INTERNSHIP REPORT FOR THE GAULT SCHOOL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH. Andrew Montemayor.

Transcription

1 INTERNSHIP REPORT FOR THE GAULT SCHOOL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH Andrew Montemayor

2 Introduction My decision to pursue an internship at The Gault School of Archaeological Research (GSAR) was based primarily on my interests to learn about the processing and curation of artifacts, and secondly, to enhance my limited knowledge of point diagnostics as pertaining to the various periods of time during the occupation at Gault. The current school of archaeological thought is that Clovis was the first culture to be discovered in the Americas, but recent recovered evidence suggests that an older or pre Clovis culture pre-existed Clovis by hundreds or perhaps even thousands of years (Collins 2007). Interning at Gault proved to be more than just the cleaning and processing of artifacts; it enhanced and extended my knowledge about the history of peopling of the Americas. In the following report I will detail the artifact curation process from bag processing to artifact classification and curation. Although there were other tasks that I performed, I will focus on the processes that are of significant archaeological importance conducive to the discipline. To fully understand the scope and importance of the Gault Site, it is imperative to understand the history of Gault. According to the The Gault School web site ( the site is located on very marginal farmland, between Austin and Salado; it was originally owned by Henry and Jodie Gault. Gault has an archaeological existence of approximately 78 years. It began around 1929 when anthropologists J.E. Pearce, along with other excavators, began digging in and around the site for a brief 8 week period. Pearce was initially interested in burnt rock middens which were located on top of the uppermost soil horizon. While digging around, they came across various Paleo-Indian artifacts, specifically Clovis type, which indicated that a very old culture had existed there at one time. The site exchanged hands several times throughout its history and at one point it was advertised as a pay to dig site. For a mere 10 dollars (later that was raised to 25 dollars) you could dig at the site

3 and keep what you found. Although this generated much interest, it also attracted many treasure hunters to the site. Many of the artifacts that were recovered during this time period were sold to antiquarians or wound up in personal museums. Many of the excavators were oblivious to what they were looking at and most lacked the proper training in proper methods of excavation. For a span of 80 years, looters have decimated the burned rock layers and cultural material that have been dated to approximately 9, RCYA (Collins 2007). Much of the cultural context has been compromised by treasure seekers looking to make a buck. Although the destruction of the context was severe, it was primarily restricted to the Archaic Period and its deposits. In 1990, during the height of the pay to dig era, an archaeologists by the name of David Olmstead began to dig deeply into a burned rock midden and unearthed several fluted Clovis artifacts. Olmstead immediately brought the artifacts to the attention of professional archaeologists. Dr. Collins, a renowned expert on Clovis culture, took an interest on this latest discovery and conducted a series of investigations at the site. The discovery of Clovis artifacts catapulted the Gault Site into the scientific spotlight; it soon became the center of inquiry and research. Many excavations have since taken place in order to determine the site s archaeological significance in relation to the peopling of North America. At this point it is important to know what has been established so far. According to known history the Clovis Culture has been commonly accepted as the earliest culture in North America. The 3 cultures that have been identified at Gault are as follows: Late Prehistoric Period (1, RCYA), Archaic Period (9,000-1,200 RCYA), and Paleo-Indian Period (>12,000-9,000 RCYA) the earliest of this period is where Clovis is located (Collins 2007). The chart below details the chronological timeline at Gault (Fig. 1). The Late Prehistoric Period is the most recent and is generally characterized by the shift to bow and arrow technology and by

4 the use of ceramics. A small number of points and pottery sherds have been excavated at Gault that are consistent with the time period. The Archaic Period is the disturbed period which was compromised by treasure hunters and looters. This period yields point fragments, woodworking and plant processing tools, and a number of animal bones indicative of well adapted hunter gatherers. In the Paleo-Indian Period we find a good collection of points, distinct in style from the other periods. The points found here include the Wilson, Folsom, and Clovis points. Recent testing of soil samples using Infrared Stimulated Luminescence (IRSL) have resulted in dates that coincide with the artifact style of Clovis ~1300 years ago (Collins 2007). Fig. 1 Cultural period time spans. Recent finds in Area 15 of the site has revealed an underlying layer that might predate Clovis technology. A significant number of artifacts suggest that an earlier culture preceded

