Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18PR131 Broad Creek
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Broad Creek site (18PR131) is a multi-component prehistoric site located on the first and second terraces of the Potomac River floodplain near Fort Washington in Prince George’s County. The site consists of a series of Middle and Late Archaic and Early, Middle, and Late Woodland base camp occupations. The Potomac River defines the western boundary of the site, and is the principal drainage in the area. Native vegetation consists of mixed hardwoods, including oaks, red maple, sweetgum, beech, sycamore, and poplar. The nearly tidal marshes of nearby Broad Creek and Piscataway Creek support coarse grasses and rushes. Streams in the area support anadromous fish and freshwater clams and mussels. The site is dominated by Galestown loamy sand and Keysport fine sandy loam.
The site was first identified sometime in the 1940s or 50s by Richard Slattery, a local avocational archeologist. Work at the site (which Slattery referred to as Site No. 52) was probably limited to surface collection. In 1975, the site was revisited by a group of both avocational and professional archeologists and official site numbers 18PR131, 18PR137, 18PR138, and 18PR139 were assigned by the state archeologist to the resources identified at Broad Creek. Initially these were considered separate sites, but subsequent work has shown that the artifact deposits are continuous and the site boundaries of 18PR131 have been expanded to encompass Sites 18PR137, 18PR138, and 18PR139. The site was first subject to serious archeological examination in September of 1987 when a Phase I survey was conducted over a 67.5 acre property (including the site) purchased for development into the Fort Washington Lifecare Retirement Community.
The purpose of the reconnaissance survey was to locate and identify potentially significant prehistoric and historic archeological resources within the construction project area. Archeological research was carried out largely at the behest of the developer and CRM firm in anticipation of federal, state, or local laws regarding significant archeological and historical resources that might come into play. In other words, the developer initiated archeological research even though, at the time, they were not legally obliged to do so based on the work proposed. MHT was not involved in any consultation process until after Phase II/III fieldwork had been completed (see below), although the county and/or the Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) may have played some sort of advisory role (although this is not clear). The Phase I field investigations included a pedestrian survey of exposed shoreline surfaces on the property, and subsurface examination through the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) elsewhere.
The larger survey area was sub-divided into areas for intensive survey, light survey, and no survey based on landscape features and probability of artifact recovery. Intensive survey areas were shovel tested at 30 meter intervals along parallel transects 30 m apart, and light survey areas were shovel tested at 60 m intervals along parallel transects 60 m apart. Areas where no survey would take place were primarily swampy locales or areas with steep slopes that precluded examination. Both areas of 60 m and 30 m testing fell within 18PR131. Shovel tests were staggered in alternate rows to increase the efficiency in locating and identifying sites. A total of 116 STPs was excavated within 18PR131, 105 of which contained artifacts and defined the site. STPs were excavated to sterile subsoil, generally 35 to 45 cm below surface in the absence of cultural material, or to the limit of practical excavation. Soils were screened through hardware cloth.
Materials recovered during the Phase I survey in 1987 include both prehistoric and a few historic artifacts. The historic artifacts are not considered significant. Prehistoric artifacts were 1 Rossville point, 1 Savannah River, 1 Bare Island, 1 Piscataway point, 3 point preforms, 3 non-diagnostic points/point fragments, 6 bifaces or biface fragments, 1 drill or perforator, 1 large side-scraper, 4 cores, 545 pieces of debitage, 15 Accokeek cord-marked sherds, 10 Pope’s Creek net-impressed sherds, 12 Mockley sherds (6 net-impressed, 5 cord-marked, 1 plain), 46 Potomac Creek sherds (7 cord-marked and 39 plain), and 4 unidentifiable ceramic sherds. The preferred lithic raw material was quartzite with lesser quantities of quartz and only a handful of other raw materials. Seven of the Potomac Creek sherds are rims. Prehistoric artifacts recovered during the Phase I work at 18PR131 suggested that the site functioned as a seasonal base camp during the Early, Middle, and Late Woodland periods, with Late Woodland manifestations disproportionately represented. Further research at the site was recommended.
Based on the Phase I findings, a Phase II study was conducted in 1990 to determine if the site was significant and capable of addressing archeological research questions related to Maryland prehistory. Fieldwork was conducted in late 1989 and in 1990, and even expanded into a full Phase III data recovery project. However, the retirement community development was ultimately terminated and artifact analysis and a final report were not completed until 2003, and even that did not detail excavations throughout the entire site.
