PREFACE

Table 4.3. General question posed under the Environment Problem Domain.How are key plant resources distributed in the region?What is their relative abundance and seasonal availability?How are key faunal resources distributed in the region?How are arable soils distributed in the region?What variability is there in the climatic conditions affecting crop growth?How are perennial and seasonal sources of water distributed in the region?What sources of lithic raw materials are there in the region?How have climatic conditions varied over time?How did changing climatic conditions affect the distribution and abundance of key wild resources andagricultural productivity?An additional consideration raised by the BLM in their review comments on the draft research design waswhether particular site types were more likely than others to yield basic chronological, subsistence, andsettlement data. The review of excavated sites in Chapter 3 was intended in part to address that question.The sample is too small to provide any definitive answer to this question, but the analysis suggests thatsite condition rather than site type is the better indicator of data potential. With improved excavationmethods (Chapter 6), all of the site types have the potential of yielding settlement data, and analysis of thesettlement patterns will ultimately require investigation of a representative sample of all site types.Except for artifact scatters, all of the site types are also likely to yield charred organic material forradiocarbon dating, which is encouraging given the large proportion of sites in the region with unknowncultural/temporal affiliations. Not surprisingly, faunal and macrobotanical remains were recovered fromthe residences with substantial architecture and the one rockshelter site in the sample. The two bedrockmortar sites (one rockshelter and one open site) also yielded significant faunal and macrobotanicalassemblages, which leads me to suspect that these features are not indicative of specialized processingfacilities but of favored residential camp locations in areas with suitable rock outcroppings.Faunal remains were recovered from fewer than half of the sites (47%), and condition again seemed moreimportant than site type. Recovery was lowest for quarry/lithic procurement areas and ring middens,which is consistent with the specialized functions proposed for those component categories. Most of thering midden and miscellaneous feature components (all with visible ash/charcoal stains or middendeposits) also yielded subsistence remains, as did about 40% of the domestic features. With improvedsampling and analysis methods (Chapter 6), those proportions can probably be improved. Artifactscatters and quarry components did not yield macrobotanical remains.Based on the information now available, I recommend that the sites selected for excavation in any RSUultimately include a representative sample of all site types present from each temporal period. Withineach temporal/site type category (i.e., each cell of the sampling matrix) the sites selected should be thosethat are best-preserved as indicated by their geomorphological context [note that the geoarchaeologicunits are not a reliable indicator of site condition at the scale mapped in Chapter 2], the presence of buriedfeatures, and the presence of charcoal/ash stains or midden deposits. During the initial phases ofexcavation, the sample should also be weighted in favor of sites with visible features, since they appear tohave a greater potential of yielding absolute dates and archeobotanical remains.4-62