Introduction:
In May of 1993, the Arkansas Archeological
Survey entered into a cooperative agreement with the Department of Arkansas Heritage
to develop an integrated digital information infrastructure combining
innovative data management technologies, long‑distance networking
potentials, and extensive statewide archeological and environmental data. The integrated system described in the following
report was designed to enable government agencies and other organizations to
make use of computer‑based mapping and analytical tools in a variety of
management, planning, and research activities within the State of Arkansas. The project was made possible in large part
by a grant from the Department of Transportation, and administered by the Mack‑Blackwell
National Rural
Transportation Study
Center, University
of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Project Objective:
The primary objective of the GIS Enhanced
Cultural Resource Management System project was to develop a computer‑based
geographic information system (GIS) map layer and an associated digital
database containing comprehensive information on all archeological surveys and
excavations within the State of Arkansas.
Secondly, in order to make this data fully useful, an ancillary but
integral objective was to provide accessibility to other decision‑making
agencies for their planning needs by taking advantage of recent technological
advances in telecommunications and networking.
These objectives have been
accomplished. The resulting integrated
system, as developed under this contract, will allow state and federal agencies
to remotely access and easily query the computer system via ARKnet or Internet
for locational and non‑locational attribute data associated with all
recorded archeological sites and surveys statewide, as well as related
environmental map data.
Project Purpose:
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies, and state agencies using
federal money, to assess the effects of their projects on archeological and
historic properties. To do this, agencies must determine if archeological and
historic properties exist in their project right‑of‑ways and consult
with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which in Arkansas is part of the Department of
Arkansas Heritage (DAH). By reviewing
and analyzing past archeological research in an area, the SHPO and the
requesting agency decide if new or additional archeological investigations are
necessary before a project is initiated. Prior to the development of this
archeological project database and GIS, it was very time‑consuming to
determine where archeological projects had been undertaken in the state. Having this information readily available will
save state and federal agencies time and money, and allow for more meaningful
consultations between the SHPO and other agencies.
The newly‑developed integrated
system described herein was designed to augment the existing information system
created and operated by the Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS). A key component of that original system is
the Automated Management of Archeological Site Data in Arkansas (AMASDA) database,
which is a computerized relational database management system consisting of
over 130 separate fields of information relating to each of the more than
29,000 archeological sites recorded in the state (Figure 1). AMASDA is coupled to a Geographic Resources
Analysis Support System, or GRASS‑based full‑functioned GIS that
provides the ability to manually digitize locational information, and to import
existing digital data such as digital line graphs, digital elevation models,
and satellite imagery. Once data have been
entered into the system, they can be manipulated, analyzed and displayed as
color images, hardcopy maps or tabular information. The Survey currently has a number of
statewide GIS data coverages on‑line, including archeological, cultural
and socioeconomic data themes, TIGER census data, transportation, hydrography,
elevation, soils, and geology, as well as a variety of multi‑state
regional coverages and more localized, site‑specific and intrasite
applications.
Before the development of the data and
query capabilities associated with the current contract, the AMASDA database
was already extremely useful in finding out where archeological sites have been
recorded in the state, but it could not provide information about where
archeologists have looked for sites but found nothing. Over a period of years, the Survey has
compiled information on more than 3,100 archeological project reports
statewide. These reports contain
information on the location and extent of archeological investigations, even if
no archeological sites were found.
Knowing what areas have been previously surveyed for cultural resources
and how those surveys were conducted can be just as important as determining
the location of known archeological sites in various developmental planning
processes, such as highway construction, timber sales, and the siting of sewage
treatment facilities. Depending on the
methods used to locate archeological sites in past surveys, and the type of
project being proposed, an agency may or may not be required to do additional
archeological work before construction begins.
