I have a place that has yielded tons of artifacts... for other people. Its pretty much been picked out, and dosnt get any deep plowing anymore. I would like do some digging and sifting at the edges of some the sites, where it has never been plowed. Some of the camps are on the bank of an old creek (it was straightened and relocated in the 1950's). I want to do the square holes like I see in pics. I know this is probably time consuming but I have plenty of that lol. And also have a friends 5 kids that would love to help. Also would there be any legal issues in Iowa, as long as I have permission from owner and not digging in burial sites? Probably would try first on the edges with the most flakes. Any other ways to find the spots that would be most productive? Theres 2 main camps from what I can tell from flakes, both on old creek with corn/beans and about 10 ft of brush/timber till the drop off at the creek bank. Thanks for any advice.
Hmmmm when on a waterway make sure that it is not state controled and if it is make sure you are above their flood plain. If you meet this criteria you should be ok since you have landowners permission. I would sink a test hole and see how far down the material goes. Dig several and look for the most ancient trash debri. Dig past this and enlarge your hole so you can get in it and navigate. This will give you straight walls to work off of. Scrape the walls and bucket the material out to a small screened sifter. save your dirt to refill and pack and tamp back down your hole.
I have never had much luck digging randomly in a field with flakes. Record everything in your dig of importance and be as proffesional as possible.Please make sure you know the laws and if you hit a burial you are required by law to report the remains. Try to find their dumping/trash piles. This will yield the best results. Be sure to share your finds with the landowner and dig with respect.
Hope this helps ??
Your strategy of working the un-ploughed edge may well be a productive one.
If I were doing it though, after the crop was harvested, I'd hit the highest point on the site. It's funny, but when surface hunting (all I ever did), six inches of elevation turned out to be significant in the number of artifacts recovered, time after time.
all, It sounds as if you have some excellent advice from Uniface, Pik, and TnMount. Coincidentally, I recently had the same thing in mind with an old campsite located in the county just south of me. I used a 2' x 2' square of rabbit screen and stapled it to a square wood frame of some 2" x 6" lumber I had laying around . While I can't say that I've given it a thorough and sustained trial, I have used it on three different trips out, but with disappointing results. I learned quickly that there is an optimal soil moisture during which time the sifter performs much better than at other times. Also, I learned that it does take some investment of energy to shake even this small sifter box (actually, I ultimately ended up setting the sifter over a small square hole in the ground and worked the dirt through with a free hand). I like TnMountain's idea of working from inside to out making relatively small cuttings each time. I found myself constantly in fear of shoveling into an important piece. Ultimately, my efforts yielded next to nothing, but again, I really didn't invest the time or attention that such a project needs. Moreover, I have seen this done (I think on YouTube) with very good (apparent) success. As TnMount hinted at, this activity moves one from the realm of surface hunter to excavator, and with it would seem to come a great deal more responsibility. However, I don't see why a careful approach would be harmful, especially to an area that is already established and, like so many campsites near here, probably previously formally excavated. Personally, and if one adhered closely to the science of "stratigraphy", I believe projects such as this would help demonstrate that we, as amateur or "armchair" archaeologists can be responsible and apply some semblance of a scientific approach. Good luck, and keep your state archaeological society (and us) informed of any significant finds.
*************** WHAT YOU DO WITH THE FINDS YOU DIG UP IS YOUR BUSINESS AND NO ONE ELSES, IGNORE ANYONE ON A SOAPBOX TRYING TO PREACH OTHERWISE! **************
I know a gentleman in texas who hooked a gas motor up to a screen box to do the sifting, he designed it so it is a (shaker) It is tilted at a slight angle and is longer then it is wide. Just a thought.
Your strategy of working the un-ploughed edge may well be a productive one.
If I were doing it though, after the crop was harvested, I'd hit the highest point on the site. It's funny, but when surface hunting (all I ever did), six inches of elevation turned out to be significant in the number of artifacts recovered, time after time.
Passing this along from Gary Fogelman
I agree. I only ever searched plowed fields. 6 inches was ample (plowed) I dug deeper but never found a thing, not even a flake..
