My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-01-03_PERMIT FILE - C1981010 (5)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981010
>
2018-01-03_PERMIT FILE - C1981010 (5)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 9:38:25 AM
Creation date
3/2/2018 9:25:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/3/2018
Doc Name
Test Excavation of Six SItes (5MF319, 5MF7691, 5MF7692, 5MF7794, and 5MF7795 by Grand River
Section_Exhibit Name
Appendix K Part K-XVII
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Grand River Institute originally recorded the site in 2014. A boundary measuring 80 <br />by 43meters was established around the observed cultural materials. The resource is <br />characterized by one piece of fire -cracked rock (FCR), one comal fragment, and three <br />groundstone artifacts. An unnamed road is located some distance to the south of the site. <br />One piece of FCR, located in the northern corner of the site, was observed in the <br />backfill pile of a rodent hole. No indications of thermal features were visible on the surface of <br />the site, however an artifact with evidence of exposure to fire, a comal fragment, was observed <br />seven meters to the south of the FCR. The comal fragment is a smooth, sandstone slab with <br />bifacial grinding and well shaped edges. It is fire -reddened. <br />Other artifacts include: one metate fragment, one mano, and one cobble. The metate <br />fragment is located 4 meters to the south of the comal fragment. It is a sandstone slab with <br />bifacial grinding and well shaped edges. The mano, located in the southern corner of the site, <br />is a sandstone cobble with bifacial pecking. The cobble, located along the eastern edge of the <br />site, is coarse -grain quartzite with multi -facial testing. <br />Data recovery was conducted on July 28`h through the 30' of 2015. Prior to excavation, <br />the surface of the site was re -mapped using a BLM certified Trimble Geo XT GPS unit. Three <br />of the five artifacts previously recorded in 2014 were relocated — a metate fragment, comal <br />fragment, and a heat reddened pebble (FS # 1). The mano and tested cobble could not be found. <br />A mano fragment (FS #2), cobble manuport and a small array of lithic tools and debitage were <br />newly recorded. The majority of the newly recorded artifacts were located outside the western <br />edge of the site boundary. As a result, the boundary was extended to encompass the newly <br />recorded artifacts in an area measuring 80 by 60 meters. Test pit locations were selected based <br />on the surficial artifacts, and only the surface artifacts that were located within established grids <br />were designated "FS" numbers (FS #1 and #2). <br />A temporary datum was established near the northern periphery of the site and was <br />plotted using the Trimble GPS unit. A total of 43 auger tests (AT 1-43) were established in <br />relation to the datum. Two shovel tests (ST 1 and 2) and three test pits (TP 1, 2 and 3) were <br />established based on surficial cultural manifestations (Figure 12). All excavated sediment was <br />sifted through 1/8 -inch mesh rocker screens in search of cultural materials. <br />Auger tests were laid out in 5 meter intervals in relation to the datum in an effort to <br />better define the extent of the site in subsurface contexts. Tests ranged in maximum depths <br />between 3 and 156cm below present ground surface and ceased at contact with bedrock or until <br />sterile soil was encountered. Auger Test 38 (30S/30W) near the far western edge of the site <br />indicated the presence of a seep along the edge of the hillside. The tests failed to yield any <br />subsurface cultural artifacts. Soil depth was greatest near the toe slope of the hillside. <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.