[241] APPENDIX B.
FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY

previous | next

Between the fall of 1957 and the spring of 1963, fourteen Washington Archaeological Society expeditions visited 4SKT28. Each consisted of a crew of from three to five individuals who spent from two to eight days working in the field. The nucleus of the crew always consisted of Mr. and Mrs. C. G. Nelson and their son, the author, who directed the excavations. Additional crew members were students, some of whom had had experience on professional digs in the Northwest.

Field Techniques. Although field techniques were in large measure dictated by the exigencies of salvage archaeology, the emphasis in excavation was always on stratigraphic control. And, as the excavations progressed, more and more attention was paid to sampling and sample sizes, with the specific intention of filling out as much of the archaeological record as possible. However, time and an exceedingly low budget prevented us from completely accomplishing this with respect to the earlier components, the samples from which are quite small in comparison to what they could have been If more work had been done at the site. For example, 199 artifacts were recovered from approximately 200 square feet of surface area of Cultural Component III, whose total surface area lies some place between 10,000 and 100,000 square feet. Even using the most conservative calculations this component was capable of yielding a fantastically large sample; fantastic because Cultural Component III is one of the earliest documented components along the Upper Columbia.

Perhaps the most serious field problem encountered was the periodicity of the excavations. Field expeditions were regularly sent into the field each spring and fall; the rest of the year the dig lay fallow. As a result, spring flooding, freezing and thawing, and other natural agents created annual havoc with trench walls and datum points. Both stratigraphic and empirical datum points were reestablished each time the site was visited.

The main excavation was centered in the area of House Pit 15, additional work being carried on at House Pits 5, 7, 10,13, 28, and 29 (see Fig. 4). This work was greatly buttressed by a large collection of artifacts which Mr. and Mrs. Ted Weld had made from House Pit 12, and also by Mr. and Mrs. Walter Barke's excavation of a considerable portion of House Pit 1.

At House Pit 15 a grid of five-foot squares was laid out according to the center-line system, a rather cumbersome means of pit designation, but one which the author happened to be most familiar with in 1957. Each five-foot square was excavated in arbitrary unit levels of six inches except in areas where stratigraphic breaks could be used to delimit the unit level. Most of the actual digging was conducted by square-point shovels, and all cultural debris was sieved through quarter-inch, stainless-steel screens. Level bags were kept in which representative samples of bone detritus and waste flakes were deposited for later laboratory analysis. The artifacts were also bagged according to unit levels, except where they were associated with specific features. When features were run across they were excavated with trowel and whisk, and as in the case of profiles, were both photographed and diagramed.

Identical techniques were used in the excavations at House Pits 1 and 7. At House Pits 5, 10, 28, and 29, the units and techniques of excavation remained the same, but only artifacts, features, and profiles were recorded. House Pit 12 had been dug earlier in the 1950's by Mr. and Mrs. Ted Weld of Seattle, Washington, Although all the artifacts from this dig were kept together, no data about specific provenience were recorded. Fortunately, however, excavations in an undisturbed area at the lip of the house pit revealed the house type and gave us some idea about the nature of the house fill. This, coupled with a formal analysis of the artifacts, has enabled us to assign House Pit 12 an accurately defined position in the chronology at the site.

The earlier components were not discovered until the fall of 1960 at which time a series of test pits were sunk beneath the House Pit 15 excavations. In the spring of 1962 a similar section was found beneath the House Pit 13 area. These components were encased in a matrix of sterile sands and silts, and varied from 8 to 16 feet in their depth from the surface of the ground. These deposits were carefully stripped by natural stratigraphic levels. All culture-bearing deposits were screened and literally all recoverable debris saved for laboratory analysis.

Laboratory Techniques. Laboratory facilities were provided in the home of the author and included both the equipment for drafting and photographic work. Laboratory work was conducted largely by the author and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. C. G. Nelson. [241]

[242] Materials brought in from the field included artifacts, level bags, soil samples, profiles, C14 samples, photographs, notes, feature diagrams, and additional data from a detailed survey of Quilomene Bar. After cleaning and mending, the artifacts were labeled with both site and specimen numbers, and accompanying field data, material identification, and artifact measurements entered in two separate catalogues. The contents of every level bag were also analyzed and records kept of all materials in them. Artifacts recovered from the level bags were catalogued as described above and identifiable bone detritus set aside for future identification. Soil and C14 samples were prepared for long-term storage.

The survey data collected from Quilomene Bar and the immediately adjacent countryside included about 85 perishables recovered from storage shelters in the basalt cliffs near the site. These were catalogued and sent to Carolyn Osborne, who graciously prepared the detailed analysis which appears as Appendix C of this report.

The final drafting of all profiles and tables appearing the report was done by Mr. C. G. Nelson under the supervision of the author. Photography was also jointly handled by the author and his father, and for those who are interested, the special techniques involved in this process have already been published (C. G. Nelson 1963). [242]

TOP

LAST REVISED: 15 FEB 2015