During the years from roughly 2001-2004, Site 18PR131 and the nearby historic site of 18PR319 were the subject of considerable controversy. Site 18PR131 straddles the boundary of two land parcels referred to in the site reports as Parcels A (the large forested northern parcel) and B (the smaller southern parcel in pasture). Short management summaries of the Phase II and III work on both Parcels A and B were completed in 1990 for the developers of the aforementioned retirement community who owned and planned to develop both parcels. However, after termination of the project, no final reports were submitted to the developers. As this work was part of the due diligence conducted by the developer and not legally mandated mitigation, timely completion of a full site report was not required (see above).
By 2001 the 23.5 acre Parcel B tract (by then under new ownership) on which the southern portion of 18PR131 is situated was again attracting development interest. The potential of development attracted the attention of a local citizens group, the Potomac Valley Citizens Association, which petitioned county leaders to re-evaluate the historical significance of the area prior to granting zoning alteration requests made by the developer. This occurred at the same time that Prince George’s County was developing its own local regulations for considering historical and archeological resources in the county planning process. The lack of adequate government oversight and consultation during the preceding stages of archeological work at 18PR131 and 18PR319 was actually one of the main drivers for this move at the county level. A series of county legal issues related to the proposed development resulted in the developer/owner proffering completion of a combined Phase II/III report to summarize the previously unpublished details of the work conducted at 18PR131. Though a report was completed, it only dealt with the excavation work conducted in the southern part of the site; Parcel B. Local concern over historic resources rumored to be in the vicinity of 18PR319 (see synopsis report) continued to hold up zoning approval for the proposed development for several years.
Although MHT was not involved in the consultation process at this site from the beginning, there were attempts at the more local level to involve the agency in disputes related to the two sites (but principally 18PR319). MHT declined to get involved in the issue. For more details see the synopsis report for 18PR319. The development project continued to be the subject of controversy and ongoing legal disputes and ultimately MNCPPC purchased the property from the developer. It currently lies fallow.
Because of the way excavation and subsequent reporting were conducted data on Parcel A is more limited than data available for Parcel B. Descriptions of methods and general findings are available for both parcels, whereas detailed feature and artifact descriptions are only available for Parcel B.
Phase II work at the site in 1989 involved the excavation of additional shovel tests within Parcel A and a series of 1 meter square test units excavated within both Parcels A and B. The location and number of shovel tests and test units for Phase II testing were based on data obtained during the Phase I survey and previous experience in the area by the researchers. Forty-six STPs were excavated at 30 m intervals along parallel transects 30 m apart on the second terrace within Parcel A. In order to maximize surface coverage, the transects were oriented along the longitudinal axis of the second terrace. Upon completion of the Phase II STP excavations, 1 m square test units were excavated across the site in areas which the Phase I and II shovel tests indicated had the potential for deep or undisturbed deposits and buried features as well as in and around areas of high artifact density. Fifty-two test units were excavated at the site, 21 in Parcel A and 31 in Parcel B. Some units were contiguous, forming 2 m square or 3 m square blocks. This strategy permitted testing of the entire site area to be impacted, while ensuring that larger areas which may contain features or activity loci were exposed and sampled.
The test units were hand excavated according to natural strata and by 10 cm layers within natural strata, when appropriate. Excavations continued to sterile subsoil. Soil matrices were screened through mesh hardware cloth to ensure uniform recovery of cultural material. Profiles of the excavated test units were drawn and photographed, and selected features were excavated, mapped, and photographed in profile. It should be noted, that during the course of Phase II excavations, heavy rains hampered data recovery.
Phase II investigations indicated that 3 temporally and spatially distinct loci occur at the site. Locus 1, in the extreme southeast corner of Parcel B, contained evidence of undisturbed Middle Archaic through Late Woodland components. Locus 2, located in the extreme northwest corner of the property in Parcel A, contained what appeared to be a single component Late Woodland occupation. Locus 3 is located in the middle of the second terrace within Parcel A and produced three features; 2 historic and 1 of unknown origin.
