Laserfiche WebLink
37 <br />. artifacts. Then, the question is whether the indicated site type could be expected to be associated, <br />but less directly, with [he procurement and initial processing of pinon or acorn nuts. Camps or <br />residential sites are examples. These may have served as bases from which task groups dispersed <br />into the resource patch, and can also be assumed to be collecting points where harvests were <br />consolidated for further processing, storage, transport, or trade. On the other hand, sites that consist <br />only of chipped stone debitage, and thus can be assumed to be knapping stations without other <br />associated activity, do not have a knowable association with the district's theme, especially in this <br />area where tool stone sources are fairly common and procurement and initial reduction ofknappable <br />stone is a prominent activity. This does not imply that these sites are not the product of the same <br />groups that are also collecting pinon or acorn nuts. It simply means the isolated activity of ]ithic <br />reduction is too faz removed from theme of the district to have ajustifiable association within the <br />context of the district. <br />The second of the two initial questions is one of a more pragmatic nature. It simply <br />recognizes that below some quantity or density ofcultural materials, activity interpretation relies on <br />too few artifacts to expect reliable assumptions and conclusions, and the data return is not worth the <br />data collection effort. Thus, sites with few artifacts are not considered contributing elements ofthe <br />district, not because of the activities they represent, but because of their marginal recoverable data <br />potential. <br />• <br /> <br />