By developing an integrated GIS/relational
database that displays the locations and boundaries of these projects, the
Arkansas Archeological Survey has provided a system that will enable federal
and state agencies to effectively and efficiently determine whether any
archeological work has been conducted in the areas of their proposed
projects. Consequently, this system has
the potential to greatly reduce redundant archeological investigations within
the same locations, thereby saving valuable planning dollars. At the same time, by adding the project
locations to the GIS system, meaningful predictive models of archeological site
location can be developed using existing information pertaining to the
environmental and cultural characteristics associated with the presence or
absence of sites in previously surveyed areas.
Project tasks:
A number of tasks were involved in the
development and implementation of the archeological project GIS and
accompanying relational database. The
first of these tasks was to create a project database schema (Appendix 1). The schema is the digital structure or
framework designed to contain and manage the information to be encoded in the
database. Decisions about the types of
information to be included in the database were made in consultation with
archeologists from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Input from the SHPO was given particularly
careful consideration because that agency will be one of the principal users of
the system. Information encoded into the
system includes the project name and number, who did it, when they did it, why
it was done, and who sponsored it. The database also includes information on
size and location of the project and the type of project, such as intensive
survey, archeological testing, or extensive excavation, among other facts. Information on the number of sites found, if
any, and whether any human remains were found is also included. Finally there is information on the field
conditions, restraints, and subsurface indicators of archeological deposits
that allows one to judge the adequacy of the investigation without imposing a
judgmental confidence level rating system.
The database was created using Informix Relational Database Management
System software on a UNIX platform.
The next step in the process was to gather
all the reports of archeological projects completed in the state. Many of these were located in the archives of
the Arkansas Archeological Survey, but more than 350 previously unrecorded
reports were unexpectedly discovered at the State Historic Preservation Offices
in Little Rock.
The most labor intensive and time
consuming part of the project was converting the original written archeological
reports into digital form. Eight
students from the Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, were
hired to do this work. Their first task
was to plot project boundaries on 7.5‑minute USGS quadrangle maps. On average, it took approximately one hour
per project to plot the boundaries and to extract information about the project
for the database. Archeological
excavations were plotted as points and could be mapped relatively quickly,
while right‑of‑way surveys for highways, power lines, pipelines,
and large surveys took correspondingly more time to interpolate and plot. Once plotted on USGS maps, the project
boundaries were digitized into the GIS, and the attribute information for each
project was encoded into the database (Figures 2 and 3). The proposal estimate of approximately one
hour per project to digitize the boundaries was found to be accurate. However,
because of the more than 350 additional project reports subsequently supplied
by the SHPO, more time was required to complete this portion of the
project. A system is now in place to
convert all newly received archeological reports to digital form in the GIS and
relational project databases. To date,
more than 3,100 projects have been entered into the system, and the databases
are maintained with continual updates.
The next task involved conversion of U.S.
Census TIGER data to a digital format for use in the Survey's integrated data
management environment. In cooperation
with the Arkansas Archeological Survey and Department of Arkansas Heritage, the
Center of Advance Spatial Technology at the University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville supplied the raw TIGER files and programs to be used in the data
conversion process. The TIGER data
contain modern community boundaries, and up‑to‑date highway maps,
hydrographical coverages, as well as traditional census data. Knowledge of the
modern environment is essential in making informed decisions concerning the
need for archeological investigations prior to a project. With that in mind, these critical data
provide the capability to cartographically overlay archeological project
boundaries onto modern digital map layers for display purposes, and, more
importantly, for purposes of analysis.
The Department of Computing Services,
University of Arkansas provided the supervision and technical expertise for
connecting West Avenue Annex (the location of the Arkansas Archeological
Survey's Coordinating Office) to the campus fiber optic backbone and
Internet. This portion of the overall
project took more time than anticipated because of the unexpected duration of
negotiations with various utility providers in Fayetteville, and the attendant
communication and coordination issues typically involved in a cooperative
effort involving a number of large organizations.
In Little Rock, the State Historic
Preservation Office was connected to the Internet through the APSCN K‑12
educational network with cooperation from the Arkansas Department of Computing Services. Similarly, this portion of the project also
took somewhat more time than was originally allotted due to delays comparable
to those encountered in Fayetteville.
