Laserfiche WebLink
nrvuiscript is curres~tly wrier review for publication by the University <br />• of Utah Press and has nut yet been very widely distributed. The system <br />is discussed in P,uker (1980) and has been used very effectively on <br />various projects since 1980. Ttie syst~n uses a set of quantifiable <br />variables to place a site iii one of three major categories, rhrltiple <br />Activity sites ar~d Special Activity sites. The former includes <br />habitation sites and short term canes. The latter chipping sites and <br />tool kit sites. It also distinguishes two forms ut raw material <br />procvremwit sites. For the Dbunt Dmons Project, Kvanme also defined <br />hunting blind sites and tool sharyenu7g sites. The crost iny~ortarit <br />variables for typing Special Activity sites are: 1) a tool diversity <br />index as a measure of assemblage tool diversity; 2) the projected number <br />of flakes; ana 3) the site area. <br />When applied to the Ridge Site, the system classifies it as a tool <br />kit site since it has a very low tool diversity index, a very low number' <br />of flakes, and a very shall site area for the main artifact producing <br />area. With its low index, the resource is clearly a tool kit site. <br />Such sites "represent sites where a number of tools occur in association <br />with a fe.~ flakes in a relatively concentrated area". <br />These sites probably represent specialized tool-related <br />activity areas. For example, a site with a few bifacial <br />knives, a scraper and some utilized flakes from cutting and <br />scraping activities may represent an area whore an in~mal was <br />butchered. <br />(Kvan[[e and Black 1986:37) <br />At the Ridge Site, there are two different site types combined. <br />Ttrese are the tool kit site just discussed and the game blind/drive <br />line. Kvarme (1986:42) also defined the latter type of site. <br />Hunting Blind Sites including two sites encountered in the <br />survey whidi consist of small circular or semi-circular <br />enclosures ur boulders. One of those had two flakes in <br />association. Benedict (1978:5-14) has described similar <br />• structures which he interprets as being hunting-related, in <br />the Arapahoe Peaks area of nort3rcentral Colorado. '17~ese <br />~ sites are, therefore, tentatively classified as being hunting <br />~;~ blinds. <br />(Kvamme and Black 1986:42) <br />r~ Both hwlting blinds show low sc,~ores on the index variaLles of twl <br />diversity, projected number of flakes, and site area. 'Ibol kit sites <br />have sinular lv.! scrores except for the tool diversity index which Kvamne <br />rates as intermediate (Kvamre 1986:45). Kvamn~ closes his discussion of <br />tool kit acid chipping sites, on special activity cites, as possibly male <br />related in the haunt Flmr~ns project area. As nu~tioned, iii the communal <br />` hwiting situation suspected at 5[11'771 it would nut kx- surprising to find <br />that men, won~~n and children could have participated and that they were <br />• Ute. <br />iS <br />