Writing Assignment #2, Site Survey and Mapping: In our site we found artifacts clustered together in 5 different clusters. In the cluster of squares 7B,C we found the most artifacts of all the clusters with a total of 110 artifacts from the two squares. We found almost a hundred thin small shards of either rock or pottery. The pieces had unnaturally sharp edges that must have been man made, most likely by chipping off edges with another rock. These pieces could have been used either as scrappers, arrowheads, small axes or for the heads of small spears. The geometric shapes of the small rocks indicate the microburin technique may have been used to create these geometric microliths. Squares 9-10,A contained 12 small shards of rocks. They were mainly bifacial tools most likely made from pressure flaking judging by the sharpness. Most of the shards were made from rock, bone and pottery. There were also 2 pieces I was unsure what they were made of. They appeared to have possibly been made of mud, clay or maybe coal. The pieces of bone indicate possible hunting along with the many sharp artifacts that may have been used as weapons. We also found 1 isolated square that contained 2 artifacts, 1 oval and 1 spherical rock. The rocks are too smooth to not have been altered. They were both very worn down, possibly from being used as a food grinder or maybe a hammer due to the physical wear they had both received. It doesn’t seem to be from natural formation. Because these two stones were found so far from the other artifacts they may have been discarded or possibly moved by human activity. The cluster in the top right containing four squares, 12,DE had the 2nd most artifacts of all clusters with 38 total. We found mainly broken pottery, several large pieces along with many small fragments. We also found one individual shell. The shell could give indication that the group may have lived near a lake or ocean. Most of the pottery pieces were from simple functional pieces of pottery, we found handles of pots, vases and simple pots. This implies that the people may have not had a lot of free time to decorate their pots. However we did find one piece of pottery that seemed to hold little to no functional purpose. It appears to be in the shape of a pregnant woman. This may indicate that it held religious value, and maybe linked to fertility. Also the finding of more elaborate pottery often indicates that the people are wealthier. Because elaborate pottery requires an excess of time or that they were able to buy the elaborate pottery. Based on all the pottery found, this area could have been used as an area for storing food in the pots like the kitchen, or for collecting water. The artifacts were generally in good condition. Some were slightly worn, possibly from slight bioturbation. Because of all the broken pieces we can see that most likely there was cultural transformation. Most likely humans broke many of the complete pots. The next spot was squares 6-7,DE. They contained 26 artifacts. The artifacts here varied greatly from square 1-2,DE. These squares contained far more elaborate and intricate designs. There were many shiny rocks and pretty shells that looked like jewelry. Several of the rocks and shells also had purposeful holes indicating they could have been strung for earrings or necklaces. Several pots contained detailed paintings. Several pieces of bone appeared to be jewelry. There was a pile of crushed shells, this may be archaeologist error or the people may have used the crushed shells in some healing method. The elaborate jewelry may indicate the area was for the wealthy or religious rituals. The shells indicate the society may have lived near water. The bones indicate they may have been hunters. The dark shiny stones may be volcanic rock, either basalt or obsidian. There are no volcanoes in Wisconsin but it possibly came from trade. It doesn’t appear that there is much cultural transformation apparent, except for the crushed shell, which may have been stepped on or crushed. Phosphates: The highest levels of phosphate were found in the top center area in squares 2D, 3C and 3D. Also the middle right around squares, 6E and 7E. In the bottom middle to left squares especially 9A and 10A. Most often the higher phosphate level produced more artifacts. Except for parts in the top middle of the page where some of the highest phosphate levels produced little to no artifacts. However in the bottom left and middle right many of the higher phosphate levels produced more artifacts. Almost all of the lower phosphate levels produced almost no artifacts. So in most cases the level of phosphate was in accordance with the amount of artifacts the square produced. The five major clusters of artifacts found from surveying the site correlates extremely well with the higher concentrations of phosphate found in testing. However, there are other areas of high phosphate levels where no artifacts were found from surveying alone. This could be for one of a few reasons. One, possibly while there is nothing in those squares surveyed, underneath there could still contain plenty of organic artifacts (and vice-versa, there might be nothing to excavate under the areas with surveyed artifacts). Also, it is possible that the only reason high phosphate levels were found is because of animal activity, artificial fertilizers, or more modern biological growth that didn’t impact the ancient humans occupying the area. Lastly, surveyed artifacts may have once existed where there were high phosphate levels, but no longer do because of either weather, modern human activity, or animals moving them from their original position. Many of the areas with high phosphate are located near artifacts, which makes sense because phosphate is