Laserfiche WebLink
95 <br /> <br />contained comparable artifactual materials. This provided concrete <br />data as back-up information for the artifactual materials recovered <br />during the survey of the Williams Fork Mountains. <br />Since all of the sites recorded during the fieldwork phase were <br />~• <br />surface sites, there are inherent biases in the sample of material <br />available for collection. Nature tends to scatter and mix materials, <br />and relic hunters upset the original proportions of various tool types <br />by selectively removing the most complete, best looking, or most unique <br />items. Also, aboriginal reuse of earlier artifacts may cause certain <br />tools to be out of context. These forces may act singly or in combina- <br />tion to distort the picture seen in the recovered surface remains. <br />Thus, any reconstruction based on surface finds alone must be viewed <br />with these potential biases in mind. <br />Another source of bias comes from the individuals engaged in re- <br />cording and collecting the sites since individual perceptions vary. <br />Some overlooked items could very well affect the interpretations of <br />the site contents, and the overall manner in which the site relates to <br />its surroundings and other sites. This last consideration can be con- <br />trolled in part by ensuring a high degree of training and individual <br />competence. <br />Possibly the most important factor regarding the archaeology of <br /> <br /> <br />this study area is the paucity of data. Only 49 sites were recorded <br />in the surveyed area. Only 35 are prehistoric sites. Of these, only <br />a few sites, 5RT30 and 5RT31 in Tract 3, and 5RT22 and related sites <br />in Tract 7, cover any extensive area or have anything approaching a <br />rich deposit. Fo~~ the most part, the prehistoric sites in the area con- <br />sist of tfrin lithic scatters with fes tools. The lack of diagnostic <br />