Laserfiche WebLink
36 <br />• comdors will not be selected unless proposed data recovery can be accomplished without delay to <br />these aspects of mine development. MAC has not and does not recommend rescinding the original <br />recommendations ofcultural resource clearance for these particular sites (McKibbin 1997x:7). <br />Sites will be selected to represent across-section of the larger group of sites in terms of size, <br />artifact density, and artifact diversity. Preference may be given to sites where chronological control <br />based on diagnostic artifacts is available. Strong preference will be given to any sites that can <br />provide chronological control through some form of absolute dating. <br />Contributin¢ and Non-contributing Resources Within the Rural Historic Landscape <br />Sites within the boundaries of the LCRHL are evaluated for National Register significance <br />as individual sites within a National Register district. Sites that reflect the activities that form the <br />basis of the identification and definition of the landscape are evaluated as contributing or non- <br />contributing resources to the district. Sites within the boundaries of the district that reflect other <br />activities or other time periods, not within the context of the district, are evaluated individually, as <br />are sites outside the district's boundaries. <br />Sites are considered contributing to the district when there is sufficient information potential <br />to allow the site, through the recovery of that information, to contribute significantly to <br />understanding the prehistoric activities and patterns that resulted in and are manifested by the <br />• district's cultural resources. The presence of intact subsurface cultural levels or occupation surfaces <br />is not necessarily a requisite for a site to be considered contributing. The geomorphological and <br />sedimentological context of the great majority of the district's known sites precludes the presence <br />of such cultural materials. The district's context identifies surface scatters of artifacts as possible <br />significant information sources. Similarly, the ability to date the site is not considered critical to its <br />significance, though obviously any site or portion of site that can be dated enhances the significance <br />of that resource. <br />A set of criteria are necessary in order to assess whether or not resources within the district <br />boundaries should be considered contributing or non-contributing elements. These are not to be <br />confused with the National Register Criteria for Eligibility (36 CFR §60.4). Most importantly, the <br />site must reflect the cultural association of the district and reflect activities related to or expected to <br />be related to the district's theme. Historic, non-Native sites are thus excluded, as are sites such as <br />SLA6981, a prehistoric tool stone quarry (McKibbin et al. 1997:28-29). This first filter excludes <br />only a few historic or special function prehistoric sites and leaves nearly al l other prehistoric cultural <br />material scatters in consideration. <br />Prehistoric cultural material scatters are assessed based on site type and artifact content. Two <br />questions become the basis for further consideration: I) Do the materials on site indicate or suggest <br />the site occupation(s) is the product ofactivities related to the procurement and initial processing of <br />piiion or acorn nuts?; and 2) is there enough recoverable artifactual information to allow site function <br />• and activities to be understood with some confidence? The first question is clearly answered in the <br />affirmative if there is ground stone present at the site, and especially if that ground stone is <br />disproportionately abundant. Less clear will be those sites that contain little or no ground stone <br />