned rock features (size, weight, results of special studies,
C
etc.) and leave the gruesome study and documentation of fine matrix
and other variables to the researchers.
C
C
…this protocol also introduces some level of subjectivity into the
system with interpretations on feature type (accumulation, scatter, or
cluster?), morphology, and other characteristics.
This protocol, like the others, would require more extensive
recordation and subsequent data entry than current practice.
Thank you. We feel the same way.
Many of the observations requested are at the fundamental core of professional
archeological practice, and if individuals are incapable of identifying conditions of
integrity, we would prefer that they not work on our projects. This protocol in
particular is helpfully instructive, and individuals wishing to work on TxDOT
projects should familiarize themselves with the concepts that it addresses. If an
archeological technician in the field is incapable of recognizing an erosional
unconformity, how is a PI in his office supposed to be able to evaluate the integrity
of a site and discern the various formation processes that contributed to its present
condition?
And most researchers will use terminology and data categories identified in the
protocol. We didn’t invent this protocol; we selected the best practices followed
by our professional community. In short, we are asking everyone to be more like
the A student. If you have a SPECIFIC issue (and preferably an example), we
would happily address your concern.
Those terms should be no more subjective than distinguishing between a 2x2, 1x1,
and 50x50cm test pit. The terms are linked to characteristics of shape, volume,
and concentration, and are thus more observations than interpretations.
This is true, but what we are asking for here very closely parallels the best
practices of what our consultants are already doing. There is very little novel
about this database, except that it codifies some terminology for recording
consistency.
10