Niku VI (2010): Difference between revisions
m (Corrected link.) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* Mark Smith | * Mark Smith | ||
* Curtis Webster | * Curtis Webster | ||
==Research Design== | |||
The 2001 and 2007 field seasons at the Seven Site had shown us several things about the site, notably: | |||
1. The site comprises a surge ridge made up of coral rubble; | |||
2. Virtually everything of a cultural nature (fire features, mollusk and bone features, artifacts) was found in the top 10 cm. of the rubble, but under a thin "pavement" of relatively large (finger-size and up) coral fragments, making things extremely difficult to see even once the vegetation was cleared; | |||
3. Artifacts were widely distributed across the site, without obvious pattern; | |||
4. There have been several sequential uses of the site, reflected in a range of artifact and feature types probably associated with the PISS colonists, the Coast Guardsmen, and quite likely the castaway whose bones were recovered in 1940; | |||
5. The artifact and feature assemblages associated with these different site-user groups were not easily separated stratigraphically; they '''all''' occurred in the top 10 cm., though micro-stratigraphic differences could sometimes be noted; and | |||
6. While metal detecting was effective in finding concentrations of metalic items, it obviously revealed nothing about the distribution of glass, plastic, and other non-metallic materials. | |||
These observations led us to decide on a strategy of large-area exposure -- stripping the top 10 cm. off a large portion of the site and recording/collecting everything found. Like all archaeology, this strategy involved destroying much of what we were trying to study, but we hoped it would reveal the overall organization of the site and enable us to find and interpret both metallic and non-metallic material. | |||
One important caveat needs to be noted at the outset. When we speak of exposing a "large portion of the site," this implies that we know how extensive the "site" actually is, and we actually do not. The areas in which we worked in 2001 and 2007, both embraced within the larger area we worked in 2010, contain distributions of artifacts and features that do not '''seem''' to extend beyond the boundaries of the area we have each time temporarily cleared of [[Scaevola]]; transects cut into the bush beyond these boundaries and inspected visually and with metal detectors have not revealed additional features or obvious artifact clusters. However, we cannot say for certain that we have established the full extent of the site. | |||
[[Category:Expeditions|Niku 2010]] | [[Category:Expeditions|Niku 2010]] | ||
[[Category:Archaeology of Nikumaroro]] | [[Category:Archaeology of Nikumaroro]] | ||
Revision as of 23:03, 30 April 2011
Team Members
- Graham Berwind
- Bill Carter
- Art Carty
- Janis Carty
- John Clauss
- Ric Gillespie
- Walt Holm
- Taylor Keen
- Karl Kern
- Tom King
- Dan Lann
- Megan Lickliter-Mundon
- Andrew McKenna
- Jon Overholt
- Gary Quigg
- Tom Roberts
- Jesse Rodocker
- Leonid Sagalovsky
- Lonnie Schorer
- Mark Smith
- Curtis Webster
Research Design
The 2001 and 2007 field seasons at the Seven Site had shown us several things about the site, notably:
1. The site comprises a surge ridge made up of coral rubble; 2. Virtually everything of a cultural nature (fire features, mollusk and bone features, artifacts) was found in the top 10 cm. of the rubble, but under a thin "pavement" of relatively large (finger-size and up) coral fragments, making things extremely difficult to see even once the vegetation was cleared; 3. Artifacts were widely distributed across the site, without obvious pattern; 4. There have been several sequential uses of the site, reflected in a range of artifact and feature types probably associated with the PISS colonists, the Coast Guardsmen, and quite likely the castaway whose bones were recovered in 1940; 5. The artifact and feature assemblages associated with these different site-user groups were not easily separated stratigraphically; they all occurred in the top 10 cm., though micro-stratigraphic differences could sometimes be noted; and 6. While metal detecting was effective in finding concentrations of metalic items, it obviously revealed nothing about the distribution of glass, plastic, and other non-metallic materials.
These observations led us to decide on a strategy of large-area exposure -- stripping the top 10 cm. off a large portion of the site and recording/collecting everything found. Like all archaeology, this strategy involved destroying much of what we were trying to study, but we hoped it would reveal the overall organization of the site and enable us to find and interpret both metallic and non-metallic material.
One important caveat needs to be noted at the outset. When we speak of exposing a "large portion of the site," this implies that we know how extensive the "site" actually is, and we actually do not. The areas in which we worked in 2001 and 2007, both embraced within the larger area we worked in 2010, contain distributions of artifacts and features that do not seem to extend beyond the boundaries of the area we have each time temporarily cleared of Scaevola; transects cut into the bush beyond these boundaries and inspected visually and with metal detectors have not revealed additional features or obvious artifact clusters. However, we cannot say for certain that we have established the full extent of the site.