Phase II work revealed that Locus 2 (Parcel A) contained a Late Woodland occupation represented by Potomac Creek and Moyaone ceramic wares. In addition, 5 unidentifiable shell-tempered sherds (likely Townsend ware) were recovered from 2 of the 10 test units excavated in the locus. The presence of Potomac Creek and Moyaone wares, along with a 9/64 bore tobacco pipe of local clay, suggested the site may have a protohistoric component present. The locus as a whole appeared to be a relatively undisturbed deposit representing a single component Late Woodland occupation and buried beneath an over-thickened A horizon.
Phase III work was subsequently conducted in areas of Locus 2 where the Phase II investigations indicated the presence of features, high artifact densities, or exceptionally thick deposits. Excavations were then expanded based on the information gathered during Phase III field investigations, especially soil science and geomorphology data. Nine excavation blocks, which contained a total of 84 one-meter square excavation units, were excavated in Locus 2. The excavation blocks were located on the toe slope of the terrace ridge. The excavation units were hand-excavated following natural or cultural strata and arbitrary 10 cm and 5 cm levels when warranted. Ten cm levels were excavated in the plowzone. Excavations continued until sterile subsoil was reached and soil matrices were screened through hardware cloth. Profiles of each excavation unit were drawn and photographed in the field. Identified features were mapped in plan view and photographed prior to being excavated, mapped, and photographed in profile. Flotation samples were collected from identified features as well.
Phase II investigations had indicated that Locus 2 (Parcel A) contained a Late Woodland component, however, the excavation of larger areas during the Phase III investigations indicated that Locus 2 also contained evidence suggestive of Late Archaic, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland components. Despite the presence of an over-thickened A horizon in many of the excavation units, the majority of the artifacts occurred in the plowzone. With discovery of the additional diagnostics, the cultural mixing of artifacts from various time periods became apparent.
The Late Archaic occupation in Locus 2 is suggested by the presence of 2 Savannah River points and a Holmes point. These artifacts are limited to the northern half of the locus. Early Woodland occupation is suggested by Accokeek ceramics and a Piscataway projectile point. Accokeek ceramics represent only 9% of the entire Locus 2 ceramic assemblage and occur in both the northern and southern portions of the locus. Based on ceramic data, two Middle Woodland occupations are suggested in Locus 2. A small early Middle Woodland occupation is suggested based on the presence of Pope’s Creek ceramics (2% of the ceramic assemblage), and a late Middle Woodland occupation is suggested by the presence of Mockley ceramics (3.5% of the ceramic assemblage) and 3 Potts points. Three soapstone fragments were recovered alongside some of the Middle Woodland sherds. Potomac Creek ceramics (85.5%), attributable to the Late Woodland period, dominate the ceramic assemblage at Locus 2. Potomac Creek plain ceramics represent over 80% of the Potomac Creek ware present. This is significant given the Phase II recovery of a tobacco pipe suggestive of a protohistoric occupation and the association of Potomac Creek plain to the period from AD 1550 to 1650 at other Mid Atlantic sites. Despite the predominance of Late Woodland artifacts, only one Late Woodland projectile point (Madison) was recovered from Locus 2.
Numerous soil anomalies were exposed beneath the plowzone in Locus 2 that, upon further excavation were determined to be root casts, rodent runs and burrows, and other forms of bioturbation. However, three soil anomalies were identified as cultural features. These include one postmold, one concentration of fire-cracked rock, and a possible pit. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered in direct association with any of the features. The postmold and the pit each produced one unidentifiable charred seed following flotation of soil matrices.
The historic features associated with Locus 3 uncovered during Phase II excavations included a small concentration of boulders overlying a large depression or pit and all associated with cut nails, a metal button, creamware, and blue transfer-printed whiteware. The third feature was a small lens-shaped depression containing charcoal and burned earth, but no artifacts. The features were only partially excavated, but 8 radial STPs were excavated surrounding it in an unsuccessful attempt to locate additional historic deposits. Due to the paucity of historic artifacts and the small size of the historic scatter associated with Locus 3, it was felt that additional excavation in Locus 3 would not provide significant information.
