This
data recovery strove to mitigate the destruction of site 38HR496 by allowing
for the systematic exploration and recovery of its deposits. To this end,
data recovery at 38HR496 began with the removal of the remainder of the
spoil pile situated on the eastern portion of the site landform. Testing
activities showed that with increased distance from the bluff edge, artifacts
decreased and subsoil was encountered at shallower depths. However, shovel
tests excavated in the exposed area beneath the pile, while not very productive,
did illustrate that the site deposits continued under the pile. To insure
that the entire site is sufficiently examined, the spoil pile was removed
by track hoe (see above). The spoil was transported to another location
by dump truck. The investigation activities then focused on retrieving data
to address the research questions discussed in the previous chapter. These
activities consisted of mapping, excavation of 50 by 50 cm units, excavation
of units, and exposure and excavation of features. Each of these steps is
discussed below.
Site Grid
The site grid defined during the testing investigations at 38HR496 was reestablished and was extended into the cleared area once the spoil was completely removed. This grid began with the establishment of a site datum at the location of a positive shovel test along the bluff edge. Grid coordinates were established at 10 meter intervals along north-south and east-west grid lines and shot in using a transit, stadia rod, and measuring tape. North and east coordinates (e.g. 500N/500E) were assigned to each grid point and each point was marked with a labeled pin flag. All site excavations were mapped based on their coordinates along this grid.
Excavation of 50 by 50 cm units
Excavation of 50 by 50 cm units was continued from the testing phase, insuring
that a unit was excavated at each grid point. These units were
excavated in a single level to sterile subsoil. All fill was screened through
1/4" wire mesh. Detailed records of each unit were kept in field notebooks,
including information on content (e.g., presence or absence of artifacts
and their approximate depths) and context (i.e., soil color and texture).
The figure on the right shows a nutting stone in situ in a 50 by 50 cm unit.
The data from these 50 by 50 cm units were added to the artifact distribution
maps compiled during testing using the SURFER computer program. These maps
served to highlight general artifact concentrations, as well as concentrations
of artifacts representing specific temporal occupations. Figure 4 shows
the locations of test units excavated and artifact densities based on excavation
of 50 by 50 cm units.
Excavation of 2 by 2 meter units
Thirty
2 by 2 meter units were excavated. These units were excavated in six blocks
(Blocks 1-6). Blocks 1 and 2 are located in the northern portion of the
site. Blocks 3 and 4 are located in the central portion, and Blocks 5 and
6 are located in the southern portion of the site. Each block consisted
of between two and ten contiguous 2 by 2 meter units. These blocks were
laid out within the existing grid using a transit (see figure above).
The placement of these units was primarily determined based on the artifact
distribution maps developed from the data recovered from the excavation
of the 50 by 50 cm
units and the location of cultural features identified during testing. However,
one block (Block 6), was placed adjacent to a 50 by 50 cm unit that had
yielded what was thought to be a possible Paleoindian/Early Archaic tool.
The figure to the right shows the locations of each excavation block at
38HR496, as well as the placement of all 50 by 50 cm units.
The majority of the units were excavated in 10 cm arbitrary levels with all fill screened through 1/4 inch hardware mesh. Artifacts from each level were placed in acid free bags and labeled with unit and level data. Standardized Unit/Level forms were completed for each level in each unit. A plan view of each block and at least one profile of each unit was drawn at the termination of excavation. Soil descriptions employed Munsell color designations and USDA texture nomenclature. Table 1 summarizes the extent of excavations by unit - unless otherwise noted, all units were 2 by 2 meters.
Feature Excavation
Soil anomalies (i.e., discolorations) were treated as potential cultural features. Identified anomalies were pedestaled as excavation continued in the remainder of the unit in which they were located. Following the termination of unit level excavations, each anomaly was photographed and drawn in plan view. Each anomaly was then bisected into halves to expose a profile. One half of the fill was removed and screened through 1/4 inch wire mesh. Artifacts recovered from the screened fill were placed in acid free bags labeled with appropriate provenience data. The vast majority of the soil anomalies identified were determined to be tree disturbance when the profile was exposed. Examination of those anomalies was discontinued.
Anomalies that exhibited well defined borders were assigned cultural feature numbers. The exposed profile of these features was drawn and photographed. The remaining fill was then recovered for flotation processing. Flotation processing often results in the recovery of artifacts and organic material that is too small to be recovered through 1/4 inch mesh. Soil samples also were taken for use in pollen and phytolith analyses. These samples were collected with utensils cleaned with distilled water to limit contamination. These analyses can shed light on storage activities, as well as past environmental conditions, unfortunately due to the poor preservation conditions encountered, these analyses were not pursued. Feature descriptions were recorded on individual feature forms.
