Laserfiche WebLink
21 <br />• Site Distribution <br />Tracts 3 and 6 were surveyed as one unit. The unplanted open areas <br />were surveyed, but almost all with negative results. In Tract 6 and the <br />southern portion of Tract 3, the slopes were very steep and heavily vege- <br />tated. Little survey effort was devoted to such areas. The greatest <br />emphasis was placed on the ridgetops which, although cleared and offering <br />easy visual inspection of the surface, produced almost no cultural material. <br />Tables 1 and 2 summarize the survey data for Tracts 3 and 6, respectively. <br />The two prehistoric camps in the central portion of Tract 6, 5RT13 <br />and 5RT14, contained minimal remains and were in a disturbed context <br />high on wide, f'a*. ridgetops. The northern portion of Tract 3, however, <br />presents a much better locale for prehistoric occupation, as more of it <br />is ;ently sloping in*_o the Foidel Creek valley. The sites loci*_ed are <br />• of ~r~uch greater areal extent and have a higher density of artifactual <br />materials than those in Tract 6. Sites 5RT27, 5RT29, and 5RT30 are con- <br />centr•ated on the south side of Foidel Creek, adjacent to and east of a <br />narrow oap through which the creek flows. An additional site, 5RT31, <br />lies approximately twenty-nine hundred meters northeast on the north side <br />of Foidel Creek. Sites 5RT30 and 5RT31 are the largest of the four sites <br />both in areal extent and artifact density. Both 5RT27 and 5RT29 lie in <br />cultivated areas and have suffered considerable disturbance. However, <br />5RT29 did produce two hearth areas that had been exposed by plowing. <br />Sites 5RT30 and 5RT31 have also been disturbed to some extent, but sub- <br />stantial portions of each lie outside the cultivated area and have re- <br />mained intact. <br />u <br />