Project Background, Third Installment

Test excavations in the Garden Creek Village, March 2011.

Before crew chief Ashley  and I move into our field house this afternoon, we’ve got a few minutes to catch our breath and report on the test excavations that were conducted at the Garden Creek village site last March.

After a week of magnetometer survey (see the second installment post for more information), my “number one test excavation team” from the University of Michigan (PhD candidate Cameron Gokee and PhD pre-candidates Jess Beck and Lars Anderson) and I selected three different magnetic anomalies to “ground truth.” In other words, Tim’s magnetometer readings indicated that these locations had subsurface deposits that differed from the natural background geology; to determine exactly what they were (e.g., a modern or archaeological feature; a hearth or a pit), we had to excavate them. All of these anomalies were on a county owned lot at the edge of the village site. Though this was not the area with the highest concentration of archaeological deposits, it was important that we demonstrate to local landowners that we could “leave no trace” before asking permission to dig in their yards.

Jess, telling a local resident about our findings in Test Unit 1.

Two of our three test units yielded apparently intact, Middle Woodland deposits. In Test Unit 1, we found several post holes, some Pigeon and Connestee potsherds, and notable amounts of chert debitage — tiny flakes produced when flint knapping  a stone tool.

Lars, looking for more postholes in Test Unit 1.

In Test Unit 2, we hit a very dense, sticky, deep clay deposit with almost no artifacts. It seems likely that, in this case, the magnetometer picked up a modern disturbance, possibly related to the construction of a nearby driveway.

Cameron screening at Test Unit 2.

Test Unit 3 was our most promising unit (which, of course, we did not open until our last day in the field). Its magnetic signature was a very discrete, sharp edged circle. When we excavated it, we found what appeared to be a round hearth consisting of river cobbles that were severely reddened and cracked by fire. Around these cobbles, we found more chert debitage and a few small pieces of Connestee cord marked pottery. Unfortunately, we had to leave before we identified the bottom or the edges of the hearth, but we plan to return to this feature as soon as excavations resume this week. We will not only complete the excavation of this hearth, but also expand the unit to include a virtually identical magnetic signature (another round, sharp edged anomaly) close by.

Probable hearth in Test Unit 3.

In addition to these test units, we shovel tested this terrace with a group of student volunteers from Warren Wilson College. By excavating small holes across this area, we gained a better sense of the distribution of archaeological artifacts there, as well as a comparative data set that will help us interpret the magnetometer survey results. We look forward to continuing to learn about these archaeological deposits, and others across the site, as the summer field season gets underway!

Advertisements

About Alice Wright

Alice is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Appalachian State University. She tweets about archaeology, Appalachia, and cats @alicepwright.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Project Background, Third Installment

  1. Bennie Keel says:

    Soory that I was right about ie being a natural phenomenon, whish it had been cultural!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s