Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br />• Flake concentrations and all identifiable artifacts were located rela- <br />tive to the datum, and collected whether on a transect leg or not. In <br />regard to artifact collection, this procedure differs little from stand- <br />and collection techniques. The flake collection, however, represents <br />a sample of the site's total flake population. Once this procedure be- <br />came familiar to the crew members, less time was necessary for site re- <br />cording. <br />A random sampling of sites was also subjected to traditional col- <br />lection methods, keeping the transect flakes separate from general sur- <br />face flakes. Upon completion of analysis, little difference was noted <br />other than the absolute number of flakes collected. <br />As specimens from each site were collected, they were assigned indi- <br />vidual field specimen numbers and recorded serially in a log for each <br />(~ site. IF's were handled in a somewhat different manner than site col- <br />lections. They were logged serially, with a temporary identification <br />number consisting of the tract number, crew leader's initials, and the <br />item number. These numbers were subsequently changed to permanent IF <br />numbers which parallel the Smithsonian trinomial system used for site <br />designations. For example, an IF designated IF3MF would be the third <br />IF located in ~4offat County by a CSU team. There is no statewide system <br />for cataloging IF's. <br /> <br />