As part of the Phase II and III fieldwork, a geomorphology study was conducted throughout the site (on the first terrace, in the area between the 1st and 2nd terraces, and on the second terrace itself. Profiles from the Phase I and II STPs, profiles from the Phase II and III test units, and soil borings situated across the sloping topography of the site down to the river were examined as part of the study. The Phase II/III researchers concluded that between 48 and 53 cm of sediments in the first terrace were historic wash from upslope locales based on soil borings. These soil borings encompass an area defined in Phase I as containing concentrations of artifacts from various prehistoric periods. Originally, the Phase I study reported that preserved materials might exist below the plowzone throughout most of the first terrace. Soil borings from the area between the first and second terrace showed a truncated Ap horizon and indicated that the original sediments and associated artifacts had been mostly eroded down slope and the remaining sediments were probably deflated. The Phase II/III researchers concluded that both the 1st and 2nd terraces were disturbed. While the data sufficiently demonstrate that the soils between the 1st and 2nd terrace are unlikely to yield intact deposits, the same cannot be said for the first terrace area. Soil boring illustrations and descriptions in the extant management summaries and subsequent final site report for Parcel B appear to show buried A horizon below 50 cm (probably below the reach of Phase I STPs). These deposits are between 53 and 66 cm below the current ground surface and may retain significant archeological potential. Internal MHT correspondence from the period suggests that this was a serious design flaw in the field methods and, had MHT played a role in the consultation process, additional work would have been required for legal compliance.
The preceding paragraphs dealing with Loci 2 and 3 represent the only details of excavation and artifact recovery that can be provided regarding areas of the site outside of Parcel B. This is due to the development history of the site and a series of circumstances (described above) that led to the under-reporting of certain portions of the site where Phase II and III work was conducted as opposed to others. Thus, the tallies provided in the table above are an under-representation of the full artifact assemblage and should be treated as a minimal estimate. Fortunately, data on Locus 1 (Parcel B) is much better.
The 1989 Phase II work within Parcel B entailed the excavation of 31 test units using the methods described previously. Soil profiles within several of these test units indicated that undisturbed cultural deposits occurred beneath the original plowzone (Ap horizon) within the A and Be soil horizons. Generally, these deposits were about 30 to 40 cm thick and occurred between 35 and 75 cm below the ground surface. Diagnostic artifacts recovered from one area of Parcel B (Locus 1) included projectile points, steatite vessel fragments and 6 ceramic wares (Accokeek, Pope’s Creek, Mockley, Potomac Creek, Moyaone, and Albermarle). Preliminary analysis of the ceramics suggested that the stratigraphic order of ceramic wares followed their known chronological order. Charcoal samples from two test units were submitted for radiometric dating. One sample was associated with Feature 1, a deep, conical-shaped pit which may represent a posthole or postmold. The other sample was recovered from an excavation level which contained Early and Middle Woodland ceramics within the Be horizon. Unfortunately, the results of these radiocarbon dates have never been produced by the original researchers. Based on these findings, Phase III data recovery was recommended in the area identified as Locus 1 and subsequently carried out in 1990.
Locus 1 is a large, roughly oblong-shaped section of the southeastern part of the site, approximately 1.48 acres in area. Geomorphological study of the locus revealed that colluvial sediments were deposited across much of Locus 1, originating in the high upper (3rd) terrace located to the east. Much of this erosion would have occurred over the last 300 years associated with historic-period tillage. Five large sections within Locus 1 were selected for machine stripping of these colluvial sediments during Phase III work. Based on information gained from the stripping and the earlier Phase II testing, the field team placed 1 X 1 m excavation units across Locus 1. These units were excavated as a set of small to large blocks to obtain good spatial data in various sections of the locus. In total, 157 square meters, or 2.62 %, of Locus 1 was hand excavated (Phases II and III combined). The excavation methods were otherwise identical to the Phase III methods described above for Locus 2.
Locus 1 contained evidence of Middle and Late Archaic and Early, Middle, and Late Woodland occupations. Stratigraphic analysis of the assemblage indicated that recent deep plowing resulted in mixed cultural deposits in some deeply buried portions of Locus 1, an observation that was not obvious following the Phase II investigation. Most of the undisturbed deposits relate to the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. An area of intensive excavations near the center of Locus 1 contained the thickest undisturbed deposits. Overlying these undisturbed deposits were mixed assemblages from Middle and Late Woodland and historic occupations. The upper deposits were initially covered by colluviums, which contained artifacts from various prehistoric and historic occupations. This colluvium was subsequently plow-mixed into the underlying original prehistoric deposits of Locus 1, thus compromising the stratigraphic integrity of the cultural occupations. Finally, an additional layer of slope wash from the high bluff to the east of the locus covered portions of the historic plowzone, which also contained out-of-context prehistoric artifacts.
