PERMFILE134254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arthur C. Townsend • April 28, 1981 Page Four 3. Some confusion or misinterpretation is evident in this question. In at least three places (p. 54, lines 17-18; p. 55, lines 9-10; pp. 57-58, paragraph 3), I have stated explicitly that 5RT139 is dated at approximately 6000 BP and is, therefore, temporally affilia- ted with the Early Plains Archaic. Confusion may have arisen from the statements I made on pp. 53-54 in which I summarized the Interpreta- tions made by Hand (1980) about the possible McKean affiliation at the site. My analysis did not entertain any possibility of Middle Plains Arc ha lc affiliations. 4. I state on p. 51 that "The ~modern~ occurrence of various edible plants on, or in the vicinity of, site 5RT139 suggests the possibility that these resources mi ht have been ex lofted b the prehistoric occupants" emphasis this letter I go on to suggest that the occurrence of such activities is conjectural lacking direct evidence, i.e. grinding stones or micro/macrofloral remains. I agree strongly that an examination of the one liter pollen samples that I took could be beneficial towards validating the likelihood of such procurement activities. However, no monies were budgeted in the original contract for pollen analysis beyond that of sample collec- • lion. At such time as these monies are made available, Nickens and Associates would be pleased to submit these samples for analysis to a reputable firm or individual. 5. As they say, hindsight is 20-20. If I had known that such problems with the dating determinations were going to occur I would have obtained more samples. As it was, the contract between Nickens and Associates and Peabody Coal Co. specified that ten samples were to be taken and such were what I took. In addition, I do not believe that very many more samples could have been taken given the scarcity of identifiable charcoal in the features, an aspect of the site that I discuss on p. 50. The second-to-last paragraph in your letter regrets [hat Nickens and Associates did not communicate with WCRM before or after the field work was completed. This statement is not entirely correct. In fact, Dr. Nickens spoke by telephone with Mr. Tom Lennon during late August or early September, 1980, concerning 5RT139. A copy of 0. D. Hand's testing report was available to me when I wrote the final report on the mitigation excavations. I believed at the time that his discus- sion and descriptions of cultural manifestations observed or collected from the site were sufficient for me to write my report. Had I anticipated the controversy my report would engender, I certainly would have visited WLRM, talked to their people, and carefully . examined all recovered artifacts. Again, hindsight is 20-20. In summation, I believe that 5RT139 was excavated properly by Nickens and Associates under the contract specifications and a careful