5 Clovis. Since primitive technology is usually preceded by something earlier, much discussion has ensued on whether the previous culture was pre-clovis or proto-clovis. The proto-clovis concept suggests that Clovis was derived from it. The pre-clovis implies that an unrelated existing technology was supplanted by Clovis. This new evidence has been the topic of research at Gault that could give new information on the existence of an earlier culture that is older than originally thought. There are many sites throughout the Americas that are contemporary with Clovis but with significance evidence of varying lithic technology. According to Dr. Wernecke (2009), Taken together these sites are evidence that the early peopling of the Americas involved more than a single, linear process and that the plural cultural pattern in place by Clovis times most likely indicates considerable time depth. In order for any site to be considered as evidence of human presence ante-dating Clovis, it must show that it is secured within geologic context, dated reliably, and it must contain artifacts and human skeletal material or coprolites (Wernecke 2009). Modified points may provide some evidence of an earlier culture, but not enough to warrant a major paradigm shift. Disagreements on dating techniques and research authorships have prevented an agreeable consensus concerning the proto and pre-clovis differentiation. Although there is considerable physical evidence of an earlier cultural existence, perhaps more research and collaboration is needed in order to resolve this issue. Settlement duration is also a topic that has been of great interest in recent years. It was widely accepted that the occupants of Gault were highly nomadic hunters of bison and big game that seasonally visited the Gault area for brief spans of time. However, the large quantities of material and sheer size of the site itself suggest that Gault was occupied for longer continuous stretches of time.

6 GSAR The recent pre-clovis findings have sparked a renewed interest in Gault. As more and more evidence of pre-clovis points and flakes are discovered, perhaps a new paradigm shift is in the near future. The Gault School of Archaeological Research (GSAR) is a non-profit organization that is under the direction of Dr. Michael Collins (Board Chairman), Dr. Clark Wernecke (Executive Director), and Nancy V. Littlefield (Director of Education). In summary, the school s main mission is to conduct and promote scientific research throughout the site, to educate the general public about the site and its historical significance, and lastly, to foster the collaboration of universities and organizations with common interests. The Gault School maintains a lab that is located at the Texas State campus in San Marcos. Artifact processing and curation are carried out at the lab by volunteers and interns who share a common interest in archaeology and history. Upon entering the lab the first thing you notice is the overabundance of bagged rocks that are sitting on overstocked shelves. First time interns and volunteers are sent to the wash rack to do the grunt work of washing a never ending conveyor belt of rocks. The remainder of this section provides a step-by-step overview of the process of artifact curation. Before any work is done on the artifacts, workers first familiarize themselves with the lab processing handout. The handout will specifically give instructions on whether or not an object is to be cleaned or not. For example, some items such as bone, charcoal, and shells are delicate and susceptible to breakage therefore, these items should never come into contact with water. The initial stage of artifact processing involves the classification, washing, and drying of the recovered material. Archeological material that is excavated at the actual site is bagged and tagged then transported to the lab located at Texas State campus. The bags are chronologically