I have also found many of points on the edges of fields, tossed out by the plow.
Good luck.
Molly, Good point! Frequently I've found artifacts about the periphery of fields by simply bending down the weeds to view the ground. Indeed, the plow will frequently nudge the material to the edge where successive layers of soil are applied with each subsequent plowing. Even fields crisscrossed with footprints have yielded nice pieces around the periphery, and as I grow (presumably) wiser, I try to discipline myself to work the edges at least once, and if there is a steep slope towards a creek or river, always give it a once over even though it's not plowed. In the event that anyone is interested, the following photo is of a piece I found on July 5th of this year that was located about 25' over the edge of a plowed field that had washed down the slope of a creek bed and was "sitting up" against the base of a small tree that caught the point on its way to the creek about 6 feet from the water's edge.
I think it all depends upon the site and water source. We have sites on waterways that have fresh water shell. Some of these sites can be up tp ten feet deep. You can see it in layers from cutaway banks. Multi componet. I have seen pits you have to climb out of. Most though like they said are only a foot deep. I will shoot some pictures of the depth of some places. We used to look for the dark stains in a field to locate the fire pits always a goodplace to dig down. A spring might yield things three feet deep at its banks. It all just depends.Thats why a test hole is best.In shelters we may remove 3 feet to just hit flint. Like the Banks and edges also not as likely to be ruined by the plow.
Most fields are cleared of rocks and pushed into a pile or stacked on the edges.We always go through them for nutting stones and morters and pestles. Be surprised : )
We go to a ranch that allows diggers on it, each time we have been there Lee will start off sifting old throw piles, from other diggers, each time he has come up with more pieces that were overlooked by the original diggers because they didn't sift...to date I have have seen him pull about 25 Scallorns, complete, three perd heartbreakers and an Angostura from throw piles...Just keep working the campsites with your sifter, the pieces will come out for you...Larry
Thanks everyone for the tips! The highest point in the camp is the whole edge where it runs along the old creek, and that's where the thickest amounts of flakes have been. The bluff is high enough that its never been a flood plain, and it is no longer the creek since it was straightened and relocated in the 50's. I did think that the soil would be difficult to sift if not at optimal moisture. Anyone thought of doing a water slough like in gold mining? Moisture wouldnt mater then but just have to be carefull not to cause more erosion or silt to get into the creek. I have a pickup water tank I could use. Theres grassland nearby for silt filtration. Also would need to get fill dirt someplace else to refill the hole.
I've also found out that a side stream of the main creek leads from the farm directly to a big indian village about 10 miles away.
If you have a university in your area that has an archaeology department, call them up. They might be pretty cool like in Oklahoma and help you out. Don't dig no graves, it's a touchy subject. I had an argument with my Plains cousins about this. I would really like to see some research about how my ancestors lived. I get ripped constantly for not going to my Mom's grave in Oklahoma. I told my dad, "My mom's not there, it's only her remains, and I don't worship those. She's gone on, but I adore her memory." My people are not in any of those graves in the cemetaries. That's only their remains. My own grandpa said 'Don't put no flowers on my grave, cause I won't be there.' If everything worked right, anyway. Excellent find, Docmann. I was leaving Oklahoma that day and would have given anything to see you find that.
Ok rig a pump at the creek pump water and sift. You have it right it is fast and the best way. You wont be able to keep up by yourself. Let us know how this prject turns out.
to dig and sift........ become a archaeologist 8) to enjoy ur self........ walk around and fill ur pockets n packs:P jk, but no really, make friends with land or just go 4 a nature walk
I don't think any one has mentioned that if you dig in a cultivated field you will creat a soft spot. I know of a legendary paleo site on which the farmer would let anyone hunt.You didn't even have to ask. I guess greed took over and someone went out at night a was potholing this ridge. They thought they were slick in covering their holes. Well the next spring came and the farmer is cultivating his field, hit one of the holes and nearly turned over his tractor.
Well guess what the policy is now. He won't run you off. He'll call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by uniface