Flaked stone artifacts encountered during BOTH the Phase II and Phase III excavations include 72 projectile points, 112 bifaces or biface fragments, 1 drill, 1 burin, 7 cores, 11 unifaces, a bifacially worked scraper, 2 endscrapers, a chipped handaxe, 19 pebble and cobble tools (chopping and scraping), and 25 other flaked stone objects. The point assemblage consisted of 1 Morrow Mountain, 1 Poplar Island, 1 Otter Creek, 6 Savannah River, 4 Orient Fishtails, 2 Brewertons, 6 Bare Island, 25 Piscataway, 6 Rossville, 2 Teardrop, 4 Potts, 1 Fox Creek, 4 Selby Bay, 2 Madison, 3 stemmed points, 1 eared-base point, and 3 unidentified points. Quartz and quartzite dominated the raw materials used in the flaked-stone industry, followed by rhyolite and chert. Additional lithic artifacts include 17 hammerstones, 1 groundstone adze, 3 steatite vessels, and 3 unidentified groundstone objects. In addition, approximately 3,000 pieces of fire-cracked rock were encountered. A total of 3,502 prehistoric ceramics were recovered from the site during Phase II and III work in 1989-90. Identifiable sherds include 1,179 Accokeek (47 rims), 23 Pope’s Creek (3 rims), 341 Mockley (10 rims), 328 Potomac Creek (12 rims), 89 Moyaone (4 rims), 1 Albermarle, and 1,525 unidentifiable pieces (3 rims). In addition, 16 pieces of daub were recovered.
In addition to the features identified in Locus I during Phase II test excavations (see above), the Phase III data recovery excavations identified two more cultural features, Feature 62 and Feature 64. Both represent concentrations of fire-cracked rock. Feature 62 contains Accokeek ceramics. Although no diagnostic artifacts were recovered from Feature 64, artifacts recovered from the same level as the base of the feature in adjacent test squares include Accokeek ceramics and a Holmes projectile point. Other feature numbers were assigned during the course of excavation, but these turned out to be natural in origin.
Several radiocarbon samples were collected and analyzed as part of the Phase III work at 18PR131. One was a fragment of charcoal collected from Feature 64. The uncalibrated radiocarbon age of this sample was 352 ± 179 years before present. With such a large error factor, when calibrated (1 sigma) this yields a calendrical date anywhere from AD 1410-1951 (with the greatest probability being between 1410 and 1681). A 2 sigma calibration yields an even larger date range from AD 1307-1953. This date suggests an occupation responsible for the feature no earlier than the Late Woodland. Another charcoal sample from this feature was identified as modern in date and both samples could potentially be intrusive. Another radiocarbon sample was collected from approximately 2 meters southeast of Feature 62, but from the lower (Bt) horizon. This sample produced an uncalibrated radiocarbon age of 2405 ± 118 years before present. When calibrated (2 sigma) this corresponds to a calendrical date between 799 and 208 BC, indicating an Early Woodland occupation in this part of the site (and this horizon). Sherds from the vicinity and in the lower horizon include 24 Accokeek, 1 Potomac Creek, and 39 unidentifiable. Two additional radiocarbon samples were taken during Phase III excavations, but the dates returned were modern.
Flotation and water-screened samples from Locus 1 produced a surprising dearth of material. Because uncharred seeds normally are interpreted as recent intrusions into the archeological deposits, only charred seed and plant remains are included in the count below. Botanical remains recovered from Locus 1 include 1 acorn, 2 blackgum seeds, 10 hickory nutshells, 60 wood charcoal fragments, 1 unidentified seed, 4 unidentified nutshells, and 3 unidentified botanical remains. The presence of blackgum and walnut suggest an upland wetland environment, while the presence of hickory and acorn indicates proximity to a mixed upland hardwood forest.
The view that emerged from the spatial distributions of general artifacts, fire-cracked rocks, morphologically identifiable tools, and temporally diagnostic points and pottery is one of relative degrees of use and occupation of this second-terrace landform over about six or seven millennia, from roughly 6000 BC to AD 1300. While there may be disagreements about date ranges for some ceramic wares and point types, the co-occurrences of such artifacts as Accokeek pottery and Piscataway and Teardrop points supports an assignment of Early Woodland for much of the deposit. Likewise, the presence of Mockley pottery wares, along with Potts, Fox Creek, Selby Bay, and Rossville points indicates a strong late Middle Woodland occupation. There was evidence of a less intensive or considerably smaller occupation during the early Middle Woodland period, judging from the small quantities of Popes Creek pottery. The earliest occupations, represented by Morrow Mountain, Brewerton, and Otter Creek projectile points, were apparently small and locally based.
