Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The nwst important archaeological sites have the potential to answer <br />speciftc research questions. Most of the research problems herein pre- <br />sented can be addressed through the identification and analysis of site <br />chronology, subsistence practices, technology, and pa leoenvi ronment. <br />Consequently particularly ingin rtant sites to the rcg inn have the poten- <br />tial to y1e d the following types of data. <br />4.6.1 chronological data. <br />4.6.1.1 Sites with hearths or lenses of charcoal. <br />4.6.1.2 Sites with obsidian <br />4.6.1.3 Sites with ceramics for cross-dating and thermo- <br />luminescence analysis. <br />4.6.1.4 Sites with beams of sufficient size for tree-ring <br />analysis. <br />4.6.1.5 Sites with temporally diagnostic lithic artifacts. <br />4.6.2 Subsistence data. <br />4.6.2.1 Sites with hearths or lenses of charcoal that may <br />contain carbonized macrofloral specimens. <br />4,6.2.2 Rocks helte rs, where perishable floral and faunal <br />materials and coprolites may be preserved. <br />4,6.2.3 Sites with animal bone. <br />4,6,2.4 Sites with tool kits indicative of spectfic subsis- <br />tence practices. <br />4.6.3 Data concerning diachronic change. <br />4.6.3.1 Stratified sites. <br />4.6.3.2 Horizontally distributed, distinct, datable compo- <br />nents. <br />4.6.4 Paleoenvironmental data. <br />4.6.4.1 Rockshelter sites with long-term accumulation of <br />sea inu'n ts, molluscs, pollen, coprolites and macro- <br />floral and faunal specimens. <br />4.6.4.2 Open sites with datable stratigraphy and soils <br />yielding pollen, <br />4,6.5 Burial data. <br />4.6.5.1 Sites with human skeletal materials. <br />Some sites are important too because of their rarity. Since archae- <br />ological sites are fragile and nonrenewable resources, site types present <br />in very low numbers are generally considered more important than site <br />types well represented in the record. Insight into the frequency of cer- <br />tain site type s~is provided in Table 4, presenting estinia tions of frequency <br />of occurrences. The total results from an inspection of the site files at <br />the BLM Montrose District Office, the Grand Junction Resource Area Office, <br />the Glenwood Springs Resource Area Office, and the USDA Forest Service <br />Supervisor's Office for the Uncompahgre, Gunnison and Grand Mesa Natfon- <br />al Forests. Totals should be considered as estimations, due to possible <br />problems in site file systems, possible errors by this writer, and the <br />fact that sites are constantly being recorded. Further, some site types, <br />such as rock art and sites with ceramics, may be counted more than once <br />tf they occur on other site types. These biases, however, are probably <br />not of sufficient magnitude to significantly affect the ratios obtained. <br />-10- <br />