PREFACE

few artifacts are recovered and the site structure data provided by the artifact distribution is destroyed.Second, the stripping of large areas removes the vegetation, damages wildlife habitat and destabilizes thesediments, which accelerates soil erosion.The sobering truth is that there is no low-cost method of systematically sampling a large area that hasboth a high probability of discovering any buried features, cultural deposits, and artifact concentrations,and that allows recovery of the full range of data needed to address the basic questions posed in theresearch design. The most appropriate approach available for reducing cost is therefore to reduce the sizeof the area that needs to be tested. This is probably best achieved using the methods employed on mostexcavation projects in southeastern New Mexico. Focusing the testing effort on areas with visiblefeatures or artifact concentrations is one part of this process. The second is the use of backhoe trenchesand shovel test pits and small excavation units to determine the depth and extent of the cultural horizon inwhich the surface materials were originally deposited.At this point, most data recovery projects employ either backhoe trenches or mechanical stripping toprobe for buried features. Excavations by hand are generally limited to small block excavation andscattered test units, most of which are employed in the investigation and sampling of features. Thisapproach is relatively effective in recovering datable materials and archeobotanical remains, but itprovides little site structure data and may not yield a representative sample of artifacts or faunal material.A more effective approach once the depth and extent of the cultural horizon is known is to use mechanicalequipment to strip away the overburden from a large area to a level about 10 cm above the culturalhorizon. With the sterile overburden removed, the excavation strategy is the same as that employed atsurface sites – manual excavation of a broad area. Based on the size of ethnographic documented huntergatherercamps the scale of the excavation are likely to be on the order of a 30 by 30 m area centered onthe feature cluster, and could be larger at repeatedly occupied locations. The mechanical stripping andsubsequent manual excavations could be staged, however, working outward from the features if thecultural deposits appear to have a more limited extent. Minimally, a 3 x 3 m area around small featuresand a 10 x 10 m area around larger features and structures needs be excavated. These units should beexpanded to encompass the full extent of the artifact scatter and associated features within the occupationarea. In defining the extent of the artifact scatter, however, the investigator must keep in mind that theliving space in camps occupied for extended periods is often nearly devoid of artifacts since refuse isperiodically cleared from these areas and dumped at the perimeter of the camp. The perimeter of thecamp may therefore be marked by a relatively high artifact density that drops off sharply both toward andaway from the camp.FIELD METHODSThe following pages present excavation strategies for prehistoric open sites in southeastern New Mexico.Open sites are the most prevalent sites in the region and range from short-term single component useareas to palimpsests of repeated occupations spanning several hundred years. The sites include resourceprocurement loci, hunting overlooks, campsites, seasonal residences, and longer-term residences, andcross-cut all temporal periods. The excavation methods presented here are compiled primarily from datarecovery projects conducted in the region within the past five years (e.g. Akins 2003; Condon 2002;Phippen et al. 2000; Simpson 2004b; Speth 2004; Wase et al. 2003; Wiseman 2004, 2002, 2000; Zamora2000; Zamora and Oakes 2000). Wiseman's (2003) preliminary statement on excavation strategiesprepared for the "Big Picture Committee" also served as a guide. The format used here follows thatdeveloped in “Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Field Methods: Fruitland Coal Gas ResearchDesign Cultural Advisory Group (FRACAG N.D. 2-6).6-10