The most substantial occupations within Locus 1 produced distinct concentrations of artifact sets. The locations of tools used in activities and the byproducts of those activities can be best understood in relation to hearths. In some cases, tools, debris, and fire-cracked rocks were found grouped together. These groups or debris clusters were interpreted to be the result of sweeping and cleaning activities. The most intensive occupations were during the Late/Terminal Archaic, late Early Woodland, and late Middle Woodland/Late Woodland periods. No evidence of historic or prehistoric burials was found anywhere at the site.
The most recent archeological work to be carried out at 18PR131, occurred in 2005, near the end of the legal and planning negotiations related to the Parcel B housing development, when it looked like construction would eventually proceed. The Prince George’s County Planning Department within MNCPPC requested a Phase II study of portions of the first terrace in Parcel B that would be impacted by the project. The concentration of materials encountered during the work in this particular area in the 1980s was actually higher than that observed in Locus 1 on the 2nd terrace, but development plans at that time (the retirement community) did not include construction on the first terrace.
Researchers in 2005 made extensive use of the STP data previously recovered from the earlier studies on the first terrace. Maps were generated of the artifact density and the previous site grid was re-established in the field and then mapped over these data. Seven 1 m2 units were excavated along the first terrace. Two units examined the high concentrations of materials around two Phase I shovel tests, and the remaining 5 sampled general deposits for a more random sample. All units were excavated stratigraphically with individual strata divided into two or more levels based on minor changes in soil compactness and artifact yields (e.g., clusters of fire-cracked rock). The 2005 field crew terminated excavation after removing a level within a stratum that had few or no artifacts in its upper portion. The five randomly placed units examined deposits up to 50 cm in depth. A split-spoon auger tested deeper deposits to depths of 10 cm to 35 cm below unit floors, the depths determined by the point where soils became so compact as to preclude deeper augering. A shovel test of up to 35 cm was used in some instances. All soils were screened through hardware mesh, with one exception where the western half of the unit was in such heavy clay that it could not be screened and was discarded. The few objects that were recovered from the screened portion of this unit were observed to have come from the upper portion of an underlying stratum.
The prehistoric artifacts recovered during the 2005 Phase II testing include 8 points, 9 bifaces, 1 drill, 625 flakes, 157 pieces of shatter, 3 steatite vessel fragments, 703 pieces of fire-cracked rock, and 24 ceramic sherds. The diagnostic artifacts were 1 Bare Island point, 2 Susquehanna Broadspears, 3 Holmes points, 2 Piscataway points, 37 Accokeek sherds, 2 Marcey Creek sherds, 3 Mockley sherds, 11 Potomac Creek sherds, and 71 indeterminate pottery fragments. Small quantities of historic artifacts were also recovered but do not constitute a significant occupation.
The excavation of the test units revealed that none of the units contained convincing evidence of intact sub-plowzone deposits. A few historic artifacts were recovered from strata below the most recent plowzone. Prehistoric artifacts from different periods also appeared in the same strata or were found in stratigraphic relationships opposite of what one would expect. All of the aboriginal pottery sherds were small (<2 cm) and most were extensively eroded suggesting poor preservation. The prehistoric artifacts also lack any apparent spatial patterning within units, although two levels of one unit did exhibit a relatively high, if diffuse, concentration of fire-cracked rock. All of the units lacked preserved organic matter, especially charcoal; a situation that could arise from reworking of the deposits by water. Taken as a whole, the 2005 excavations suggest that the deposits in Parcel B on the first terrace are heavily disturbed.
All of the work to date suggests that much of Site 18PR131 has been heavily disturbed by both historic/modern plowing and natural processes. However, distinct loci within the site did, contain intact deposits (as described above) and even features preserved beneath colluvial sediments. Many of these preserved deposits have already been subject to Phase III date recovery. One area that may retain unexamined preserved deposits is the first terrace of Parcel A. Thus, Site 18PR131 remains a potentially significant prehistoric site and warrants additional work should an opportunity for study present itself.
|
