PERMFILE51904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

z Personnel: Michael D. Metcalf, Richard D. Enders, and Christian J. Zier, field investigators. Field t-te thodology: The basic survey coverage consisted of parallel survey transects walked at approximate 30 meter intervals. Within a survey transect individuals walked sinuous paths to effectively cover the ground. Special closer attention was paid to areas along washes, ridge tops, and exposed cut banks. Isolated finds were plotted and recorded on the initial visit, but for the most part were not collected. Sites ~oere plotted with the aid of Brunton triangulation, recorded, but only projectile points were collected on the initial visit. Results: Survey of the approximate 680 acres resulted in the recording of two prehistoric sites, seven prehistoric isolated occurrences, a bison or co•.a skull with no cultural context, an old car frame, probably more thar. 50 years old, a recent historic can and bottle dump, and a scattered area of coal and old beards labeled as the Conrad Coal Mine on the USGS sheet. Description of these sites and items follows, and appropriate survey forms are appended. SJA415: NE/SE/SE/NE, Section 27. Evidence for this site consists entirely of a single small chert flake and a small, triangular projectile point tip found about 30 meters apart on opposite sides of the cut bank of Williams Draw (Fig. 1). Both items appear to have eroded from a zone 10 to 30 cm below present ground surface, • but no actual cultural layer is visible. A modern seep has created a distinct pool in the approximate center of the suspected site area. Deposition around this section of the draw consists of mixed alluvial and colluvial fill composed of a sandy clay with small tc medium sized river pebbles and cobbles as occasional inclusions, particularly up slope of the actual floodplain. Fill is deeper than the l+m depth exposed in cut banks. Because summer rains have washed the walls of the cut banks along the draw, visibility of the faces is somewhat restricted. Several old soil surfaces are evident, but no cultural features such as hearths or pits are visible. Coupled with the lack of surface evidence for a site, this paucity of artifacts and features would argue against a significant buried site. However, the possibility of extensive buried deposits is present, and this possibility can only be checked through test excavations. Evalua *_ion: This site does not appear to have *lational Register potential from its visible evidence. However, the sites location near natural surface water and the presence of relatively deep fill necessitates the gathering of more data through test excavations before a fair evaluation can be made. C~