found in bones, urine, fecal matter and other traces from living beings. All of which are indicators of human activity which would lead to more human artifacts. Thus the reason for higher phosphate levels near more artifacts. Other areas have low phosphate levels most likely because either there is little organic material there, even if ancient humans actually did occupy that land. Excavation: 1) We chose the Purposive sample. The reason being that the purposive sample makes the most sense because it is the only of the three options that allows us to fully rely on the data we have collected rather than arbitrarily selecting random squares. By selecting squares that we know have artifacts on the surface and squares with higher phosphate levels because if there are more artifacts on the surface then most likely there will be more artifacts underneath that are rather than a square with no visible artifacts. We also chose the squares with the higher phosphate level because as described previously, phosphate scientifically accounts for human activity, most likely indicating more artifacts. So we chose all 11 squares with visible artifacts. Then we chose square 3B, it doesn’t have the highest phosphate level but it has a high phosphate level and is father away from our clusters allowing for us to cover more of the field. 2). After excavating we found 7 post holes a decorative pot, 2 middens, a metate, a core, hammerstone and flakes. Judging by the distances between the postholes I believe we found two average size homes and one larger home. At the larger home we also found a decorative pot so it may have been the residence of someone of wealth or of royalty. At each of the other two homes we found 2 postholes and a midden each. The middens were right outside the posts so they may be dumpsites for the homes. The homes could also have been communal kitchens or dining areas and the middens the trash. Middens are often found at workshops or quarries but I don’t believe this would be the case here because of the last of other resources and because of the postholes present indicating a home possibly. We also discovered a core a hammerstone and excess flakes so this area could be used for making tools. The hammerstone is used to chip off flakes from the core. The excessive amounts of flakes could indicate that there were tools and weapons not just being made for a person or a family but possibly a community, thus indication of community cooperation. Also the close proximity of the postholes and homes indicates that most likely there was a community here of sorts. There is also a metate we found close to one of the homes. The metate could have been used to grind food and the house could have been a communal kitchen area as I mentioned before. The larger house may have been a communal living area because of the size but because of the decorative pot indicating wealth I believe it was a personal home of the wealthy. The other two homes may have been communal dining or kitchen areas but may also have been personal homes. 3). I believe our sampling method was fairly successful. Although we didn’t chose all of the best squares we certainly found more than the average square produced so we faired far better than if we had done a completely blind selection. Although we missed several important artifacts I would have gone with the same Purposive Sample approach if we were to do this again. However next time I may rely more on the phosphate levels than the visible artifacts alone because I believe the phosphate levels lined up with the underground artifacts slightly better than the visible artifacts. Dating the Site: I think that I would try to use Carbon dating in order to date my artifacts. Radiocarbon dating is the most exact way to date organic artifacts. During our excavation we were able to uncover many organic materials. Carbon dating works based on carbon decay within organic materials; so if you have an organic material it is often the best method. After an organic material dies its ratio of c-14 to c-12 decreasing at an even rate as the carbon-14 in the material decays with a given half-life of about 5730 years. Archaeologists use an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer for carbon dating as of recent to calculate the amount of c-14 remaining. The AMS separates and counts carbon atoms one at a time by measuring the items weight. One problem with Carbon dating is that it is able to give an estimated range that the object is most likely from but it cannot give an exact date. Ranges are often within 100 years but that is also based off a percentage change that it is within that range, ie. There is a 70% chance the artifact is from 440-340 BC. Thankfully for our site we recovered many organic materials but a drawback of carbon dating that it cannot date non-organic materials because they don’t contain carbon like the flakes, metate, pots and hammerstone we recovered. Also Carbon dating wood can be very inaccurate and often can be off by hundreds of years. Carbon dating would accurately give me dates from carbonized artifacts of The Douglas fir found in the 5 postholes, and the obsidian, bones and shells collected from the middens as well as the bones and shells found on the surface. The postholes are from 3 different areas on the site so we may be able to determine if these houses were being used at the same time as in a community or if they were from separate times of people living on their own. We may be able to have a better understanding of how technology has advanced if we can date some of the artifacts and compare that to other sites. We may also be able to determine if the people living here were linked to any known societies or tribes if we know when they inhabited the area.