During the network connection phase, the State Historic Preservation
Office purchased a computer that now functions as a GIS terminal connected via
Internet to the computer running the integrated data management system in
Fayetteville at the Arkansas Archeological Survey.
The final task of the project was to train
the SHPO staff on the use of the system.
Arkansas Archeological Survey personnel have provided on site
demonstrations and training, as well as maintaining continuous communication
and technical support for the SHPO staff.
AAS also assumes that this will be an ongoing endeavor however.
Results:
The project has been completed as
designed. All archeological projects for
which written reports were made available to either the Arkansas Archeological
Survey or the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office are now incorporated
into the Projects database and the GIS maintained by the Arkansas Archeological
Survey. These new data sets compliment
and extend the utility of the existing AMASDA database and GIS system already
in operation there.
The integrated systems described above give
Arkansas state‑of‑the‑art digital data management and
archeological research capabilities. A
number of State Historic Preservation Offices and/or State Archeology Offices
have some sort of relational databases for basic site information and project information. However, only Arkansas has both archeological
site and project boundary information that can be analyzed using a statewide
GIS system integrated with a relational database. Individually, and particularly in
combination, the system components developed by means of this grant provide
powerful mapping and analytical tools that a number of state and federal
agencies have long needed to enhance resource management and planning within
the State.
Appendix 1
Project
Database Screens
===============================================================================
*** AAS
PROJECTS DB ***
**AMASDA NO: [ANUM]
Project name [NAME
]
Project # [PNUM ] Outside # [OUTN ]
Archaeologists: [ANO] [OLD1 ]
[A2 ]
[A3 ]
Year [YEAR] # Yrs [Y ]
Investig.Entity [INVE
]
Princ.Sponsor. [PINV ]
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
***
OVERLAPPING PROJECTS ***
**AMASDA NO: [ANUM]
See Also Projects: [SA ]
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
+‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑+
| LABELS
|
+‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑+
WORK‑TYPE:
Work type code: [WT]
Work type label: [WLAB
]
===============================================================================
==============================================================================
***
PROJECT WORK TYPE ***
**AMASDA NO: [ANUM]
Work type code: [WT]
Work type label: [WLAB
]
==============================================================================
==============================================================================
***
PROJECT COUNTIES ***
**AMASDA NO: [ANUM]
County codes: [CO ]
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
+‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑+
|
LABELS |
+‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑+
*** STANDARDISED
ARCHAEOLOGISTS NAMES ***
Archaeologist name
code: [ANO]
Standardised
name: [OLD1 ]
===============================================================================
==============================================================================
*** PROJECT TYPE ***
**AMASDA NO: [ANUM]
Judgemental:
[c]
Intensive/systematic:
[d]
Field survey with
site(s) testing: [e]
Site testing only:
[f]
Extensive
excavation: [g]
Remote Sensing:
[h]
Nautical
Excavation: [i]
==============================================================================
==============================================================================
*** PROJECT DATA USGS 7.5‑MINUTE
QUADRANGLES ***
**AMASDA NO:
[ANUM]
Quad Number(s):
[MAP]
==============================================================================
==============================================================================
*** EXTENDED PROJECT INFORMATION #1
***
Report
Availability: [j]
**AMASDA NO: [ANUM]
Purpose of
Project:
compliance [k] research [l] rescue [m]
Project area
plotted on USGS 7.5' map: [n]
Approximate
project size:
Total number of hectares [TOTHECTA]
Number of hectares surveyed
[HECTSURV]
For linear
projects:
Total length of segments in kilometers
[SEGLENGT]
Total width of right‑of‑way
in meters [WIDTHMET]
==============================================================================
==============================================================================
*** EXTENDED PROJECT INFORMATION #2 ***
**AMASDA NO: [ANUM]
Total number of
sites recorded/investigated: [TNSRI]
Number of sites
eligible for National Register: [NSENR]
Number of sites
NOT eligible for National Register: [NSNEN]
Number of sites of
undetermined/unknown NR eligibiltiy: [
