2010-06-16_PERMIT FILE - C1981038A ‎(3)‎

• Permit No: C1981038A
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/16/2010
• Section_Exhibit Name: Archaeology Appendix Part 1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: Yes

SILTIQN N
TEST ~{CAVATION ME71i0DOLOGY
The evaluation program began with air extrenely intensive pedestrian
survey of the ridge top and sides for about 50 meters north and south of
ttre site. This was desryr~d to locate additional artifact
concentrations and potential features. This was in addition to the
origiral survey coverage. This portion of the evaluation indicated that
artifacts on the site surface wire confined to the original focus on the
game trail (Figure 8) and that potential features ware also cronfined to
this general area. In conjunction with this effort another less
intensive but very thorough survey was made of the whole ridge top in an
effort to try and locate additional features and artifacts. This effort
failed to firul anythitrg other than marry natural hurrmxks with boulders
which could have served as excellent game blinds. The test excavations
wexe based on a 1 x 1 meter format. Individual excavation unit sizes
were, however, designed to fit tl'u: presumed arc:hitectur'al feature being
tested. The map in Figure 8 subsequently shows sore variety annng sizes
and shapes of individual excavation units. The nund~er, size and
'. place~ient of the excavation units was rather subjective on the part of
the field director. The presence of possible architectural features and
areas where artifacts and/or intact topsoil were found were the only
other determining factors involved in locating test pits. The amount of
excavation was an arbitrary decision on the part of the archaeologist.
When he felt he had enough information to evaluate the resource,
.~ excavations were discontinued. This is as opposed to the relatively
ccrmon but more formsl procedure of excavating a percentage of a site
such as three or five percent as dare at the rrearby Roatcap Game Trail
Site (SU1'271) by this auttwr (Baker 1986a, 1987). The procedure used at
the Ridge Site is best termed "controlled shovel testing".
Shovel testing has been used in American archaeology for many years
aril in its loosest sense has irplied little nnre than informal test
holes placed in a site in order to see if there are any obvious
subsurface cultural deposits or indications for such. As opposed to
controlled test excavations, shovel testing is normally enployed where
• there is either little chance that a cultural nrlnifestation is actually
a "site", or when it is believed there is little charux that subsurface
remains exist. In mar~gement teams, sites slated for shovel tasting are
k, generally anticipated to be "insignificant" based on surface evidence.
When an archaeologist }ras a good suspicion that a cultural manifestation
probably contains meaningful remains, it is starrdard procedure to
ccmm~ce with controlled test excavations involvirrg formalized grid
' coordinates, vertical site datum, and often a statistical sanpling
prcx:•edure. In tern>5 of the U.S. Forest Service guidelines, shovel test
excavations are considered a fornr of "limited testing" of sites, as
opposed to the rrore rigorous nx thod of "controlled testing" (Hann~r
1980).
At thu 3tidge Site, a ccsrpromise was achieved between the two
mctt~ods. This involved the "controlled shovel test". In ttus case,
excavation units were not establised on a fornial grid, but were fornully
mapped. Additionally, tight vertical controls were ~-stablishcd for each