7 sorted and stored on shelving where they await to be processed and catalogued. At the outer entrance of the lab there is a long sink that is used to soak and wash the excavated material. The procedure for washing artifacts is not set in stone, so to speak, and is rather flexible; however, it makes sense to establish some kind of methodology that works best for the curator. For example, some lab techs prefer to wash provenienced artifacts first, followed by the screened debitage (chert waste material) or vice-versa. Each bag is marked with a site/lot number and it is important to keep the bag contents from getting mixed with another bag. Marking the drying screen with the lot number will also help to keep bag contents from mixing with other bags. Opening the bags and sorting the washable from the un-washable will ensure that the intern doesn t accidentally grab the wrong individual bag and dump its contents into the sink. It is common for a lab tech to grab directly out of the big bag and blindly toss a piece of charcoal into the tub just to watch it disintegrate. The initial sorting prevents this type of mishap to occur. Provenienced artifacts are bagged in their own separate bags and are individually washed. They are briefly left to soak in a hot water tub in order to loosen any debris; this is followed by a light scrubbing with a soft toothbrush. The artifact is then placed on a drying screen to air dry. The un-washables are left alone and placed in the drying screen to be processed at a later time. Soil samples are not tampered with, as they are later tested for organics using a carbon dating technique to determine age. Once the contents of the bag are washed and laid out on the drying tray, the tray is inserted into the drying rack. Once dry the artifacts undergo the process of categorizing and curation. This is where an intern s basic knowledge of lithics and point diagnostics comes into play. The more you

8 understand about point and flake types, the easier the cataloguing experiencing will be. Point diagnostics differ from within an age period and between age periods (Fig. 2, Pyburn 2012). The chart Fig. 2 This chart demonstrates the long spans of time within each period and the various point specimens belonging to its specific period. illustrates the noticeable variation of point structure and diagnostic features that are characteristic of each period. Diagnostic features are not limited to the point s general form but also in the style and manner of the knapping. Both Dr. Wernecke and Dr. Collins agree that, by looking at the direction and manner of the knap markings, you can tell whether the person was right handed or left handed. On occasion a darker or burned chert may be found amongst the collection of chert rock. Early Paleo-indians used to burn chert rock in order to make it easier to work with.

9 While the initial processing of artifacts and other archaeological material is not rocket science, it gives the processor a chance to better understand rock lithology and an opportunity to improve his point diagnostic skills. After establishing artifact type, provenienced articles are logged into a catalogue sheet. The sheet records northing and easting coordinates, name of excavators, site location, exact elevation, and name of the processor. The northing and easting coordinates are part of The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) geographic coordinate system which uses a 2-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system to give locations on the surface of the Earth (Fig. 3). These coordinates are read from left to right and bottom to top. Fig. 3 The figure shows the divisions of zones according to the UTM system. Elevation, in this sense, is the range in which the artifact is found. The elevation from sea level is used to determine where the artifact is found. For example, if the elevation from sea level, at a particular site, is 98 meters, then 98 meters would be the base (ground) level. So if an

10 artifact is excavated one meter below the base level, then the artifact is said to be at 97 meters. Because an excavation begins at a higher elevation and travels downwards, a range can be expressed as starting at and ending (stopping) at meters. For artifacts that are not provenienced, the same is recorded with the only difference being an elevation range (start/stop) as opposed to an exact elevation. Once the entire tray is processed and catalogued, the contents are bagged and entered into a database for future usage. Point Identification and Dating Prior to my internship, I had a vague understanding of the immensity of time as related to the peopling of the Americas. I heard the words archaic, paleo, ancient, and prehistoric but couldn t draw a clear correlation between time periods and cultural life-ways. To me everything was archaic or paleo; in other words, old. What I had was textbook knowledge and no hands-on experience and training. By learning the artifact curation process, I learned to pay closer attention to detail to the material I was handling in the lab. To the untrained eye most of the debitage (chipped stone waste) appears to be nothing more than just ordinary rock. Upon closer examination it is evident that this waste is the result of a tool working process. Almost all of the flake remnants show signs craftsmanship. Each point was designed for a specific purpose according to the needs of the inhabitants of a specific time span. Because of the changes in paleo-climate, the fauna also changed, this required an adaptation in point technology in order to facilitate new hunting strategies. Once I learned to differentiate the various point specimens I was capable to adequately assign them to a specific time period. On several occasions I came across a point that I had never seen before. As mentioned earlier, within the Archaic Period alone, there are many types of points that were distributed in and around Central Texas. For

