Excavation Analysis

In this lab, you produce a mini-site-report for an excavated archaeological site. The following is information on the artifactual, faunal, and paleoenvironmental material recovered from a hypothetical site, as well as a listing of all of the radiocarbon dates for the site.
 
Table 1: Stratigraphic Analysis
Level pp1 pp2 pp3 pp4 scrp st6 st7 mano hoe st10 netwt pt1 pt2 total
1   35           18 67   3   33 156
2 2 20           19 62   5   42 160
3 6 19           16 48   7 9   105
4 14 6           14 36   9 12   91
5 23 2 1     7 3 4 19   3 11   73
6 20   1   3 12 5 1   3 7     52
7 14   3 8 9 16 1       5     56
8 4     13 19 10         8     54
9     1 21 30 3         2     57
10     1 13 16         2 2     34

Notes to Table 1:
Pp1, pp2, pp3, and pp4 are projectile points of various classifications. They may be associated with hunting or collecting various kinds of food.
Hoes are probably implements for digging up the soil.
Scrp are scrapers, i.e. multi-purpose tools.
St6, st7, and st10 are miscellaneous stone tools of different classes and unknown function.
A mano is a grinding stone, often associated with the grinding of wild or cultivated seeds to make flour.
Netwt is a net weight or net sinker, usually associated with fishing.
Pt1 and pt2 are pottery types 1 and 2.

 
Table 2: Faunal Remains
Level rodent sheep fish birds oxen gazelle deer shell total
1 89 88 3 3   5   8 196
2 86 71 6 2   9     174
3 57 69 8     9     143
4 23 49 7 3   11   4 97
5 3 33 2 2   11   6 57
6 2 19 1 2   7 6 6 43
7     5 2 1 9 13 3 33
8     8 3 3 9 26   49
9     7 11 4 12 31 19 84
10     1 5 3 5 14 6 34
Notes to Tables 1 and 2:
In comparing the artifact assemblages from various levels, it usually works better to deal with percentages of the total number of tools for that level, rather with the plain artifact counts. In analysis, tables are OK, but they do not tell you as much as, for example, "battleship curve" diagrams (like the one you did for Lab 1). Note that other ways of analysis and illustration are also possible.
 
Table 3: Palynological evidence (in percentages)
Level Trees Shrub Grass Total %
1 9 21 70 100
2 11 15 74 100
3 15 14 71 100
4 20 13 67 100
5 8 39 53 100
6 70 15 15 100
7 77 18 5 100
8 81 14 5 100
9 84 13 3 100
10 80 15 5 100
Notes to Table 3:
For interpreting the pollen record, you may wish to make a pollen diagram (see Lab 2: Palynology). Note that large percentages of tree pollen usually indicates that little human disturbance of the vegetation was taking place. Conversely, large amounts of grass pollen (where "grasses" include all sorts of weeds and non-woody plants) reflect vegetation disturbance, e.g. cutting down all the trees (possibly for cultivation) or forest fires. This is because grasses colonize disturbed areas quickly, followed by shrubs. Imagine the "colonization sequence" that would occur if an Austin lawn was not mowed for 20 years.
 
Table 4: Radiocarbon Dates
Level  
1  
2 1468 +/- 110 BP
3  
4  
5 3142 +/- 180 BP
6  
7 3890 +/- 180 BP
8  
9  
10 6608 +/- 300 BP
 

Questions

1. (the main question) In the evidence given for this site, there is significant evidence for changes in the economy of the people living there. How did the economy of the people change through time? Please interpret this evidence in as detailed a way as possible, including as many different supporting points to your argument as possible. Note that you don't really have to say why things changed, because you would probably need data from more than one site for that; rather, concentrate on describing the changes that occurred.

2. The environment surrounding the site, as reflected in the pollen preserved in the deposits, certainly seems to have changed through time. How can you account for this, given the changes in other archaeological characteristics of the site?

3. The tables below represent artifact frequencies from two other sites. By comparing this data with the main site data, determine the age of these sites. Please justify your answers, and give both an estimate of the relative age of the sites (relative to the corresponding level or levels in the main site), and an estimate of the absolute age of the sites.

 
Table 5: Site B
Level pp1 pp2 pp3 pp4 scrp st6 st7 mano hoe st10 netwt
1 4 15           18 48   4
2 11 7           18 31   11
3 25 1 2     4 1 3 18   2
 
Table 6: Site C
Level pp1 pp2 pp3 pp4 scrp st6 st7 mano hoe st10 netwt
1 4     12 20 6         11
2     1 17 22 2         7
3     1 6 14         1 3