11 these unfamiliar points the lab had several manuals that provided pictures and physical descriptions of less known points. A thorough understanding of time and age could not have been possible without the use of Thermoluminescent Dating (TL). Simply put, certain minerals such as quartz, feldspar, and calcites have the capacity to store the sun s energy at a known rate. Within the crystal lattices, or framework as they are also known, there are imperfections in which energy is trapped. By heating the crystals the trapped energy is released from the imperfections. Soon after the release of the energy, the rock begins to absorb energy once again. TL dating is just a matter of comparing the energy stored in a rock s crystal to what should already be there (Richter 2009). This comparison allows us to determine the last time the rock (mineral) was heated (exposed to the sun s energy). This type of dating is useful in dating artifacts from hundreds to even thousands of years old. By understanding the (TL) dating of the rock used in the making of points and other tools of utility, it is possible to piece together a relative timeframe of when the tools were in use, thus giving us an approximate date of site settlement. With the incorporation of TL dating and point type identification, I was able to understand the cultural significance of tool utility as it correlated to the specific time periods. Conclusion Working as an intern at the Gault lab was an experience of a lifetime. Although I had previously worked in many jobs that required attention to detail, it was always in numerical tolerances versus conceptual and cultural detail. Detail in the Gault sense meant that I was looking for minute distinctions that normal eyes might otherwise ignore. At first flakes were flakes but as I developed my identification techniques, the same flakes became significant to

12 type and style of tool production. Developing diagnostic techniques takes patience and is very time consuming but the rewards are worth it. I think the hardest part of the internship was at the beginning when I was given a bag of rocks to wash. As I persevered through the initial weeks of grunt work I eventually graduated to the actual processing and curation of artifacts. While working at the latter station, I began to ask questions about flakes, core material, and other types of scrapers and tools. The staff at Gault was more than helpful in guiding me along the way in developing my artifact IQ. In addition to developing my diagnostic abilities, I learned a little about various dating techniques that, up until then, were only read about in textbooks. The GSAR really helped me to understand the methodology behind their mission and purpose: mainly to educate the general public about the site and its historical significance. I would encourage any anthropology major to take part as an intern at GSAR. The internship is only limited by the intern s lack of desire to make it their own. While working at Gault, I constantly talked with Dr. Wernecke about all the things that constitute the successful operation of the Gault Lab and Site. He explained that most people (anthro/archaeology majors) are all too quick to locate the next greatest find or to locate a rare artifact. Many people are often ignorant of the logistics that are required to successfully operate such an undertaking. I believe the monthly cost for the operation of the site is a conservative ~20,000 a month. Because GSAR is a non-profit organization, it relies primarily on grants to cover its cost and ensure its yearly operation. Upon conducting further research, I soon learned that funding for the anthropology/archaeology industry lag way behind the funding for science, biology, and engineering fields. This internship has solidified my interest in the research that is being conducted at GSAR. The information that is being recovered at the site is of vital importance to our current knowledge of Americas past history. I hope to pursue anthropology in

13 the capacity of grant writing so that research in anthropology/archaeology may continue to provide answers and insight into America s distant and ancient past.

14 References Collins, Michael. The Gault Site, Texas and Clovis Research. Journal of Archaeology, History, and Exploration. Vol. 3 (2). (2007): Wernecke, Clark. Proto-Clovis or PreClovis? Investigating the cultural antecendants of Clovis at the Gault Site, Texas. (2009): History. Gault School of Archaeological Research. accessed 21 April Pyburn, Anne. Americas, antiquity and prehistory of the Americas. Frontiers in anthropology. accessed 22 April /02/takingof-south-america-in-atlantean.html. Bloomington: Indiana University. Richter, Daniel. Burnt flint artifacts: A new Thermoluminescence dating technique, Preistoria Alpina 44 (2009):